Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[the_shadow]

It's a laptop from work... so I have no choice over what's on there.... unless I can download something else to get round the problem. Can I download the browser? (I'm not very techie, so please let me off if that's a really stupid question... lol)

 

 

The only daft question is the one not asked....

 

Most browsers need you to install which if your work admin have locked down the right to install software you wont be able to do.

 

You could try a standalone browser, QTWEB springs to mind, you can run it from a usb key and it keeps its "footprint" to a minimum.

 

Comes in two flava's... one with a setup program and the basic lite product that you just run from wherever you copy the file... that one is here

 

S.

[PriorityOne]

The only daft question is the one not asked....

 

Most browsers need you to install which if your work admin have locked down the right to install software you wont be able to do.

 

You could try a standalone browser, QTWEB springs to mind, you can run it from a usb key and it keeps its "footprint" to a minimum.

 

Comes in two flava's... one with a setup program and the basic lite product that you just run from wherever you copy the file... that one is here

 

S.

 

So if I save that QtWeb one onto a data stick.... what do I need to do with it if I want to post a thread? I need an idiot's guide..... sorry... lol

[the_shadow]

So if I save that QtWeb one onto a data stick.... what do I need to do with it if I want to post a thread? I need an idiot's guide..... sorry... lol

 

haha no problem.

 

Just double click on it and then enter in the address/URL for consumeractiongroup, then its just a case of using it as normal, just click on the new thread when your in the right forum.

 

S.

[PriorityOne]

I've gone through the browser and found the site but it keeps logging me out when I try and start a new thread..... so it looks like I wont be posting on here any more from now on! :-/

[cerberusalert]

When you log on tick the 'remember me' box first.

[PriorityOne]

When you log on tick the 'remember me' box first.

 

Ok... will try that next time...

 

I think I've just managed to post a thread in The Bear Garden.... but it logged me out straight after, so I've come back on in the normal way.... which means I'M BACK!! lol...

[Dotty50]

Ok... will try that next time...

 

I think I've just managed to post a thread in The Bear Garden.... but it logged me out straight after, so I've come back on in the normal way.... which means I'M BACK!! lol...

 

Glad to hear it P1, wouldn't like to lose your expertise! So many seem to have gone elsewhere for various reasons

[Laura Cooke]

It`s so off putting the site now I have really lost interest as it`s too much hard work finding things and posting things can`t imagine what neewbies think or creditors looking in they must be rejoicing I used to look in all the time I find it a huge chore now

[cerberusalert]

It's been mentioned elsewhere but just to reiterate, the site was upgraded because it needed to be, it was past it's sell by date and technical support was coming to an end and like everything else in the wonderful mysterious world of cyberspace things move on. Compare it to upgrading from Windows XP to Vista some people loved it whilst others loathed it. Obviously there will always be Luddites when it comes to change but this had to be done & it couldn't be achieved magically by the click of a switch so glitches have occurred particularly so as the site was running live rather than being shut down during the process.

 

We'll get there in the end if people have a little patience then we'll have a faster, modern more secure site.

[Laura Cooke]

Appreciate what you are saying lets hope by the time you do get it sorted that folk have not gone to a much simpler site this far too technical the older version was bad enough folk don`t take into account that a lot of people are not computer literate so want it nice and simple to keep their interest going

[PriorityOne]

It is a palava.... I agree. I just hope it gets more user-friendly in time, or there's going to be a lot of easy pickings out there in DCA land. Not good...

 

:-/

[bustthematrix]

We'll get there in the end if people have a little patience then we'll have a faster, modern more secure site.

This is true. I think you'd have had more people onside with the changes with some sort of pre-warning that changes were going to happen and that there'd be glitches afterwards etc.

 

One useful feaure that seems to have gone/can't see how to do it is to find all threads started by a username. Has this feature been removed or is it now achieved through a different means?

[cerberusalert]

I've made a suggestion to Admin that there be an area within the site where notifications can be posted if there are any site issues such as server downtime, speed or compatibility issues etc. Whether or not it will happen is in the lap of the gods.

 

As for missing features, things are still being added, changed and tweaked at the minute & sometimes when one thing is done it creates problems elsewhere so Webby has got his hands full.

