Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270305 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #975 on: February 06, 2017, 11:06:15 PM »
You are out of touch. A high court order by those who are owed can get enforcement officers in to take possession of goods to satisfy the debt.

absolute total rubbish...only after all attempts to settle the debt has failed...if you have been in business and chased people for money you will know this

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #976 on: February 06, 2017, 11:10:39 PM »
How to avoid bailiff action

If you're behind on payments or owe money, it's important that you deal with these debts before bailiffs are instructed to act against you. Don't bury your head in the sand and hope it will go away. Being visited by bailiffs can be very stressful and upsetting, but it can usually be avoided if you speak to the people you owe money to and find a way to sort out your debts. The people you owe money to are also called creditors.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #977 on: February 06, 2017, 11:13:36 PM »
They have the power to repossess your property, or take your possessions and sell them – giving the proceeds to your creditor to pay back what you owe them. The court will only send a bailiff if you fail to maintain payments towards a County Court Judgement (CCJ).

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #978 on: February 06, 2017, 11:22:47 PM »
But St Goncalo of Amaral would never be so mean, surely?
Do you mean São Gonçalo de Amarante?



What's up, old man?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #979 on: February 06, 2017, 11:23:43 PM »
They have the power to repossess your property, or take your possessions and sell them – giving the proceeds to your creditor to pay back what you owe them. The court will only send a bailiff if you fail to maintain payments towards a County Court Judgement (CCJ).


Hint:
Learn the difference between a CCJ and a bankruptcy order.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #980 on: February 06, 2017, 11:26:39 PM »

Hint:
Learn the difference between a CCJ and a bankruptcy order.

perhaps you need to...in the case of a bankruptcy order you can tell the bailliffs to foxtrot oscar

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #981 on: February 07, 2017, 07:12:37 AM »
But St Goncalo of Amaral would never be so mean, surely?

We are discussing what could happen if the McCanns don't pay what they have been ordered to pay by the Portuguese Courts. It's nothing to do with Amaral.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #982 on: February 07, 2017, 07:18:24 AM »
We are discussing what could happen if the McCanns don't pay what they have been ordered to pay by the Portuguese Courts. It's nothing to do with Amaral.

One thing the McCanns won't do is ignore the debt so there won't be any bailiffs going round

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #983 on: February 07, 2017, 07:35:10 AM »
One thing the McCanns won't do is ignore the debt so there won't be any bailiffs going round

I agree. They instigated the case and they now owe a lot of money to the Portuguese Courts. I'm sure they wouldn't dream of reneging on their debts.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #984 on: February 07, 2017, 07:59:45 AM »
I agree. They instigated the case and they now owe a lot of money to the Portuguese Courts. I'm sure they wouldn't dream of reneging on their debts.

Depends if they have the money

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #985 on: February 07, 2017, 08:01:53 AM »

Hint:
Learn the difference between a CCJ and a bankruptcy order.

...and a high court judgement.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #986 on: February 07, 2017, 08:08:41 AM »

what absolute rubbish...its almost unbeleiveable


you think it rubbish .............yet you took the trouble to repost it twice ..and comment three times.... @)(++(*


you have mentioned bankruptcy .......over and over again ........

how can they claim bankrupsy..when they are directors ....

they are not going to want to close the fund down ..............

when as you say..... they are going to make millions in the bidding war ..are they ....
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #987 on: February 07, 2017, 08:23:15 AM »
Depends if they have the money

well if they dont its their fault 8 years and what do they have to show for it?? nothing but debts

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #988 on: February 07, 2017, 08:23:36 AM »

you think it rubbish .............yet you took the trouble to repost it twice ..and comment three times.... @)(++(*


you have mentioned bankruptcy .......over and over again ........

how can they claim bankrupsy..when they are directors ....

they are not going to want to close the fund down ..............

when as you say..... they are going to make millions in the bidding war ..are they ....
It's rubbish to think the Portuguese libel judgement is valid in the uk
Total rubbish and shows how little the author understands

If the go bankrupt they resign as directors first

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #989 on: February 07, 2017, 08:27:25 AM »
...and a high court judgement.

No different from any other debt
I've chased people for money for 40 yrs so I know all about it