Great news - couldn't happen to a nicer Bank Also, well done to EVERYONE who offered advice and support, you deserve a drink - and Martin3030 has told me that he will buy you all one - so it's a contract!

OK. I will in that case close the thread.

Firstly, it will depend upon the situation. If, for instance, a new user to the site (who should have read the site rules but probably wouldn't have) posts something which is believed to be worthy of editing, then it is very likely that they will be notified of the reasons. This would hopefully ensure that the user does not repeat the action. Since time is always at a premium, it might well be that the Site Team member makes multiple edits to a user's posts, or to several users, and then does not have time to contact each member immediately. Experience has shown us that a very small minority of users have no idea why their posts will be edited, or indeed any other actions taken against them. When a user has been given warning about their behaviour and they repeat the same or similar, then I don't suppose we will always consider it a good use of our time to spend even longer repeating ourselves, so posts may be edited, unapproved or otherwise and a message may not be sent. Sometimes, rather than sending a PM, Site Team members may only leave a short note on the bottom of a post. There is no formal requirement, as such. If the posts in question are of such a nature, or if there is a history, or if there are other things that I'm not prepared to share on an open forum, the posts will be reported first, and then edited or unapproved. This ensures that the actions of Site Team members are noted by the rest of the team. It also ensure that the Site Team are full aware of the process involved in any account moderation. Since we trust in the actions of the Site Team and since any edited or unapproving is trackable, there is no reason why an appeals process needs to be implemented for unapproved or edited posts. To do so would simply bog us down with unnecessary work. Where someone replies to a Team member and explains their actions, perhaps by offering a reason why they believe they have done nothing wrong, then that is generally shared with the Site Team as a whole. No. There would be very little point in placing people in a position of trust and asking them to carry out quite minor tasks, only to hinder them by seeking the agreement of another appointed member. If the implication is that Site Team members can carry out actions without the knowledge of the rest of the team, then the answer above clears this up. No. If we were to simply imply that 'only' the transgression of very specific things would result in action, then not only would we be compiling a very, very lengthy set of rules that even less people would bother to read, but we would also be making it quite clear that there could never be any action taken unless every last minute detail of the rule had been broken. We can't get into a position where we have to seek Counsel's opinion. Firstly, it is only ever really a contentious issue for the very tiny minority who find themselves moderated, or perhaps, at a push - for those who know of someone who has been moderated. We will never know if they get to hear the whole story... As to reassuring you that actions are only specific to post content, no - I cannot do so. For reasons which we - that is the entire team, not me personally - are not prepared to discuss openly, actions have and will continue to be taken which are not singularly attributed to post content. This does not mean, however, that any user's account would face sanctions merely because they had drawn an unlucky number in a sweep stake. I can only generalise, but as a rule a user will not face account moderation (this is the action by which their future posts will need to be approved before they are seen by everyone else) for slight and minor transgression of the site rules and they will be given warning about their conduct, allowing them an opportunity to put right the actions which have been highlighted to them. When I say "generally" I am also referring to the fact that a user might see their account moderated for minor actions, if they were to continually do so - so a build up of minor points might see this happen. This, however, is very rare. Users are typically moderated because they abuse other members of the forum, either openly or via PM, and continue to do so after a warning. Some are also moderated because of reports about their conduct which we believe is harmful to this site. I am not going to discuss individual examples and in fact we do not do this at any time. As a totally fictitious example, perhaps we may have received reports about users touting for business, or charging for items that you and I know to be free. Finally, accounts that are moderated will be known to the site team, but will not be published. When an account faces any form of moderation, other members of the Admin Team will be aware - this means that such actions can not be the result of a despot on Vodka. Much as I like Vodka... Moderation is not just the task of one person. Anyone who feels 'hard done to' can send a message to me, or any other member of the site team. They can also email Admin directly, and copies of this will be circulated. Again, despite a common misconception, the whole Admin team will know of the case. Rogue actions by an individual would be, at best, incredibly difficult to mask. It is also the case that some users simply will not accept that they might just have behaved like school kids and would rather spend their every waking minute attempting to change our minds about their behaviour, even though the evidence of it stares any right minded individual in the face. We will not please everyone, all the time. See site rules. We have done our best to highlight some specific actions which are not going to endear users to CAG. The most common problem, by a country mile, is because of users not following the basics of "...be respectful and reasonable to people...". Subsequently, the next biggest problem comes from: "Any attempts to avoid moderation". User Example01 thinks that it will be fine if they simply start a new account, usually as Example02. Others go to more elaborate lengths... We have also been less specific in the case of "The Group reserves the right to delete or edit any topic/post for legal or any other reasons" because this is very hard to quantify, as I explained above. Constable Savage does not operate here... "Now then, Savage, I want to talk to you about some moderating that you've been bringing lately. I think that perhaps you're being a little over-zealous." "Which charges did you mean then, sir?" "Well, for instance this one: 'Responding with too many capital letters.' Savage, maybe you're not aware of this, but it is not illegal to use a capital letter, neither is 'searching the forums' an offence." "Are you sure, sir?" "Also, there's no rule against 'Logging in at 1pm' or 'starting 2 threads each week' " You get the drift... I hope that your questions were answered in full.