 

AFAIK subscribed threads will be available, but for the time being you can access recent ones by clicking 'settings' at the top right of the page or clicking your user name and checking your posts on the left.

 

Some people are having more issues with the site than others, this seems to be a compatibility problem with IE7 and below but Webby is working hard to resolve this too. The workaround at the minute seems to be to upgrade to IE8 + any M$ security upgrades or use another browser such as Opera or Firefox.

[PriorityOne]

Here's the answer!! Courtesy of gh2008

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273552-Trying-to-post-a-new-thread-lol&p=3092177&viewfull=1#post3092177

 

Post 19!

[vint1954]

Hi Dotty,

 

Maybe it's just that some have been fortunate enough to find employment.

 

Hope your keeping well.

 

Must be just me, but I don't seem to have too much trouble with the new format. Most of the useful links such as user CP and subscribed threads are in the Advanced button at the top of the page. ( have to admit to gleaning that infor from johnnymitch. )

 

Vint

[vint1954]

Also try the settings tab at the top of the page.

[means2anend]

Listen fellas and gals we ARE WINNERS!!!!

 

I had a threatogram from nobby number one Lowells AKA RED ...it WAS from RED

 

LEGAL action ought to have been taken according to THEIR 'intellectuals' A LONG TIME AGO ..

 

I cannot be bothered to call this bunch of IDIOTS back my 'melchick' (clockwork orange) brothers and sisters....

 

I shall tell LOWELLS ,,,CABOT..etc etc etc (Yul Brynner.) etc etc etc. to rehabilitate themselves...

 

Whilst I 'lounge....... with the greatest of respect to Bill Shiddings NOT in their patio drinking....BUT in their FRONT ROOMS my melchick brothers and sisters...a phrase form STANLEY KUBRICK

 

HEEE HEEE ...I am loving it...HONESTLY I AM

 

WE CAGGERS ARE THE BEST

 

AND WE WILL ALWAYS WIN...

 

LONG LIVE OUR INTELLECTUALS

 

THAT IS THE BEAUTY!!!

 

m2ae

 

P.S ..........The judges ARE afraid of US..believe me

Edited August 21, 2010 by means2anend
spelling' botherd' to bothered

[PriorityOne]

Are you p*ssed M2ME?

[seriously fed up]

An interesting question Priority 1 and one that reminds me of a story about the late Iain McLeod (he was going to be Chancellor in Heath's 1970 govt, but died of a heart attack a few days after being appointed). While at Oxford McLeod apparently was the doyen of his College's bridge team. One evening they were supposed to be playing a bridge match against another College, but when McLeod arrived he was clearly "tired and emotional". One of his fellow team members observed with brilliant insight "McLeod, you're drunk". To which McLeod responded "better McLeod drunk than McLeod not at all!".

I would suggest - and I thought much the same as you P1 - that "better m2ae drunk, than m2ae not at all!" - though that he chose to correct his spelling at the time, is perhaps a source of concern?

[PriorityOne]

An interesting question Priority 1 and one that reminds me of a story about the late Iain McLeod (he was going to be Chancellor in Heath's 1970 govt, but died of a heart attack a few days after being appointed). While at Oxford McLeod apparently was the doyen of his College's bridge team. One evening they were supposed to be playing a bridge match against another College, but when McLeod arrived he was clearly "tired and emotional". One of his fellow team members observed with brilliant insight "McLeod, you're drunk". To which McLeod responded "better McLeod drunk than McLeod not at all!".

I would suggest - and I thought much the same as you P1 - that "better m2ae drunk, than m2ae not at all!" - though that he chose to correct his spelling at the time, is perhaps a source of concern?

 

Lol! Hopefully he'll be back to elaborate.... the ref. to Clockwork Orange was a bit worrying. Horrible film :-/

[ruinedbynatwest]

Check out

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

to see how our judges have "fudged" evidence to pervert the Statute - specifically where regulated agreements, as these are defined by the Section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - when such regulated agreements are refinanced by Multiple Agreements as these are defined by Section 18 of the 1974 CCA as was dratfted by Mr Francis Bennion.

 

Mr Francis Bennion - who drafted the 1974 CCA, has written to say that The Court of Appeal was "wholly Mistaken" and "Incorrect" in its misapplication in Story, (where 3 regulated agreements are refinanced) and that the Court "reveals" "an uncertain judicial grasp" of his drafting - but the Court refuses to hear him, whilst paradoxically, it upholds the dissenting views to Bennion, of Guest and Loyd and Prof Roy Goode, the latter with whom I communicated in the 90's.

