Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

[JulieM]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

Openlaw
I have to ask , have you ever been diagnosed with an Austic spectrum disorder .

I ask ask because yet again you have been incredibly rude and patronising to a member without apparently realising it.

I am am actually trying to understand why this is happening.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

Openlaw
I have to ask , have you ever been diagnosed with an Austic spectrum disorder .

I ask ask because yet again you have been incredibly rude and patronising to a member without apparently realising it.

I am am actually trying to understand why this is happening.

Hmm. Ok, let's go with your evidence for saying this outlandish thing. Could it be that you have a hyper-sensitive predisposition or propensity to react emotionally owing to possessing a congenital and abnormal perception - even taking into consideration the normal modes/ thresholds of perceptibility? It's irrelevant to say am autistic just as it is for me to comment on your perception. Let's not do non sequitur as it's terribly boring.

How have I been incredibly rude and patronising, you refer to no thing for these accusations so how am I supposed to make a fair representation on the apparent facts.

[JulieM]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

It was very rude of me and I apologise although it has not been me that you have been rude to. Two examples that spring to mind are on this thread to Diana M and I remember another thread where you were particularly patronising to Amethyst which was about her degree and essay writing.

I am not the only person to have commented on your apparent rudeness but you say it is unintentional which I take at face value.

Mostly on this forum, people need good honest down to earth advice and although I am sure your intentions are good the advice is often far beyond the average persons understanding and according to others often just plane wrong, see this discussion as an example.

[charitynjw]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

Evelyn Beatrice Hall?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

It was very rude of me and I apologise although it has not been me that you have been rude to. Two examples that spring to mind are on this thread to Diana M and I remember another thread where you were particularly patronising to Amethyst which was about her degree and essay writing.

I am not the only person to have commented on your apparent rudeness but you say it is unintentional which I take at face value.

Mostly on this forum, people need good honest down to earth advice and although I am sure your intentions are good the advice is often far beyond the average persons understanding and according to others often just plane wrong, see this discussion as an example.

plain wrong you say - look at my reputation - this is feedback from others. To someone who has never studied a law degree....lots of thing in their perception would be wrong, that I were to say. I may explain complex law to lay people but because others may not understand it, does not mean it's wrong - it means it's not simple. However, I do go out of my way to explain things and you cannot say otherwise.

[des8]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

Openlaw
I have to ask , have you ever been diagnosed with an Austic spectrum disorder .

I ask ask because yet again you have been incredibly rude and patronising to a member without apparently realising it.

I am am actually trying to understand why this is happening.

Hmm... had similar thoughts, but my impression was that the finer nuances of communication were not being grasped.
Difficult to put a finger on it, but as soon as criticism or disagreement is evidenced, there is an attack on the person making it.
eg post 32 this thread.
So often OL you have been on the receiving end of criticism, one would have thought you would have modified your approach.
As you haven't it leads one to speculate if there might be underlying reason.
So I for one can understand Julie's question, which you decline to answer.

[Ms Andrist]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

As a forum newbie....who originally started a thread (which morphed into a hydra headed animal), I am increasingly becoming distressed by the in -fighting which has little or nothing to do with my plea for advice. I will just start a new thread.

[charitynjw]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

As a forum newbie....who originally started a thread (which morphed into a hydra headed animal), I am increasingly becoming distressed by the in -fighting which has little or nothing to do with my plea for advice. I will just start a new thread.

Your original thread is here http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ul-prosecution

This is a sort of splinter thread - they do sometimes devolve a tad.

[JulieM]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

plain wrong you say - look at my reputation - this is feedback from others. To someone who has never studied a law degree....lots of thing in their perception would be wrong, that I were to say. I may explain complex law to lay people but because others may not understand it, does not mean it's wrong - it means it's not simple. However, I do go out of my way to explain things and you cannot say otherwise.

You have just done it again, saying for someone who has never studied a law degree , giving the impression that a law degree is superior to all others. I realise this has been discussed before so doesn't need discussing again.

Without wanting to turn this into an argument , are you aware of how 'reputation' works.
You have made 2324 posts and received 1095 thanks 47% . I have made 55 with 32 =58% . Charity 7581 with 5917 = 78% and Des 5573 with 7037 =126%.
These are only statistics and who trusts them however if you wish to live by them you die by them.

[JulieM]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

Ms Andrist
Im sorry if you are upset, certainly not my intention. As Charitynjw has explained these posts are now in a separate discussion thread with your original thread intact with some excellent advice for you. I believe Diana M has given some great opinion and is in a position to check real life facts as opposed to theoretical.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

You have just done it again, saying for someone who has never studied a law degree , giving the impression that a law degree is superior to all others. I realise this has been discussed before so doesn't need discussing again.

