CAG doing something useful

Orford

Herbie21 wrote: »

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.

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

Newsletter here:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?861-Newsletter-March-2012-2nd-Special-Focus-Edition

peter_the_piper

Herbie21 wrote: »

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

Well put Herbie.

Trebor16

Herbie21 wrote: »

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!!!

All people want with CAG is for their moderators to follow their own rules with regards to advising members to look up MSE and Pepipoo. Their rules are clear about posting links to free advice sites but their mods are disregarding their own rules and threatening members with bans for the "crime" of asking why they are removing even the name of certain free advice sites.

I'm surprised you have come to their defence Herbie given the shameful way you were treated back in 2008. I well remember your posts were moderated and had to be approved by a mod, a process that sometimes took hours.

We are happy to send people to Pepipoo and CAG here and the MSE team seem happy with that, but it has to be a cause for concern when poor advice is being given and mods at CAG are breaking their own rules whilst trying to claim the process is "touting".

Herbie21

Trebor,

You are right. I was indeed subjected to posts being removed in 2008 and at the time ( which I remember very well) I was upset......but, I realised that posters needed help and if I able in any small way to assist them, I will do so.

I am at all defending CAG and I am sorry if that is the impression but it is not intended. At one time back in arounnd 2008, I actually started my own forum dedicated only to bailiff problems but I had to take the site down after only a few weeks as I having to continually monitor posts and make sure that a person did not publicly name a bailiff etc and I was told in no uncertain terms by my solicitor that I could be held responsible for any posts that could be deemed libelous etc.

For your information, I was also banned from posting here on MSE a couple of years ago so this is not something that is only done on CAG !!!

At this moment in time, the most important thing should be for everyone to get together ( regardless of which forum they have come from) and ensure that the Consultation on bailiff reform is correctly addressed.

Today, my 2nd Newsletter on suggested changes to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents was released and hopefully, from reading this you will all see WHY it is so important that responses are made to the Consultation.

PS: From reading the revised changes that have already been made to the NSEA, you will see that a bailiff may now visit on ANY Bank Holiday.....and the proposal in the Consultation is for bailiffs to also visit homes on SUNDAYS!!!!


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?861-Newsletter-March-2012-2nd-Special-Focus-Edition

robredz

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.

We can still have a look at the bailiff forum and see what is up about the MOJ consultation, after all tomtubby is feeding information in.

bookworm1363

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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

Don't believe everything someone with a VERY vested interest (hello Nick!) in the above "dispute" has to say.

There are plenty of reasons why CAG had to "climb down", the main one being they couldn't afford to fight a libel case, whether they would have won it or not (even with donations, I'm afraid), something that is well known by certain posters on here, since they were the financial clout behind said attack on CAG.

It's a wise person who knows when to give in rather than lose what benefits thousands of persons, and with great regrets, CAG had no choice but to write the letter of apology Trebor mentions. But let me ask you, if it's written under duress, does it mean anything?

Anyway, enough of me, I would like to applaud Peter the Piper for creating this thread, and for being smarter that a lot of people here who don't seem to realise that whether they like the way it's run or not, CAG has helped thousands of people and still does. Let sleeping dogs lie, !!!!!!, and stop worrying at that bone!

TT, you're doing a grand job, and I am glad to see you are still fighting the fight. Good on you. :T

Trebor16

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Don't believe everything someone with a VERY vested interest (hello Nick!) in the above "dispute" has to say.

So who in this thread are you saying had a vested interest then Bookworm?

Bookworm1363 wrote:

There are plenty of reasons why CAG had to "climb down", the main one being they couldn't afford to fight a libel case, whether they would have won it or not (even with donations, I'm afraid), something that is well known by certain posters on here, since they were the financial clout behind said attack on CAG.

Again, which poster in this thread are you referring to Bookworm? And what about all the donations you received from members of CAG to fight the action? That was doing quite nicely I seem to recall.

Bookworm1363 wrote:

It's a wise person who knows when to give in rather than lose what benefits thousands of persons, and with great regrets, CAG had no choice but to write the letter of apology Trebor mentions. But let me ask you, if it's written under duress, does it mean anything?

Of course they had no choice to write it, they got it so badly wrong Bookworm! To suggest that it was written under duress is nonsense.

Bookworm1363 wrote:

Anyway, enough of me, I would like to applaud Peter the Piper for creating this thread, and for being smarter that a lot of people here who don't seem to realise that whether they like the way it's run or not, CAG has helped thousands of people and still does. Let sleeping dogs lie, !!!!!!, and stop worrying at that bone!

And CAG could do a lot better if it was happy to allow links to here or Pepipoo instead of deleting them in such an absurd manner. The battle against the scam PPC's would be better fought from a number of fronts as well as sharing of knowledge and information between the free advice sites. By deleting links to established sites it is not helping the cause.

People here are smart enough to realise that but it seems some CAG mods are not that smart and instead make threats of bans with no foundation whatsoever whenever legitimate questions are asked about a policy that does not appear to be compliant with CAG's own T's and C's.

Coupon-mad

bookworm1363 wrote: »

Don't believe everything someone with a VERY vested interest (hello Nick!) in the above "dispute" has to say.

