http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/243968-way-forward.html Any contributions appreciated. Don't reply on this thread. Thanks.

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!

Does no one even care about this?

Incorrect. Everything was based on fact and I backed it all up. There were no flaws whatsoever. That's exactly what they have done. You can argue that it was done with no sinister intent and that it will never be used, but you can't argue that it hasn't happened i'm afraid. Sorry. All my arguments have been fully sourced and backed up. This was already the case several weeks ago before my previous response . My last post, admittedly after a while because I had other issues to attend to in life, was simply in response to yuor previous weak effort. That would make you a bad debater then, because almost all the ad hominem stuff has come from you. You don't seem capable of addressing facts backed up with sources. I am not upset at all. You seem to be the one that is upset making ad hominem attacks and unable to address any of the facts I have presented. I reiterate, all backed up with concrete sources. You don't seem to be able to accept that for some reason though. Otherwise, I would be happy to have made my point and move on. If you wish to post more nonsense though, then of course I will be happy to debate further. As an aside, do you actually think this country being in a huge mess has nothing to do with disinterested people? It's a shocking state of affairs. I don't need it repeated to me at all. I know exactly what has happened and why it has happened. It is 'true' regardless of whether I say it or not. If I say it isn't true it will still be true bcause it is true. Accept it and digest it. Feel free to make other arguments about intent and the possibility of future application. I have just raised this issue because it is very serious and I care. Let me guess. You believe the official account of 9/11 and think we went to Iraq concerned about WMD? Maybe you need to visit confused.com? P.S. I predicted well in advance that the Jersey paedo case would get dropped like a hot potato and covered up. I predicted well in advance that the OFT wouldn't take on a new test case. Quite surprising considering the Supreme Court guided them towards the right path. I could go on. Am I psychic? No, I know full well how sick the world is and just apply common sense.

Ah, but I wouldn't be resigning if I was with RBS. I'd be retiring with my huge pension.

Sorry, but I have been attending to other issues. I am now able to respond for the foreseeable future. Ok, but barely. No you haven't touched a nerve at all. I just speak my mind with logic. Moreover, I try not to speak for others as you seem to. I think that statement could well be applied to you in my opinion. You are saying you are wrong? I would say that you are the one who repeats a position without basis and assumes that it gives you credibility. Everything that I have stated is based upon fact. If you have a problem with any of the facts that I have presented, then please highlight these facts. You will have your opinion, correct or not. I am not confused or wrong at all. If there is 'really serious dissent' against being part of this corrupt and illegal E.U., to the extent that it might break up, then they WILL use it. I'm amazed that anyone would doubt that. No, because you can't. The same could be said of you and Nick griffin, but I would rather argue my valid points intellectually than ignore someone. I have a lot of respect for Bookworm and all the Site Team as it goes. You have my sincere sympathy.

Anyone else woken up to the world yet?

Oh look, Baron Renog was right. No new OFT test case. But I thought our lovely Supreme Court had pointed the OFT in the right direction? The Supreme Court said 'Hey friends, you are travelling the wrong road. Try that road instead!' Why is the OFT not travelling this new golden road? LMFAO. What a surprise...

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!!!

Worthing County Court said they were proceeding on a case by case basis and would say no more. Chichester County Court didn't bother answering the phone, despite several calls over a 30 minute period in the late afternoon. I'll try again tomorrow.

I found it very odd that they found someone like that to declare he was 'giving up' and it was 'all over'. Call me a bit cynical, but...

I don't believe you. A government promises a referendum to its people on the issue of transferring sovereignty to another body, a monumental issue, and you claim you don't know if it is a great injustice that it was then denied? You are not that stupid. You think i'm a Euro-skeptic zealot nut and don't want to give my side of the argument any ammo by agreeing with me at all. I said 'step up' because you were avoiding answering. If the roles were reversed and the pro-Euro lobby were denied a referendum on something they were promised I would admit it was a great injustice. That's democracy! We could be a 'European Alliance' and still exhibit power. We don't need a political union. And how would you have liked to have been on the receiving end of their 'power'? By supporting such power, even if only as a concept, you are giving them legitimacy. I know you aren't cheering on their invasions! What do you think 'The Patriot Act' was about? It was purely devised to stop the people having a voice. It's a 2 party system with a political overclass. The parties are completely controlled by private interests. The only way they could force real change is through force. It's got that bad. Personally, I think it's all going to collapse anyway. Sure, but the higher level and more widespread the corruption the harder it is to root out. If law isn't evidence I don't know what is. It's in the 'Charter OF Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' as I have stated. Here it is: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I reiterate, this is now European Law. Law is law. This is nothing to do with the 'European Convention On Human Rights' that just guaranteed minimum standards. We are now at war so the death penalty can be enacted and lethal force can be used to arrest people or stop them escaping. Like I said, when will we ever learn. This is real.

Yes, but some buyers understand p and p as p and p and nothing more. The problem is they get an item, see what it cost to be posted to them, figure out the packaging can't possibly account for the difference and feel cheated. It's an issue to anyone that sees it that way. It's not an issue to anyone that sees it our way. We don't see an issue; they do see an issue. Yes, most online retailers use the term 'delivery'. It's a bit strange, but I think it clicks differently to p and p in the heads of many buyers. Also, I don't think you can always see what it cost for them to mail the item. Many of them have business contracts and their items just get stamped. Some bidders just 'assume' they are getting a fair quote. I agree that they 'should' think about it. Yes, I agree 100%. However, it's not happening enough to avoid a lot of misunderstanding and resentment and it won't ever be like that. That's the sad reality of the situation.

Great points and more highlighting of how daft Ebay can be. They are now taking a cut out of p and p through final value fees too. I think bidders will be inclined to pay less in total for items with free p and p, than they would have for items with p and p. It's just the way the mind works. They should have introduced a fixed charge for single dvd p and p and adjusted the fixed charge for shipments of 2, 3, 4 etc. single dvd's. Box sets would obviously have to be excluded. The same could be done for cd's, tapes and anything of the same size. That is at least a partial solution to the madness. For some categories that they have introduced free p and p on you don't even have the option of introducing a reasonable fixed charge because of size variation. I still think a transparent system of actual cost, including administration, is best. It wouldn't be hard to spot gross abuse of this and to clamp down on it.

What you have outlined is exactly how I see it when I buy and how I sold stuff myself, but not with p and p that high. That is a legitimate way of looking at it. However, not all bidders genuinely see it like that. They take the p and p charge in good faith. Why shouldn't they disagree if they are unaware of another way of looking at it? It's not their fault they are unaware and a few of them might still disagree on principle after it is explained to them. It can lead to arguments and resentment. You surely can't deny this? I'm just one person and have experienced it myself on a few occasions by charging just £3 p and p. That's the problem. I think it can all be avoided with a more transparent system and Ebay will be a better place for it. At the same time the whole market needs to be regulated, effective competition introduced and fairer fees for all. The existing competition needs to be boosted. Maybe they could license 2 more companies to use the Ebay software as it is and run with it too. Something needs to be done.

Yes, exactly what happened to me after the **** decided to keep my £35. Another time I sent something through Parcelforce and and had a stamped receipt. I offered to send Paypal a high resolution photocopy, but that wasn't good enough for them. Another time I sent something via International Recorded delivery. I rang Royal Mail and they said it had been delivered. However, as it couldn't be tracked online it wasn't good enough for Paypal! I think they may have changed their policy on International Recorded since then, or maybe it can be tracked online now, but am not sure. I can't be bothered to investigate.

Fair play, but just like Tez you still haven't answered my question. Step up and answer please. It's a perfectly reasonable question. Or even just say you aren't going to answer. You just give your opinion and ignore the question. Do you think it was a great injustice that the U.K. was promised a referendum and didn't get one? And i'm disappointed you aren't outraged that they ignored the French vote regardless of your personal opinion. Look at what the U.S.A. gets up to in the world. It's disgusting. The people have hardly any say in what goes on. Did you know that the Federal Reserve even lends them their own currency? They are like gangsters. In theory it's great, but it won't work. I used to have exactly the same view as you. The corruption will just kill it. It will be hell and just lead to massive upheavals. If it is 'unavoidable', then they shouldn't have a problem with referendums then! Just briefly going back to your points in the 'European Convention Of Human Rights', which you did indeed correctly refer to as the 'origin' of the new laws I talking about, I want to briefly say a couple of things. The exceptions didn't make it legal for executions to be carried out in countries signing up to it. That would still be up to each nation. It just set minimum standards and created no laws. Now they have shunted some of that text into the 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' and ratified that through the Lisbon Treaty the goalposts have been moved. That is now European Law. It's tricky to get your head round it, but was a minimum set of standards that didn't necessarily apply to any state is now legal (possible) in 22 of the 25 member states! Tell me, why didn't they just ditch it? Or even if they didn't ditch 3B, then why not ditch 3A? It was from over 50 years ago and outdated anyway. I don't think you were aware of what they had done and may try to argue that the de facto situation is the same. However, in my opinion there is something not quite right here and i'm not barrel scraping.

Just edit it and type in : ) without a space in between.

