What Happened to the 'Credit Card Killer' Thread?

[neilm2304]

Is this a public forum or not?

 

Why was I cagbotted for stating an interest..?

[postggj]

Please Explain

 

What Was The Thread About

[neilm2304]

It was turning into a (highly interesting) debate on whether or not the 'Credit Card Killer' website (set up by the Rankines?) is a [problem] or not. There were some interesting arguments on both sides.

 

Excuse me if this is not entirely accurate since I am trying to recall from memory, but the point had just been raised (by 'Shortlife') that a credit card agreement is no longer bound by contract law once it has been terminated i.e. by a Default Notice since there is no longer an agreement.

 

It would have been interesting to see this point batted about....

[PGH7447]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/239905-credit-card-killer-[problem].html?highlight=credit+card+killer

 

try searching for it

[PGH7447]

and I see you have posted 3 posts which seem to be all there, so where does the cag bot come from

[neilm2304]

From here about 1 hr ago.

 

Quote:

 

"Hi neilm2304,

 

The post that you created in the following thread has been un-approved

 

-----

Post ID: #195 "...Now the ramifications of this reasoning are abundan...

Thread: Credit Card Killer is this a [problem]?

-----

 

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

 

Regards,

The Forum Management"

 

It appears some posts (including mine) have been removed which is why it disappered from the top of my thread list (sorry!).

 

Perhaps the mods can explain why?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Perhaps the mods can explain why?

Quite possibly because they may have detected a link between you and the Rankines and/or the Credit Card Killer (CCK) group.

 

The main problem appears to be that some new CAG IDs have popped up that are, more or less, signing from the same Hymn Sheet.

 

I for one am quite aware of how twisted the banks and the system is, but that should not be used as a cloak to tout for business, nor attack CAG. The CCK group are one of many who are seeking to profit from the misfortune of others, and are not, as far as I can tell, the peoples' champion as they would like to portray themselves.

 

If the Site Team has detected that your surname is Rankine or if you appear to be related to the CCK group (or similar), then your Posts are going to be moderated.

 

I'm not a moderator, just commenting from the cheap seats at the front.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited January 8, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[neilm2304]

Well I can assure the mod's I have no connection with the Rankines or their website whatsoever.

 

I do however have an genuine interest in the argument that was raised which I think warrants further debate, despite what people may think of the Rankines.

 

Still slightly annoyed that it was nipped in the bud....

[banker_rhymes_with]

Still slightly annoyed that it was nipped in the bud....

Firstly, CAG is a free self-help Forum.

 

There is no place on CAG for anyone touting for business, especially if they are only on CAG to try and entice the vulnerable away from CAG and into the clutches of groups who are mainly interested in extracting fees from them.

 

Any valid techniques used by these groups are already available on CAG, for free, so what, exactly, did you want to see discussed?

 

If you look, I think you will find a CAG Thread that covers almost every issue.

 

The clear concern of the Site Team was the timing of your CAG membership, and the specific Thread that you elected to participate in. I think you need to consider that it was at least very coincidental that you appeared when you did, just as other pro-CCK Posters were moderated.

 

If you are genuine and above board, and have absolutely no links to either the Rankines or CCK, then you should have nothing to worry about.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angry cat]

Firstly, CAG is a free self-help Forum.

 

There is no place on CAG for anyone touting for business, especially if they are only on CAG to try and entice the vulnerable away from CAG and into the clutches of groups who are mainly interested in extracting fees from them.

 

Any valid techniques used by these groups are already available on CAG, for free, so what, exactly, did you want to see discussed?

 

If you look, I think you will find a CAG Thread that covers almost every issue.

 

The clear concern of the Site Team was the timing of your CAG membership, and the specific Thread that you elected to participate in. I think you need to consider that it was at least very coincidental that you appeared when you did, just as other pro-CCK Posters were moderated.

 

If you are genuine and above board, and have absolutely no links to either the Rankines or CCK, then you should have nothing to worry about.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Totally agree, BRW!

[Bookworm]

And so say a lot of us!

[neilm2304]

Thanks for the explanation BRW.

 

I've been a member for over 6 months, albeit a very quiet one and any activity now is purely coincidental! As an aside, I dont subscribe to the notion of paying someone to sort out my problems for me, I'd rather do that myself with the help of this website and the valuable advice that is posted by people far more knowlegdeable than me. Anyway, rant over.

 

The discussion point was around the validity of selling 'liability' of a debt, i.e. the crux of Rankine;s CCK business model, once an agreement is terminated.

 

It would be great to see some debate on this without it descending into a slagathon between both 'sides'.

[Bookworm]

With due respect, every attempt I made on that thread to actually explain why IMO the CCK business model couldn't and wouldn't function, namely the UTCCR 99 etc., was completely ignored by the Rankines' minions and instead spun into something else and characterised as a "persecution" of the poor innocent lambs. They ignored every point I made and instead kept on stating how great the CCK pattern was. Oh yes, and when asked to just show one case won in court, they went either silent or a new ID appeared to try and turn the tables on CAG with spurious stories on how bad WE are on here...

 

As far as I am concerned, I haven't seen anything that shows that CCK have anything up their sleeves which would work any better than what we offer on here for free for people to do for themselves.

[ErikaPNP]

Neil, I've come online recently and notcied this post here. I've had a look at the issue and I have sent you a private message in regard to this.