ForumGarden

BBC News - Party invoice: Boy sent bill for birthday no-show



Nothing like being the one with the parent that went over the edge 1st in school, eh?



Cracks me up!:yh_rotfl

flopstock;1472007 wrote: BBC News - Party invoice: Boy sent bill for birthday no-show



Nothing like being the one with the parent that went over the edge 1st in school, eh?



Cracks me up!:yh_rotfl


I assume that the boy's parents did not inform the parents of birthday girl that the boy would not be attending? Neither within the 48 hour period of adjustment or AT ALL? In that case I really do understand the parents of birthday girl. Debate?

I can't help wondering what the legislation is likely to be on a case like this. Had there been anything in writing? Had anything been signed to agree to this? Would court action really be worth the cost?

I have already posted a thread on this story yesterday.

Good to see you though Flopstock.

I've missed you Flop. I was happy to see you in the Arcade, & hoped you'd make the jump over.

Nice to see you too!

I can think of no cheaper or more effective way of admonishing the delinquent parents in public than this. Job done.

If any parent Is going to throw a Party that Involves such costs, then take out Insurance to cover the cost should anything go wrong. They failed to do that.

Legally, the parents haven't a leg to stand on and It's a revolting example of one upmanship.

From the article.

Analysis: Clive Coleman, BBC legal correspondent

It is all but impossible that Ms Lawrence will be able to recover the £15.95 party "no show fee".

Any claim would be on the basis that a contract had been created, which included a term that a "no show" fee would be charged.

However, for there to be a contract, there needs to be an intention to create legal relations. A child's party invitation would not create legal relations with either the child "guest" or its parents.

If it is being argued that the contract is with the child, it is inconceivable that a five-year-old would be seen by a court as capable of creating legal relations and entering into a contract with a "no show" charge.

It's amusing to imagine what a children's party invitation seeking to create a contract might say: "I, the 'first party', hereinafter referred to as the 'birthday boy', cordially invite you the 'second party', hereinafter referred to as 'my best friend', to the party of 'the first party'.

Yeah well done parents... You've probably given your child's friends every reason to give him a wide berth In future and devoid him of friends and for what? £15 ? Get a life !!!

The parents are showing a vindictive, revengeful, materialistic nature that god forbid, will be passed on to their child.

How to lose your child all his pals In one easy lesson.... Book a Party that you clearly can not afford and then pursue his friends parents with threatening behaviour. Job done.

spot;1472089 wrote: I can think of no cheaper or more effective way of admonishing the delinquent parents in public than this. Job done.
Which ones do you consider the delinquent parents? I only have sympathy for the party throwers if it comes out later that all the kids in class decided to accept and then no show as a bully tactic.

You plan a party, you plan for no shows and even a few who forgot to RSVP and show up at the last minute.

If you can not afford what you are spending on the party - you have over planned and need to get a grip.

If i were the parents of the boy who got the threat, i'd let them go all the way.

First of all, i'd insist on a detailed breakdown of costs just to see if they were looking to make profit out of the situation. In court, it could be easily proved that the child nor the parents had entered into any legal contract and no court could rule in their favour on that basis of the law. They'd lose the case and then be liable for my legal fee's. I'd let them do it, in fact, i'd insist they did it and hit them with a counterclaim for wasting my time. Such action may teach them that a child being happy at school with his friends is more important than such a paltry sum of money. It's a disgusting example to set to a five year old.

Furthermore, of course, the 5 year old could not be held legally liable in the first place. Even when Da Beasty got pinched by that 14 year old toe-rag I had to take his Father to court to get my compensation. Furthermore, if I hadn't have been exempt from having to pay the court fees at the time, being on JSA, I would have had to risk £25 up front, which would not even be a guarantee of a return, even if I won my case (which I did) because if he hadn't have paid up (which he did) I would then have had to go through the extra cost of using Bailliffs - which would still not have had any guarantee of a return, so with this in mind, it would be interesting to see someone take it to court for the sake of £15.95. Mind you, it would probably be something that the gutter press would pay all the costs for, just for the story.