You got that one right. No, I have read several articles. And if you had even bothered reading the 12 line truthseeker article, which was just a brief but very honest synopsis, you would see that it only referred to what Professor Schachtschneider investigated. Well, that's not what you said earlier! See here: You make it up as you go along. That's exactly what they did and we are at war! If it was never going to happen, then why would it be there? You sound silly. You keep seizing on one small article on truthseeker like a 'dog with a bone' that was factually correct. You then keep knocking the article solely because of the site it appeared on without offering any logical objections to the veracity of the article. You then seize on the provision which refers to 'times of war'! Well, as I mentioned, we are at war. You also ignore that it also refers to 'imminent threat of war'. Anyhow, I don't even think it is ok to execute people at 'times of war'. If the metaphorical **** has hit the fan so hard you wouldn't need any legislation. It would just happen anyway. Think about it. What is absolutely astounding is that you ignore Explanations 3A(a), (b) and ©: "(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR: "Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; © in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." You are seriously trying to present yourself as someone using reasonable arguments? It's ok to kill someone to effect a lawful arrest or someone doing a runner? That's open to all sorts of abuse. When the hell is humanity ever going to ever learn? I think that's exactly what you are doing, not me. It's up to you whether you respond or not. I honestly don't think you are capable of rational debate on 'this matter'. I reiterate, it was Professor Schachtschneider that pointed out the facts. I only make rational responses. You can't even answer simple questions. I see that you are still trying to avoid the following question tooth and nail: I know full well why you won't answer. Why not just say you refuse to answer it and be done with it? Well, we definitely agree on something then. For the last time, the person that pointed out the facts of the matter was Professor Schachtshneider. My opinions are my own and others will have their opinions. Yet again, you seem to ignore the following like it isn't there: "(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR: "Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; © in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." I am genuinely amazed.

You need this thread reposted in the Debt Forums. I have put in a request for you.

Ha, missed that one. I'll just drop my efforts on this thread I think, as no one really seems remotely interested in my viewpoint. Getting some consensus with my outlook was my motive in starting this thread. That's ok. I'm not wallowing in self-pity! If people that disagree post I will still do my best to respond solely to what they say and nothing more. Bookworm, just for the record, I know you to be a very decent and fair individual from what I have seen on these forums. Even if you aren't in the 'anti-European brigade' I am confident you would agree it was a HUGE injustice that we didn't get a referendum on the matter? And I don't believe in shapeshifting reptilians in case anyone wondered.

You made me bite my tongue.

I have met some real idiots on Ebay! Worst experience I had was someone claiming I hadn't paid them when I sent off concealed cash registered mail. I have been ripped off about 5 or 6 times. Nothing over £50 though. Knowing our government they will probably let it happen. Ebay/Paypal is seriously BENT.

I'm not a trained lawyer either. If it isn't a reintroduction of the death penalty then what is it? You are concerned with 'specifics'? Section 3(B) even calls it the 'death penalty'. This provision certainly didn't already exist in the law of all countries. All of the circumstances can easily be twisted. It gives the E.U., a licence to kill. If it wasn't sneaked in, then why wasn't in the main text of the Lisbon Treaty? It was in a Protocol that listed items to be annexed to the Lisbon Treaty. You then follow the dots to this Treaty that was annexed to the Lisbon Treaty and happily read about a 'right to life' and 'no death penalty'. You then have to read another document that explains the Articles in the Treaty that was annexed to the Lisbon Treaty and only then find contradictory stuff like that? To me that's mind boggling and definitely 'snuck in'. And you are trying to make me out to be a 'wally', which I think is a little unfair, so I have to stamp my feet a little bit. I reiterate, I think this is important.

You say we still retain a 'considerable amount' of meaningful power and then just mention that we still use sterling as currency? I don't think that will last long, but we'll see. Is that it? All I asked you was a simple question. The question was 'would you fully admit that the people have been denied a voice, which was even promised to them, and that this was incredibly wrong?' You come up with all that, then call me argumentative, yet still don't answer? Well I was and it has as you are proving. And then you say yourself say I was after saying I wasn't: 'What you were doing was wanting to repeat your earlier post since you felt, by your own admission, it had not been noticed.' I've read several articles online and offline and followed them up myself as I have just proven by methodically listing all my sources. Do you dispute any of these sources? If so, then which one? Please clarify. Also, I refer you back to my point about the oddity of our government being worried about giving a referendum to 'isolated dissenting voices'. What about the results of the European elections earlier this year? UKIP did well. 22 states reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow. I have given you direct links to the laws and even cut and pasted the most relevant bit for you. Do you dispute the source? Please clarify. I just gave you a link to a simple and straightforward expalantion of the issue, which I thought was what you wanted. I have since given you hard sources. I'm up for decent debate. Come back tomorrow if you like. Don't rush a response like you did this one. This isn't a daft 'tit for tat' spat or a competition. I'm genuinely concerned about this issue!