The MP's campaign-Responses

[ja-de]

sorry smutley, but it still takes me to Easyspace - Thank you for purchasing a service from us

are you sure it's bagels & not seagulls ???

[smutley]

its strange, I copied and pasted the link from the actual site and it still doesnt work! the site is called, and ive got it opened now....legal bagels try that in google..

 

Im sure I just typed seagulls... its legal bagels

 

how odd can type seagulls... try typing it together with the word legal.... legal bagels and it changes to bagels

 

site is called legal b e a g l e s

 

www.legalseagulls.info/ - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

[olden]

Hi there, it is legal bagels I have never typed anything else?? hope you are ok with that now ja-de

 

 

It keeps changing to this I am not typing this??

I am typing capital L egal and capital B eagles

[ja-de]

Hi olden & smutley, I've done a search & it's definitely this:

RCJ video link room on Monday for OFT Case - Legal seagulls

I've managed to get the link for the video link for anyone who 's interested.

Thanks for your help both of you.

[olden]

Sorry to say ja-de but that isn't the site. The legal bagels is where I got this onfo. I don't know what that other one is. val

 

You see it changes every time you type in B eagles, maybe i was not supposed to paste this over from them. sorry

[joe1965]

Got my first reply this morning. Not bad considering I only emailed Tuesday afternoon.

 

A good one to start with as he's Shadow Minister for the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

[smutley]

RCJ video link room on Monday for OFT Case

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES RESOLUTION CENTRE

70, Fleet Street, London, EC4Y 1EU

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Thursday 17 January 2008

At 10:30

For Trial

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

Please note: There will be limited seating at the IDRC on Thursday 17th January but there will be a video link availble on Monday 21st January in Court 65 at the RCJ.

 

 

 

FROM Court Hearings - Commercial and Admiralty Court

 

 

Got this from Legal B E A G L E S ( have to type it like that or you get begels or bagels ...when posting the message... strange) however, note that this hearing is between OFT and Abbey.... are they hearing each bank separately ???

 

 

I received this email today, from Jill Evans which is strange as I sent my email to Julie Morgan (my MP)... buts its a reply lol

 

Thank you for your letter regarding court cases against bank charges. I fully sympathise with your situation as there seems to have been a frustrating wait for a resolution to this matter. Unfortunately, it is not in my powers as a member of the European parliament to have any influence on court cases in the United Kingdom. You could perhaps contact your local member of parliament for more assistance.

I notice that a High Court test case has begun today which seeks to establish whether the level of unauthorised overdraft charges levied by banks are unfair. I will be following the case with interest, hoping that a fair conclusion is reached.

Yours sincerely,

Jill Evans MEP

Plaid Cymru

[ja-de]

Sorry to say ja-de but that isn't the site. The legal bagels is where I got this onfo. I don't know what that other one is. val

 

You see it changes every time you type in B eagles, maybe i was not supposed to paste this over from them. sorry

 

Oh well, never mind Val, you're maybe right there. We'll get there yet!

Every time I try to either copy & paste or even type the address, it still takes me to that disneyland thing.

[olden]

Try this Ja-de

 

 

http://www.google.info/forums/showthread.php?t=4219&goto=newpost

 

SORRY IT CHANGED TO DISNEYLAND .

[ginan]

The name and the link to the LB site has been doctored by CAG.

 

It’s disappointing that CAG seem quite content to allow this to cause frustration to their members including hard working campaigners and old age pensioners, seemingly for their own amusement

[pt2537]

The name and the link to the LB site has been doctored by CAG.

 

It’s disappointing that CAG seem quite content to allow this to cause frustration to their members including hard working campaigners and old age pensioners, seemingly for their own amusement

 

Rather strong accusations isnt it?

 

why would any one want to doctor a link to another website?

 

i note you offer nothing to support such allegations

[ohoh4312]

There is an extremely valid reason why CAG do not want to have any public link with the afore-mentioned site.

 

I shall not go into details, but suffice to say there is absolutely no "amusement value" - that's as far from the truth as is possible to imagine.

[ginan]

There is an extremely valid reason why CAG do not want to have any public link with the afore-mentioned site.

 

but suffice to say there is absolutely no "amusement value" - that's as far from the truth as is possible to imagine.

 

If there's no amusement value, what is the justification for altering the link to 'disney' - and using the filter to change the name to 'bagles'. Surely if you don't want a link to a site you just delete it.

[Guest vortex]

For Olden and for Ginan. There is a language filter that changes the LB site name to Disneyland.

Freakyleaky the word doctored is an unfortunate word used by Ginan. Personally a simple addition to the rules that no site links whatsoever are permitted would be preferable or no site links without the permission of site admin is permitted. Something like that.

Any further comments about LB site and CCS site which is also altered on this site is unhelpful.

The site owners have the right to do it and that is that.

OHOH, sometimes, better to leave things alone because to quote Lawrence Rabinowitz QC for RBS in the OFT test case, and widely reported in the media,"it could stir up a hornet's nest".

MP's responses thread is what this one is, not discussion of the language filter. Will leave this thread for a few days in case others are looking for an argument. Try MSE if you want a good old handbags at five paces.

[ginan]

A valid point

[ohoh4312]

Fair enough vortex, although I do know what I am talking about.

 

Please be assured that I was trying to curtail the discussion in the politest way, and I certainly had no intention of instigating, or getting involved in, an argument.

 

Don't worry, I won't bother in future.

[ja-de]

Would it be at all possible for you all to have your debates elsewhere please, as this thread is for the responses from MP's thread. Might I suggest that you start a thread here, Website-Questions

thank you.

[tiglet]

Completely agree with ja-de - plus, this discussion has rather been done to death on several occassions - let's all just work together guys - we all want the same thing after all . x

[ja-de]

Well I take everything back lol (re: post 946), I've just received this letter from my MP, John Battle - Leeds West:

 

[olden]

Well I take everything back lol (re: post 946), I've just received this letter from my MP, John Battle - Leeds West:

 

Hi ja-de, pleased about that hope he is giving some support. Its a bit quiet on the Jessica side at the moment. val

[Juslookin]

Gordon Prentice of Pendle has done absolutely zilch when it comes to defending his constituents about bank charges. BUT..................

 

get a parking ticket and he's on his high horse!!

How does he get away with calling him a shady operator and a crook.?

 

Business of the House: 31 Jan 2008: House of Commons debates (TheyWorkForYou.com)

[Guest vortex]

if it is in Parliament, he cannot be sued for any comments made within it. So he could say that he was a lying cheat and not be sued in the courts for saying so because of Parliamentary privilege.

[Guest vortex]

Parliamentary privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

wikipedia on Parliamentary Privilege.

[Juslookin]

Jayzuz talk about getting away with murder! ( Although I don't think that's a privilege is it? There be no-one left!)

[prekie]

I got a reply from my MP John Pugh ... Talk about a rushed reply which is not very encouraging. I sure you need to know good ENGLAND to become a MP.

 

Anyway here's his reply to my letter tell me what you think:

 

Thanks for e-mail. You are clearly well on top of suibject

and sorely effected by it. Unfortunately bank are within their rights

now to appeal and since we cannot change the law retrospectively

decent behaviour on their part is a matter of their corporate choice,

You will appreciate that the banks are not sort of high quality legal

advice. They probably have worked out the interest they will get on

the reimbursable cash, set that against the legal costs and worked

that even if they lose its 'no brainer'. The only thing that can

change is if anyone of then as an individual bank get embarassing

publicity which erodes their market share. We could assure this by

trying to interest the media in cases like yours but a- people do not

like to discuss their financial affairs in public and b- media

interest is fickle.

I am keen to do all I can to put pressure on the banks the problem is

thinking of a way of doing it to effect. If I took up your individual

case- all I will get is a holding letter pending judicial decision.

I would quite like to chat about this with you. If you have time pop

into my office next wek during the recess 35 Shakespeare St.