FourPart;1472129 wrote: Furthermore, of course, the 5 year old could not be held legally liable in the first place. Even when Da Beasty got pinched by that 14 year old toe-rag I had to take his Father to court to get my compensation. Furthermore, if I hadn't have been exempt from having to pay the court fees at the time, being on JSA, I would have had to risk £25 up front, which would not even be a guarantee of a return, even if I won my case (which I did) because if he hadn't have paid up (which he did) I would then have had to go through the extra cost of using Bailliffs - which would still not have had any guarantee of a return, so with this in mind, it would be interesting to see someone take it to court for the sake of £15.95. Mind you, it would probably be something that the gutter press would pay all the costs for, just for the story.


The use of small claims courts, I feel Is abused most of the time but their very existence enables people such as these parents to write a threatening letter very often with no Intention of following It through but designed merely to threaten, Intimidate, menace and hopefully get lucky should the recipient not be educated enough In law. I doubt this revolting pair had any Intention of following It through and hoped to get lucky. I agree with Peter. I'd take them all the way even taking them to the SCC for sending me an Illegal demand In the first place ( no legal contract )...

flopstock;1472099 wrote: Which ones do you consider the delinquent parents?Mr Nash said "She didn't treat me like a human being, she treated me like a child and that I should do what she says."

That's because he behaved, according to the party-throwers, like a child. He had, according to the party-throwers, the contact details to cancel, and couldn't, according to the party-throwers, be arsed. The resulting metaphoric slap in the face is priceless and cost it Julie Lawrence nothing whatever. The tale will still be being talked about in pubs a hundred years from now.

I do hope none of the particpants sign up as members, we've been down that particular rat-hole before.

spot;1472150 wrote: Mr Nash said "She didn't treat me like a human being, she treated me like a child and that I should do what she says."

That's because he behaved, according to the party-throwers, like a child. He had, according to the party-throwers, the contact details to cancel, and couldn't, according to the party-throwers, be arsed. The resulting metaphoric slap in the face is priceless, and cost it Julie Lawrence nothing whatever. The tale will still be being talked about in pubs a hundred years from now.


Except that no one is viewing him as the bad guy in this. Instead, she comes away looking like a nutbar. Do you know how often in the past I have had no idea about the time and place of a childs event, simply because after rsvp -ing weeks in advance, the invite was nowhere to be found? YIKES! I just hope the parents don't take it out on the kid at the next party opportunity.

Just remember there are two sides of every story and providing no-one Is libeled, then It won't come back on anyone. Invariably, taking the time to source other outlets, tend to give a wider picture and more Info.

In this case, there are many versions with a lot more Info.

According to the Guardian which I assume Is a trusted and reliable source, the boy ' told his parents' that he wanted to go. This Indicates that there was no official written Invitation and the child was asked by the teacher, school or friend while In school. ie an oral Invitation.

From the Guardian, the child's Mother states,

" His mother told Apex News, “Julie Lawrence and I weren’t friends, we didn’t talk to each other at school, but I felt bad about Alex not going to the party.

“I searched for the party invite afterwards and I’m not sure we even had one.

Five-year-old misses friend's birthday party and gets invoice for £15.95 | UK news | The Guardian

I bet the child never had a formal written Invite In the first place and why the parents had no contact details to cancel.

In a court of law, the onus would be on the Invitee to prove a formal Invitation was sent and further more received.

flopstock;1472152 wrote: Except that no one is viewing him as the bad guy in this. Instead, she comes away looking like a nutbar.I do hear what you say. I note that there are two alternative ways of looking at what happened. The "nutbar" story will fade into oblivion as uninteresting. The "take that" story will live for ever, as well it ought, true or not. It's a perfect anecdote. If Mr Nash is responsible for placing it into the public arena then his capacity to think clearly must be questionable.

Oscar Namechange;1472155 wrote: I bet the child never had a formal written Invite In the first place and why the parents had no contact details to cancel.
You'll be surmising next that they never even RSVP'd to accept the invite, eh?

spot;1472160 wrote: You'll be surmising next that they never even RSVP'd to accept the invite, eh?


The Mother says she can't remember ever seeing a written Invite... why do you assume she's a liar ?

Oscar Namechange;1472169 wrote: The Mother says she can't remember ever seeing a written Invite... why do you assume she's a liar ?


