Zook Posted August 15, 2012 Share My request is quite simple.I had my teeth fixed and now have some gold fillings to sell. If that photo is of your fixed teeth, please never post the "before" picture. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted August 15, 2012 Share What an exciting and on the face of it legitimately good deal. Call it R3000 and I'll throw in my soul and then we have a deal. I should be able to turn a small profit on that. What can I say? Deal!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted August 15, 2012 Share If that photo is of your fixed teeth, please never post the "before" picture. That is all.Yes, my photo is of my new teeth,I now need to sell my gold fillings for hair straightener and I need money for botox on my lips to close the gap from my overbite. Edited August 15, 2012 by Dangle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerus Posted August 15, 2012 Share So what the actual victim had to say seems to have been lost on many people.... Sorry but anyone buying high end bikes from a Somali and claims "honest mistake" doesn't deserve all the accolades he is getting here.... This is what I can't get my head around, something just doesn't seem right. slowpoke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerus Posted August 15, 2012 Share I have asked Matt to close this thread and remove it as it is OBVIOUSLY not in any Hubbers interest tot "trade carefully until facts were posted". Sorry for confusing "arrested" with being bundled in the back of a cop van and then get your business aquaintance also picked up and bundled in the back of the van. I originally stated that the hubber in question should explain. He did - his "view" in any case... Just for the record - a brand new Apex with Ultegra and Quasar wheels etc for R2k would have set my alarm bells off - but hey that is only me. CptMayhem - I never "threatened violence". Your mate THe V on the other hand has a little legal problem coming his way. Once he grows a pair and answer my PM on his details on where ;letters can be served on him. No it is not a "threat" - merely stating a FACT. Happy trading and thx for the hubbers supporting me and honest business. I'm still asking myself the same question. I'm amazed how everyone just believed his story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranswurm Posted August 15, 2012 Share I'm still asking myself the same question. I'm amazed how everyone just believed his story. Not everyone Caerus, SwissVan, dracs and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HandH Posted August 15, 2012 Share Your comment was badly timed as it had been hammered at length before so I edited it. My editing was also badly timed. Apologies for my drawing skills. Friggin Noobs!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranswurm Posted August 15, 2012 Share As far as I know, being in posession of stolen goods is a punishable offence...No? There are probably various shades of grey here, but knowingly...yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerus Posted August 15, 2012 Share Then I must ask - why was that info also not included originally? It would have lent a bit more of an insight as to what "dodgy prices" were, and provided infinitely more basis for us to decide on the stories. Never was any mention made of the price that an item was bought at, and as I said before, threats were made (and thanks Naas for clearing that up for us - a threat of papers being served is clearly still a threat even though it contains no violent component, and I never suggested threats of violence - threats come in all shape and form) I still say that more information from the get-go would have been HIGHLY favourable. This would have helped immensely. I do not believe for one minute the story or explanation emanating from MacDaddy, but hey thats me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fastbastard Mayhem Posted August 15, 2012 Share This would have helped immensely. I do not believe for one minute the story or explanation emanating from MacDaddy, but hey thats me. Yeah. I don't think I said I believed him either, but weighing that up together with the abundance of information (larf) that we had at the beginning, the ire was mostly directed at Naas for with-holding information, or providing (seemingly) grossly inaccurate, sensationalist, information. EDIT: In addition to us wanting to know who to stay clear from, that is... Edited August 15, 2012 by cptmayhem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted August 15, 2012 Share Are you being facetious or just cracking a joke? A fence is someone who sells on stolen goods and this is also punishable by law I actually didn't know, so none of the above. Whould a fence include an agent, since the agent isn't really selling on stolen goods, but he's just the middle man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranswurm Posted August 15, 2012 Share I actually didn't know, so none of the above. Whould a fence include an agent, since the agent isn't really selling on stolen goods, but he's just the middle man. But he was selling on stolen goods..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reteid Posted August 15, 2012 Share being in possession of stolen goods is just a short way of describing this crime.whether someone is guilty of the offence or not should be judged on the definition being:"iemand wat in besit gevind word van ander goed as .....ten opsigte waarvan daar 'n redelike verdenking bestaan dat dit gesteelde goedere is en wat nie in staat is om voldoende rekenskap van sodanige besit te gee nie,is aan 'n misdryf skuldig en by skuldigbevinding strafbaar met die straf wat by 'n veroordeling weens diefstal opgele kan word."All these elements needs to be prooved and so the mere fact that you are in possession of stolen goods does not make you guilty of any offence.I do not choose either side as I do not have all the facts but use it don'tuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HandH Posted August 15, 2012 Share I found it interesting coming from a lawyers point of view, then I got to the Afrikaans bit and couldn't read any further. Ya fook Afrikaans is tough...especially the spelling part...& reading part....& listening part...& I'm a Dutchie born in Kempton WDF!!!! (wat die f**) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reteid Posted August 15, 2012 Share Ya fook Afrikaans is tough...especially the spelling part...& reading part....& listening part...& I'm a Dutchie born in Kempton WDF!!!! (wat die f**)one of the better things to come out of afr/eng household.afr father from uniondale and eng mother from a convant school.going to the NGK in the mornings and the Methodist the evenings.playing rugby with some mates and surfing with the dudes on other days.going to dual medium school and then grad from UCT.In short i said that being in posession just the abreviated way of talking and the definition is being in posession of goods presumend to be stolen without having a reasonable explanation for the posession constitutes the offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted August 15, 2012 Share Topic Closed The original topic has been discussed in full and appears to have been settled. With respect to all parties involved this will now be closed. If any further comments are to be made on the issue the thread will be re-opened. PM me if necessary. TheV 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts