Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


210 Excellent
  1. As as already been pointed out, the solicitor's letter is not from LB. It is from an individual. The case has not been bought by LB against CAG. The constant referrals to this are, in my opinion, making things worse and inflaming the situtation, and are having the effect of furthering the "us and them" mentality. There are ppeople who use both sites, who should not be made to feel that they have to choose one or the other or be made to feel like traitors to CAG if they use LB, and vice versa.
  2. Barracad, I wasn't squabbling. Squabbling is something which generally happens in the playground from the ages of 5 to 10. I was trying to be reasonable. Callumsgran asked me a question. I answered it. The point which I was originally trying to make was that everyone has, and is entitled to, their own opinion. Sorry if this was the wrong thing to do......
  3. Sorry, I wasn't aware we had to nail our colours to the mast as a condition of posting over here.. Can I direct you to this part of my previous post:- It has already been pointed out on various threads, both here and on LB, that none of the members want an us and them situation. Some are actively trying to avoid this. Others, it would seem, take every opportunity to encourage it and bring it to the fore. Your reply seems to prove my point doesn't it. I have insulted no-one in my posts and fail to see the point of your question - or is it an accusation? For the record, No, I have never signed in under a different name. I don't have a different name. I am WendyB over here and have been since the day i joined. Same as I am over there. You must have missed that bit because I already said that in my previous post. And to be honest, I also fail to see why I should answer your question at all. But I have anwered it. If it's not to your satisfaction, then fine. If you have any further constructive questions for me, please do post them, I'll gladly answer them. But do bear in mind the topic. I'm sure the other readers don't want to be bored to death with off topic stuff that has no bearing on the libel case whatsoever.
  4. And your point is? Am I prominent?? I have not hidden the fact that I am a member of LB. My user name is the same over here as there. To my knowledge I've never spoken to Mr Shed before and if he is a member of LB then it must be under a different name. I was merely pointing out that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I have mine, Mr Shed has his, you have yours. To be honest, from Robcaqs post I thought he was saying that Mr Shed was like Lord Haw Haw, I was trying to point out that he wasn't an LB spy or troll or whatever, just an individual with his own opinion. End of. I personally just happen to agree with Mr Shed, that's all. To be honest, I fail to see what being a member of LB or not has to do with this in this instance. I am not brainwashed and any posts are made under my own capacity, with my own thoughts. I call it as I see it. Surely if I really wanted this site to close down, I would be disagreeing with Mr Shed and urging CAG to go for it, lose all their money and bankrupt the site, wouldn't I? It has already been pointed out on various threads, both here and on LB, that none of the members want an us and them situation. Some are actively trying to avoid this. Others, it would seem, take every opportunity to encourage it and bring it to the fore. I post on both sites and try to help where I can. If you have a problem with this, then please say so. if I'm not welcome over here then please let me know and I won't come back.
  5. Just because Mr Shed is advocating apologising doesn't make him one of the enemy, does it? I thought this was a site where people were allowed to have their own opinions. He is entitled to his opinion, just because it may not agree with the party line doesn't make it wrong.
  6. I am a member of both sites (although I am at present on moderation here and have had my pm facility removed, for reasons which have not yet been explained to me) and can honestly say I don't think there is a vendetta from anyone, as far as I know. Difference of opinion etc, but not vendetta. It is up to individuals what sites they wish to frequent etc, evryone has differing views on the way sites are run, what they like, what they don't like etc. I can honestly say that CAG is not censored on the other site, links are allowed to CAG also. However the same is not allowed in the other direction. In fact even the mention of the other site on this forum is moderated and any links posted lead to Disneyworld or Disneyland or somewhere equally irrelevant. I am not saying this to cause trouble, simply stating facts. There is a thread on the other site asking for donations to help the CAG libel case cause. It has not been banned or censored. I cannot post a link to it for obvious reasons. If this post is moderated, then so be it. I apologise for posting about removal of my pm facilities but thought it might be noticed on this thread and elicit a response from admin, to whose attention UK Aviator bought it a couple of weeks ago.
  7. All I'm saying is that sometimes you should look at the bigger picture. As Mr Shed says, if I was going to be made bankrupt, yes I'd apologise, if it kept a roof over my families head etc. Principles don't pay bills, unfortunately. Life is full of compromises.
  8. I have to say, there speaks the voice of reason. And if people don't want to be reasonable, then fine, stand up for what you believe in, but do it with your own money, not someone else's, especialy if they can't afford to give it.
  9. so wouldn't it have been easier to just apologise? Or was this treated like we do with the banks/credit cards etc - presumed it would never actually get into a courtroom? Just my opinion.
  10. Firstly, if you decide to claim contractual you have to do it from the start, in your first letter. Secondly, it's very complicated (IMO) and would more likely go all the way to court. You would have to be well up on case laws etc, do laods of research and prepare for a fight. There's a thread on here Big Budgie v Capital One. He has recently been in court and is awaiting judgement being handed down. It may help you to have a read through his thread if you are thinking of going the CI route. If you decide to go with the 8% s.69 stat interest you don't add that on till you file at court.
  11. My best advice would be not to discontinue, if you want the late markers removing as well.. Refuse their offer, keep the claim intact and keep it going. You would have a better chance of getting the lot if you keep it altogother. However, I'm not sure about whether late payment markers are as bad as defaults. Wouln't have thought so, although obviously they are not good. If it was me, I might well take what they are offering and live with the late markers. I suppose they would argue that you were late in paying, so they would be justified in leaving the late markers on your file. Not sure what others would advise. At the end of the day you have to go with what's best for you, at the time, in your situation.
  12. They always say they're going to defend. But they never do (unless its compounded restitutional interest thingy). I actually received a copy of their defence. Right after the letter sayiing they would pay up in full. So you should be getting a letter fairly soon offering you the full amount. Don't discontinue the calim till the money is cleared in your bank though..
  13. Hi UK and anyone else who may read this. I have to ask - are the "flags" delivered by carrier pigeon? As its been 2 weeks now since you flagged my comment to Admin, and I've still had no reply. Sorry for hijacking this thread, but as it's been moved to a different forum anyway, I don't suppose it will matter. And I don't have any other way of getting my questions across.
  • Create New...