I don't doubt what she says in the slightest, I'm sure she can't remember ever seeing a written invitation. The parents did, none-the-less, RSVP - that's a certainty. So the same channel of communication undoubtedly existed, whether through the details on a written invite or otherwise, for cancelling.

spot;1472175 wrote: I don't doubt what she says in the slightest, I'm sure she can't remember ever seeing a written invitation. The parents did, none-the-less, RSVP - that's a certainty. So the same channel of communication undoubtedly existed, whether through the details on a written invite or otherwise, for cancelling.
How do we know the parents are telling the truth ?

If there was no written Invite and the child was Invited orally In school... there can't be a written reply surely ?

Oscar Namechange;1472178 wrote: How do we know the parents are telling the truth ?

If there was no written Invite and the child was Invited orally In school... there can't be a written reply surely ?


Either you're discussing the BBC article or you're discussing your own personal fantasy what-if story. I'm not discussing your own personal fantasy what-if story, I never do. I'm discussing the story which headed the thread, which says in part:Alex's parents, from Torpoint, had accepted an invitation to the party at a dry ski slope in Plymouth, Devon, just before Christmas. However, they realised their son was double-booked and due to spend time with his grandparents, which he did.

I haven't said there was a written reply, I said there was an RSVP. So the same channel of communication undoubtedly existed, whether through the details on a written invite or otherwise, for cancelling.

I am discussing the more detailed report In The Guardian. What fantasy you're In Is something else.

The Mother claims she can't remember seeing a written Invite. That Indicates the child was asked In school. If It was an oral Invitation there Is no RSVP.

It's not rocket science.

Oscar Namechange;1472185 wrote: I am discussing the more detailed report In The Guardian. What fantasy you're In Is something else.

The Mother claims she can't remember seeing a written Invite. That Indicates the child was asked In school. If It was an oral Invitation there Is no RSVP.

It's not rocket science.If it was an oral acceptance then there was an RSVP. Perhaps you should look up what RSVP means and whether writing's involved.

spot;1472186 wrote: If it was an oral acceptance then there was an RSVP. Perhaps you should look up what RSVP means and whether writing's involved.


Seriously ???

Perhaps you should research law.

A five year old child can not enter Into a contract either written or orally. As It was the child who was Invited and not his parents, the RSVP becomes Invalid.

Oscar Namechange;1472191 wrote: Seriously ???

Perhaps you should research law.

A five year old child can not enter Into a contract either written or orally. As It was the child who was Invited and not his parents, the RSVP becomes Invalid.


Fortunately, we know for a fact that Alex's parents actually did RSVP. The BBC article says, quite unambiguously,Alex's parents, from Torpoint, had accepted an invitation to the party at a dry ski slope in Plymouth, Devon, just before Christmas.Speculating that this statement is, in fact, false, is going off into your own wild-blue cuckoo-land.

I have never, just to avoid any doubt, suggested that an RSVP from either a parent or the child is a binding contract. The law is irrelevant to the humour of the tale or the fact that it went viral. The fact that it went viral is the story.

spot;1472193 wrote: Fortunately, we know for a fact that Alex's parents actually did RSVP. The BBC article says, quite unambiguously,Alex's parents, from Torpoint, had accepted an invitation to the party at a dry ski slope in Plymouth, Devon, just before Christmas.Speculating that this statement is, in fact, false, is going off into your own wild-blue cuckoo-land.

I have never, just to avoid any doubt, suggested that an RSVP from either a parent or the child is a binding contract. The law is irrelevant to the humour of the tale or the fact that it went viral. The fact that it went viral is the story. It says... " Alex's parents, from Torpoint, had accepted an invitation to the party at a dry ski slope in Plymouth, Devon, just before Christmas."

What It does not say, Is how the Invitation was given. The Mother says she can not remember seeing a written Invite. That puts doubt Into It. It could well mean the child was Invited orally within school, went home, told his parents, and the child returned to school the next day saying he'd be attending.

You have no evidence It did not happen that way. I suspect It did, If the Mother can not remember a written Invite.

Thus, the RSVP Is Invalid because a five year old not enter Into any legal contract orally nor written.