 

Prof Goode told me in the 90's (letter to hand) that where the CCA 1974 "bit" the terms of a relevant agreement the Court must uphold the CCA.

 

He (Prof Goode) has not been asked by me to opine on the existing indebtedness that features in Story - "the undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (Auld LJ) that existed in Story - which was refinanced ("replaced" (Auld LJ) by a new agreement which provided £35000 over the similar 3 fracilities - where the existing sum of £12000 which was refinanced neatly falls within the £15000 limit that qualified under Section 8 at the material time. IE the existing debt was regulated - satisfying the Issue on the Appeal which sought regulated agreements - The Court refuses to reconsider, under my many applications to reopen on the basis that regulated agreements were refinanced in Story - where regulated agreements were promised as being determinative of that Appeal.

 

One might legitimately expect that our senior judges might be bound to uphold the Rule of Law as far as such evidential matters are concerned, but in Natwest V Story & Pallister (CA May 7 1999)[termed Story in the authorities - the latest being Southern Pacific V Heath] the judges have concealed material evidence of regulation in Story that was determinative of that apeal, and the concealment of that material evidence in Story serves only to favour Natwest and the Coomon Law when the precedent mis- set in Story is applied to following cases under the assumedly proper rule of precedent - that we contend was, and is, perverse -

 

ie the ruling in Story was set in order to protect Natwest, initially, and to protect other creditors that followed the policy of opacity in consumer credit agreements, from the regulatory interference that was contemplated following the precedent set in Story - ie the judges are seen to have stepped over the line where they conceal the undoubted regulation in Story - where, I repeat, the Bank of England and OFT awaited the ruling before they were empowered to initiate investgations into transparency in Consumer Credit Agreements where the OFT opined (subject to the ruling of the Courts) that he CCA applied in Story.

 

In Story - nothing was written as demanded by the CCA 1974 - it was all done by handshake where the bank also promised us £500,000 of future IF we followed their business plan and advice - which was all secured against our valuable home.........

which we did............................................

 

SO WHAT ???

 

At least £300 Billions (2004 figres) reli9es on the concealment of the regulation in Story

 

John Story

 

Former Principal Lecturer (International Computers Ltd),

First Defendant

Natwest V Story & Pallister

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited August 22, 2010 by ruinedbynatwest
typos

[bustthematrix]

Maybe it's just that some have been fortunate enough to find employment.

Vint

..that and the hols too...

 

M2AE...I knew som'n wasn't right about that post!!! lol

[kaz3571]

hi

please see my thread here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-V-Cabot/page3

 

i have lost this case today cabot admitted the original was destroyed all they had was an mosly unreadable copy the jadge said due to wakesmans ruling it was all they needed. i argued that wakesman only dealt with a sec 78 req for copy of agreement but he was having none of it. he said if wakesman ruled that a copy was all that was needed for sec 78 req thren that was all that was needed in court. Good luck to all the people on here that are pinning their hopes on the original agreement not being held as i believe many of them will now lose.

kaz

[the_shadow]

hi

please see my thread here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-V-Cabot/page3

 

i have lost this case today cabot admitted the original was destroyed all they had was an mosly unreadable copy the jadge said due to wakesmans ruling it was all they needed. i argued that wakesman only dealt with a sec 78 req for copy of agreement but he was having none of it. he said if wakesman ruled that a copy was all that was needed for sec 78 req thren that was all that was needed in court. Good luck to all the people on here that are pinning their hopes on the original agreement not being held as i believe many of them will now lose.

kaz

 

did you quote directly from the judgment waksmans comments on enforceme t actions?

 

 

s.

[kaz3571]

yes i did i pointed out it was dealing with sec 78 requests the fact it was a debtor bringing the action against creditor the fact wakesman said copy and terms must be legible (which we all agreed mine wernt apart from the main bits and sig) and the fact that the creditor would need to hunt for the original to prove in court this was offere to me in my thread. however the judge was having none of it he had all ready made his mind up that his interpretation of the ruling was the correct one and gave the judgement

kaz