In article , writes
Well, the typical "try out" approach is to order the same shoe in sizes
9, 9 1/2 and 10, keep one pair and return the other two.

On what planet?

The one we, if not you, live on. I just posted some clothes back to M&S
today ordered on just that basis (not shoes). They even pay the postage.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

In article , writes
All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

I'm not talking about debt collectors, I'm talking about a court.

I don't know what powers they have to take your money, but I suspect
it's somewhat higher than someone collecting on behalf of your landlord.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

In article , Recliner
writes
Consider the London borough of Brent, which has had the highest percentage
of excess deaths this year. Those excess deaths amount to 0.15% of the
population. So, even in the highest risk area, where an NHS hospital had to
declare an emergency, 99.85% did not die from the plague.

On the other hand, the excess deaths this year so far exceed the total
deaths from the Blitz and are about 70% of the total civilian deaths in
WW2.

(I accept the population is about 35% higher now.)

UK deaths from the "Spanish Flu" pandemic of 1919 were about 0.6% of the
population. We're currently at about 1/10 of that.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

In article , Charles Ellson
writes
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.

FSVO "We".

We, as a country, elected them. Being on the losing side sometimes is
part of the system.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

On 05/06/2020 20:19, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , writes
Well, the typical "try out" approach is to order the same shoe in sizes
9, 9 1/2 and 10, keep one pair and return the other two.

On what planet?

The one we, if not you, live on. I just posted some clothes back to M&S
today ordered on just that basis (not shoes). They even pay the postage.

I dare say they do. But I for one don't need the hassle. I want to go
into a shop, try something on, buy it if it fits, try another if it
doesn't. All done in a matter of minutes (or possibly longer if I get
talking..!)

And yes we have tried supermarkets, but the range is limited, especially
when it comes to shoes.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 05/06/2020 20:22, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , writes
All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make you
homeless by law.

I'm not talking about debt collectors, I'm talking about a court.

I don't know what powers they have to take your money, but I suspect
it's somewhat higher than someone collecting on behalf of your landlord.


You seem never to watch "Can't pay, they'll take it away" which follows
High Court sheriffs enforcing court orders. Note these are often County
Court orders which have been escalated as sheriffs have greater powers
than bailiffs.

They cannot take your house if you are the owner / mortgage holder but
they can take almost everything else worth money. There are limits, no
beds, cookers etc to allow you to live, but computers, TVs, cars are all
fair game.

--
Colin

"ColinR" wrote in message
...
On 05/06/2020 20:22, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
In article , writes
All your money. Not the company's - yours. All officers of the business
are subject to an unlimited fine.

I'd still risk it. Unlimited fines are meaningless if you only have a
small
amount of savings and debt collectors can't take your house and make
you
homeless by law.

I'm not talking about debt collectors, I'm talking about a court.

I don't know what powers they have to take your money, but I suspect
it's somewhat higher than someone collecting on behalf of your landlord.


You seem never to watch "Can't pay, they'll take it away" which follows
High Court sheriffs enforcing court orders. Note these are often County
Court orders which have been escalated as sheriffs have greater powers
than bailiffs.

They cannot take your house if you are the owner / mortgage holder but
they can take almost everything else worth money. There are limits, no
beds, cookers etc to allow you to live, but computers, TVs, cars are all
fair game.

Just because bailiffs (under any name) cannot take your house just by
knocking on your door with a court warrant

doesn't mean that there isn't a process for a creditor to apply for a court
order to take it, to satisfy the debt

HTH

tim





--
Colin

In article , ColinR
..co.uk writes
I'm not talking about debt collectors, I'm talking about a court.

I don't know what powers they have to take your money, but I suspect
it's somewhat higher than someone collecting on behalf of your landlord.


You seem never to watch "Can't pay, they'll take it away" which follows
High Court sheriffs enforcing court orders. Note these are often County
Court orders which have been escalated as sheriffs have greater powers
than bailiffs.

They cannot take your house if you are the owner / mortgage holder but
they can take almost everything else worth money. There are limits, no
beds, cookers etc to allow you to live, but computers, TVs, cars are all
fair game.

Oh, I've seen it. But they're enforcing a civil debt. I'm talking about
enforcing a criminal penalty. Different situation and, for all I know,
different laws apply.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/de...-debt/dealing-
with-urgent-debts/paying-a-court-fine/

"In extreme cases you could be put in prison, but normally only if the
court thinks you’re deliberately not paying."

That doesn't answer whether they can take your house, but I can't be
bothered to research further.

--
Clive D.W. Feather

On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 20:28:58 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Charles Ellson
writes
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.

FSVO "We".

We, as a country, elected them. Being on the losing side sometimes is
part of the system.

At least two other countries in the Union didn't elect them.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 20:28:58 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Charles Ellson
writes
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to do.

FSVO "We".

We, as a country, elected them. Being on the losing side sometimes is
part of the system.

At least two other countries in the Union didn't elect them.

They may not have voted for them, but they did take part in the process of
electing them. (Alas!)

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as
Spit the dummy to reply