How to deal with Marston bailiffs

[labman]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

I thought Glass-Steagall was already repealled in 1999 by the GLBA. The Act itself was passed years ago in 1932, and compounded by the Banking Act in 1933.

You are right however, that there is much controversy in the US over the repeal of the Act. Some say its repeal was responsible for the banking crisis in the 2000's, others (including Bill Clinton) say the Act had had its day, and was no longer relevant.

There's a very interesting article on it I read somewhere, and a lot of misinformation about it on sites promoting imminent doom and gloom. They tend to conveniently overlook the fact the Federal Reserve Board allowed the affiliation of Citibank and Salomon Smith Barney in 1998, this interpretation of the Act paving the way for the repeal in 1999.

[enquirer]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

They are relying on Europol, and a unified European Army to keep them in

Exactly - Using foreign troops to suppress dissent (language and cultural barrier, probable historical antipathy), has a long history.

As for the EU, that is likely to collapse.

In order to establish a single European state, it is necessary to deconstruct the individual nation states. In between the disappearance of the one and the appearance of the other, there will necessarily be a period of instability.

The lesson of history is that a polyglot empire can only be held together be force. The one European state is going to be - must be - totalitarian in nature.

Even then, it won't last unless all differences between the individual peoples can be destroyed. All cultural, racial, religious and language differences must be eliminated. The entire structure of society must be broken down (Lenin said that the family was the biggest obstacle to Communism), and reshaped to the new paradigm.

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

I thought Glass-Steagall was already repealled in 1999 by the GLBA. The Act itself was passed years ago in 1932, and compounded by the Banking Act in 1933.

You are right however, that there is much controversy in the US over the repeal of the Act. Some say its repeal was responsible for the banking crisis in the 2000's, others (including Bill Clinton) say the Act had had its day, and was no longer relevant.

There's a very interesting article on it I read somewhere, and a lot of misinformation about it on sites promoting imminent doom and gloom. They tend to conveniently overlook the fact the Federal Reserve Board allowed the affiliation of Citibank and Salomon Smith Barney in 1998, this interpretation of the Act paving the way for the repeal in 1999.

Spot on, Labman. This is why a lot of U.S. politicians want to re-introduce Glass Steagall. The international banking cartel is guilty of fraud on a massive scale and Glass-Steagall goes a long way to avoiding the sort of financial collapse the world experienced back in 2007/2008 by stopping the bankers using retail customers' funds to gamble on the far riskier investment markets.

As for the U.S. Federal Reserve, they are a private corporation and are currently unable to explain a $9 trilliion black hole in their accounts. There are a number of videos on YouTube showing a U.S. politician grilling a rep from the U.S. Federal Reserve, whose umming and aahing is very telling. The fact is, if it gets out what is really going on, some very wealthy and influential people will go to prison for a very long time.

There is a call for Glass-Steagall to be re-introduced in the UK and steps are taking place, rather slowly, to force it on the banks who, not surprisingly, are doing their best to delay its implementation.

As for the EU, it will collapse as individual member states pull out. I would not be surprised to see Greece pull out, nor would I be surprised to see Germany, France and the UK pull out. Once those three pull out, the EU would struggle to survive as Germany, France and the UK contribute the most, in financial terms, to the EU.

[enquirer]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

As for the EU, it will collapse as individual member states pull out. I would not be surprised to see Greece pull out, nor would I be surprised to see Germany, France and the UK pull out.

A little while ago there was an item in the foreign press mentioning that German 'security elements' were already in place in Greece 'if required to assist in preventing disorder'.

No-one, but no-one, will be leaving anytime soon.

Once those three pull out, the EU would struggle to survive as Germany, France and the UK contribute the most, in financial terms, to the EU.

Without the UK's financial contribution, the EU would collapse instantly. The UK could - quite literally - hold the EU to ransom. That this doesn't happen, shows that the UK government is actually at the heart of it.

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

A little while ago there was an item in the foreign press mentioning that German 'security elements' were already in place in Greece 'if required to assist in preventing disorder'.

No-one, but no-one, will be leaving anytime soon.


Without the UK's financial contribution, the EU would collapse instantly. The UK could - quite literally - hold the EU to ransom. That this doesn't happen, shows that the UK government is actually at the heart of it.

You make some very valid points, Enquirer. The EU would be in serious do-do if the UK pulled its funding. However, if France and Germany decided to follow suit, it could not function and would collapse completely. However, I do agree with your analysis that the UK could, effectively, hold the EU to ransom.

[labman]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Without the UK's financial contribution, the EU would collapse instantly. The UK could - quite literally - hold the EU to ransom. That this doesn't happen, shows that the UK government is actually at the heart of it.

It may do, or it may just show the UK is paying its contribution. Would the UK do itself any favours holding the EU to ransom? Would this be the best way to show discontent? It may be, it may not.

