Today I joined a protest about the sale of some public land by the local
council. I was wondering if anyone here can point me to a simple to
understand precis of the current planning or legal situation.

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with the
condition that it should remain open space. Any covenant documents
appear to have been lost.
This was raised in the past when the council first proposed the sale,
and the council took legal advice and backed down.

They have now re-advertised the land for auction. A councillor attended
the protest and said that the situation was now different because the
council has advice that it is a different body from "the community" and
so can just decide to sell any public land. He also said that recent
changes in planning law appear to have resulted in a situation whereby a
council can take any piece of public land and sell it.

There are other areas close by which have similar covenants, so this is
almost certainly the soft target for the thin end of the wedge.

--
Bill

On 04/12/17 01:09, Bill wrote:
Today I joined a protest about the sale of some public land by the local
council. I was wondering if anyone here can point me to a simple to
understand precis of the current planning or legal situation.

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with the
condition that it should remain open space. Any covenant documents
appear to have been lost.
This was raised in the past when the council first proposed the sale,
and the council took legal advice and backed down.

They have now re-advertised the land for auction. A councillor attended
the protest and said that the situation was now different because the
council has advice that it is a different body from "the community" and
so can just decide to sell any public land. He also said that recent
changes in planning law appear to have resulted in a situation whereby a
council can take any piece of public land and sell it.

There are other areas close by which have similar covenants, so this is
almost certainly the soft target for the thin end of the wedge.

A starting point might well be to cut exactly what you've written here
and paste it into uk.legal.moderated.

Nick

replying to Bill, Iggy wrote:
I'm not directly familiar with the U.K. stuff, but any and all property is
owned by the State (province, King, Queen, etc.) and ALL others are renters.
Therefore, the purchase or sale of any property falls under the same
legalities as Eminent Domain or your Compulsory Purchase. If the "owner" feels
the purchase, sale or eviction is necessary, then its legal.

The idiot public slave peons' only legal course of action is to buy the
property and receive approval for the existing use to continue. It should only
be purchased by a Civic Association or other Non-Profit and it will no longer
be "Public Land" nor by default be open to the public. You'll have to pay
taxes and maintain it under all conditions and obtain continuous Liability
Insurance.

Given the right location and even size, operating costs can be easily covered
by renting the space out for events, sports playing and practice or even as
just a toll type of use. A simple collection box could be all that's needed
with enough made-conscious users or you could fence it off and require a
nominal admission fee at an automated gate. I don't know if any of that's
possible or up for consideration, but just thought I'd mention it.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

Iggy m wrote

I'm not directly familiar with the U.K. stuff, but any and all property is
owned by the State (province, King, Queen, etc.) and ALL others are
renters.

That is just plain wrong.

Therefore, the purchase or sale of any property falls under the same
legalities as Eminent Domain or your Compulsory Purchase.

Wrong again.

If the "owner" feels the purchase, sale or eviction is necessary, then its
legal.

Wrong again.

The idiot public slave peons' only legal course of action is to buy the
property and receive approval for the existing use to continue.

Wrong again.

It should only be purchased by a Civic Association or other Non-Profit and
it will no longer be "Public Land" nor by default be open to the public.

Wrong again.

You'll have to pay taxes and maintain it under all conditions and obtain
continuous Liability Insurance.

Wrong again.

Given the right location and even size, operating costs can be easily
covered
by renting the space out for events, sports playing and practice or even
as
just a toll type of use. A simple collection box could be all that's
needed
with enough made-conscious users or you could fence it off and require a
nominal admission fee at an automated gate. I don't know if any of that's
possible or up for consideration, but just thought I'd mention it.

replying to Rod Speed, Iggy wrote:
Oh, how precise of you, such in depth legal background and oh my what a
wordsmith! Fantastic knowledge and research panache! I'll have to look up your
brilliant debunking and maybe finally learn something. Newsflash, the entire
world's the same, fact. The people choose nothing, own nothing and rule
nothing, fact. What's your answer? What's you're rebuttal? What are the laws
in your non-existent and will never exist fantasyland?

