CAG doing something useful

give_them_FA

You are right, of course, P t P. I suppose it is symptomatic of the frustration that a site can come up with good and useful stuff such as the matter you highlight, whilst at the same time indulging in silly petty jealousy.

Of course voices need to be heard against the corrupt mess that the present bailiff system is. Reform and proper regulation are well overdue and the opportunity needs to be grasped.

Coupon-mad

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I'm very disappointed, I started a thread on possible bailiff legislation, which I thought would be of use to all here. Instead all replies, bar a couple, have been about the rights and wrongs of CAG, I expected this from other parts of the forum but not here.

Sorry PTP.

It was a very useful & interesting link and it was written by tomtubby (is that Herbie aka Sheila)? Any way tomtubby knows about bailiff stuff so - indeed - CAG are soing something useful.

The other issue is daft - I think they are scared of being sued over links they cannot 'control'. But I can even link pepipoo and MSE (I don't bother to recommend CAG) on a football forum and PaidToShop and they don't get all jumpy about it! You would expect smaller sites like footy forums and PTS to be more scared of being sued - not a self-styled 'expert' Consumer Advice Forum like CAG!

Trebor16

After the debacle of the way they treated their admin assistant back in 2008 and the humiliating climbdown they had to make in relation to that perhaps they are a bit conscious of someone sueing them. But if they behave the same way they did with Karnevil then they would only have themselves to blame.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=16376

Coupon-mad

Wow! Didn't know about that, Trebor16! :eek:

Trebor16

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow! Didn't know about that, Trebor16! :eek:

It was very contentious at the time and Karnevil got a really hard time from the powers that be at CAG and some of the Mods. You can see the apology they issued was a humiliating U-turn on the claims that were being made at the time. They even had a specific "libel" thread going on to raise funds for the case, so there must have been a lot of members who were wondering what was going on when Marc Gander issued the apology.

peter_the_piper

Don't forget to follow the link to the consultation paper and have you're say.

Coupon-mad

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Don't forget to follow the link to the consultation paper and have you're say.

WIll do when I feel a bit less 'full of a cold' like today!

I am a woman with a headache! Eeeurgggghhh!!

HO87

I find CAG really quite frustrating at times. Besides not allowing links to either MSE or PPP it seems that unless the general advice follows a particular format then posts are removed. As we all know the standard advice for PPC tickets is to ignore but on occasions it is good advice to tackle the matter head-on and write letters/NBA's to bring the matter up short. It seems that because that now offends the all-pervasive view that advice can only recommend that posters "ignore" PPC demands that any post suggesting otherwise - even in specific cases where that advice is entirely sound, are removed.

give_them_FA

"Ignore" is a good tactic as it requires no input and works. Therefore I agree it is the "default" advice for the sort of worried posters who make up the majority of the "clients". I would not pretend it is the only tactic: with more confident posters sure of their ground, taking them on in a controlled way- leading to the opportunity to sue them- is good too; a couple of payouts of damages for harassment would make the crooks rethink their business model.

Herbie21

As many on here will know, I have the Bailiff Advice Online service and I used to regularly respond to enquiries here on MSE but started to withdraw as so many posters were too interested in arguing instead of assisting the person who has come on here to request help....and support.

This Consultation on bailiff reform is of vital importance and there will never again be another opportunity to get good bailiff law and that is why I offered to write the Newsletter for "the other site" ( under my user name of Tomtubby). There are other follow up Newsletters that I am writing one of which, was released today on the proposed changes to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

It has been known for a long time that there are "frictions" between the various forums but so what. Instead of being critical, everyone should instead be saying "well done" for providing a means in which members of the public can obtain advice for FREE!!!

As for the comments about the owner of "the other site" ( MG) I am shocked that anyone should be critical about him making money from his site. Surely nobody can expect that a site such as theirs ( or this one) should be run as a Charity !!!

For what it is worth, I have also been "told off" in the past for posting links to external sites but what I have never done is to "jump over" to another forum to complain. I do not post links to my site and know perfectly well that the "other forum" would not allow this.

The only reason that I am mentioning my business on here is that it may help to know that the Newsletter has been written by someone who has a fair amount of experience with this most dreadful industry.

Thanks everyone for reading this and PLEASE, PLEASE respond to the public Consultation