- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 14,025
- Reaction score
- 61,215
link for podcast againToday's podcast just dropped, haven't listened to it yet
Google Podcasts is no longer available
podcasts.google.com
link for podcast againToday's podcast just dropped, haven't listened to it yet
Google Podcasts is no longer available
podcasts.google.com
The hospital may not have accepted a large cash payment from her even if she did have sufficient cash and I think it’s even less likely they’d have taken payment in cash without seeing some form of ID which would obviously be problematic for her.“A very posh woman who says she's on holiday in the UK, an ex pat, whatever, I can think of loads of posh related cover stories which would have allowed her to give birth in a hospital and not be immediately leapt on by social services.”
People not resident or working in the UK are not entitled to free NHS treatment except immediate A&E. As an expat or holidaymaker she would have been asked for payment , so unless she had loads of cash in her, that would have meant a traceable card.
The traveller story enabled her to claim resident status without proof of address.
Ah, I see what you're saying. My understanding was that while on the run she had payments coming in which were equivalent to the annual salary of your average person. Whether those were very regular (monthly) or less regular (annual) I'm working off the basis that they were automatic, rather than that they had been specifically requested from the trust at that time. But you're right, I'm not sure that information has been released.
Thank you. Now they believe I’m over 18 I’ve finally got to listen to it.link for podcast again
Well she wasn't in court Thursday and Friday and didn't even bother to watch the proceedings on a video link which was offered to her. Such strange behaviour.Do we know if CM is physically present in court this morning?
She was in conference with her legal team according to the judge. Perhaps they're considering applying for a writ of mandamus.Well she wasn't in court Thursday and Friday and didn't even bother to watch the proceedings on a video link which was offered to her. Such strange behaviour.
She was in conference with her legal team according to the judge. Perhaps they're considering applying for a writ of mandamus.
It's my old-fashioned way of referring to what's now called a mandatory order, which in this context is an order by a higher court to a lower court to do something. They're rare. But e.g. if there is a huge dingdong battle over whether certain evidence is admissible or over some other decision by the trial judge... I don't mean to suggest this is likely, but I do assume that what the judge said was true, namely she has been away from court because she is conferring with her legal team. The only reason to do that is to discuss a possible action.What does that mean please?
5 | T20237104 | constance marten mark alton gordon | |||
|
Meth is very rare in the UK, we don't have a big user base for it here outside of certain sexual/party subcultures so its never taken root here. It is very common in Florida though. Just food for thought.I didn't know anything about making meth until today.
Apparently meth labs can be and are run in all sorts of places, including car boots, and they can and do start fires.
Which may or may not be germane in this case.
The story of the car fire on the M61 was dramatic and the finding of the placenta in the burnt-out shell was even more so. The original story was that a woman had probably given birth on the back seat of the car, where there was not only a placenta but also "other signs of childbirth". This was before CM's name was published.
I took the prosaic view that the fire was caused solely by the car being an old banger that should never have been on the road, but who knows? I wonder what the cause of the fire is recorded as by the insurer (if there was one), or the fire service, or police, or whoever else is supposed to investigate such things, if anyone is.
Oops, yes. (And I've only just trained myself too to stop using the number for the previous year, well into January, sometimes even February!)19 December to 27 February = just over 2 months, not three
He was supposed to check in weekly at least IMO wherever he was located
Part of the evidence given ( not reported by The Argus but available within the Podcast - link given again below in post 843 ) stated that after C and M were evicted from a flat in London, they lived in a camper van. They accumulated thousands of £ in fines for the van. C asked her family to pay these fines but they refused.
An interesting contrast with the trust fund payments which we know she received in December and January.
the jury heard that on 22 December 2022, Ms Marten received a payment into her Metrobank account of £15,590 from a family trust fund.
On January 3 2023, another payment was received from a different trust, this time for £3,400.
www.telegraph.co.uk
I am surprised they didn’t block her payments while she was on the run.
It's my old-fashioned way of referring to what's now called a mandatory order, which in this context is an order by a higher court to a lower court to do something. They're rare. But e.g. if there is a huge dingdong battle over whether certain evidence is admissible or over some other decision by the trial judge... I don't mean to suggest this is likely, but I do assume that what the judge said was true, namely she has been away from court because she is conferring with her legal team. The only reason to do that is to discuss a possible action.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.