There are plenty of reasons why CAG had to "climb down", the main one being they couldn't afford to fight a libel case, whether they would have won it or not (even with donations, I'm afraid), something that is well known by certain posters on here, since they were the financial clout behind said attack on CAG.

It's a wise person who knows when to give in rather than lose what benefits thousands of persons, and with great regrets, CAG had no choice but to write the letter of apology Trebor mentions. But let me ask you, if it's written under duress, does it mean anything?

Anyway, enough of me, I would like to applaud Peter the Piper for creating this thread, and for being smarter that a lot of people here who don't seem to realise that whether they like the way it's run or not, CAG has helped thousands of people and still does. Let sleeping dogs lie, !!!!!!, and stop worrying at that bone!

TT, you're doing a grand job, and I am glad to see you are still fighting the fight. Good on you. :T

Sorry but I have tried CAG and never again.

I fell foul of 'daring' to link a few newbies to the letter-chains thread here. Was told to stop by a mod who was downright RUDE, no proper reason given at all even though CAG doesn't even answer most newbies' questions fully. I was even admonished for linking the well-known Watchdog youtube link! Sorry but its parking forum 'advice' in particular is not a patch on the advice given here and on pepipoo, as an MSE regular you presumably have noticed that? Why leave people in the dark?

Ever wondered why every single person who posts about a PPC fake ticket on CAG always comes back in a panic when they get a debt collector letter?

Because CAG is too proud/stubborn to allow posters to link to MSE and show them previews of the letters, or to Watchdog.

Don't tell me it's because CAG is a smaller forum. So is pepipoo and they have the MSE letter-chains link and the Watchdog clip as a permanent sticky.

bookworm1363

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sorry but I have tried CAG and never again.


Don't tell me it's because CAG is a smaller forum. So is pepipoo and they have the MSE letter-chains link and the Watchdog clip as a permanent sticky.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I haven't been an active member of CAG myself for a while, and so cannot comment on what is the policy now. When I was there, links to both MSE and Pepipoo as well as quite a few other sites were allowed, I have no idea if and why they're not now. Indeed, MSE was closely linked to CAG in many ways and vice-versa, and one of the 1st donations to CAG was by Martin, and CAG carried an MSE banner for a long time. But that's by the by.

All I'm saying is what I am seeing here is *some* people with a personal interest in besmirching a forum that has done and -presumably- still does a lot of good, and when I saw the nonsense about the alleged libel case, I felt, no, I knew it was very one-sided and just wanted to redress the balance, just in case anyone took silence for a confirmation that the "facts" were true.

Trebor, I am not going to name anyone, the alleged libel case clearly showed when people who have more money than sense decide to bully those with more sense than money. As I am one of the latter, I must therefore decline your challenge, and will just say that if anyone thinks the shoe fits, well then maybe there's a reason for it, I can not possibly guess what goes on in people's head.

I'm not interested in derailing this thread any further, I apologise to Peter and Herbie for hijacking it as it is, I just didn't want people to read one side of the "story" and turn away from a valid source of help just in case they believed it, that's all.

It seems CAG IS doing something useful here, and yet all I see is people trying to say all the things it does wrong, how is that helping people who need all the knowledge they can get against the common enemy? Liberation Front of Judea anyone?

Anyway... People will do what they want to do, I just hope that a few gainsayers won't have turned them away from seeking help *wherever they need*.

Good night all. :cool:

Herbie21

This thread was started by Peter the Piper who posted a link to a Newsletter on what has to be the most important Consultation for a very long time on reforming the bailiff industry !!

Clearly however, some posters have seen that this thread has provided them with a "useful avenue" in which to start a public slanging match with CAG and their moderators/owners. This is frankly deplorable.

This thread that was only started a few days ago has nearly 1,000 viewers and I would like to think that most...if not all.. of them are interested in the Consultation on bailiff reform.

Around a month ago, I spent the best part of a day responding to a lot of enquiries on another forum called Legal Bxxxxxx. I was absolutely stunned at the dreadful way in which threads were constantly being HIGHJACKED by certain posters who were hellbent on using that forum as well to attack certain moderators at CAG. I have not posted on that forum since which is a shame as the person who suffers is the visitor to the site who is seeking help.

To see the same thing happening on this forum is unbelievable.

I will not be making any further posts on this thread.

Bookworm...thank you for your kind words.....

Trebor.....The country is in the grips of the worst recession in living memory and frankly, I am not in the slightest bit interested in hearing about a libel case from years ago or bad feeling between moderators at CAG etc.

My final point relates to the SIGNATURE that you will see below. There is a box that can be ticked so that the signature DOES NOT appear and unless I forget, I always tick it. This SIGNATURE was put on all posts of mine BY MSE themselves a couple of years ago and was due to the fact that I had posted a link to my own website. I was given a severe telling off.

My website does provide very useful information and although at the time I was annoyed, I appreciated the fact that MSE have their rules. If they break those same rules themselves by posting links to certain commercial sites, that it their right. After all, this is their site.

CAG can also do the same.

Sorry....I pressed the button to remove the SIGNATURE in error....this is my SIGNATURE:

Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure