Suspend Appeals but Keep on Charging?

ben500

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

''The court case is not going to put an end to fees'' Dunstonh 10.47

''The court case IS going to put an end to fees'' Dunstonh 2.08pm


My head is in my hands.

I'm gibbing out and leaving you to argue with yourself.

That's probably the best thing you can do because your talking through your hat anyway.

chrisweb

thmb2000 wrote: »

The problem is it is far from inevitable they will lose the test case.

Especially with the current fragility of the banks, there is every chance that the Judges decision may be influenced by policy, and thus find in the banks favour.

This has been my worry also.

Darth_Marty

I have also thought of the implications should the case go against the banks. Would the government really allow even more carnage to occur?

What are the odds that a happy medium is found, for example all charges claimed are paid back in shares or something? Im just talking out of my hat though, I have no idea if thats even possible or good or bad!

ben500

Darth_Marty wrote: »

I have also thought of the implications should the case go against the banks. Would the government really allow even more carnage to occur?

What are the odds that a happy medium is found, for example all charges claimed are paid back in shares or something? Im just talking out of my hat though, I have no idea if thats even possible or good or bad!

That's fair enough at least you don't appear to be sitting on it whilst doing so, I'm sure that the outcome of the case will be different than if it had completed prior to the bank meltdown, it has to be.

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

Because the courts have yet to deterimine if the original charging structures are unlawful. So, splitting between old and new in court would be futile.



scaremongering.

Duntonh, I think you should change your user name to Dennis the Menace

Nathan_Spleen

ben500 wrote: »

I'm sure that the outcome of the case will be different than if it had completed prior to the bank meltdown, it has to be.

I don't suppose it's worth asking if you've any evidence to back this up?

You're accusing the courts of a grave offence here.

''Hello? Master of the Rolls...''

''Yes Gordon here. I'm going to risk my political neck and ask you to ignore the law and swing the case in favour of the banks''

''Okie doke. That all sounds tickety boo. I'll risk my career in the judiciary as well''.

ben500

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

I don't suppose it's worth asking if you've any evidence to back this up?

You're accusing the courts of a grave offence here.

''Hello? Master of the Rolls...''

''Yes Gordon here. I'm going to risk my political neck and ask you to ignore the law and swing the case in favour of the banks''

''Okie doke. That all sounds tickety boo. I'll risk my career in the judiciary as well''.

Don't be silly it will be done far more subtly than that.

Nathan_Spleen

ben500 wrote: »

Your'e the one doing all the protesting yet have put nothing forward to substantiate it.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

ben500

I doubt very much you could.

Nathan_Spleen

Opinions are fine when they have at least some factual basis and worthless when they don't.