The Way Forward.

[renegotiation]

I made a post on another thread, but wish to start a new thread so that thread doesn't get pulled off topic at all. Here is the post:

 

 

'Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims! It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case? From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down. I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me. ***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!*** Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!! '

 

 

Now, can anyone dispute anything I have said and on what grounds? Does anyone agree with all that I have said? I couldn't class myself as an expert on all of this, but it seems pretty straightforward to me! They have us running round in circles. All we need to do is push on with the original claims. All their lies crumble if you see the truth. Challenge your County Courts people and don't let them off the hook! The Supreme Court ruling has absolutely nothing to do with your cases. Feck!

[renegotiation]

Lol mate some serious frustration coming out there!

 

Can you explain in some more detail:

 

Why the original POCs are still valid - seems like rejection in Supreme Court minimises the chances of success at CC level?

 

How anyone has any chance of success against a bindinig precedent from a higher court?

 

From what I know, the Supreme Court was not making a judgement on any of the stayed cases whatsoever. It was making judgement on whether the OFT had the power to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law. What has the Supreme Court judgement got to do with the POC that anyone has? Absolutely naff all. Someone tell me in plain English. You are all being led on a merry dance by the banks, the controlled mass media and the corrupt Establishment. Don't sit there people. Write to your courts and ask for an explanation. I guarantee they will not be able to offer a response. ACT NOW OR YOUR CHANCES WILL DIMINISH FURTHER OF EVER GETTING A PENNY. I will be happy to pen a letter on request, but it's all pretty simple from what I can make out. I see that even the trolls and shills have stayed away from this thread. I wonder why...

 

P.S. This is what they have lined up for YOU in the next 10 years. Compulsory id. cards, cashless society, complete E.U. integration, more erosion of trial by jury and much, much more. Make a stand on this now. It's a start and you clearly have the law on your side. Think i'm joking? I wish I was!

[renegotiation]

Supreme court ruled that bank charges cannot be tested for fairness pursuant to the UTCCRs. Is this the narrow point of law youre referring to?

 

The Supreme Court said that the ***OFT*** couldn't 'investigate' on those grounds. That doesn't stop someone proceeding with their case from what I know. The bank will still need to submit a defence in the County Court. Do you see where i'm coming from? The test case could have offered up an en masse positive, but not a negative.

Edited January 25, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

I think the Supreme Court judgement was very crafty and sly. Didn't you notice how they didn't even refer to the County Court cases? Why didn't they just say this:

 

'We find thus and all those County Court cases should now be struck out.'

 

Why didn't they? They only referred to the OFT from what I can remember. Why haven't the County Courts said they ARE all struck out? I have some things to do. I will reread it and post back later.

[renegotiation]

First and foremost, I reiterate I am in no doubt that this was a huge Establishment stitch up. I will eat my hat if I see Bankfodder saying any different. He may well be more selective with his vocab though. If anyone doubts that I think they need some sort of psychiatric attention. An amoeba could figure it out. Anyhow, on with the nitty gritty.

 

 

 

Same mate, illl have a read of the judgement.

 

Allowing for the fact that the legal profession is largely inhabited by complete morons infinitiely less intelligent than myself, Lord Phillips included, who are nothing more than well trained parrots - BENT ONES IN THE CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT - I have to admit I am not a legal expert. However, I will say the following. I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court was supposed to be ruling on the jurisdiction of the OFT. The term 'jurisdiction' has been used at different stages during the test case. I believe, as mentioned, that the test case was going to allow for an 'en masse positive outcome', but not a 'negative outcome' for individual cases. Now that it hasn't been resolved the stays should be lifted and the banks obliged to submit a defense as was the case pre-stay. That's my view on it.

 

 

 

Yourbank, you make some fair points here and there, but you strike me as a 'gatekeeper' who is guiding us down the road to ultimate failure. I notice you haven't yet added your support to the 'March For Fairness' thread. Why not? You are not for a peaceful protest against all this corruption? It's just a few threads down this page if you can't find it.

 

It isn't up to the Supreme Court to make reference to individual cases which if you read paragraph 81 would indicate that they would perhaps favour the individual claimant over a collective challenge which was what the OFT attempted to do.

 

That's a good one and could go in a letter to a County Court. I see no harm whatsoever in pressuring our County Courts with some brief letters. That's just a few minutes of someone's time. My folks had some 'small' unresolved complaints, but nothing in the court system. I am not able to send a letter myself. I am not f**king here for money or personal gain. I am here as a citizen of this country who cares. An alien concept to many of the mofos who rules us.

