Reply to: Oh those Consumer Action Group Wags!

[NickFitz]

Something on their site regularly crashes both my Firefox and Symbian browsers.

Their server, or rather the vBulletin application, is currently claiming to be "Too busy".

They don't seem to be providing a 503 Service Unavailable response status as per spec, though

Mind you, it's amazing the number of sites that return a page saying "404 Not Found" with a "200 OK" status header... you'd think these people didn't know how HTTP works

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Something on their site regularly crashes both my Firefox and Symbian browsers.

[Beefy198]

I enjoyed the banking section. My current account is with smile (part of the co-op), who I've never had a bad word to say about in six years of being with them, and recommended them to plenty of people. From what I can gather on there people's chains have been rattled by:

• a cheque going missing in the post. This, to them, is the bank's fault. Because nothing has ever got lost in the post before, has it? (Besides, you can just as easily pay it in at a post office)
  
• claiming that they never received some correspondence, and the poster asking if they should use recorded post..... I thought that was fairly standard whilst dealing with companies if you're pissed off with them
  
• the bank withdrawing overdraft facilities. Newsflash love - it isn't YOUR money. It's meant to be a temporary facility and if you appear to be abusing it, i.e. never paying it off then that's what's coming to you I'm afraid

[MarillionFan]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ainst-cag.html

Oh this really is a classic.

They Moderators(owners) of CAG have been asked to remove content and apologise for defamation of character. They have point blank refused and so subsequently are going to get sued on a point of principle!! The party sueing doesnt even want damages, they just want content removed and an apology.

The CAG owners, point blank refuse and are asking for money to defend it.

These people really do believe they are on some moral higher plane. Sorry is an easy word, but obviously not for people who belong to CAG.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

BTW "Wags" another perfectly good word hijacked - I was expecting a thread about the wives and girlfriends.

IGMC

[MarillionFan]

It is rather ironic.
The whole site is infested with people who claim to know all the legal ins and outs of every situation. They seem quite happy to tell all and sundry that they should sue.

Got to say, thats exactly what I thought. God their posters are damn quick to quote the law and write their letters. The first time someone does it to them, they tulip their pants.

Maybe, someone over there should have kept their mouth and their dictionaries shut.

[snaw]

Sounds like they need AtW to go in a sort it out!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It is rather ironic.
The whole site is infested with people who claim to know all the legal ins and outs of every situation. They seem quite happy to tell all and sundry that they should sue.

Yeah people playing at lawyers being sued by real lawyers - not sure which group I like least.

[TykeMerc]

It is rather ironic.
The whole site is infested with people who claim to know all the legal ins and outs of every situation. They seem quite happy to tell all and sundry that they should sue.

There is indeed a certain measure of irony.

[The Lone Gunman]

It is rather ironic.
The whole site is infested with people who claim to know all the legal ins and outs of every situation. They seem quite happy to tell all and sundry that they should sue.

[cailin maith]

As I read it, they are being sued by their ex admin assistant, who wants an apology published for certain things they said about her. They refuse to apologise, believing that what they said is true. Therefore the lawsuit will proceed and will seek damages and costs.

It seems to have 2 parts:
1. they alleged that she had
a) hacked or otherwise modified chat room software to gain access, and
b) revealed the identity of a whistleblower therein.
2. they accused her of "stealing" 416.00.

Her reply was that:
1.
a) as admin she already had access, therefore did nothing wrong to gain it, and
b) did not know the identity of the whistleblower and did (therefore) not reveal it.
2. she had received this sum from them by the usual standing order for her employment, after this employment had been terminated (i.e. due to their error, not hers); and failed to return it for a while because bank charges had reduced the balance to a point where she could not from that account; so she had to make other arrangements, which she has done and the sum has been repaid - making it hard for them to assert that she had intended permanently to deprive them of this money (an essential part of the definition of "theft").

AIUI.

I am not myself asserting any of those claims or commenting thereon, merely attempting to summarise public information on the topic.

Thanks

Seems to be at variance with



Something doesn't ring entirely true to me.

Yep, thats where I first got confused, after that.... I gave up!

[Bob Dalek]

I've read a bit of that stuff and it's a real clash of the titans!

tits

[Bagpuss]

-an

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I've read a bit of that stuff and it's a real clash of the titans!

[TykeMerc]

In April 2007 we were obliged to terminate the contract of our admin assistant. This parting was acrimonious.

Seems to be at variance with

We never charge anyone any money. No one gets paid, draws dividends or even runs an expense account.

Something doesn't ring entirely true to me.