If It went to court, the legal onus would be on the Invitee to prove a written Invitation was sent and more, that the written Invitation was received. The Onus Is not on the receiver to prove that they didn't receive something.

Oscar Namechange;1472194 wrote: It says... " Alex's parents, from Torpoint, had accepted an invitation to the party at a dry ski slope in Plymouth, Devon, just before Christmas."

What It does not say, Is how the Invitation was given. The Mother says she can not remember seeing a written Invite. That puts doubt Into It. It could well mean the child was Invited orally within school, went home, told his parents, and the child returned to school the next day saying he'd be attending.

You have no evidence It did not happen that way. I suspect It did, If the Mother can not remember a written Invite.

Thus, the RSVP Is Invalid because a five year old not enter Into any legal contract orally nor written.

If It went to court, the legal onus would be on the Invitee to prove a written Invitation was sent and more, that the written Invitation was received. The Onus Is not on the receiver to prove that they didn't receive something.


Everything you say in this post is 100% true. It has nothing whatever to do with my point. I shall repeat it:The resulting metaphoric slap in the face is priceless and cost it Julie Lawrence nothing whatever. The tale will still be being talked about in pubs a hundred years from now.The only mention I made of an RSVP was that, having made it, even though making it was legally irrelevant, the same transmission route could have been used to cancel.

spot;1472195 wrote: Everything you say in this post is 100% true. It has nothing whatever to do with my point. I shall repeat it:The resulting metaphoric slap in the face is priceless and cost it Julie Lawrence nothing whatever. The tale will still be being talked about in pubs a hundred years from now.The only mention I made of an RSVP was that, having made it, even though making it was legally irrelevant, the same transmission route could have been used to cancel.
You think It'll be talked about In a hundred years time ? I very much doubt that. The small claims courts here are being used more and more and for petty disputes that are a criminal waste of court officials time. We had one not so long ago that came Into the Council where a woman tried to sue because workmen had walked across her lawn leaving muddy boot prints that she claimed caused her great effort to clean up. Even In law, there has been changes to Criminal Damage and It now dictates anything that has to be cleaned up or put right by the owner. If a kid throws an egg at someone's house, that's now criminal damage and some people are taking advantage of that.

This case In 100 years time will just be another on a very long list of people who are now abusing the small claims court. I predict It will get worse.

If the Guardian Is right and the Mother said she found the Invoice In the bottom of her child's school bag, then what nut puts a demand for payment In a five year old's school bag ?

Criminal Damage: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

This Is probably a better example of how police and local courts are viewing criminal damage..

http://www.watchingyou.info/index.php?o ... Itemid=153

The SCC will start to see more and more ridiculous cases being brought from opportunists.

This Is probably a better example of how police and local courts are viewing criminal damage..

Egg Throwing at Property Police-Response

The SCC will start to see more and more ridiculous cases being brought from opportunists.

Oscar Namechange;1472211 wrote: You think It'll be talked about In a hundred years time ? I very much doubt that.
That, of course, is your prerogative, since it's a legitimate matter of opinion as opposed to testable fact. I expect you also think the notorious Battle of the War Memorial will be forgotten too by then. Having heard locals still discussing events from Victorian times, I fear you're likely to be wrong on both counts. The point of interest in the School Party Invoice story has nothing whatever to do with the Small Claims Court aspect and everything to do with the allocation of blame. Sending a cod invoice highlights the fact that if a "Yes Please" could be sent back to the original invite then so too could a timely cancellation before the numbers to be paid for had been finalized. Had the cost of the trip been prepaid by the absent-child's parents then the offence would have been merely one of impoliteness. Committing the party-giver to the cost of the trip and subsequently knowing the child would be double-booked and wouldn't attend, while not cancelling, is beyond impolite, it's wilfully shoddy behaviour.

What nut puts a demand for payment in a five year old's school bag? One making a point regarding etiquette, I think. One who's inviting the other party to admit fault. Once who can make a joke about enforcing payment if the request for the trip's cost is ignored, just to emphasise the annoyance at a parent committing to the party and then failing to show without a word beforehand. The school bag is how party invites are sent between five-year-old schoolmates. Parent to offspring, offspring in class to the invitee, invitee to school bag, school bag to parent. How else would you send an invite.