Re 'You Tube' you will see what you want to see. I think one needs to be careful to keep a balanced view, rather than moving towards the extreme. If you genuinely believe the majority opinion is as it is set out above, then for you that is the balanced view - fair enough. Personally I don't think it is.

[enquirer]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Re 'You Tube' you will see what you want to see. I think one needs to be careful to keep a balanced view, rather than moving towards the extreme. If you genuinely believe the majority opinion is as it is set out above, then for you that is the balanced view - fair enough. Personally I don't think it is.

YouTube?

[labman]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

YouTube?

Bluebottle Post 18

There are a number of videos on YouTube showing a U.S. politician grilling a rep from the U.S. Federal Reserve

There you go! :-))

Sorry - that bit didn't relate to your post as you obviously noticed. My bad!

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

It may do, or it may just show the UK is paying its contribution. Would the UK do itself any favours holding the EU to ransom? Would this be the best way to show discontent? It may be, it may not.

Re 'You Tube' you will see what you want to see. I think one needs to be careful to keep a balanced view, rather than moving towards the extreme. If you genuinely believe the majority opinion is as it is set out above, then for you that is the balanced view - fair enough. Personally I don't think it is.

Like the UK Parliament, the U.S. Congress and Senate televise their proceedings and the footage is taken from that. The clip I refer to is a hearing by Congress or the Senate which is similar to one of our Select Committees summoning people to appear before it.

The American people have sussed what is going on in their country and what is wrong with their financial system and the world financial system and are speaking out about it. Politicians in America, mainly Democrats and independents (state governments) and left-wing Republicans, are increasingly asking awkward questions and some politicians, mainly right-wing Republicans, are becoming very uncomfortable as their links with bankers and large corporations come out into the open. I have a feeling the Tories links to large corporations and the banks will be exposed and, once that happens, their credibility will be effectively destroyed.

[M786]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Well it's been almost been 6 weeks since I last spoke to the bailiff and since then I haven't recieved no phone calls or visits from him. Maybe he's given up as I was quite firm over the phone? Oh well lets just see what happens as like I said to him there's no way in the world he's getting a single penny of me

[M786]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Yeah it's been 6 weeks. No sign of him. No phone calls. No visits. I told him he can try anything and everything he wants but there's no way he'll get a penny from me haha

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Don't forget that a magistrates' court distress warrant is valid for 180 days from the date of issue.

However, Marstons' failure to return does raise questions as to whether they are doubting they can enforce the fees they and the other private sector bailiff companies who collect unpaid court fines on behalf of HMCTS demanded when the contracts were awarded. Although the law provides that fees can be charged, your case does raise questions as to whether the level at which the fees are set, which is not provided by statute but a contract between a government department and private sector companies, is at issue and, consequently, whether those fees can be charged and enforced. If it was £15 for the letter and £60 for the visit, which would be more realistic, it would not surprise me if there was less confrontation between debtors and bailiffs. Ultimately, the removal of the private sector from the justice system altogether is and has to be the goal. HMCTS's own warrant officers do a much more efficient job, are accountable and, I would not mind betting, are more cost-effective than the private sector. There also needs to be a formal enquiry to determine just how much of the £500 million in uncollected court fines is actually enforceable. Although Crapita/TVL and DVLA's dodgy convictions need to be discounted, it begs the question as to just how much would be left that is be genuinely enforceable.

[bizzybob]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Crapita and DVLA along with greed Cameras form the majority of Marstons business from HMCS imho.

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Crapita and DVLA along with greed Cameras form the majority of Marstons business from HMCS imho.

There needs to be a criminal investigation into the activities of Capita in respect of all of its government contracts - central and local government - especially where they have been given the government's blessing to prosecute people without any stops or checks in the system to prevent abuse. History has shown that a number of Capita's prosecutions were not only wrongful, but fraudulent also. There needs to be an urgent review of ALL convictions since Capita took on the contract and a moratorium put on any further prosecutions whilst the review/investigation is taking place. As for DVLA, the oaf who is supposed to be in charge of the agency should be sacked and ALL convictions, vehicle seizures and destructions and requisitions investigated. Are DVLA just as bad as Capita - or worse - where questionable conduct and convictions are concerned?

[bizzybob]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

There needs to be a criminal investigation into the activities of Capita in respect of all of its government contracts - central and local government - especially where they have been given the government's blessing to prosecute people without any stops or checks in the system to prevent abuse. History has shown that a number of Capita's prosecutions were not only wrongful, but fraudulent also. There needs to be an urgent review of ALL convictions since Capita took on the contract and a moratorium put on any further prosecutions whilst the review/investigation is taking place. As for DVLA, the oaf who is supposed to be in charge of the agency should be sacked and ALL convictions, vehicle seizures and destructions and requisitions investigated. Are DVLA just as bad as Capita - or worse - where questionable conduct and convictions are concerned?

Absolutely 100% spot on there BB