who is pulling the strings

pingchris

id love to know the truth behind the charges case but i doubt i will ever find it,the question i find im asking myself is ,"who is pulling the strings" that stopped this charges case going in the publics favour" ?

im just joe bloggs and dont know much of what actually goes on in the world,but i know this for a nailed on fact,you screw your public,you screw your country,this case should never have seen light of day as it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place,continuously charging people who are fighting the financial tide is a disgrace,banks have well and truly overstepped the line.

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

id love to know the truth behind the charges case but i doubt i will ever find it,the question i find im asking myself is ,"who is pulling the strings" that stopped this charges case going in the publics favour" ?

im just joe bloggs and dont know much of what actually goes on in the world,but i know this for a nailed on fact,you screw your public,you screw your country,this case should never have seen light of day as it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place,continuously charging people who are fighting the financial tide is a disgrace,banks have well and truly overstepped the line.

Some of the stuff you are posting are nonsensical idiocies. Chris, you are coming across as someone who so far gone that even if you shone a light it would go right through you. Have a read of the judgements and yes they are in legalistic language so research the topic and research again. Even look at the original EC directive itself....http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31993L0013&model=guichett
The above one is the reference. Look at the way forward and then you'll see that the argument was a very narrow one. The transcripts on the OFT test case are on the Legal Beagles site as well. You can read them all and then make a decision based on that. That would perhaps help you to form your own informed opinion rather than the current one of verbal diarrhea that you are currently coming out with.
No offence is meant and I hope none is taken.

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Some of the stuff you are posting are nonsensical idiocies. Chris, you are coming across as someone who so far gone that even if you shone a light it would go right through you. Have a read of the judgements and yes they are in legalistic language so research the topic and research again. Even look at the original EC directive itself....http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31993L0013&model=guichett
The above one is the reference. Look at the way forward and then you'll see that the argument was a very narrow one. The transcripts on the OFT test case are on the Legal Beagles site as well. You can read them all and then make a decision based on that. That would perhaps help you to form your own informed opinion rather than the current one of verbal diarrhea that you are currently coming out with.
No offence is meant and I hope none is taken.

not a problem your entitled to rubbish what i discuss,thats up to you its a free country .

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

not a problem your entitled to rubbish what i discuss,thats up to you its a free country .

I haven't on this post but I can IF you want me to? That is not what the post was about but if we end up with New POC's then you need to FULLY understand what you are going to argue, better to swot up now than assume that banks will simply payout without going to court.

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I haven't on this post but I can IF you want me to? That is not what the post was about but if we end up with New POC's then you need to FULLY understand what you are going to argue, better to swot up now than assume that banks will simply payout without going to court.

i take your point your right,my anger is leading my nose.