Anyone capable of replying to an invite with a Yes Jimmy Would Be Delighted, verbal or otherwise, is capable of passing a subsequent message of apology before the numbers at the treat are finalized. Allocating blame when this becomes a folk tale to be brought out at pub evenings isn't going to be hard work.

All an invitation needs to be is a phone call to ask if it would be ok for him to come. An RSVP only needs to be a verbal response in that same telephone conversation to say "yes, that'll be fine", or words to that effect. There doesn't have to be anything in writing. RSVP (Respondez Sil Vous Plais) simply means "Answer Please".

Also, as a very minor point, the 5 year old never received the invoice. It was addressed to the "Parent / Guardian Alex Nash".

spot;1472216 wrote: That, of course, is your prerogative, since it's a legitimate matter of opinion as opposed to testable fact. I expect you also think the notorious Battle of the War Memorial will be forgotten too by then. Having heard locals still discussing events from Victorian times, I fear you're likely to be wrong on both counts. The point of interest in the School Party Invoice story has nothing whatever to do with the Small Claims Court aspect and everything to do with the allocation of blame. Sending a cod invoice highlights the fact that if a "Yes Please" could be sent back to the original invite then so too could a timely cancellation before the numbers to be paid for had been finalized. Had the cost of the trip been prepaid by the absent-child's parents then the offence would have been merely one of impoliteness. Committing the party-giver to the cost of the trip and subsequently knowing the child would be double-booked and wouldn't attend, while not cancelling, is beyond impolite, it's wilfully shoddy behaviour.

What nut puts a demand for payment in a five year old's school bag? One making a point regarding etiquette, I think. One who's inviting the other party to admit fault. Once who can make a joke about enforcing payment if the request for the trip's cost is ignored, just to emphasise the annoyance at a parent committing to the party and then failing to show without a word beforehand. The school bag is how party invites are sent between five-year-old schoolmates. Parent to offspring, offspring in class to the invitee, invitee to school bag, school bag to parent. How else would you send an invite.

Anyone capable of replying to an invite with a Yes Jimmy Would Be Delighted, verbal or otherwise, is capable of passing a subsequent message of apology before the numbers at the treat are finalized. Allocating blame when this becomes a folk tale to be brought out at pub evenings isn't going to be hard work.


My War memorial trial will be long forgotten In 100 years time I am certain. However, right now, just the sight of myself standing there looking at It, seems to send a passing local plod Into a frenzy that Invariably see's the authorities out the very next morning cleaning It. Long may that continue. Yet, It will be forgotten just as soon as those plods are replaced by new plod who do not know the history and the trouble I brought to their door. That's a natural progression.

I have to say to say I was surprised at the changing attitude In Criminal Damage In the Police. I learned of It a few years ago when kids egged several houses one Halloween night. Plod called on me to see If we'd seen anything and saw that I had been one of the targets. It was no big deal, just one egg managed to splat one of our windows. Yet, they recorded It as a crime. I argued that I didn't see It that way and I was educated In the fact that there no longer had to be actual damage but merely something an owner had to take time to clean or put right. Hence the claim we got at the Council for muddy boot prints.

That has brought about a change In attitudes of what can be compensated for and It makes It far easier to criminalise any member of the public. It Is those changing attitudes that also have a knock on effect In the SCC. If the police view such nonsence as a crime, then likewise, the courts will view someone having to clean up a bit of mud as a compensational case. It's a natural progression of the times.

No disrespect to our members here but we are fast becoming the same as America where everything and anybody Is a claim In waiting. Watching Judge Judy Is an excellent example of how ridiculous this has become and we are not far behind America. 100 years from now, no doubt, this case will be one of the least ridiculous that our SCCs will have seen.

If these parents went to trouble and great expense of booking a party they clearly could not afford, then you don't communicate with a five year old child through his school bag. You obtain address's through the correct procedure ie the school secretary. You post the Invite to the parents with an RSVP. You Include Information that charges could be brought In the case of no shows.

These parents clearly went about this unprofessionally and Ineptly.

FourPart;1472217 wrote: All an invitation needs to be is a phone call to ask if it would be ok for him to come. An RSVP only needs to be a verbal response in that same telephone conversation to say "yes, that'll be fine", or words to that effect. There doesn't have to be anything in writing. RSVP (Respondez Sil Vous Plais) simply means "Answer Please".