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

Iggy m wrote

Newsflash

Nope, just more of your pig ignorant lies.

the entire world's the same, fact.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and
thats saying something, with land ownership.

The people choose nothing, own nothing and rule nothing, fact.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something

What's your answer?

See above.

What's you're rebuttal?

See above.

What are the laws in your non-existent and will never exist fantasyland?

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something

In message , Nick Odell
writes
On 04/12/17 01:09, Bill wrote:
Today I joined a protest about the sale of some public land by the
local council. I was wondering if anyone here can point me to a simple
understand precis of the current planning or legal situation.
In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with
the condition that it should remain open space. Any covenant documents
appear to have been lost.
This was raised in the past when the council first proposed the sale,
and the council took legal advice and backed down.
They have now re-advertised the land for auction. A councillor
attended the protest and said that the situation was now different
because the council has advice that it is a different body from "the
community" and so can just decide to sell any public land. He also
said that recent changes in planning law appear to have resulted in a
situation whereby a council can take any piece of public land and sell it.
There are other areas close by which have similar covenants, so this
is almost certainly the soft target for the thin end of the wedge.

A starting point might well be to cut exactly what you've written here
and paste it into uk.legal.moderated.

Thanks, Nick. Have done as suggested.

--
Bill

On 04-Dec-17 1:09 AM, Bill wrote:
Today I joined a protest about the sale of some public land by the local
council. I was wondering if anyone here can point me to a simple to
understand precis of the current planning or legal situation.

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with the
condition that it should remain open space. Any covenant documents
appear to have been lost.
This was raised in the past when the council first proposed the sale,
and the council took legal advice and backed down.

They have now re-advertised the land for auction. A councillor attended
the protest and said that the situation was now different because the
council has advice that it is a different body from "the community" and
so can just decide to sell any public land. He also said that recent
changes in planning law appear to have resulted in a situation whereby a
council can take any piece of public land and sell it.

There are other areas close by which have similar covenants, so this is
almost certainly the soft target for the thin end of the wedge.


This is a restrictive covenant and is only enforceable by a beneficiary
of the covenant. It will normally be tied to one (or sometimes more)
property in the area (the dominant land) and the beneficiary will be the
original owner of that property. In order for the benefit of the
covenant to pass to subsequent owners of the dominant land, it must meet
four tests:

The covenant must be restrictive, rather than a positive covenant, which
is the case here.

The covenant must benefit the dominant land, which is common, but may
depend upon their relative locations.

It is intended to pass, which is the default case. I.e. the covenant
must not expressly state that it cannot pass.

The buyer of the land has notice of the covenant. For registered land,
that would mean it has to appear on the Land Registry documentation or,
for unregistered land, in the Land Charges Register.

So, the first step is to discover whether the covenant is recorded at
the Land Registry or on the Land Charges Register. That should also tell
you who benefits from the covenant. From what you say, that might be
'the community' and defining that could be fun for the lawyers. The
beneficiary would then need to seek to enforce the covenant against the
council. I suspect you will also need to have a large legal fees fund.


--
--

Colin Bignell

I notice that around here also there is a call for information.
In this case they want the general public to look for underused land even
if they do not own it that could be used for development. In theory this
could for example be our long gardens of course, and I think its the thin
end of the wedge acting like this.If they have now got new powers to get
land sold no mater who has it or what is on it I can see trouble ahead big
time.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill" wrote in message
...
Today I joined a protest about the sale of some public land by the local
council. I was wondering if anyone here can point me to a simple to
understand precis of the current planning or legal situation.

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is that
the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with the
condition that it should remain open space. Any covenant documents appear
to have been lost.
This was raised in the past when the council first proposed the sale, and
the council took legal advice and backed down.

They have now re-advertised the land for auction. A councillor attended
the protest and said that the situation was now different because the
council has advice that it is a different body from "the community" and so
can just decide to sell any public land. He also said that recent changes
in planning law appear to have resulted in a situation whereby a council
can take any piece of public land and sell it.

There are other areas close by which have similar covenants, so this is
almost certainly the soft target for the thin end of the wedge.

--
Bill

On 04-Dec-17 3:14 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Bill, Iggy wrote:
I'm not directly familiar with the U.K. stuff, but any and all property is
owned by the State (province, King, Queen, etc.) and ALL others are
renters...

That sounds like a confused interpretation of medieval law and, even
then, it would not have been true. Peers of the Realm and the Church
also held land in their own right. Those lands may have been granted by
the Crown and the Crown could revoke a title and seize the lands, but
unless that happened, the land did not belong to the Crown.

Today, anybody with a freehold to land is the permanent and absolute
owner of that land.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 04/12/2017 09:41, Brian Gaff wrote:
I notice that around here also there is a call for information.
In this case they want the general public to look for underused land even
if they do not own it that could be used for development. In theory this
could for example be our long gardens of course, and I think its the thin
end of the wedge acting like this.If they have now got new powers to get
land sold no mater who has it or what is on it I can see trouble ahead big
time.
Brian


CPO powers are absolutely draconian, unfortunately. Many councils are
under central government pressure to provide a certain number of
building sites each year, and if that means a development on half your
garden that's what they'll do. You'll theoretically be compensated
adequately, but in practice you won't.

On 04/12/2017 06:14, Iggy wrote:
replying to Rod Speed, Iggy wrote: Oh, how precise of you, such in
depth legal background and oh my what a wordsmith! Fantastic
knowledge and research panache! I'll have to look up your brilliant
debunking and maybe finally learn something. Newsflash, the entire
world's the same, fact. The people choose nothing, own nothing and
rule nothing, fact. What's your answer? What's you're rebuttal? What
are the laws in your non-existent and will never exist fantasyland?


At lead Rod has the decency to quote the text he's replying to.

Why is that so difficult for you?

replying to Fredxx, Iggy wrote:
Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something
I'm on the real internet, where people talk normally.


--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
You may want to re-read your comment. If someone else can revoke it and toss
them out, they never owned it and were just tenants...Freehold is no
different, except it expires on its own if the owner exercised nothing else.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

On 04-Dec-17 5:14 PM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
You may want to re-read your comment. If someone else can revoke it and
toss
them out, they never owned it and were just tenants...

Except that seizure of lands only happened if the incumbent broke the
law and the law prescribed forfeiture of land as a penalty (e.g. the
Treason Act of 1534) or the seizure was authorised by an Act of
Parliament (e.g. the dissolution of the monasteries). OTOH, when Edward
Longshanks wanted the Isle of Wight, he had to buy it from Isabella de
Fortibus for 6000 Marks. Had she been a tenant of the Crown, he would
only have had to wait a few days for her to die to reclaim the property.


--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar Wrote in message:
On 04-Dec-17 5:14 PM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
You may want to re-read your comment. If someone else can revoke it and
toss
them out, they never owned it and were just tenants...

Except that seizure of lands only happened if the incumbent broke the
law and the law prescribed forfeiture of land as a penalty (e.g. the
Treason Act of 1534) or the seizure was authorised by an Act of
Parliament (e.g. the dissolution of the monasteries). OTOH, when Edward
Longshanks wanted the Isle of Wight, he had to buy it from Isabella de
Fortibus for 6000 Marks. Had she been a tenant of the Crown, he would
only have had to wait a few days for her to die to reclaim the property.



I suspect it's all rather different in 'muricah...

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 04/12/17 01:09, Bill wrote:

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with the
condition that it should remain open space.

Where dos your understanding come from?
Sometimes Chinese whispers can gain a lot of ground.

