Jump to content


Hunting debate - Vote now!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5297 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Barracad, you are right it was not said that it was profit making but a commercial site.

 

I must need new spectacles as I've looked at the thread several times now and the first mention of any profit making/commercial site etc was made by Peed 'Orf.

 

Can somebody please quote whatever it is that seemed to have caused offence? I can find no suggestions of any kind.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

nothing libellous in my post was there baz?

 

You probably know more than me - what you posted could be true, but I doubt it very much. Without any evidence to back it up, I'm afraid your post won't be allowed.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage

I wasn't criticising Legal seagulls at all, I was simply pointing out that Peedorf is factually incorrect when he/she says that it is not a profit making entity, which it manifestly is.

 

Meldrew- when you talk about ambulance chasers charging 15% - 25%, how is that different to the way your 'approved' law firms will be operating? Presumably they'll be working on a no-win-no-fee basis? I believe that the average percentage a law firm takes in a no-win-no-fee action is around 30%, and of course if you lose, you will still be liable for the bank's costs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is fair comment , is there any chance of removing sausage legs` post until any evidence has been found to back up their statement

 

In the interests of fairness and all that

 

I am not familiar with the Legal seagulls site but I imagine the details about solicitors referrals and £9 membership fees are detailed on that site, or else somebody would have corrected it. Therefore the "evidence" is actually on the LB site itself.

 

The comments which you posted will probably not be found on the LB site as even if it were true I doubt they would be advertising the fact.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did barracad with regards to 9 quid membership. Please see site questions and suggestions and one of the closed threads.

With regards to solicitors referrals it states fully insured solicitor

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barracad can part of this be moved off topic because I think it is off the main topic of the thread which is Hunting Debate

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage

I thought the entire Bear Garden forum was meant to be 'off topic', or am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No i meant this bit is further off the hunting debate than the thread beginning, does that make sense?

We can carry on i suppose?

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did barracad with regards to 9 quid membership. Please see site questions and suggestions and one of the closed threads.

 

Is that the post where you said

 

the VIP area... has a cost of £9 a year

 

sounds to me like you are saying there is a £9 charge for certain areas, not disputing it!

 

So is there or isn't there? If there is, then there is nothing libellous in SummerSausage's post. If there is no charge, then clearly SummerSausage is mistaken.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

am I missing something?

 

I think I'm the one who's missing something... I have no idea how or why we got into this rather odd debate.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barracad as you are quoting me, can I ask if you believe Penalty Charges is a commercial site which DOES have the same facilities for a cost?

 

I want to clarify that aspect because it was also made clear in the post that membership to the main forums and information is specifically FREE. I know this site does not have a VIP area nor does MSE.

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. First post on here.

 

Just a thought, I don't know whats going on between these two sites, but I've looked at them both and from what I can see there are differences, but the main aim of BOTH (and indeed) all sites, is to take back what is lawfully ours. Am I not right?

 

Why is there all this mudslinging and animosity from the Consumer Action Group towards Legal seagulls? Why do you not attack Penalty Charges and Money Saving expert as well, amongst others?

 

I feel that all this energy is being wasted on attacking another site, when it could be used challenging the banks and other unlawful practices. Do you not agree?

 

So what if Legal seagulls has a commercial arm to it? From what I can see (yes I am a member, along with being a member to CAG, PC and MSE) there is no charge for using the forum, unless you want access to the VIP forum, the same as Penalty Charges. What is wrong with offering a service where people can pay a QUALIFIED person to reclaim their bank charges back? If you didn't want to do it yourself, surely that would be better than using one of these firms out there, who I am sure employ unqualified laypersons to handle claims, do you not agree?

 

They are also offering, from what I can make out, conveyancing and wills, amongst other legal services. Again, what is wrong with a website offering these? Would the CAG etc do these for free? I think not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage
I think I'm the one who's missing something... I have no idea how or why we got into this rather odd debate.
Hunting --> seagulls --> Legal seagulls --> Ambulance Chasers...seems to have been the general route.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barracad as you are quoting me, can I ask if you believe Penalty Charges is a commercial site which DOES have the same facilities for a cost?

 

I have no idea. I know about as much as PC site as I do about LB. As far as I know PC display something next to your avatar after you've donated, if that's what you mean. They could well have a private/VIP area which you have to pay for but if they do that's the first I've heard of it. I understand they have some kind of auction site, so I would say yes they are a commercial site. That doesn't necessarily mean they make a profit.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage
Hi guys. First post on here.

 

Just a thought, I don't know whats going on between these two sites, but I've looked at them both and from what I can see there are differences, but the main aim of BOTH (and indeed) all sites, is to take back what is lawfully ours. Am I not right?

 

Why is there all this mudslinging and animosity from the Consumer Action Group towards Legal seagulls? Why do you not attack Penalty Charges and Money Saving expert as well, amongst others?

 

I feel that all this energy is being wasted on attacking another site, when it could be used challenging the banks and other unlawful practices. Do you not agree?

 

So what if Legal seagulls has a commercial arm to it? From what I can see (yes I am a member, along with being a member to CAG, PC and MSE) there is no charge for using the forum, unless you want access to the VIP forum, the same as Penalty Charges. What is wrong with offering a service where people can pay a QUALIFIED person to reclaim their bank charges back? If you didn't want to do it yourself, surely that would be better than using one of these firms out there, who I am sure employ unqualified laypersons to handle claims, do you not agree?

 

They are also offering, from what I can make out, conveyancing and wills, amongst other legal services. Again, what is wrong with a website offering these? Would the CAG etc do these for free? I think not?

I think the main difference is that CAG, PC and MSE are all heavily involved in actual campaigning. They all have large numbers of users and expensive servers to run. I believe that both PC and CAG were forced into offering various paid for things in order to keep things running. LB on the other hand seems to have been set up very quickly, using material copied from other sites (yes I know, not all of it) with the specific intention of making money for its owners and their affiliated lawyers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

summer that post actually states the source as well, consumeractiongroup, so acknowledgement is there. Where is the copied stuff unacknowledged?

 

 

Also a breach of forum rules as the site is classed as a commercial site as an aside

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes with reference to it being originally posted on cag , I did mean however proof of your earlier statement . By the way thanks for the link much appreciated as there will no doubt be plenty watching this thread;)

 

 

And Hi Yoda , guess what I`m eating at the mo , clue: it says Bassetts on it thanks its luuurrrvly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest SummerSausage
summer that post actually states the source as well, consumeractiongroup, so acknowledgement is there. Where is the copied stuff unacknowledged?

 

 

Also a breach of forum rules as the site is classed as a commercial site as an aside

I don't think I was suggesting anything other than that the material has been copied, as opposed to linked directly to CAG. The fact that its origin is acknowledged doesn't alter the fact that it is a copy.

 

I don't understand your second paragraph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal seagulls site has been classed as commercial and is therefore in breach of the site rules to post a link. Others who did post a link have had their posts edited as *commercial link removed*

It has been copied with a clear reference. Anyone with a search engine can type consumeractiongroup and end up here.

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...