The Treaties I have just referred you to don't exist then?

The 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' was signed on 7th December 2000 in Nice and did not become a legal document until 1st December 2009 when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The U.K., Poland and the Czech Republic opted out of this part of the Lisbon Treaty 'for now'. This is Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0135:0135:EN:PDF It says nothing about the 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' in the Articles, which I think is very important stuff. Only by looking at the Protocols to be annexed to the Treaty do you see that we are all, bar 3 countries, being signed up to the 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union'. I don't think that's far off a footnote. Here is the said Charter: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf Article 2 prohibits the death penalty. Then we have the 'Explanations By The Convention Relating To The Charter Of Fundamental Rights. Convent 49' here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf Look at Article 2 and then read the 'Explanations' underneath, especially explanations 3(a) and 3(b). They are definitely footnotes in my view. Quite huge ones in my humble opinion. This is real. Some lawmakers are scraping the barrel and not me! 3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the "negative" definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter: (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." (b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR: "A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

I know you weren't being deliberately mean, but many people are poor at maths. I don't think they should be excluded from Ebay. Furthermore, I am at excellent (just making a point, not boasting!) at maths and having a few pages to trawl through with differing item costs and p and p costs can be a bit time consuming when trying to figure out what's cheapest. I wasn't saying they have to give a 'detailed breakdown' of their overheads. They have to confirm the postage cost, the packaging cost and the remaining cost. The seller could then have an option to clarify the remaining cost or just call it administration. The bidder can then make their decision. As I said, buyers will be happy with costs that are explained. If it's all reasonable then no one would have a problem with it.

I will do my best. And note the term 'splitting hairs' in my post. I was fully aware you used the term 'properly'. While we may not actually be one country yet I would say that having an E.U. Council, a President, a foreign minister and a diplomatic corps, combined with the E.U.'s extended capacity to formulate and impose new laws, leaves us with very little sovereignty. The 'passerelle clause', also known as the self-amending mechanism, gives the E.U. power to extend its own jurisdiction and our parliament doesn't have a say in this! The Secession Procedure even gives the E.U. power to decide the terms on which we leave. Fat chance of that anyway given the people don't have a say in it. Do you actually think we retain any meaningful power? If so, then what? I asked you a question. So you would fully admit that the people have been denied a voice, which was even promised to them, and that this was incredibly wrong then? I think that's what you are saying. I was giving emphasis to my post, as I think its incredibly important that the people of the E.U. should have been told that the death penalty has been reintroduced! I was hoping someone would pick up on it. I am very glad that you have. You are unfamiliar with this development, which applies to ALL E.U. member states, because they didn't want anyone to know about it. There is no right way or wrong way to make a statement. People read it and can follow it up themselves or can show interest and query it. You have queried it and I am happy to elaborate for you by adding credence. Firstly, I would look at this: The Truth Seeker - Lisbon Treaty Allows for Death Penalty Across E.U. This is real. Note that they even used the term 'upheaval' as one of the scenarios when executions could be carried out. They stuck it in as a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty that referred to another Charter, which we automatically signed up to through the Lisbon Treaty, that had another footnote in it with the incriminating text. That's scary! Why did they do that? Please, can anyone that reads this take it to their M.P. and ask them why they haven't been told about this! I am pretty confident that most M.P.'s didn't even know this, at least at the time. Secondly, read the Lisbon Treaty footnote yourself, then read the European Union Charter footnote yourself. If that doesn't give credence for you I don't know what will. Don't take my word on it!

We already have. To say otherwise is splitting hairs. However, if we vote for UKIP we can leave. Sure, that's why they were too scared to hold a referendum? Those unsubstantial and isolated voices... :confused: :rolleyes: The golden nugget is who gets to decide that. Huge decisions like European political union need to be taken by the people! You would deny the people a voice? The greater the body the more scope for corruption. Just look at the U.S.A. and the disconnect between their public and government. We aren't too far behind! And they even reintroduced the death penalty without telling anyone. WTF!

Some comments would be welcome too.

Do you mind having the threads merged? I will ask a mod if you don't.

I would say it is a good bet for you to visit your local Citizens Advice Bureau. They can offer some help and also point you in other directions.

'Wrong' because they see it different to how you and I see it? Come on, that isn't really fair. You are just saying that because it suits you I would guess. If Ebay had a third column next to 'item cost' and 'p and p cost' in their listngs such as 'total cost', then that would make it a lot easier for buyers to compare items. Maybe that might ease some of your concerns? If a bidder had all the costs explained to them, then i'm sure they would still happily opt for a lower 'total cost' that included an admin charge than a higher 'total cost' that didn't. It's not just sellers that need to be more fair and transparent. Ebay does too! I think the government lets Ebay do whatever they like...

I think it would make Ebay a better and happier place. I used to have exactly the same view as you by the way and do understand what you're saying. Some retailers do voluntarily. I'm not sure what the law is on this. I would be surprised if there wasn't some law covering extortionate p and p in some way. Some buyers do take the p and p quote in good faith though. That's just the way it is. I'm not one of those buyers, but they exist and have a right to see it like that. All these arguments can be avoided with a fully transparent system.

The reason we didn't take the euro was so that 'rip off Britain' could exist for a few more years. We were always going to join. This political E.U. is corrupt and terrible for democracy. They have also sneaked in the death penalty through the back door. Convenient for them in case they ever need to liquidate serious opponents. That's the truth.

One solution I thought up was having Ebay enforce a system where the seller had to quote separately for postage, packaging and administration (if applicable) costs. The seller would have to briefly explain what the administration charge entailed in their listing. That's transparency and can't be beat. So as not to put off Ebay newbies it could only apply to those that have already sold 10 items say. That would just involve a small software tweak. Everyone has the Royal Mail website at their disposal, well if they made it to Ebay they do, and can easily get hold off some cheap electronic scales and a pricing in proportion ruler for about £10. All of this could save a lot of unnecessary arguments. Bidder understands; bidder decides; bidder is happy.

Aside from individual courts, does anyone yet have a good feel of how the majority of courts are progressing with cases?

Hey, see this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/234784-march-fair-financial-system.html Maybe we can have these threads merged? I am 100% with you. This needs to be done on the same day in every town and city up and down the country. It's just gone too far now. They are a big evil mafia and they don't want to take voluntary pay cuts, even though they'd still be earning plenty. ***In my view, even the County Courts largely paying out doesn't solve this.*** The banks are still charging and ruining the lives of millions. Not all of them have the heart to go to court. Even if they did, it can still be a tremendous ordeal getting the charges in the first place and dealing with it all! It's literally ruining the health of innocent people. I'm ashamed at the lack of people standing up. I wouldn't be surprised if half of them just want 'their' refund and don't give a toss about anyone else... :(

That's all valid, but I would say that first and foremost high p and p is about sellers, professional ones at least, trying to pay less on final value fees. What's more prevalent out of the rip off brigade and those with genuine costs is hard to judge. Ebay have certainly been woeful on this issue for several years. It's quite surprising, as it would benefit them sorting it out. A laughable 'solution' they introduced not so long ago was trying to enforce free p and p in certain categories. God knows what numpty thought that one up!

Only the seller might know what the cost is, but if a bidder pays £5 p and p for something that arrives in a 20p jiffy bag with 2 second class stamps on it they might not be happy. Strictly speaking that is overcharging for p and p. Ebay do allow for some costs associated with p and p to be absorbed into the total quote, but nothing like inflating the total by 500%. However, some sellers do just that and even more. Different bidders will have different outlooks. Some will have factored in p and p to the total they are paying for their item, fully understanding why some sellers do it, while others will genuinely see it as a separate charge that shouldn't be excessive and take umbrage when it is. I myself have had buyers stress out over a clearly advertised fixed p and p charge of £3. I even clearly stated that it included an administration cost! It's not like a seller can explain in their listing that they are avoiding Ebay final value fees through high p and p. Furthermore, there are probably a minority of sellers, auctioning fixed price items already at market value for example, that are just cynically using p and p as a rip off. It really is a bit of a minefield!

Just testing your mettle. Go and stick it up them with a large pitchfork.

Locals fume as BT boss gets broadband first | Broadband | News | PC Pro

I don't usually look at p and p as p and p. I just factor it in to the cost of the item and what i'm willing to pay. Sellers who charge high p and p are invariably trying to avoid rip off Ebay final value fees, as Ebay doesn't take a cut out of the p and p. That might seem wrong at first glance, but at the end of the day Ebay operates as a virtual monopoly in the online auctions market. The governemnt doesn't want to touch Ebay, as it is a great cash cow. Ebay generates very high tax revenues, especially since they automatically started billing all of us VAT. I do have some sympathy with sellers charging high p and p as long as it is 100% up front and crystal clear. At the same time it's very understandable that not every bidder is going to think about the bigger picture.

The corruption is by bankers and the Establishment. Evidence lol? They haven't entered one defence in court. They all hang around together. Can't you put two and two together? I WILL throw around allegations and my story is true to anyone with basic intelligence that reads it. I am NOT directly intending to insult you here, but you really need to think about how the world works and why our country is right down the toilet. For example, do you actually believe that they went to war to fight terrorists and stop Saddam launching devastating attacks against us with WMD? We are not going to go get any 'reasonable solution' to this by playing their games. It will just be fudged. It's a disgusting world we inhabit at the moment. Wake up friend. Fortunately some of our County Courts have some democracy left in them and are pressing ahead. Thank God! We are still waiting to see exactly how many County Courts are standing up for us. I have a good feeling though. Please tell me where I espoused that viewpoint? I certainly don't remember saying that. The banks are ****ing us over every single day. Central banks are running the world. They don't represent us, only themselves. All you can do is give vague maxims on the law being grey. I know that full well and that has nothing to do with this bank charges fiasco! If we disagree, we disagree. No point going round in circles. Have your say if you like...

Just empty your house of all belongings and send it off to them. Maybe they will go easy on you...

Tish and pish, £150 is a bargain. Get back in your closets!

A likely story. Moreover, you ARE saying that they have foregone a business a model, as hefty and widespread charges were only introduced in the not so distant past. Let's just agree that it is a huge rip off and needs sorting out now then. We can be like dweedle dum and dweedle dee.

Looks like he didn't. Hopefully he'll be ok!