You’ve got it entirely wrong. LB made a concerted effort to post the diary on this site and posted 5 or 6 days of it before the op was ‘miserable usered’ - Dave’s get out clause for ‘’we didn’t ban them ‘’- making it impossible for any more to go up. So if you want to complain about other sites not sharing info just pm CAG administration. And just for the sake of clarity, again, all that was asked was for the post to attributed to the source - not an unresonable request. As the source could not be named due to the ‘filter’ it was just not possible and I ASKED you to remove it and you agreed. Remember? Quite why our Dave subsequently felt the need to unleash a tirade of rabid rantings god only knows.

Yes. Manipulating the LB site name and link being a perfect example.

I'm not sure that I said that someone else should do it but since your asking, you only need 3 minutes to watch him in action to reach that conclusion.

Wth respect as a publicly funded government department the OFT's limited budget simply wouldn't extend to hiring the services of a top ranked QC.

An old thread but a current topic.

Could you give some examples of any of these regular happenings?

You obviously have a privileged insight into the inner workings of the regulatory and judicial systems that transcends that of anyone I've come across. How did you manage it? I'd genuinely be interested to know.

I have no idea what this means but I'm past caring. I'll take Vortex's advice and get back on topic. Although they'll be no BBC test case coverage tomorrow it might be worth checking their site anyway re the 6 month anniversary of the waiver.

Ooops correction: It was 2 posts - the one that said ''Who is deleting my posts?'' never even made it on to the board but as you said you didn't moderate them it would be reasonble to assume you wouldn't know. I'd be interested to know why that post was moderated as didn't break any forum rules I'm aware of.

I was referring to posts in the plural in a present and historical context. Deleting a post insulting someone may be acceptable but not when CAG leaves one up that effectively accuses a high court judge is colluding in a conspiricy - a serious accusation - and one that is too ridiculous for words. Get a grip

Well it's a shame a particular user has had his posts moderated and dosn't want to post again. He was by far and away the most clued up user on the subject.

We're going round in circles again here. There are lots of reasons the OFT had to 'consult' the banks not least to get a written agreement for a speedy conclusion that would not allow the banks to drag the legal proccess out for decades which they undoubtedly would do otherwise. The FSA's waiver, although not untypical of them, cannot be attributed to a conspiricy as their decision was made independently of the OFT and in fact the OFT were unaware of it before it was announced. And to say ''the courts might just be going through the motions'' then Justice Smith should get 'best actor' at the next oscars.

For what it's worth here's my take on on it: 1) Although the judge has been thorough in probing the banks arguments and at times has been critical, the OFT are yet to set out their case so it’s difficult to form a balanced view. But I’d agree with most observers that on the basis of what we've seen so far the OFT are ahead on points. 2) The judge made it clear early on in the hearing that on giving his judgement - expected around May - he would make a recommendation to the County Courts on the matter of current stays and this he would do regardless of any appeal being made. However, on Thursday lead QC for all the banks, Laurence Rabinowitz suggested they would appeal the recommendation although I'm unclear as to what the legal position on this is. The OFT can’t influence the status of County Court stays this but the FSA can and the judge has asked the FSA’s legal representative at the hearing for the FSA’s stance. The banks are very keen to involve the FSA for obvious reasons. The waiver cannot exist without court stays and probably visa versa.

It was a fair point. And if I'm told stuff like the test case threads were moved to 'Campaign' on the strength that, on the unlikely outcome that the banks win, might become a campaign at some point in the future, I do find it difficult to be positive. But I'll continue in assisting others to fight back in my own way.

I'd say that to say it's merely ''important'' is probably stretching it a bit. Bank charges were the reason this site began. It wasn't formed as quit smoking group or am I missing something here? I'd also be interested to know why all the current test case threads have been moved to 'Campaign'. It's not a campaign issue.