 

 

 

Paragraph 61 of SC Judgement:

"As it is, if the Banks succeed on the narrow issue, this will not close the door on the OFT’s investigations and may well not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges."

 

What did they mean by this if this did not involve the "myriad of cases that are currently stayed"?

 

It means that the door was closed on future OFT investigations, which they knew full well when they read the judgement! However, it does not directly address the current impact of their verdict on individual cases. Why not? For the record, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing anything legally without feedback from the site team who are obviously on our side. In my opinion, something is up for discussion here though. Or are we just going to lie down and be run over? It's all a big childish game and we are being lined up for a checkmate...

Edited January 26, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

The wording of the stays themselves dictate what happens next and that is CPR rules. If the claimant chooses to ask for their case to be heard then there is an application cost.

 

That's not the same as the Supreme Court directly ruling on it.

 

Furthermore, I would suggest that the wording you have used for the supreme court is potentially libellous.

 

I maintain that the Supreme Court ruling was BENT. Like it or lump it.

 

You have labelled the legal profession(please remember there are members of site team who are in the legal profession and you are calling them morons' as well)

 

You have just been libellous towards me haven't you? I used the term 'largely inhabited' and you have conflated that with painting them all with the same brush. Not so i'm afraid.

 

 

Explain what I am doing and how am I leading anyone down to ultimate failure?

 

It's called 'gatekeeping'. Sending people in the wrong direction and controlling the agenda. Everyone knows the banks have people on this site. You seem to be very pro-Establishment and supposedly ignorant of corruption despite an amoeba being able to see it. I find that bizarre considering you are supposed to be an ex-insider. I find it suspicious.

 

 

I haven't yet seen what the March is about, when it is taking place, what time, location. Where it is marching to and who it is against and who is endorsing it. Can you define support? So far I have given opinions which I continue to give when people want to arrange something mass market, ie media attention and unique selling point. I have dealt with the media to get them interested in various stories and their response is really about what is unique about the story. Currently you need that something where the press say "you cannot but cover it".

 

Support and awareness is precisely what I am currently try to gain.

 

Again you say "corruption" yet where is the evidence for this since again the statement is potentially libellous to say so.

 

You do live on the same planet as me?

 

I should add "march for fairness" is a pretty good title for the march.

 

Well ok, but i'm not fussed what it is called.

 

 

This is the reason why I have said that if you are not prepared or able to do so yourself then wait until the advice of the site comes up with a solution because suggesting people challenge the logic of the decision could lead to it being seen as an application to lift a stay already in place and that may cost people money. Without doubt, I understand your sentiments but we cannot mess around with other people's money and I do not want to see people losing because we advise them something that is NOT endorsed by site team.

 

How on earth can you say that when in the very next paragraph I say the following:

 

It means that the door was closed on future OFT investigations, which they knew full well when they read the judgement! However, it does not directly address the current impact of their verdict on individual cases. Why not? For the record, I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone doing anything legally without feedback from the site team who are obviously on our side. In my opinion, something is up for discussion here though. Or are we just going to lie down and be run over? It's all a big childish game and we are being lined up for a checkmate...

 

You expect to be taken seriously? Please. I have pushed the issue of writing to the County Courts, which is harmless and not time consuming, but I have not deviated from the line that I am only raising something for discussion here!

 

 

renegotiation, there are case that are currently going through the legal process, live cases not words on a page like we are doing. Those cases will determine the approach we will have on the future cases.

 

We all know where that is going to lead though don't we...

 

 

Have you read Bookworm's post which explains to you that the LEVEL of the charges as an argument is no longer valid on individual claims? If not then you try hunting for it on the threads(for helpful advice: it was made today).

 

Well that is what the Banks are trying to sell us backed up by the Establishment. I still maintain that the case was supposed to be about the jurisdiction of the OFT and some lines have been blurred along the way.

 

 

At the moment, i would say to be cautious because Rome wasn't built in a day and we have got to be clear on how to argue the case than rush in and simply say "you morons are corrupt". Those same morons will be the ones who will decide if claimants win or lose.

 

They have already decided that i'm afraid. I honestly think you are a 'gatekeeper'. You can argue all you like.

Edited January 27, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Everyone, you heard it here first. There are going to be no refunds through the courts. If a new POC is devised they are going to be watching like hawks to get a new set of stays and that argument will just end up going the same way as the old argument. Why? I'll tell you why. It's because the banks are in bed with the Establishemnt and are BENT. There you go folks. Don't say no one told you so when you get 'Wiggy Phillips' telling you the same thing in 2 years. His speech will of course go thus:

 

'Hear ye, hear ye. This verdict is not about whether bank charges are fair or not. I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your royal rogering and absolve myself of all responsibility. However, you still aren't getting any money back so **** off home peasants!'

 

And everyone lived happily ever after.

Cheers.

Baron Renog.

 

P.S. You have all been charged £20 for reading this post and consider yoursleves damn lucky it isn't more you chavs!

Edited January 27, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

At the end of the day, what an example that is being set. I am 24 years old and I for one can say that my peers are becoming more and more astute and using every angle they can to cheat the system and cheat their way out of their responsibilities. Their attitude is that if its good for the Goose - you know the rest. Our society is becoming one based on those who suceed are the ones that are the best cheats. For many of you, I'm probably not breaking new ground here and pointing out anything you didn't already know but where will it end?

 

It seems to be that everyones attitude to paying bills and the like is that I am paying this money because I can't get out of not paying it. Not that I am paying this money because it is owed. That is the example that we are being set!

 

TFT

 

Society is morally sick. A significant proportion of the population are dumbed down and brainwashed by the mass media. The people at the top need to be good people. The situation is indeed dire. I don't think i'm being melodramatic in the slightest. One can argue and debate about how deep the consiracy goes, fine, but the elites are conspiring for complete control. A lot of people have woken up because of the internet in the last few years, but not enough. They are hastening their agenda and that's the truth. No one take my word on this. Think about it. It may be too late.

 

I am for mass peaceful demonstrations all over the country outside any bank, town hall, council etc.. If we tried for a mass single march the powers that be would derail it and send in their goons to start a riot with their own officers. I will ask for my 'March For Fairness' thread to be moved to the 'Campaign' section and see what I can contribute on Caro's thread.

 

P.S. Two litttle gems. How is Lord Mandelson, unelected, pretty much running our country? How is Baroness Cathy Ashton, unelected, the E.U. foreign minister? She's never been elected to anything in her life. WTF!

 

Another thing, you could probably see the Prime Minister caught shagging kids at an after school club nowadays and some smiling female newsreaders would just spin it away!

Edited January 27, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

hi reneg (ade) (otiation), I agree with much of all you say... but as individuals we can not fight the establishment....

 

MP's expenses is a big example(do we expect any of them in jail), chilcott enquiry(huge waste of money what will actually be end result will blair go to jail).... Bank charges is just another example of wool over the masses eyes...

 

I am not sure personally of the best way forward but I do agree it needs to be direct action... see my post 22.... Please dont waste time arguing with each other and try and spend time finding ways of taking fight to this establishment....This is a democratic country run by the media, mass interest multiplies rapidly... we need to set up a political party (cost £500) called none of the above... and get people to vote for none of the above.... what do you think I have mentioned on many threads... imagine interest we could get we might even get a slot on question time....

 

I agree we can't just lie down. I will get on Caros' thread.

 

Oh and don't doubt that some junior spook reads this stuff. Come and march with us you little toerag. Don't hide behind your keyboard. Or do you support the banks?

[renegotiation]

yourbank and renag !!!!! good banter there but please let's call it quits now and agree to differ. The Way Forward pleeeeeeeeeeeese:cool:

 

Is ok, we're both adults.

[renegotiation]

They didn't rule on stays and no advice went from the Master of the Rolls(the judge in charge of County courts).

 

As I said, that's still not the same as the Supreme Court ruling on it.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court ruling had some positives for consumers so if it was so bent it would have closed ALL avenues for reclaiming which clearly it didn't.

 

I have previosuly addressed that issue in the following post:

 

This is my take on it. The Supreme Court was trying to save some face and the OFT won't take on another case. The British Bull**** Corporation is already sending out subtle messages that the 'OFT might not have the heart for another case'. Maybe they have been brought into line? We'll see won't we...

 

 

 

 

I cannot libel you by saying that I believe your post to be libellous because it is an opinion from your words which I take back based on the fact that I misread the post. I still think it is questionable in nature but I take back the potentially libellous bit back on that point.

 

 

You still think it is questionable in nature? I used the term 'largely inhabited' and you took it to mean 'all of'. I don't find that ambiguous in the slightest and I don't think I am being frivolous at all. I think you need to reconsider your opinion. Furthermore, I thought it interesting that, as well as misrepresenting my words, you tried to throw a spanner of division between me and the site team. You tried to make out I was speaking ill of them. I find that a bit suspicious.

 

 

 

Almost 12 months to the day I was suspended for leaking information to the press from bank documents.

 

Yes, and JFK got shot by a lone gunman. So, you are a heroic citizen then? I find it bizarre how you seem very reluctant to add your name to the list of those calling for mass peaceful demonstrations. Why on earth wouldn't you? It really doesn't make sense to me. I reckon you may still be with the banks. I am suspicious that your remit is to gain the trust of the site team and try to influence their actions.

 

 

 

I do not believe in paranoia which from first hand experience is generally unfounded. Believing that the banks' know more than they do actually know does give them more credit than they deserve. Furthermore, I don't see corruption

 

M.P.'s expenses, corrupt Lords, a promised referendum not delivered and illegal wars where more than a million innocents have died. Perish the thought that the Establishment might have been corrupted by the banks. I must be insane! Get my padded cell ready!

 

 

 

I have no idea how you see me as pro establishment when I continue to do things with regards to enabling people to "reclaim their rights" across all forums and that is in spite of those people who continue to say the bank won the OFT test case. You are not the first who does not like the way I post, and I doubt you will be the last but all I would say is that at the end of the day we have the same goal on the bank charges side of things--to make sure people get their money back.

 

Like I said, people will not get their money back without mass peaceful demonstrations. End of story. I will lick turd of your boots if that happens. Even if you believed they had a chance, which I definitely don't, I still don't understand why you wouldn't put your name down in support of mass peaceful demonstrations. That just doesn't tally with your stated desires in my view. I reiterate, I am stunned you deny awareness of Establishment corruption and how this could be linked with the banks and then make yourself out to be someone folk should listen to. Absolute poppycock. I don't believe you.

 

 

 

As I said elsewhere. I'll take a look.

 

As I said, make sure you get your name down on the list in support of mass peaceful demonstrations.

 

 

 

Is that a no to evidence?

 

See all the examples of corruption I have given above.

 

 

 

The title is pretty mass market which is why I have said that.

 

Ok, good, i'll stick with that then.

 

 

 

yes we have a claimant on penalty charges forum who has fought off a Yorkshire Bank strike out yesterday. They have 6 weeks to amend their POC.

 

As I said, there will not be mass payouts without mass peaceful demonstrations. We will see though, won't we...

 

 

 

I think even Bookworm would have stated that in her post cos she is not a gatekeeper(now I kinda get it) nor is she pro Establishment.

 

I have never referred to Bookworm as being a 'gatekeeper'. LOL. I do maintain that this case was supposed to be about the jurisdiction of the OFT and some lines have been blurred along the way.

 

 

 

Renegotiation, if I am a gatekeeper then can you tell me what my agenda is(cos I clearly don't know)?

 

A 'gatekeeper' is someone working for the opposition who is keeping a close eye on what the other side is doing. They would try to control and influence the other side as much as possible. They would try to send them down cul de sacs and nudge them towards, and condition them to accept, ultimate failure. A bit like Grima Wormtongue.

 

I know full well the banks would try and send their people in amongst us and the folk of the other dissenting sites. I just don't trust you. Tell me, as you claim you are not one of them, do you doubt that the banks would do something like that?

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Come on, I know the legal profession is not perfect but you do realize it takes YEARS to become a solicitor or a barrister don't you? That there is a reason that the law lords are all old. They know a lot about the law and it was the law they were ruling on. I may not like it, you may not like it, but that's the rub.

 

It is largely a profession of parroting from what I can make out. 'Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly' If you have the power, then you can read 'the law' to suit your agenda. Don't be so naive.

 

 

 

Your comments in relation you yourbank show how out there your opinions are. He's the guy what got dismissed for HELPING people reclaim charges. He goes on MSE too to help, in his own time for no reward.

 

I don't always agree with yourbank but I see Cagger since : Jun 2008 Posts: 4,474, I believe over 10000 posts on MSE, oh and he was on CAG before by a different name. So we're talking 20,000 posts. That's a HELL of a lot of time an effort to defend an ex employer wouldn't you say?

 

I have explained in my previous post what I suspect of him. Beware of banks bearing gifts, especially ex-employees.

 

 

 

If the legal system was bent wouldn't the case have fell at the first hurdle? Why were the banks visibily stunned by the outcome?

 

I said the Establishment and the Supreme Court, when influenced, were bent. Some judges may well be to. That doesn't make the whole 'legal system' bent and I have never said that. The banks may well have been stunned at the outcome of the High Court case because their arrogance knows no bounds. They soon got it fixed though didn't they... The Supreme Court, per se, was just a massive stitch up for our democracy full stop.

 

 

 

At the end of the day people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to beleive. I don't see a consipracy and I am a human.

 

I see what my common sense tells me. If it's a conspiracy, then it's a conspiracy. If it isn't, then it isn't. There are many conspiracies in this world of ours. It's just a case of separating the wheat from the chaff. I usually call things out in advance and I haven't been wrong yet. That must make me lucky or crazy of course...

 

THERE WILL BE NO MASS PAYOUTS. READ, DIGEST, COMPREHEND. I KNOW SO.

[renegotiation]

I'm getting bored (and annoyed) by this thread - and beginning to wonder if it's renogiation that has a hidden agenda - in his trojan horse?

 

I don't think you can get much more of an open agenda than writing to County Courts; discussing the validity of the Supreme Court verdict; and mass, nationwide, peaceful marches, but hey ho! If you are getting 'bored and annoyed' I find it bizarre that you keep on reading. Just my opinion.

 

 

 

I think a march is a naff idea - it would be a PR disaster for those in genuine hardship - expensive and time consuming to participate - and actually what inconvenience or expense would it cause the banks?

 

Everyone is free to make up their 'own mind' on that aren't they? Quite how you can label the public exercising their right to peaceful protest as a PR disaster is beyond me. The motive is clearly to let the government know that the public won't stand for these rip off charges any more.

 

 

 

Only the tax payer would be out of pocket! It would just portray CAGGERS as a crowd of immature leftie agitator debt avoiders - either unemployed (i.e on benefits) or who can afford to take a day off work - whilst avoiding debts.

(NB This is not my view of CAGGERS - but how I think this would be preceived by Joe Public)

 

The tax payer would be out of pocket? Oh dear, I won't even get into that one with you considering the last few years. This isn't a march just for CAGGERS. This is a mass, nationwide march for the public. Otherwise, there would be little point doing it as it wouldn't achieve anything!

 

 

 

IMO a much more effective protest would be for several thousand pretty well identical letters to be sent on the same day to all the UK banks rebutting their recent "ha ha we won" letters and asking for consideration to repay unfair charges under the alternative UTCCR issues identified by the SC -with copies e-mailed to all our individual MP's and John McFall. They would have 8 weeks to respond - and if we were not satisfied with their responses then the same number of complaints would end up with FOS - costing the banks £400 -£500 a time. THAT would hurt and annoy them! Ideally I would like CAG to prepare a template for this - so we get it right and leave no loopholes for them to wriggle through.

 

The F.O.S. would deal with that as a 'special case' and just respond accordingly. It wouldn't cost them £400-£500 a time and I am doubtful if this is what it actually costs them anyway. I have raised that issue on another thread already. They will wriggle through alright. I am not against more letter writing and emailing though, especially to M.P.'s and the County Courts.

 

 

 

However, in any case, would anyone still thinking of using this thread - and forum - to score petty personal points which risk bringing the whole of CAG into disrepute please STOP now? These posts are neither funny, entertaining nor informative and just show that some people have too much time on their hands!

BD

 

I will continue to respond as I see fit. I don't find this situation 'funny or entertaining' at all. I find it very serious and alarming. If you don't find ideas revolving around a march as 'informative', then I politely suggest you look elsewhere for your stimulation.

 

 

 

These posts are neither funny

 

I'm very relieved to hear that. They aren't supposed to be.

 

 

 

I've just received MSE's email and I see he is meeting with the OFT next week to discuss the way forward with the banks. It is mentioned MSE and consumer groups opinions are needed. Is CAG involved with this? I have already signed up to the Which petition;)

 

All lobbying and action helps and I am for it. I am sure that we will not get any real change without mass, public, peaceful protests though.

 

Still no sign of Yourbank showing his support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. How bizarre. Could it be that he is actually against doing the one thing that might actually make a real difference? It certainly seems that way to me. Just as I predicted, yet again...

Edited January 28, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

I'm an ex-employee too, when I heard about yourbank being dismissed for gross mis-conduct I thought there but for the grace of God go I. Of course I don't believe I disclosed the contents of any confidential documents. However I did point people in the right direction in terms of the refunds which are given as a one off in particular circumstances.

 

I also believe I would've fallen foul of some term in the contract, the exact wording of which escapes me, but the gist of it was not doing anything agains the interests of the employer.

 

Frankly it concerns me that you have based your opinion on a person based on you seeing them on a thread. If you post a lot its difficult to keep track of threads.

 

In my opinion, I find Yourbank not supporting the notion of peaceful protest as very suspicious. I have also seen some of his comments on other threads that make me suspicious. That's my view.

 

 

 

FYI the Supreme Court just the other day ruled AGAINST the government, it happens a lot in relation to human rights and terrorism type things. Although I suppose you could use that as yet more evidence of the consipracy, they're so clever they've made this ruling just to confuse people, even though it will cause huge costs for the government.

 

I'm talking about the Supreme Court decision regarding the banks, not the government. Anyhow, even if the Supreme Court sided with the government on EVERYTHING, then the biggest village idiots would be suspicious. Corruption and peer pressure can be very subtle. I'm not for one minute saying they sat in a room with the banks and explicitly made a plan!

 

 

 

Now here's my, slightly less knee-jerk and alarmist view of what has occured. We in the campaigned convinced ourselves that the charges levied were penalties under the common law and statute. This view was re-inforced by the banks continued committment to avoiding having this tested in a court of law by making multiple refunds totalling vast sums of money. It turns out this is not the case. Other arguments were pointed out in the test case. Maybe you are right that individuals can still use the own arguments, for my part I'll be looking at all the options just in case.

 

It turns out it wasn't the case because the 'Supreme Court said so'. I'm saying it was a BENT decision. My view is indeed alarmist, but not knee-jerk. I half expected it, but my jaw still dropped when the verdict was read out. It's odd that the OFT didn't take it to Europe isn't it?

 

Level 1 - High Court - Wrong decision. Keep going!

Level 2 - Court Of Appeal - Wrong decision. Keep going!

Level 3 - Supreme Court - Right decision. Stop the case!

Level 4 - European Court. Not needed!

 

Not to mention that the High Court dismissed an argument and that wasn't appealed at all! How is it we are supposed to have any faith in the High Court having got that bit 'right' if they got the other bit 'wrong'? Ah, I know, that bit was 'right' for the banks. No need to take that argument any higher up the chain then. All seems unbiased to you does it?!

 

 

 

I am VERY disappointed that the charges were not seen as penalties as I know very well that is what they are, in the ordinary everyday use of the word. So do the banks, and even the pro charges brigade some of whom argue dammit the charges should be higher!

 

Well, we certainly agree on that. Who argues it should be higher? I have not heard that one before.

 

 

 

Whilst we're dithering over what to do I will be writing to my MP again, the OFT and the FSA. I think the government has been spineless on this issue. A new law is badly needed to ensure an admin fee is just that.

 

That's all great stuff and I do support it. Unfortunately, as our government and democracy isn't fit for purpose I don't see any success.

 

 

 

I'm also going to write to the OFT asking why they have not referred the matter to the competition commission given the striking similarity between all providers charges prior to the test case. I am also going to suggest, as a stop gap, that the banks should NOT be permitted to apply charges to the account. This is the single most damaging thing they do apart from the level the charges are set at as it starts a snowball some people simply cannot stop. Given that they sneaked a win by arguing that the are fees for a service then they should invoice seperately for them like any other service provider.

 

I raised that competition argument with Dave 2 years ago. For people that just can't afford these charges a stop gap will do nothing, but it's still positive action I agree. Good stuff.

 

 

 

Actually dobut my MP will care much, he's standing down, maybe I'll approach the candidates instead.

 

The whole party political system isn't fit for purpose. Our democracy needs a complete overhaul! We need to be voting for independent candidates.

Edited January 30, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

My take on everything is that the Supreme Court verdict seems to have left the attack on banks looking a little fractured. When we had the OFT to get behind everyone with an interest had a single area in which to concentrate their energies. However, the situation has somewhat changed. It might be preferable for claimants in hardship to go the FOS route, whilst others with small claims might get a victory in the County Court by forcing banks to settle before a hearing on the commercial interest basis. The issue at hand is we need to co-ordinate this attack. I don't know what has happened with Ray Cox QC but I can understand it is difficult to get these things moving. In the mean time, I have drafted a letter which I will send to my bank. My claim is only £35 but would anyone like me to share it on the forum - I would be happy to do so?

TFT

 

Excellent post, especially what I have highlighted in bold. Unfortunately, I don't see any success with the Supreme Court waiting for us at the end of the road. We need to get off our arses and on to the streets. They do want they want to us because they get away with it. It's so obvious. Let's face it, all of these charges need SCRAPPING COMPLETELY. Overdrafts should be subject to a rate of interest only and that needs to be regulated. All the other charges are just fantasies, apart from returned cheques. I often think that if we hadn't let this get so bad we might not be having such a hard fight now. Our government should have sorted this out a long time ago. The people we bloody elected to represent us can do it, but they don't it. I know why.

 

P.S. Yes, I am a really dangerous anarchist dreaming of a fair banking system where I don't get ripped off like a mofo... LMFAO.

Edited January 30, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

I read in the hope of learning something. To assume there is nothing in value in an unread piece is the first step to ignorance and intolerance.

 

Ok, well now we have discovered, admittedly through the 'process of your continued reading' in search of enlightenment, that you are bored and annoyed. It would indeed 'now' be bizarre if you kept on reading then. Just my opinion.

 

 

 

I remember how "peaceful marches" have been perceived over the last 40 years. They never succeed. Swamping MP's, judges, bank CEO's etc. with letters would achieve more at lower cost.

 

I think this is something the whole nation can unite on. Even those fortunate enough to avoid these charges can see how truly monstrous they really are. If the protest is big enough it WILL work.

 

 

 

Why cost te taxpayer even more now? Your last sentence is spot on apart from "otherwise"!

 

Because success is worth it. If it looks like there isn't the interest, then I wouldn't be for it. I think the bank charge sites need to lead the campaign. Eventually, they will get an idea of the interest generated.

 

 

 

It's a free country. You keep writing rubbish and I'll keep reading it. I have not yet found it stimulating but I live in hope.

 

Ah, so you concede there is hope then. Good stuff. That's what I like to hear.

 

 

I disagree. What mass protests have been successful? - G8 or G20 protests? the miners' strike? CND?

 

These were not nationwide, mass protests, not even the miners' strike. I'm talking about a real, nationwide, mass protest.

 

 

 

Maybe Yourbank has more sense and like me is focussing on doing things which CAN make a difference by helping other CAGGERs? I won't respond to any of your future points as attention just encourages the immature who seek it.

 

Maybe he does; maybe he don't. I have given my opinion. Helping CAGGER's your way doesn't automatically invalidate my approach and vice versa. I wish you all the best with your methods and am not saying they are completely futile. Good luck to you.

Edited January 30, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Fair enough its a free country, my view is that you are wrong for the reasons I've given. I would add to that by saying what I read wasn't so much refusing to support as contructive criticism, what would the action be for? What is is supposed to achieve.

 

Well, it isn't a free country, but let's not get into that. I have made my view clear on Yourbank and stand by it. It's not just because of this thread. He himself said others didn't like some of his posts. I ddin't know that. He never appeared on the 'March For Fairness' thread either, as I predicted. I already addressed the possible logic behind his actions as being a 'gatekeeper' earlier in the thread. Read through the thread. If we disagree, then we disagree.

 

 

 

Many people on this is money and MSE. One chap on TIM explicitly stated in his view a £1 million bank charge because the market knows best. This is what we are up against. Unfortunately not everyone regards the charges as unfair, in fact many think the status quo is just fine.

 

Can you provide some quotes for me? Just curious.

 

 

 

I agree with the point about not allowing an appeal, and think the OFT was at fault in not taking this further. The banks were refused leave to appeal to the SC but did so anyway. You could hardly argue that this case is not in the public interest.

 

We agree completely.

 

 

 

Is there a possible avenue for the Advertising Standards Agency? Or do they just deal with TV ads and the like. On the Halifax website it gives the APR as 0% which is really straining credibility in my view since the equivalent rate for small sums would be a MASSIVE percentage.

Surely their actions on this are the very definition of an unfair contract? We can change the rates or terms whenever we see fit and unless you have the money lying around to pay off your overdraft then you have no choice.

 

Yes, it's all a complete stitch up. Unfortunately, I think you'll find the A.S.A. about as helpful as the F.O.S..

[renegotiation]

I do find the postings suggesting that Yourbank , because he doesn't support the notion of peaceful protest, has some hidden agenda and that he is most probably a spy for the banks.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I have given my reasons. Like it would be the first time in human history that someone helped people to cynically gain trust. It's a bit pointless going on about it, as everyone can make up their 'own minds'.

 

 

 

I also do not believe in peaceful protest because 9 times out of 10 there will usually be some one who starts trouble. Does this make me suspect in my intentions for posting on here?