FWIW, a similar situation near here was resolved with a land swap, so
that the area for public use remained the same and was a continuous area.

replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
I really don't know why you're going to such extents to be wrong. Today's
world is no different and only a fully refined fraud bestowed upon the
ignorant masses. Case in point, Isle of Wight wasn't part of Edward's Kingdom
it was a whole separate Kingdom (Whitwara), of which Isabel was the last of
that "royal" line. Edward came back with a lie that she sold it to him and
simply took it over, after she "magically" died just days after his poisonous
visit.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

Iggy m wrote
Fredxx wrote

No he didnt.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something

I'm on the real internet, where people talk normally.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 04-Dec-17 7:44 PM, Iggy wrote:
... Case in point, Isle of Wight wasn't part of Edward's
Kingdom
it was a whole separate Kingdom (Whitwara), of which Isabel was the last of
that "royal" line.

It ceased to be a separate kingdom after the Norman Conquest. Despite
Isabella sometimes being referred to as the Queen of the Isle of Wight,
she was not royalty, but merely a the incumbent of a Lordship created by
William the Conqueror.

Edward came back with a lie that she sold it to him and
simply took it over, after she "magically" died just days after his
poisonous
visit.

She was dying anyway. Whether she actually agreed to the sale, or he
simply claimed that (and paid the money to her estate) is something that
scholars disagree on.



--
--

Colin Bignell

Iggy m wrote
Nightjar wrote

You may want to re-read your comment.

Nope, and it would be rewrite anyway.

If someone else can revoke it

They can't. In some circumstances they can however grab it.

and toss them out, they never owned it

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and thats saying
something.

and were just tenants...

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and thats saying
something.

Freehold is no different,

Corse it is, most obviously in the sense that you
have to be compensated if they kick you out.

except it expires on its own if the owner exercised nothing else.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage and thats saying
something.

Nightjar wrote:

On 04-Dec-17 3:14 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Bill, Iggy wrote:
I'm not directly familiar with the U.K. stuff, but any and all property is
owned by the State (province, King, Queen, etc.) and ALL others are
renters...

That sounds like a confused interpretation of medieval law and, even
then, it would not have been true. Peers of the Realm and the Church
also held land in their own right. Those lands may have been granted by
the Crown and the Crown could revoke a title and seize the lands, but
unless that happened, the land did not belong to the Crown.

Today, anybody with a freehold to land is the permanent and absolute
owner of that land.

If you read the deeds of a freehold property you will realise that Iggy
is largely right. It is certainly true that the state can take it off
you if it wantst to, with monetary compensation. Though for most
practical purposes you are right.



--

Roger Hayter

In message , Chris Bartram
writes
On 04/12/17 01:09, Bill wrote:

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with
the condition that it should remain open space.

Where dos your understanding come from?
Sometimes Chinese whispers can gain a lot of ground.

FWIW, a similar situation near here was resolved with a land swap, so
that the area for public use remained the same and was a continuous
area.

My understanding comes from a brief chat with the owner of a bungalow
bordering on the land, plus what my wife believes from what I assume was
gossip when she heard it many years ago.

The bungalow owner is the son of the person who built and lived in the
bungalow previously. He is not young. The bungalow was built on part of
the land to which the covenant applies, but the current owner seems to
have no details.

I am trying to investigate further.

--
Bill

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Nightjar wrote:

On 04-Dec-17 3:14 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Bill, Iggy wrote:
I'm not directly familiar with the U.K. stuff, but any and all property
is
owned by the State (province, King, Queen, etc.) and ALL others are
renters...

That sounds like a confused interpretation of medieval law and, even
then, it would not have been true. Peers of the Realm and the Church
also held land in their own right. Those lands may have been granted by
the Crown and the Crown could revoke a title and seize the lands, but
unless that happened, the land did not belong to the Crown.

Today, anybody with a freehold to land is the permanent and absolute
owner of that land.

If you read the deeds of a freehold property you will realise that Iggy is
largely right.

Like hell he is on the stupid claim that is all owned by the state or king
etc.

It is certainly true that the state can take it off
you if it wantst to, with monetary compensation.

Which does not mean that the state owns it all.

