kilotango22
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by kilotango22
-
I really do hope he refuses the application, this cannot have escaped his attention, he must now realise even without any technical knowledge its nothing more than a legal [problem]. Is there a twitter feed I can follow as I'm away for most of next week and won't have pc access. I'm desperate to see what he has to say on monday. Go for it CMW and show us mortals that British justice will not be hijacked to screw innocent members of the public.
-
There is a quote from our mate Andy on this BBC news webpage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11418970 Its says: All our evidence does is identify an internet connection that has been utilised to share copyright work” Andrew Crossley ACS: Law So I look forwward to him taking my interent connection to court as I sure as hell didn't download any trashy dance music, nor did I authorise anybody to do so. No offence to any fans of trashy dance music who may be using CAG
-
I wonder if AC will get a letter of claim from any of these credit card holders whose details may have been leaked after he made them available for upload on the web... OOPS Wasn't me your honour, I sent an LOD but it was a template and got refused.
-
Exactly, the code clearly states he has to send you a copy of the code, not that he has to make it available on his website. I think failing to comply with that code, by his own admission on his hilarious claim letters would be yet another reason for him loosing any court case.
-
They got my ISP wrong as well on their supposed evidence. I have only ever been with 2 ISP's and never with the one they claim have identified me. As to the Be Un Limited - o2 question. Both of these companies have different terms and conditions and tarrifs, even if they are owned by the same company you're ISP is the one you are under contract too, the company you pay your money too. I think Woolworths and I'm sure it was B&Q were owned by the same parent company, however if you bought something from B&Q and it broke and you took it back to Woolworths they would tell you its nothing to do with them. Same applies here if you are an o2 customer you are not a Be Un Limited customer. I wouldn't tell him though.
-
I think you'll find if you read their [problem], I mean claim letter again they are accusing you of UPLOADING this file not downloading it. If you didn't upload it then in your reply do not mention you own a copy of it on CD, they don't need to know that and they will probably try and use that as evidence that you did indeed make it available for other people to download from you. Just tell them you didn't do it and you won't be accepting their kind offer of settling out of court.
-
I've not heard from them for a while and its a shame. I only get bills and junk so getting these demands from him makes me feel kind of important, its a bit like having a special friend
-
Feel free to say that, all they will say in reply is, that proves nothing, your PC does not need to be turned on for someone else to be using your connection without your knowledge or authority. Their initial letter is designed to scare the s*** out of you when you read it and pay up to make it go away. Thats the reaction I had. My initial thought was this must be true, I didn't do it but as its in my name I must be responsible as they must be respectable lawyers who don't make mistakes. I'm so glad I didn't pay up as the CAB advised me to do.
-
Apparently you wil get another with a questionaire in it, you are not legally obligded to fill that in, all they are trying to do is to get you to incriminate somebody else. I live alone but may well say I share my broadband account with Andrew Crossley of ACS Law.
-
Thats not what it claims on my letter, it merely states that my ISP (Internet service provider) XXXX has identified me as a subscriber. I am not a subscriber to ISP XXXX I am a subscriber to ISP YYYY if you see my point, the company they have named has different terms and conditions and tarifs. The company you have named there, Be Unlimited are indeed an ISP with their own T&C's quite different to all the others and soon you will not need a BT line to subscribe to them. I think it would all help anyone if it ever got to court if you can show even little things like that, when lets face it, none of us can actually prove we didn't do it just as ACS or any of the others can't actually prove we did. I Like to think that me being of previous good character and not Mr Crossley already having been dealt with 3 times by the SRA who cannot even identify who you pay for your internet service would be believed by any judge in the land on his so called evidence.
-
That may be the case, but if you are a customer of orange and your interent goes down you don't call up sky to enquire whats wrong, your ISP is the firm you are under contract to, they are the ones you pay your money to and they are the ones you give notice too when your time to quit comes. By your reckoning and it could well be right, talk talk customers should also be getting these letters, but their ISP doesn't roll over.