 

I think you'll find that when it comes to legitimate public protests it is often hired goons that kick things off. Our right to peaceful public protest has been steadily and deliberately eroded in the last decade and there isn't much of it left. Anyhow, I am not for one mass protest in one place. I am for protests in every city and town up and down the country. The last thing I want is violence and trouble and don't envisage any. In fact, I would argue that the more of us on the streets means it's more likely the poeace will be kept. Again, people can make up their 'own minds'. Anyhow, just why won't the government sort this big mess out?

 

 

 

Yourbank has helped countless people over the years and there are a lot of people who would be far worse off if he hadn't bothered.

 

That doesn't disprove my opinion of him, as explained earlier in this post.

[renegotiation]

I totally agree. I have never heard of a successful demonstration in the UK. They might succeed in France but they are NOT peaceful.

 

I have tipped your scales (not that you need it!)

 

BD

 

When exactly did we last have a mass, peaceful demonstration in the U.K.? Iraq War wasn't it? That was peaceful and had a million odd people marching in the same place! Ok, that one didn't work because war had already been decided, as we all now know. However, let's get 'many millions' up and down the country peacefully doing the same thing and the government will have to take notice. It's hardly rocket science!

[renegotiation]

After reading this whole thread there is one thing that I do agree with on this thread

 

renegotaition your avater suit's you down to the ground

 

Ok.

 

By the way, a big thank you to everyone for all the other contributions. It is appreciated.

[renegotiation]

What a crap thread.

 

An excellent analysis. All contributions are welcome, both positive and negative.

[renegotiation]

If you are talking about the original concept of this thread then I totally agree.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

 

 

If you are talking about the quality of the posts in this thread then I mostly agree.

 

I would tend to agree about some of the posts somewhat.

 

 

 

If you are questioning whether this has been an abuse of our right to freedom of expression then I agree on this specific case.

 

I disagree with that.

 

 

 

If you are suggesting we should fight to the death to keep such rights then I disagree on this specific case.

 

Where did 'fighting to the death' come into any of this?

 

 

 

I'm getting bored (and annoyed) by this thread

 

You are welcome to keep getting more bored and annoyed if that is what you seek. Don't let me stop you...

[renegotiation]

You are wrong about Yourbank. Totally wrong.

 

And to comment on him not signing up for a March when he sacrificed his career while trying to help with the cause is insulting to say the least.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. If you read the thread properly you will see that I have said it isn't just based on his reluctance to support peaceful, public protest. If I am right, then it certainly isn't insulting in the sense you are making out. Let's just agree to disagree. It serves no purpose to go round in circles. Everyone is free to make up their 'own mind'.

Edited February 3, 2010 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

"Can you provide some quotes for me? Just curious."

 

Bank charges: Supreme Court hands fees victory to banks | This is Money

 

You want comment number 200 amongst others, this guy also stated

elsewhere that in principle a bank charge of £1 million would be acceptable. This follows logically from his comment that the market will work it out. Given the near collapse of the global financial system I regard sucha position as utterly retarded, but I'll say it again this is what we are up against.

 

Well who is this guy? I thought you were talking about industry figures making comments in the mass media. Wires crossed, no problem.

 

 

 

I've read your posts and we disagree, maybe you are right maybe somebody did orchestrate this whole sacking thing, including a story in a national newspaper just to get some information and post messages on a forum (which anyone can do if they join).

 

Oh, where did I specifically say that? He could easily have been recruited at any time after he was sacked.

 

 

 

Maybe black is white, or maybe you are seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.

 

Conspiracies don't exist you fool! :lol:

 

 

 

You could be onto something on the court thing, it seems to me, even when I try to be impartial the brakes were put on awfully soon once the 'right' decision had been reached.

 

No kidding!

 

 

 

Trouble is the more conspiracy theories you advance the more crazy you sound.

 

For brainless sheeple that would certainly be a pssibility.

 

 

 

Such a march needs to co-ordinated an undiluted, that would be very hard to achieve IMO.

 

It would need to be very well coordinated and supported by all the dissenting sites. It would indeed be terribly hard to achieve. However, if the will is there...

[renegotiation]

Respect to you Fergal. I fear we need site team approval for a chance of success though. They have a massive database of email addresses. They already have media contacts. Same with the other dissenting sites. However, they won't act until the game is concluded, which is fair enough. If we are finally checkmated, which I believe we will be, I hope the site team will jump on board and hook up with the other dissenting sites. It's really scary, but I actually feel folk feel intimidated and unsure about using their right to mass, public, peaceful protest. That isn't democracy!

Edited February 4, 2010 by renegotiation