Also, as a very minor point, the 5 year old never received the invoice. It was addressed to the "Parent / Guardian Alex Nash". Exactly. So putting It In a five year old's school bag Is not the correct procedure. Obtaining the address from the Secretary and posting It, Is.

Oscar Namechange;1472244 wrote: Exactly. So putting It In a five year old's school bag Is not the correct procedure. Obtaining the address from the Secretary and posting It, Is.


I'm not sure the school secretary could give out any information like that to another parent.

Betty Boop;1472245 wrote: I'm not sure the school secretary could give out any information like that to another parent.


I think It depends on the Secretary.

Is passing out party invitations at school cruel? | BabyCenter Blog

The mere fact that this case Is seeking compensation shows they booked an Invent where It was Important for them to recover costs. I don't class that as the fun of a child's party. Another thing that occurs to me Is the having to address the Invoice to the child's ' Parent or guardian'. This Indicates that their child didn't even know the children they were Inviting. So, the ' Party ' Is more an event for their child with children their child Is not friends with rather than a get together of the child's friends. I don't know any parent who would do that.

Oscar Namechange;1472242 wrote: If these parents went to trouble and great expense of booking a party they clearly could not affordThat's more of your cloud-cuckoo speculation. They could be as rich as Croesus and still be sufficiently incensed, at the disrespect implied by the lack of cancellation, to send the cod invoice as an insult. There is absolutely no information in the article from which to deduce their liquidity.

Oscar has just raised a point i didn't notice myself. Call me old fashioned but for a five old, a party would be about a fun time with his/her friends and friends they know well and are comfortable with. Sending invites or invoices lacking the parents name shows they were more running a function in this case and not a child's party. If you are running a function then you put a great deal more thought into it and cover your costs. I stand by my earlier post that this appears to be more about one-upmanship than a child's party.

Have they interviewed this lady yet? Here's the last I saw on it

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/ar ... 33&ref=rss

Good lord it's Peter Lake. Wonders will never cease. This is the same Peter Lake who introduced himself to a forum with [text removed by moderator]? I'd forgotten you were still a member here. I'm sure you weren't last time I looked.

Peter Lake;1472254 wrote: Sending invites or invoices lacking the parents name shows they were more running a function in this case and not a child's party.


Moonshine. If I send out twenty invites to my child's classmates, my child hand-writes the forename of the child on the printed invitation card which, if it's done properly, is from a scan of a drawing he made with the party details typed alongside. The invitation card is placed into an envelope on which is written "To the Parent/guardian of X Y", and the envelopes are all taken into class and distributed to the recipient children for carrying home. How can you not know these things?

spot;1472257 wrote: Good lord it's Peter Lake. Wonders will never cease. This is the same Peter Lake who introduced himself to a forum with [text removed by moderator]? I'd forgotten you were still a member here. I'm sure you weren't last time I looked.






Yes, he's still here Spot. [text removed by moderator] :wah: He's always had the same user name unlike Spot/Tyr/FG

Tell us... how's the new forum going you registered with ? How are you settling In there?

Oscar Namechange;1472258 wrote: Tell us... how's the new forum going you registered with ? How are you settling In there?


There are so many - which forum are you discussing? You need to name it if I'm to respond adequately. Are we talking about the one I registered with to read JJ's meltdown?

spot;1472261 wrote: There are so many - which forum are you discussing? You need to name it if I'm to respond adequately. Are we talking about the one I registered with to read JJ's meltdown?


Why register with so many ? If you did Indeed register with solely to target JJ, then that's trolling Is It not ?

Insult my husband all you like Spot. We expect nothing less. However, my husband, unlike you, I would Imagine has not seen e mails sent out asking how the hell they get him off their sites.

We will not respond further simply because we've seen this trash so many threads In the past. Id also appreciate you not lie here given you have messaged Peter In your position as admin. You knew damn well he was still posting here. Let's stick to fact. It's nothing more than a deliberate attempt to Incite, bait and troll. You're on your own as we will not entertain your attempts to trash threads with personal Insults.