2 posts removed. Please show some sense, offer advice on what you believe to be the evidence put forward, and not get carried away with very wild and disturbing allegations - it has no place on this site.

threads merged

Some posts removed - sorry if the above few replies seem odd now.

Because they play the percentages game. You are one of hundreds being taken to court and the chances are that 95% will do nothing, cave in and try and come to some agreement re: payment, or await the result of what they perceive to be a foregone conclusion in Court - not knowing they might be able to do something about it. Of the remaining "5%" some will try and defend but do it badly. There will then be a few that seek advice and take them on. You're in the last bit Their percentage game means that they don't need to worry (yet) about not having the paperwork needed - they win so many that the few who get away are, for the most part, irrelevant.

Nice work Gez - well done.

Moved to general issues... If it is correct that the teacher posted the picture / made the comment, then I think it was misguided. If this caused your daughter some embarrassment then they should be prepared to apologise for that. If it were me, I would approach the Head and outline my concern, but would make it clear that I'm not seeking any direct action against the teacher involved, merely highlighting the issue so that if there were previous cases of "misguided" actions, then at least the Head would be up to date with the actions of his staff. It seems more like the actions you would expect from a pupil (I don't mean this to suggest I think it WAS a pupil, I just state this to show how the action was perhaps inappropriate).

I will check with the powers that be ODC.

Edited posts: Please be aware that this forum is at risk when users make defamatory remarks about companies in the way they have on this thread. You can see from our announcements that legal action against us is not a myth! Please do not continue to make such remarks and stick purely to fact. Thank you...

Signed, great cause.

You are clearly miffed by this and I understand your point. However, misrepresentation, or illegal advertising, is not - in my opinion - what has happened here. Yes, by all accounts, the O2 contract seems to have been overpriced in that the same thing can be found cheaper directly with O2, but PC World like anyone else can offer any service or goods at whatever price they see as appropriate so long as their is demand. There is nothing wrong with offering an item or service at a price which is more expensive than can be found elsewhere. The problem here is that, unfortunately, you did not do enough homework on the deals being offered and wrongly believed that PC World would not wish to make money out of you (or words to that effect). I think, if you complain and manage to get something out of them, then you will have been very fortunate and should take whatever you can and run, especially if they offer something financial... IF the deal had been offered with specific wording to state that the contract price was only available at that price no matter where you shopped, you would have a case. I doubt that they would have been so foolish to suggest anything like that though. I do hope, however, that you come across a very generous store manager.