Though for most practical purposes you are right.

Nothing like having a bob each way.

On 04/12/2017 01:09, Bill wrote:
Today I joined a protest about the sale of some public land by the local
council. I was wondering if anyone here can point me to a simple to
understand precis of the current planning or legal situation.

In this particular case, my understanding of the current position is
that the land was covenanted to the local community by someone with the
condition that it should remain open space. Any covenant documents
appear to have been lost.
This was raised in the past when the council first proposed the sale,
and the council took legal advice and backed down.

They have now re-advertised the land for auction. A councillor attended
the protest and said that the situation was now different because the
council has advice that it is a different body from "the community" and
so can just decide to sell any public land. He also said that recent
changes in planning law appear to have resulted in a situation whereby a
council can take any piece of public land and sell it.

There are other areas close by which have similar covenants, so this is
almost certainly the soft target for the thin end of the wedge.

It might be worth you contacting the following to find out what they
have found and done in a similar case:

http://www.saveflixtongreenbelt.org

Our area has been having a similar fight over land that was donated,
with a covenant that it should be retained for the recreational use of
the people of Flixton. In the '70s it was threatened with development
and a councillor ensured that it was turned into a municipal golf course
to protect it. Recently the golf course was deliberately run down,
declared to be losing money and closed. Now they want to build 750 homes
there - despite all the local infrastructure being totally overloaded.
The council state that the covenant was with Urmston Urban District
Council, which no longer exists after their powers were absorbed into
Trafford Council and as UUDC no longer exists, Trafford Council state
that they cannot be bound by it.

So far they have backed down to half the number of homes after a
prolonged fight, but locally we are still fighting to stop it
completely. The latest suggestion (which happens to be what I suggested
at the start) is to turn it into a woodland.

SteveW

On 04/12/2017 17:14, Iggy wrote:
replying to Fredxx, Iggy wrote:
Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something
I'm on the real internet, where people talk normally.

Do you have any idea what and who you are replying to?

I haven't written a single word you claim to be replying to.

You're not coming over as being very bright.

replying to Fredxx, Iggy wrote:
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
Oh, I have to quote you in order for you to pull your thumb out. Great, so
glad you're here "helping" others. Too bad the "others" you're helping are
beyond help.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
So, what's your point...beyond talking about Isabel's daughter who had nothing
to do with nothing. Go do some research, you'll see I'm right...right on down
to the need for approved use as a park.


--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

replying to Rod Speed, Iggy wrote:
Why are you here or anywhere? You never provide anything useful. You never
backup anything you absurdly claim. You do no research and therefore don't
possess even an ounce of knowledge. And, you laughably troll to only make
yourself look completely ignorant.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

Some gutless ****wit yank desperately cowering behind
Iggy m wrote
just the **** you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit yank.

On 04-Dec-17 8:27 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
...
If you read the deeds of a freehold property you will realise that Iggy
is largely right.

As in not at all. The land does not ultimately belong to the Crown.

It is certainly true that the state can take it off
you if it wantst to, with monetary compensation...

Which is quite different from the claim that the land belongs to the
Crown and that occupiers are only tenants.

A compulsory purchase order can only be made if an Act of Parliament has
ruled that it is in the public interest to grant that power to the
acquiring authority. Even then, the first step is usually to try to buy
the land by agreement. If, after due process, a CPO is confirmed, the
acquiring authority will normally still try to buy the property by
agreement rather than enforce the CPO. So, yes they can take the land,
but only under certain circumstances, not by right, only after a long
process, with options to object, and if the landowner persistently
refuses to sell.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 05-Dec-17 1:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
So, what's your point...beyond talking about Isabel's daughter who had
nothing
to do with nothing. Go do some research, you'll see I'm right...right on
down
to the need for approved use as a park.


As you said at the beginning, you are not familiar with UK stuff.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 05-Dec-17 10:11 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-12-05, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Dec-17 1:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
So, what's your point...beyond talking about Isabel's daughter who had
nothing
to do with nothing. Go do some research, you'll see I'm right...right on
down
to the need for approved use as a park.


As you said at the beginning, you are not familiar with UK stuff.

I much admire your patience. As soon as "Iggy" trotted out the old and
nonsensical story about all land in the UK belonging to the crown, I
immediately killfiled him, assuming that because he's obviously an idiot,
there was no point in arguing with him. And so it has proven.

Like responding to Harry, it gives me something to do in retirement :-)

However, I suspect that Iggy will soon follow Rod and JWS into my
collection of people to ignore.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 05/12/2017 10:11, Huge wrote:
On 2017-12-05, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Dec-17 1:44 AM, Iggy wrote:
replying to Nightjar, Iggy wrote:
So, what's your point...beyond talking about Isabel's daughter who had
nothing
to do with nothing. Go do some research, you'll see I'm right...right on
down
to the need for approved use as a park.


As you said at the beginning, you are not familiar with UK stuff.

I much admire your patience. As soon as "Iggy" trotted out the old and
nonsensical story about all land in the UK belonging to the crown, I
immediately killfiled him, assuming that because he's obviously an idiot,
there was no point in arguing with him. And so it has proven.


Another sign of Iggy's ignorance is the reference to the UK. Scotland's
land law is so very different from E&W.

But like many such stories there is a grain of truth behind it. For
reasons of history the Crown is the only "absolute" owner of land in
England and Wales. Everyone else holds an "estate in land". Since the
the Law of Property Act 1925 that means either a freehold or leasehold
(though the Act uses what now seem to us archaic terms for them). But
the rights of the owner of a freehold are no less absolute as a result.
And it is a convenient backstop to deal with such things as people who
renounce all their worldly property and are walled up in a Himalayan
monastery - something Figgy could usefully try.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

replying to Huge, Iggy wrote:
What's wrong with you trolls, you're the weakest I've ever encountered. You
jump on the knowledgeable with utter nonsense and when you do actually try
it's nothing but blind fool lies that only you say is accurate. In this case,
you reveal that you're not even aware of the world you live in. Hugely
shameful ignorance.

Even Nightjar, unknowingly, agreed with me and backed up most of what I said,
just to tell me I'm wrong. Well, I did look at the response from
uk.legal.moderated to see if I was somehow off the mark. Turned out, as I
already knew and demonstrated, that I was spot on. But still, you persist with
your buffoonery. Ruining yet another thread with your pointless and
self-incriminating drivel.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

replying to Robin, Iggy wrote:
That, was hilarious! You do realize the size of that "grain" in this
discussion, right? You worthless trolls don't even have a clue that The Queen
can and does override Parliament, they're just middle management. Go ahead,
don't pay your Property Taxes and see for yourselves that you're booted to the
street without a single penny. Taxes my dears, is your purchased permit to
exist for the year.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm

Iggy m wrote
Robin wrote

You worthless trolls don't even have a clue that The Queen can
and does override Parliament, they're just middle management.

How odd that it was that little **** Ed that got
the bums rush, right out the ****ing door.

On 05/12/2017 01:44, Iggy wrote:
replying to Fredxx, Iggy wrote:
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
Oh, I have to quote you in order for you to pull your thumb out.

Absolutely, rather than quoting someone else's post.

Great, so glad you're here "helping" others. Too bad the "others"
you're helping are beyond help.

I can't help it is you are using a broken website that runs roughshod
over Usenet netiquette.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

Your help is welcome, but if you ignore convention and accuse me of
posting things I haven't then you are not doing yourself any favours,
nor looking very bright.

Simply observe netiquette and get yourself a decent newsreader rather
than post through a broken website.

replying to Tim Streater, Iggy wrote:
Yep, they're always on me. They swoop in and then laughably call me a troll
for defending my comment and not switching to their insanity. I even ran into
a few here that still tell me I'm wrong when I fully agree with
them...Criminally insane.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy...s-1254352-.htm