Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:46:52 PM UTC, Judith wrote:

, Bertie Wooster/******'s real name is Tom Crispin.

I am using the name *me*, not Bertie Wooster.

He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people who were involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists can't see what a tosser he is.

Untrue. YLGC ceased to exist before I ever used the name Bertie Wooster.

He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.

Untrue. I was somewhat curious that one other poster had chosen to downsize at the very bottom of the property market - the very time when it makes financial sense to upsize, or at the very least to hang on until the property market improves.

He is on step 2 of the stalking path.

If that is true, which step are you on? (I expect the answer lies somewhere in the region of Graham's Number).

On 24/03/2015 23:37, wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:46:52 PM UTC, Judith wrote:

, Bertie Wooster/******'s real name is Tom Crispin.

I am using the name *me*, not Bertie Wooster.

He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people who were involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists can't see what a tosser he is.

Untrue. YLGC ceased to exist before I ever used the name Bertie Wooster.

He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.

Untrue. I was somewhat curious that one other poster had chosen to downsize at the very bottom of the property market - the very time when it makes financial sense to upsize, or at the very least to hang on until the property market improves.

Well, there are many possible reasons for doing that, one of which is
the release of equity so that one or more of one's children can get into
the housing market.

Not that one would necessarily want to disclose one's reasons (whatever
they might be) in a public forum. I wouldn't. Would you?

He is on step 2 of the stalking path.

If that is true, which step are you on? (I expect the answer lies somewhere in the region of Graham's Number).

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:21:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.

Untrue. I was somewhat curious that one other poster had chosen to downsize at the very bottom of the property market - the very time when it makes financial sense to upsize, or at the very least to hang on until the property market improves.

Well, there are many possible reasons for doing that, one of which is
the release of equity so that one or more of one's children can get into
the housing market.

Not that one would necessarily want to disclose one's reasons (whatever
they might be) in a public forum. I wouldn't. Would you?

Only if I had something to hide.

Helping a son or daughter is something to be proud about. Repaying gambling debts is not.

I am not ashamed to state that I save for my son's future, and will do for Bump when born in the next few weeks.

On 26/03/2015 02:56, wrote:

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 11:21:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.

Untrue. I was somewhat curious that one other poster had chosen to downsize at the very bottom of the property market - the very time when it makes financial sense to upsize, or at the very least to hang on until the property market improves.

Well, there are many possible reasons for doing that, one of which is
the release of equity so that one or more of one's children can get into
the housing market.
Not that one would necessarily want to disclose one's reasons (whatever
they might be) in a public forum. I wouldn't. Would you?

Only if I had something to hide.

We already know that. I think it's fair to say that most people would be
more guarded with personal details (especially financial details) than
you (and at least one other poster) have tended to be.

Helping a son or daughter is something to be proud about. Repaying gambling debts is not.

Both are matters to be proud about. Gambling debts are not enforceable.
Repaying them when in financial difficulty is honourable. I shall now
let loose a personal detail concerning gambling debts: I have none. I
once gambled $3.00 in Las Vegas. But I could afford it and it didn't
involve credit.

I am not ashamed to state that I save for my son's future, and will do for Bump when born in the next few weeks.

Well done.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:47:01 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Gambling debts are not enforceable.

Since the Gambling Act 2005 they are enforceable.

On 26/03/2015 11:20, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:47:01 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Gambling debts are not enforceable.

Since the Gambling Act 2005 they are enforceable.

It's a fairly long Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents

Any idea which bit makes gambling debt enforceable at law?

The contents page - as lengthy as it is - is of no help.

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 10:47:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Only if I had something to hide.

We already know that. I think it's fair to say that most people would be
more guarded with personal details (especially financial details) than
you (and at least one other poster) have tended to be.

I don't see why - if you have nothing to hide.

Helping a son or daughter is something to be proud about. Repaying gambling debts is not.

Both are matters to be proud about. Gambling debts are not enforceable.
Repaying them when in financial difficulty is honourable. I shall now
let loose a personal detail concerning gambling debts: I have none. I
once gambled $3.00 in Las Vegas. But I could afford it and it didn't
involve credit.

That's an astonishing remark. Downsizing your family home to repay gambling debts is something to be proud about!?

I am not ashamed to state that I save for my son's future, and will do for Bump when born in the next few weeks.

Well done.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:37:47 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/03/2015 11:20, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:47:01 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Gambling debts are not enforceable.

Since the Gambling Act 2005 they are enforceable.

It's a fairly long Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents

Any idea which bit makes gambling debt enforceable at law?

The contents page - as lengthy as it is - is of no help.

"335 Enforceability of gambling contracts
(1)The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its
enforcement. "

On 26/03/2015 22:41, wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Only if I had something to hide.

We already know that. I think it's fair to say that most people would be
more guarded with personal details (especially financial details) than
you (and at least one other poster) have tended to be.

I don't see why - if you have nothing to hide.

You really don't see why?

Extraordinary.

Helping a son or daughter is something to be proud about. Repaying gambling debts is not.

Both are matters to be proud about. Gambling debts are not enforceable.
Repaying them when in financial difficulty is honourable. I shall now
let loose a personal detail concerning gambling debts: I have none. I
once gambled $3.00 in Las Vegas. But I could afford it and it didn't
involve credit.

That's an astonishing remark. Downsizing your family home to repay gambling debts is something to be proud about!?

Repaying your debts, no matter how the debts came about, is something to
be proud of. It involves a recognition that one isn't the centre of the
universe and that other people have rights too. Of course, some people
never develop that outlook.

I am not ashamed to state that I save for my son's future, and will do for Bump when born in the next few weeks.

Well done.

On 26/03/2015 22:43, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:37:47 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/03/2015 11:20, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:47:01 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Gambling debts are not enforceable.

Since the Gambling Act 2005 they are enforceable.

It's a fairly long Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/contents

Any idea which bit makes gambling debt enforceable at law?

The contents page - as lengthy as it is - is of no help.

"335 Enforceability of gambling contracts
(1)The fact that a contract relates to gambling shall not prevent its
enforcement. "

Thank you.

This is hardly relevant to the topic which was under discussion, but is
a gambling debt always a contract within the meaning of the Gambling Act
2005?

I ask because the extensive list of definitions given in Section 353
does not provide a term of art definition of "gambling debt, "debt" or
"contract".

Presumably, these terms fall therefore to be construed as having their
ordinary everyday meaning. Is there something in the Act (elsewhere than
in Section 353) which provides for a particular definition?