Happily corrected. I was under the impression that mobile phone contracts were not covered (I'm not talking about deals with phones, by the way, just a plain old mobile service provision). If there are factors involved which would mean that this is not true, might I ask you to highlight this in the sticky thread on this very forum (which I recall was made by Buzby)? Cheers j2b

They are correct in terms of the agreement, by the way. Mobile phone contracts are not subject to the CCA so there is no need for them to supply a copy in that manner. They should be willing and able to supply other documentation though.

Are we filming a new series of the Sweeney? The OP would just need to show them the tax disc...

I found this elsewhere.... Q I gave my employer 3 weeks notice, though my contract said one week. I thought I was being helpful to my employer, but she said she only needed me to give one weeks’ notice. I am not able to start my new job for another two weeks and am out of work now without money – should my employer not have kept me for the 3 weeks? A An employee is obliged by law to give a minimum of one weeks’ notice if they wish to terminate their employment. However, if the contract provides for a longer notice, they should give that notice period. Where an employee gives a longer notice period than is required in the contract of employment, the employer can either accept the longer notice period or indicate that they do not wish the employee to give longer than the contractual period. In this instance the contract would come to an end when the normal contractual notice period has been served. ***** The bits in red seem to cover the situation of them being able to decide on a period to match the contractual obligation, although - as Sidewinder asks above - if they had previously agreed to the longer term then you may have grounds for some action.

It's the notice that you have given the employer, not the other way around. I don't see how they can 'tell' you that they are altering it, but I will certainly try and seek clarification...

You mean you watch all that drivel? You can't compare the Licence fee since there's no option. What I was thinking of comparing for 'value for money' purposes was £12 for a freeview box and a reasonable range of channels, against £16 every month. I can't believe that Sky want to charge me £1 to include the pack that enables me to watch Sky Sports News, yet this is free on freeview. Rip off. I guess it depends on the channels you think are 'must have'...

I understand that Sky are currently offering people a 'credit crunch' deal for 3 months... If you phone up and say that money is tight and you are considering cancelling, you will hopefully get offered something. I don't recall being made aware directly about the increase, by the way, but I did see it mentioned elsewhere. I'm ending my long association with Sky soon, I just can't see the value unless you have it for football (and even then I wouldn't call if value, just essential!)

I would certainly think that has some grounding for a campaign, JC.

Just thought I would say... At the moment, there doesn't appear to be anything specific on which we can comment. If you decide upon a very specific kind of action and have some definitive plans, then by all means I can direct those to Admin. I would not advise dlc talking to HMCS about the involvement of CAG - that would be something the the owners of CAG would need to do. By all means if you wanted to ask about the possibility of placing some kind of literature within defendant's packs, go ahead. Be aware though, we are not a charitable organisation, CAG is owned by a Limited Company, so I can't see how they would view any literature as anything other than an advertisement of our site, however well intentioned it was. I also very much doubt that they would be permitted to do such a thing, although I don't know this for certain. If that is the general idea (it's pretty hard to tell from the preceding posts) then the funding would have to come from CAG and money is not freely available to do that. If the costs were being split between like-minded organisations, then each of those would feel the need to have their own site advertised on it, quite rightly, so what space you might have for a message after all that, I don't know. On the sort of figures mentioned already (again, not sure what these are based on, is it a guess?) then a million 1/3rd A4 leaflets would cost about £4-5000 ish. Where would they be stored before inserting into packs? You can see where this is going... I do not mean to mock, I just want to bring a little reality to the case before you get too excited. Thinking about plans like this is good, and despite what you might think of the above, we do encourage you. Without discussing ideas, you cannot find the perfect thing that could suit the whole range of issues we need to deal with. Just wanted to let you know we had seen you!

The date of action is a court claim, not a letter... sorry.

Nice find - you've been promoted to the stickies...

We know them well, browneyes As the above posts says, we need more info from you. They are notorious for claiming against debtors without due notice, and their claims leave a lot to be desired. The more you can tell us, the better... No need to phone them yet, let's get these things sorted so that you know what your real position is.