on bbc: Some store card debtors may be let off with upgraded cards

endora

seamanarts wrote: »

You seem very bitter towards CAG,

CAG used to be a good site a few years ago but the quality of help has been going steadily downhill, especially since many of the more knowledgeable people have left/moved on.

Also CAG behaved disgracefully towards the solicitor who won this case, he made an enormous contribution to CAG's legal library when he was a member and that wasn't appreciated at all. :mad:

jon1965

Someone has rattled a cage or 3 as a site team member has come out to debunk some of the "legal rules" being paraded about PDL's.

jon1965

seamanarts wrote: »

At what cost? did the solicitor work for free?

Any fees the solicitor got came from the losing party

seamanarts wrote: »

You seem very bitter towards CAG,

Bitter moi?
As if

Yes i am , they give BAD advice to people then ban others who question it. It is censorship at it's very worst leaving people with the opinion that the advice posted is correct, anything else is deleted

mo786uk

My experience of CAG is also pretty negative. Very one sided with censorship - they even banned someone who quoted legislation that didn't tie in with their views even though it was legally accurate.

jon1965

Could well have been me ...or was it you?

seamanarts

endora wrote: »

CAG used to be a good site a few years ago but the quality of help has been going steadily downhill, especially since many of the more knowledgeable people have left/moved on.

Also CAG behaved disgracefully towards the solicitor who won this case, he made an enormous contribution to CAG's legal library when he was a member and that wasn't appreciated at all. :mad:

Is he a solicitor now?
or are we talking about this solicitor.

lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/sdt-decisions/andrew-thomas-watson

this certainly dosnt look good on his firm.

seamanarts

jon1965 wrote: »

Any fees the solicitor got came from the losing party



Bitter moi?
As if

Yes i am , they give BAD advice to people then ban others who question it. It is censorship at it's very worst leaving people with the opinion that the advice posted is correct, anything else is deleted

Every forum can give bad advice, what sort of censorship are you on about.

seamanarts

mo786uk wrote: »

My experience of CAG is also pretty negative. Very one sided with censorship - they even banned someone who quoted legislation that didn't tie in with their views even though it was legally accurate.

Can you give me an example

mo786uk

seamanarts wrote: »

Can you give me an example

A poster on there pointed out that there is nothing illegal about debt collectors phoning up neighbours - they just have to comply with certain rules. Censored.

A lot of posters were claiming that a specific type of activity was a criminal offence. They had read the legislation wrong. This was pointed out by a poster and thread deleted.

I have no doubt they help some people, but they are overly millitant and some of the advice they provide will not suit everyone. In the debt collection forum a lot of the advice they provide suits debt evaders but for the many people that claim they are being wrongly chased for a debt there are lots of other courses of action they can take (which at the same time could make things difficult for debt collectors if they so wished).

What is very clear is that they have an agenda and will harshly censor anyone who suggests anything against it.

There is also a thread on there where some guy wanted to kick up a fuss about a debt colelctor, he was told that he would not get far based on his case - yet many regulars encouraged hi mto write letters etc- after 26 pages of chat they finally realsied it was a waste of time. But the moderators dont care, anything they can do to cause hassle for debt companies suits them.

seamanarts

Maybe it was deleted because there was bad advice which may have caused arguments, and if certain things are posted that are wrong then maybe it shouldnt be on a forum just in case some see it as gospel.

I think what you have to understand is that CAG members offer advise, if the advise causes certain situations that may be libellous for CAG or the poster, then of course it should be deleted. That is common sense.

Like all forums they have rules, every member agrees by those rules when they sign up, If rules are broken, Post will be deleted or corrected.
I dont see what the problem with that is?

Why argue against it, you know full well that it would be deleted also.

Why bash a forum for sticking by its rules and for trying to protect itself against libel matters.