-
http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/solicitors.page I wouldn't be telling them they have breached protocol, I haven't even told them that the ISP company which have supposedly identified me as a subscriber is not a company I have ever heard of, I'm with somebody else, I assume their mail merge for their template letters has screwed up along the lines, must be difficult getting all them 1000's of templates correct. If I'm a lucky one and get taken to court I'll drop it all in front of them then, should be worth a few quid to me
-
All you have to write is, I didn't do it and you have satisfied the rules as far as I'm aware, they won't accept it no matter what you write. As far as pre-action protocol goes, this is what it says about the letter of claim they have sent you: 3. LETTER OF CLAIM 3.1 An intended claimant (hereafter referred to as “the claimant”) should generally send the intended defendant (hereafter referred to as “the defendant”) a letter of claim as soon as is reasonably possible after coming into possession of the relevant facts complained about. 3.2 The letter of claim should: (a) state that the letter follows this Code and that the defendant should also do so; (b) unless the letter is being sent to the legal advisors of the defendant, enclose a copy of this Code; © identify the claimant; (d) list the remedies that the claimant seeks; (e) give details of any funding arrangements entered into. I would bet money they didn't send you a copy of the code as they are required to do, its 22 pages long and would add a fortune to their postage costs, so they actually breach the code themselves but expect you to play by its rules.
-
Legally, as far as I am aware, you have done all you need to do to satisfy the rules of pre action protocol, you can now ignore them until you receive a court summons (which you won't get) or you can write again denying it again and just add you will not respond again. Bare in mind, you will get a 3rd letter and a 4th perhaps, they just want to break you. Stick to your guns.
-
The only thing I don't like about them using 2nd class is it can take 4 days to get to you so if they post if friday night, it gets collected monday, processed monday night and delivered upto 4 days later which takes you back to friday, they give you 14 days to pay their blackmail from the date of their letter. Everyone that writes to them should forget to put a stamp on the post, they have to pay a surcharge then to recieve it, which is the cost of 2nd class post plus a pound, fill it up with pizza leaflets and other crap to push the thickness up and it will cost them even more, just to get a letter telling them to go and f*** themselves.
-
The CPS don't get involved in this type of 'case' If he chooses to take people to court he just pays his money and takes his chance, if he does that and looses then his whole game is up and the rest of the clowns playing it won't thank him for spoling their fun and taking away their income.
-
http://vodpod.com/watch/3780159-acs-law-lord-lucas-how-the-game-works-and-if-the-sra-wont-do-anything-about-them-then-we-will
-
I'd be almost tempted to ask them what proof of innocence they would accept. Lord Lucas made a speech in the lords, and in that speech he stated, it is impossible to prove your innocence. You could say you were on the surface of the moon at the time, their reply, sorry, we don't accept that as its not you we are saying did it, it was someone using your interent connection. Oh well sorry you say, I didn't give anyone permission to do that, sorry they reply, we don't believe you. I would post a link to Lord Lucas's speech but I can't find it myself.
-
I agree, I am campaiging agaisnt my isp, no details will be given incase he links them to the real me, basically, he states I am a subscriber to a particular ISP, I'm not and never have been. I'm trying to find out from my isp why they have supplied my details to this other ISP, I also asked them if they stated to ACS that they would not oppose a court order. They didn't answer either question. Their reply, we have to comply with court orders. Second letter going out, told them a simple yes or no answers the question about opposing a court order, copying all letters to Information commissioner. I'm like a mad dog with a bone now.
-
I don't think he will stop until he is either struck off, not likely in my opinion or convicted of a crime as a result of this, as I don't think what he is doing is basically illegal I don't think that is likely either. He certainly wont stop as a result of bad publicity, the guy used to be a DJ, he is on an ego trip and probably loves all the attention.
-
I'm no expert but I don't think his letters are illegal, if any of us sent menacing letters though demanding money we would get a visit. I'm fully expecting nothing to come of their investigation and he will carry on with what he is doing regardless. This new Bill might be the thing what stops him. I quite like the 3 strikes idea, but as I don't fileshare I'm not bothered. I am bothered about receiving letters from dodgy solicitors though trying to extort money out of me.
-
I don't think you will find your Union legal service cover this type of work unless you pay them, this is from the CWU website: | Legal Services - old page | Personal Injury | CWU Legal Advice Helpline
-
I've got my 2nd LOD ready to post, it basically says exactly what I said in the 1st, which was a template. Thing is, their evidence is flawed, if they did have the balls to take anyone to court, in my case they have said my ISP have identified me as a subscriber on their network, but the ISP who have apparently identified me are not my ISP. You can just see it when they say to a judge, ISP name XXXX have named the defendant as a subscriber to their network and you provide proof that you are actually in a contract with ISP xxx and were at the time of the alledged offence. I'm not telling them that though, don't see why I should. The whole [problem] seems so amateurish.
-
Oh I wont be paying, I am just asking how long it may take to get a rejection letter from them. I wouldn't pay for something I haven't done even if a judge told me to.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS