MSE News: 'Family tax': Dad's outrage as Ryanair tries to seat 3yo away from family

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they might be. We don't know yet. Why are we repeatedly covering old ground? This is trolling.

Be warned - you're up against professionals here! They never give up!

There was a 100+ page thread on the PVT board with them continually stating shyster sites (imitiation sites for passport renewals etc) were within their rights to charge for their "services". Several legal cases prove otherwise. You think that shut them up? Think again..;) This thread is only 21 pages so far. A mere baby to them...

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, they might be. We don't know yet. Why are we repeatedly covering old ground? This is trolling.

Oh, I really do think that if H&S were involved in putting a stop to this splitting up of families we'd know all about it.

But - that's my opinion and you don't have to agree with it but please don't be rude and accuse me of trolling when all I'm doing is posting my opinion and asking a few questions of some self-confessed experts of H&S rules.

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

Oh, I really do think that if H&S were involved in putting a stop to this splitting up of families we'd know all about it.

No, we wouldn't know about it. We would know only after they have taken action. Legal processes take a long time. Please stop trolling.

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

Be warned - you're up against professionals here! They never give up!

There was a 100+ page thread on the PVT board with them continually stating shyster sites (imitiation sites for passport renewals etc) were within their rights to charge for their "services". Several legal cases prove otherwise. You think that shut them up? Think again..;) This thread is only 21 pages so far. A mere baby to them...

Posters on that thread were saying - quite rightly - that these companies were not breaking the law as it stood at the time.
Trading Standards agreed, so did a number of financial institutions who refunded the money then took it back after investigation into the companies.
At no time did anyone defend these companies.

The legal cases you refer to were very recent and the judge ruled against the company because the owner was a complere idiot who took people to court for reasons he had no chance of winning e.g. people who could prove that they'd never visited his website.

From your last couple of posts it seems to be that you are trying to take this thread off-topic. Why is that?

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

No, we wouldn't know about it. We would know only after they have taken action. Legal processes take a long time. Please stop trolling.

Stating a differnce of opinion is not trolling. It is my opinion, clearly not yours but I don't know why you believe you should be able to state your opinion but that of myself, peachyprice and Leylandsunaddict are dismissed as 'trolling'.

Pollycat wrote: »

But - that's my opinion and you don't have to agree with it but please don't be rude and accuse me of trolling when all I'm doing is posting my opinion and asking a few questions of some self-confessed experts of H&S rules.

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

Stating a differnce of opinion is not trolling. It is my opinion, clearly not yours but I don't know why you believe you should be able to state your opinion but that of myself, peachyprice and Leylandsunaddict are dismissed as 'trolling'.

It's not a difference of opinion. It's your deliberate overlooking of material facts (many of which have been stated earlier in the thread) in order to support your trolling.

zagfles

pollycat wrote: »

posters on that thread were saying - quite rightly - that these companies were not breaking the law as it stood at the time.
trading standards agreed, so did a number of financial institutions who refunded the money then took it back after investigation into the companies.
At no time did anyone defend these companies.

The legal cases you refer to were very recent and the judge ruled against the company because the owner was a complere idiot who took people to court for reasons he had no chance of winning e.g. People who could prove that they'd never visited his website.

From your last couple of posts it seems to be that you are trying to take this thread off-topic. Why is that?

qed.......

peachyprice

zagfles wrote: »

Be warned - you're up against professionals here! They never give up!

There was a 100+ page thread on the PVT board with them continually stating shyster sites (imitiation sites for passport renewals etc) were within their rights to charge for their "services". Several legal cases prove otherwise. You think that shut them up? Think again..;) This thread is only 21 pages so far. A mere baby to them...

Who are 'they'?

shaun_from_Africa

NFH wrote: »

It's not a difference of opinion. It's your deliberate overlooking of material facts (many of which have been stated earlier in the thread) in order to support your trolling.

The only verifiable material fact I can find on here is the fact that the CAA only have guidelines and not rules laws or regulations about the positioning of children in relation to the rest of the family or other responsible adult.

What are the other material facts to which you refer?
And before you accuse me of trolling (after all, you seem to do that to everyone who has a difference of opinion to you), I am not trolling. I would really be interested in reading these other "material facts".

zagfles

peachyprice wrote: »

Who are 'they'?

See for yourself: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4869030