Without wanting to turn this into an argument , are you aware of how 'reputation' works.
You have made 2324 posts and received 1095 thanks 47% . I have made 55 with 32 =58% . Charity 7581 with 5917 = 78% and Des 5573 with 7037 =126%.
These are only statistics and who trusts them however if you wish to live by them you die by them.

Julie M, I provide informed opinions on anything from a complex associated with a disability (EU jurisdiction) even validated by the person's lawyer, saving a house, to family law: protection orders; criminal law (quite a few now), matters in equity; employment law; DWP post death claims against estate; Trust matters. I will find an answer to OP's legal problem questions where I believe I either know there is an answer or from my current knowledge banks. Am I tooting my own horn as it were, on the contrary I am merely representing myself and on this occasion using a defence to do it, of sorts anyway. Please stop this trolling now. Just stop it, it's getting boring. The matter with Amethyst was resolved so let's not dredge that up again. I apologised also to Diana M - who until I mentioned it had never even heard of the landlord's main remedy: Forfeiture and implied continuance of a lease (through the landlord's waivering), had no idea that rights in land where either Freehold or Leasehold (terms of years absolute), which alludes an Assured Tenancy is statutory protected lease in effect as the only alternative would have been a Freehold: section 1, Law of property Act 1925. I know this because I studied property law, so when Diana said I was wrong, it makes her opinion not qualified in this particular complex matter. Diana M is good at what she does, don't get me wrong, but unless she's completed a law degree and or knows property law at degree level it's very unlikely that she'd be au fait with complex property law's waivering of a forfeiture.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

Hmm... had similar thoughts, but my impression was that the finer nuances of communication were not being grasped.
Difficult to put a finger on it, but as soon as criticism or disagreement is evidenced, there is an attack on the person making it.
eg post 32 this thread.
So often OL you have been on the receiving end of criticism, one would have thought you would have modified your approach.
As you haven't it leads one to speculate if there might be underlying reason.
So I for one can understand Julie's question, which you decline to answer.

The fairer question to ask is, why don't I 'normally' criticise other legalbeagles, except in my defence of course. The answer is I simply don't need to. It's not so much my response if the legalbeagles did not criticise me - just because they may not agree with my answers - perhaps then I would not have to deal with the matters myself. I am a relatively objective person but I should not have to deal with trolls, and or affective cliques, ie a legalbeagle makes a personal criticism of self and others 'thank for this post.' It is childish, it's pathetic, it's un called for.

The fact is I can answer questions off the top of my head in many complex legal areas that many legalbeagles cannot, and vice versa for self actually for perhaps largely 'consumer' issues. I have ways and means of finding answers to complex questions whether they were part of my law degree studies or not. I am a lateral thinker and this is clearly obvious. Not that many lawyers, according to my law tutors, were or are lateral thinkers, so for me that has to be a plus. A lateral thinker will look at the other side of an argument other than the more obvious (but perhaps to self a more simplistic answer), where the position is perhaps unfair. Daisy's situation of 'domestic abuse' is one where I think outside the box.

The Op whom am currently helping, I told this person their claim is one via the equitable right to redemption for their commercial mortgage (ie right to pay their mortgage off), where other legal professionals were playing with trivial contract breaches, breach of trust, where the real and most practical remedy in my view anyway, lied/ lies in a pure property claim, ie via equity. They commented 'you think outside the box.' So this is another! Am I stroking my own ego as it were - au contraire am simply representing my actions on this legalbeagle forum. I do not have an ego - this is a problem for people who do not have my education in that they feel inferior to self so like lash out as type of reverse psychology. The last sentence is based on my relevant education relating to sociology and psychology for that matter. I just provide answers to complex legal problems, this does not mean I am egotistical. Just let me carry on doing this and stop this trolling. I know trolling is a cyber criminal offence, actually.

[des8]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

I appreciate you being objective, thinking laterally and outside the box.
It does you no favours however to denigrate others, although I do not believe you see it that way.
For example, in your last post you say ". I do not have an ego - this is a problem for people who do not have my education in that they feel inferior to self "
You, I am sure, see this as a statement of fact.
Others possibly see it as you saying" anyone who disagrees with me hasn't had the benefit of my education and that's why they have feelings of inferiority"
Now funnily enough 1) you don't know if people feel inferior or just bloody annoyed
2) you have no idea of other poster's educational attainments

It is that sort of disconnect from how other people see your posts that raises the question posed by Julie and still not answered.
It is not the disagreement per se with others, it is the manner in which you express yourself.
Others here have differences of opinion without any problems
I am not criticising you, just trying to discover why there is this apparent disconnect, which does suggest autism.
I have a friend who is very low on the autistic spectrum. She understands everything literally, irony is lost on her. Likewise she does not appreciate how her words can be misconstrued.
I justwonder about some of your posts.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

I appreciate you being objective, thinking laterally and outside the box.
It does you no favours however to denigrate others, although I do not believe you see it that way.
For example, in your last post you say ". I do not have an ego - this is a problem for people who do not have my education in that they feel inferior to self "


You, I am sure, see this as a statement of fact.

Others possibly see it as you saying" anyone who disagrees with me hasn't had the benefit of my education and that's why they have feelings of inferiority"
Now funnily enough 1) you don't know if people feel inferior or just bloody annoyed
2) you have no idea of other poster's educational attainments

It is that sort of disconnect from how other people see your posts that raises the question posed by Julie and still not answered.
It is not the disagreement per se with others, it is the manner in which you express yourself.
Others here have differences of opinion without any problems
I am not criticising you, just trying to discover why there is this apparent disconnect, which does suggest autism.
I have a friend who is very low on the autistic spectrum. She understands everything literally, irony is lost on her. Likewise she does not appreciate how her words can be misconstrued.
I justwonder about some of your posts.

No, this is their inference from how they 'perceive me'. It's not a question of 'autistic spectrum disorder or any other relevant variables. In my view, long before I appeared on the scene legalbeagles was, longer after I go, legalbeagles will be. In this perspective, persons on legalbeagles hold themselves in high regard because they are 'the experts' (autonomy), and to be fair to many extents this is not an untruth. However, people who do not possess a higher education possess a very simplistic (not simple) view of things - relatively, to law graduates, in terms of law I make such a statement - as this is the one, in my view that is exclusively relevant. One could literally go into any internet forums and use certain key words and there will automatically be negative inferences, from the views of the ones who too hold the autonomy in their respective internet forums. So if I were to make certain comments on this very legalbeagles forum then the persons who see me as a threat to their own autonomy, to answer 'their questions,' who like to keep things simple (in the way they understand), the law or anything else, and where and when this doesn't happen for various reasons as the case might be, the legalbeagles tend to act with hostility. Did I verbatim attack a person - was it such as elaborate attack, was it an attack with ferocity? No is the resounding answer.

I write my answers for effect, not to sound 'intelligent' or smart, or show-boating. I tend to be viewed as an articulate person; perhaps I am; again this is merely perceptional and or one's limitation or access to vocabulary may cause hostility if I use words/ terms sub clauses in my sentences that do not match theirs.

The aforesaid things in my view are merely inferences on how others perceive the way I produce or communicate my answers. On the contrary, it's not self who launches or provokes attacks, its those others who ironically accuse self and or attack me as though I were 'the enemy.' Hence 'reverse psychology.' This is my view based on my knowledge relating to psychology mainly, but with the continuously evident cliques on this website and its analysis (my analysis), the parameters of sociology too. I have put the foundation subject to the law degree on my profile, not to stand out or to be viewed as the exception, on the contrary I merely do this for informational purposes. I have no regard for the pieces of paper I hold or other hold or the letters themselves, I will listen to whomever irrespective of their education be it advanced or limited. In my view, it's about the power of persuasion in legal arguments than I am affected one way or the other by legal education.

Notwithstanding these things, if I believe I posses an ability to answer the question with legal authority or persuasion, then where necessary I have no alternative to inform the Op that I do indeed possess a broad legal education. it makes sense in that it is logical. I am dyslexic yes - but I still can convey complex ideas in a way that the Op would understand even if some of the lay people/ consumer experts may not understand it, so often react with 'keep it simple, or 'that's over the top.' Law must be explained in its raw form initially as to dilute it is misrepresenting law. I will however then explain in lay terms the best way I can. I call this going out of my way to help people - who after-all have various intelligences, so I am not patronising on the one hand, or over complicating law on the other. For me it's about weighing up the person and providing a suitable answer which is commensurate with their understanding.

To me - I hold no prejudice against any person individually, if there is contrary and substantive evidence then please enlighten self. So, after removing all deductions whatever is left is apparently the truth. What therefore remains is legalbeagle inferences and perceptions about self. To suggest I am 'autistic' is in itself an unjustified inference for instance and again indicates not a factuality but a mere inference.

[des8]

Re: Discussion! Forfeiture and Assured Tenancies

"this is a problem for people who do not have my education in that they feel inferior to self "

" this is their inference from how they 'perceive me'"

You assume mightily!