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

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:45:59 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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

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

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?

As long as it occurred after 7 Sept 2007 (when the act came into
force) and was established in a legal gambling establishment or
activity.

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?

No, these are terms which are not specific to this act and therefore
have their normal meaning. "Gambling Debt" or "debt"would be a debt
owed under a gambling contract.

On 27/03/2015 10:34, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:45:59 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

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

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

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?

As long as it occurred after 7 Sept 2007 (when the act came into
force) and was established in a legal gambling establishment or
activity.

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?

No, these are terms which are not specific to this act and therefore
have their normal meaning. "Gambling Debt" or "debt"would be a debt
owed under a gambling contract.

It would have to be under a contract for S.335 to be of application.

Most UK gambling is done on a straightforward "pay in advance, with or
without the tax" basis, so debt would not arise. It seems it would only
arise in the case of private wagers or credit allowed at a casino.

Proving that a private wager had been entered into - or defaulted on -
might be the difficulty at the enforcement stage.

Just a thought. Perhaps that provision isn't as useful as might be supposed.

On 26/03/2015 02:56, wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015
at 11:21:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

I thought I'd pop in to see what the cycling loons are up to.

He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.

I see the Cwispin idiot is still here making a fool of himself.

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?

No one with any sense would. But cyclists, especially Cwispin don't
have much sense.

Only if I had something to hide.

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

Still in his fantasy world I see.

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.

OMG he's reproduced again.

Got a name yet?

For the father.

wrote in message
...

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.

Which tends to reinforce the observation that cyclists are a tight bunch of
gits.
Cyclists are terribly mean when it comes to spending their own money.
On the other hand, when it comes to spending someone else's, that's a very
different story.....

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 26/03/2015 02:56, wrote: On Wednesday, March 25, 2015
at 11:21:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

I thought I'd pop in to see what the cycling loons are up to.

He is obsessed with the personal finances of other posters.

I see the Cwispin idiot is still here making a fool of himself.

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?

No one with any sense would. But cyclists, especially Cwispin don't have
much sense.

Only if I had something to hide.

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

Still in his fantasy world I see.

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.

Yup, Child Benefit is coming your sponging way.
People should not get paid to ****.