Here, a blast from the past. Not regularly updated (!), but it takes me back.
Americans don't have teletext, I believe, so won't understand the origins. A wonder no-one has picked him for a more high-profile position, funny man.
Takes me back to the days when nessie was still writing for the sfbg, the Rockall Times was still about and Michael Snyder was still writing on soc.men. And when most people on the net had heard of usenet, of course.
He mentions captain pugwash. Am I the only one that remembers, as I think, an early 90s kids programme, Australian, about a gang of kids with a band, the leader of which was called Pugwash? Nothing that I can find about it on the net, anyway.
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Female paedophiles
Female paedos, not butterfly kisses.
Willcome as news to some, but not those of s who have heard of the BK, the female NAMBLA.
Willcome as news to some, but not those of s who have heard of the BK, the female NAMBLA.
Friday, 25 December 2009
Bank charges
So, our new supreme court has reached its first decision. I think it was the first. One of, anyway.
For several years people were taking banks to court, small claims court, to get back the money illegally taken from them by the banks in "unauthorised overdraft charges". About 90% of the time these people won their cases, sometimes due to the bankers not turning up to court, at other times due to an out of court settlement or a court decision.
However, the thieving scum bankers continued to levy the charges, both on those who had reclaimed money and on everyone else. Hoping people wouldn't go to the trouble of reclaiming their money.
The law is quite clear, as all of those lower court decisions show. Unauthorised overdraft penalty charges are illegal, the only charge that can be levied is the pay for a letter to be sent to the account holder and that must not be charged at more than cost price, far below the going rate.
So the Office of Fair Trading stepped in, declared the charges unfair and took the matter to court. Helpful, or so we were intended to believe. Not true, though. A conspiracy, perhaps, or mayhap just an instance of coincidental incompetence which benefits the oh so fortunate banksters. When the case started, after the BBC had drawn attention to the fact that people could reclaim their stolen money, the OFT and the courts announced that no more money could be reclaimed until the outcome of the high court case was reached. Another victory for the bankers. We should probably have seen what was coming next, certainly I saw the possibility.
The case was straightforward, an obvious defeat for the bankers, and so it went in the High Court and Appeals Court. The supreme court, however, replacing the Law Lords, mangled the law to the whim of the bankers.
New. Political.
Started when record numbers were reclaiming their money, it pt a stop to that. Ended by the new court with it's political biases towards banksters.
I've talked of the fraud of the banks before, but their is particularly blatant, an open and unashamed pilfering of depositors funds. And some people have the gall to say New Labour are left wing and irresonsibly spending money on over-high benefit bills. A bit more money on tax inspectors to harry the rich and bit less for the banks, which have taken far more baliing out than the unemployed do, and those payments could really be generous.
End communication.
For several years people were taking banks to court, small claims court, to get back the money illegally taken from them by the banks in "unauthorised overdraft charges". About 90% of the time these people won their cases, sometimes due to the bankers not turning up to court, at other times due to an out of court settlement or a court decision.
However, the thieving scum bankers continued to levy the charges, both on those who had reclaimed money and on everyone else. Hoping people wouldn't go to the trouble of reclaiming their money.
The law is quite clear, as all of those lower court decisions show. Unauthorised overdraft penalty charges are illegal, the only charge that can be levied is the pay for a letter to be sent to the account holder and that must not be charged at more than cost price, far below the going rate.
So the Office of Fair Trading stepped in, declared the charges unfair and took the matter to court. Helpful, or so we were intended to believe. Not true, though. A conspiracy, perhaps, or mayhap just an instance of coincidental incompetence which benefits the oh so fortunate banksters. When the case started, after the BBC had drawn attention to the fact that people could reclaim their stolen money, the OFT and the courts announced that no more money could be reclaimed until the outcome of the high court case was reached. Another victory for the bankers. We should probably have seen what was coming next, certainly I saw the possibility.
The case was straightforward, an obvious defeat for the bankers, and so it went in the High Court and Appeals Court. The supreme court, however, replacing the Law Lords, mangled the law to the whim of the bankers.
New. Political.
Started when record numbers were reclaiming their money, it pt a stop to that. Ended by the new court with it's political biases towards banksters.
I've talked of the fraud of the banks before, but their is particularly blatant, an open and unashamed pilfering of depositors funds. And some people have the gall to say New Labour are left wing and irresonsibly spending money on over-high benefit bills. A bit more money on tax inspectors to harry the rich and bit less for the banks, which have taken far more baliing out than the unemployed do, and those payments could really be generous.
End communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)