Now, back to topic.

How many parents who Invite their child's friends to birthday parties do not not know the friends surnames.?

spot;1472261 wrote: There are so many - which forum are you discussing? You need to name it if I'm to respond adequately. Are we talking about the one I registered with to read JJ's meltdown?


So let's get this right. You wrote here in great detail and length your relief and pleasure at Jones departing this forum and then you go to all the trouble to find him on another forum and register there just to see his posts?

Good heavens above, what strange behaviour.

It's scarcely trolling in that he'd melted down and closed his account there before I registered to see the thread in question and, more to the point, to look at the photos. Neither did I post any comment there on what I saw.

Most of the forums I register with provide technical support for systems I use. Some of the systems I have no prior experience of, others I provide support for. Forums and IRC channels are the main places I use.

Oscar Namechange;1472265 wrote: You knew damn well he was still posting here. Let's stick to fact.


The last time I looked, Peter Lake was banned from posting on ForumGarden. I haven't looked or PM'd him since. What I wrote was truthful. Maybe "was unaware that" instead of "forgotten" would have been more precise since one can, on reflection, not forget what one was never initially aware of, but it's a lot closer than your bogus, uninformed and utterly incorrect "you knew damn well he was still posting here".

How many parents who invite their child's friends to birthday parties do not not know the friends surnames? Me, for one, I often sent in invitations to primary school with just a forename. My children, after all, knew practically none of the surnames, and I'm not so nosey or witless as to have gone into school asking secretaries to waive their legal duty of confidentiality by handing over class lists.

Peter Lake;1472267 wrote: Good heavens above, what strange behaviour.
You evidently haven't seen the thread in question.

Peter Lake;1472267 wrote: You wrote here in great detail and length your relief and pleasure at Jones departing this forum
Did I? My memory must be playing tricks again, I'd be interested to see the post in question. I can't bring it to mind.

This was after his most recent, and permanent, banning, was it?

I'm sure all this is much more fun for you folks than the original topic of this thread, but can I ask to have your side bar moved to its own thread?

thanks

spot;1472268 wrote: It's scarcely trolling in that he'd melted down and closed his account there before I registered to see the thread in question and, more to the point, to look at the photos. Neither did I post any comment there on what I saw.

Most of the forums I register with provide technical support for systems I use. Some of the systems I have no prior experience of, others I provide support for. Forums and IRC channels are the main places I use.





The last time I looked, Peter Lake was banned from posting on ForumGarden. I haven't looked or PM'd him since. What I wrote was truthful. Maybe "was unaware that" instead of "forgotten" would have been more precise since one can, on reflection, not forget what one was never initially aware of, but it's a lot closer than your bogus, uninformed and utterly incorrect "you knew damn well he was still posting here".

How many parents who invite their child's friends to birthday parties do not not know the friends surnames? Me, for one, I often sent in invitations to primary school with just a forename. My children, after all, knew practically none of the surnames, and I'm not so nosey or witless as to have gone into school asking secretaries to waive their legal duty of confidentiality by handing over class lists.


Yet posted by Spot

Are we talking about the one I registered with to read JJ's meltdown?

If you couldn't read his posts without registering, then how did you know he was there? Why would you care he was there? Why, If so relieved he'd left FG, would It bother you what he was writing on another site?

It doesn't stack Spot. It's Incredulous behaviour.

Regardless, I agree, most send out Invitations at school with just the child's name on the envelope. That's because most children's parties are just that... a party at home with friends....with children they know well, not an organised function. However, this clearly was not a child's party at the home of the child. It was a function that Incurred costs beyond their means. The mere fact they are looking to recover costs of a paltry £15 shows It was beyond their means. It that example, the parents should have gone about It more professionally.

I live next door to a Primary school and Nursery and over the years, we have found numerous party Invites, letters from school, even baking equipment on some occasions along with swimming equipment, clothing sandwich boxes etc etc. One should no more trust a five year old to arrive home with a letter Intact than running the risk of organising a function that you can't afford.

Oscar Namechange;1472273 wrote: It doesn't stack Spot. It's Incredulous behaviour.Indeed it is, oscar, indeed it is. I only hope I manage to remain incredulous, it took a lot of training to get me this way.