Leaflet / Card drops in (or around) branches?

[CJ&theBOS]

Originally Posted by meagain

You carry out a protest about the bank's policies outside their front door, and they're entitled to be annoyed. They can claim slander (even libel if they lay their hands on a flyer), and get a temporary injunction restraining you from that protest until the matter is settled. Because the nature of slander and libel is itself accusatory, the defendant has to prove the guilt of the claimant, not the other way around.

The protest/demonstration would not attack specific banks. If it did then yes they might have cause. If all it was about was informing people then dont see what the bank could do really.

Public Order Act 1986. If there's more than 12 of you, the bank can say you're assulting their business and report it as a riot to 999. Doesn't necessarily mean that it is a riot, but they would at least be able to accuse you of such. From their perspective, you are infringing their right to peacefully carry on business. In the interest in preserving the peace, even if the police agree with your cause, they will probably ask you to disperse anyway. If you just moved on, the police would probably then detain you on public order charges.

Remember, even if you can't get anyone else, you must keep the police on your side.

Do you have an real world example or is this all conjecture? Because you have a lot of IFS and maybes in there. The bank can say whatever they like but it wont stop a legal demonstration, trust me.

After ive done my case (if i win) i'm thinking about doing something close to (but not infringing upon) my local Bank. I'm a bit late to do something for university freshers week though hrmm. But no there wont be more than 12 maybe just 1 !!

So i'll let you know how it goes when i get arrested in front of the bank ehh! (although i'm about 99% sure that the police wouldnt do a thing!)Obviously i wont make any mention of CAG in case you guys get sued or whatever. I'm quite surprised by CAGs reticence though and reluctance to take it to another level.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[jonni2bad]

Originally Posted by CJ&theBOS

.... I'm quite surprised by CAGs reticence though and reluctance to take it to another level.

Be assured that we have no problem taking it to 'another level' but we are exploring options with less costs, less time and more impact.

Trust me, the leafleting thing sounds like a good idea, but it's not all it's cracked up to be (I'm one of the "been there - got the t-shirt" brigade)

[CJ&theBOS]

sure no probs didnt mean to imply that you guys arent doing everything possible sry! I think its excellent what you guys are doing!

btw i also meant to ask. Do you guys have a downloadable logo that ppl can put in their signatures etc to promote the site?

[meagain]

Originally Posted by CJ&theBOS

The protest/demonstration would not attack specific banks. If it did then yes they might have cause. If all it was about was informing people then dont see what the bank could do really.

If you give the bank even the slightest excuse to unleash its team of legal commandos, it will.

Do you have an real world example or is this all conjecture?

Only that the longest, most complex and most drawn-out trial in English legal history was a libel case brought by a big company in respect of a "peaceful demonstration" that took place away from any of its premises, and left the defendants, and some of their supporters, bankrupt.

I'm quite surprised by CAGs reticence though and reluctance to take it to another level.

Might be something to do with the fact that direct action gets less than pleasant coverage in the press - CAG can't afford to have public opinion going against it.

Remember: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

[elsinore]

Originally Posted by meagain

Only that the longest, most complex and most drawn-out trial in English legal history was a libel case brought by a big company in respect of a "peaceful demonstration" that took place away from any of its premises, and left the defendants, and some of their supporters, bankrupt.

What was it?

Elsinore

[CJ&theBOS]

Originally Posted by meagain

If you give the bank even the slightest excuse to unleash its team of legal commandos, it will.

You mean like they do when people claim charges back from them.

Only that the longest, most complex and most drawn-out trial in English legal history was a libel case brought by a big company in respect of a "peaceful demonstration" that took place away from any of its premises, and left the defendants, and some of their supporters, bankrupt.

Do you have a link to this? Or a reference to the case i can check when i go to the law library later today? or perhaps its on Westlaw or Lexisnexis?

Might be something to do with the fact that direct action gets less than pleasant coverage in the press - CAG can't afford to have public opinion going against it.

Ehh?? Could you explain how its possible a peaceful demonstration informing members of the public that their banks are unlawfully charging them extortionate fees could possibly be interpreted as bringing about NEGATIVE public opinion!

[meagain]

Originally Posted by CJ&theBOS

Do you have a link to this? Or a reference to the case i can check when i go to the law library later today? or perhaps its on Westlaw or Lexisnexis?

Google "McLibel".

Ehh?? Could you explain how its possible a peaceful demonstration informing members of the public that their banks are unlawfully charging them extortionate fees could possibly be interpreted as bringing about NEGATIVE public opinion!

I might, but you'd have to remove all the loaded language from this first.

[CJ&theBOS]

double post

[CJ&theBOS]

Only that the longest, most complex and most drawn-out trial in English legal history was a libel case brought by a big company in respect of a "peaceful demonstration" that took place away from any of its premises, and left the defendants, and some of their supporters, bankrupt.

Mclibel Trial

Ok i had a quick look at this. A couple of things immediately grab my attention

Uhhmm you sure you have the right case? a Mr Morris and Ms Steel vs McDonalds and Mcdonalds won damages for £30,000 which Mr Morris and Ms Steel didnt pay (Mcdonalds did NOT seek to enforce it)

But the consequent media storm surrounding it did untold damage to Mcdonalds reputation.

The legal controversy continued. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticise multinationals, claiming UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. The court ruled in favour of Helen and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial.

The McLibel Trial

So i dont see how this case strengthens your argument?

Ehh?? Could you explain how its possible a peaceful demonstration informing members of the public that their banks are unlawfully charging them extortionate fees could possibly be interpreted as bringing about NEGATIVE public opinion!

I might, but you'd have to remove all the loaded language from this first.

ok. 2 people standing on street handing out leaflets containing pertinent information regarding uk banking charges. They arent attacking banks. They dont even need to mention any one bank at all. So tell me again how the bank can sue them?

[meagain]

Originally Posted by CJ&theBOS

Mclibel Trial

Ok i had a quick look at this. A couple of things immediately grab my attention

Evidently the bit about the case taking SEVEN YEARS wasn't one of them. Neither of the defendants was able to take a job during that time, and doubtless they are now unemployable.

ok. 2 people standing on street handing out leaflets containing pertinent information regarding uk banking charges.

In your opinion.

They arent attacking banks.

In your opinion. The banks probably won't share this opinion.

So tell me again how the bank can sue them?

Because they can. It's as simple as that. What's stopping them? The same thing that's stopping them from imposing charges and closing accounts. Nothing. If they decide to sue you for libel, they don't have to prove you did anything wrong. They can accuse you, and then sue you, but in libel trials you have to prove your innocence.

[jonni2bad]

Off topic - take the argument elsewhere please.