Are You Actually Being Served? (x±)
Are You Being Served? (originally styled as “Are You Being Served?” in quotation marks) is a British sitcom created and written by Jeremy Lloyd and David Croft (Croft also directed some episodes), with contributions from Michael Knowles and John Chapman, for the BBC. Set in London, the show follows the misadventures and mishaps of the staff of the retail ladies’ and gentlemen’s clothing departments, in the flagship department store of a fictional chain called Grace Brothers.
Broadcast between 1972 and 1985 on BBC1, the sitcom itself spanned ten series totaling 69 parts – five of which are Christmas specials. Are You Being Served? was a great success in the UK and was also popular in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Israel. In the United States, it gained a loyal and enthusiastic following when PBS television stations began airing reruns of it in the mid 1980s, along with other British sitcoms.
In 2004, the sitcom was ranked 20th in the countdown of Britain’s Best Sitcom. It is regularly repeated worldwide (PBS and BBC America in the United States; and BBC UKTV in Australia and New Zealand).
The Australian version of Are You Being Served? was nothing short of utter rubbish, and as I have found, the court system there is similar…
The main issues stem from the fact that parties simply accept opinions as facts, and if more people appear to increasingly endorse them, the greater the ‘factual basis’. This phenomenon is know as the Bandwagon Fallacy:-
Make America Grate Again
The American Fake News and Anti-Trump sentiment is reaching fever pitch, and as these types of things happen to me all the time, I thought I would write a short article confirming the logical fallacies underlying this phenomenon and why things can escalate rapidly.
As such even before the matter is even ventilated, there is the predetermination of guilt, and a desire for judicial officers to align themselves with the ‘popular vote’ and/or ‘alternative facts’.
There is a massive element of ignorance and lack of general exposure to the real world. The courts and lawyers are of generally lower standard. When I correct them (especially in matters where there is a heavy forensic aspect) they just dismiss me without reason or brand me a trouble-maker 🙂
PUT IT THIS WAY, IF THEY WERE AS GOOD AS THEY PURPORTED THEN THERE WOULD BE NO 'TROUBLE' 🙂
There have been many cases which end up as ‘statistics for future cases’ where there has been a grotesque level of stupidity demonstrated by either the court admin staff or even the magistrates/judges themselves.
Additionally the decision-making and/or interpretation of the evidence is poor and most of the time it is the ‘tail wagging the dog’.
Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport
Historically, we have not commented on current or proposed litigation for reasons obvious enough. But when there is blatant Perversion of the Course ...
Actually I just looked at the above article from 09 August 2016 and the audio recordings relating to Bill Orow and Nick Sevdalis have gone, plus the YouTube videos!!
Yes my material is continually removed when I am spot on and my lawyers continually tell me that ‘you don’t have any evidence’ – of course I bloody do – just reading my LinkedIn articles alone confirm that!
And the latest Eversheds Sutherland stuff is priceless, because this is the signature theme of the lawyers in Singapore and Australia:-
Eversheds Exposed in 'Destruction of Rhodium Evidence' Case
20170613 updates in progress - watch the above video in HD... In really simple terms, a SPECIFIC IP address 18.104.22.168 is associated with ...
Specific Cases in which there have been Deficiencies Involving Service / Document Provision / Gross Negligence
(full evidence to being inserted)
Federal Court – ATO v Rhodium Australia won obviously, malfeasance by Moya Todd of the ATO as well as non-service of originating motion. A malicious Winding Up Petition,
County Court Victoria – DAB v JDS – an entire farce throughout replete with fraud – non-service of documents and I only found out by chance of the originating motion! In this case the Substituted Service, Security for Costs and Summary Judgment were all obtained fraudulently by Perjurious Affidavits!!
In any event contrary to the [fraudulent] belief, I am neither evasive nor elusive. These are just lies based upon incorrect Google Articles and it is simply not my personality type! As it happens I have spectacular evidence and that is why parties go to massive lengths to destroy it and even me 🙂
Perhaps if the Melbourne Fraudsters had not incited physical violence resulting in the infliction of criminal injuries against me then my timings would have been better?
I HAVE THE BRAINS AND THE BALLS TO DEFEND MYSELF AND WIN OBVIOUSLY. I AM HAPPY TO DO SO ALONE EVEN IF MY OWN PARENTS AND OWN LAWYERS ARE ANOTHER SET OF SAD FRAUDSTERS WHO IMPEDE MY PROGRESS AND DENY NATURAL JUSTICE AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS 🙂
Procedure for Service
The following screenshots are from the document entitled 20170617 Entities Domains E-mail.pdf
DON'T FORGET WHO HAS THE IRREFUTABLE FORENSIC EVIDENCE 🙂
Articles in this series:-
Joseph S R de Saram (JSRDS)