Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

For discussion of the threatened legal action surrounding the alleged filesharing of pornography, computer games and music. (Golden Eye Int LTD / GEIL / MIRCOM / TCYK)
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Welcome to this forum, should you have received a letter do not panic, read the threads and make a (hopefully more informed) decision on how you want to proceed.

To avoid repeating previous posts, please familiarise yourself with the following information before posting.

Summary site (BeingThreatened.com) and Chat (IRC) or Chat (WebClient)

Speculative invoicing and “pay up or else” schemes for copyright infringement - Citizen's Advice Bureau

Speculative Invoicing Handbook

I've received a letter, what should I do? and Davenport Lyons - What can we do as a group?

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:46 am

Clemence is a keen senior runner, shown HERE.

I only mention this because of THESE results. Who beats a "Bastard"? Clem does!
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Stressed_Out » Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:22 am

While we are on the subject of "Dodgy Characters" involved in this unsavoury carp I found this interesting .

Got a heads-up about an event which happened thursday evening.

I didn't see the program but apparently at about midnight on that night the titles were about to roll at the end of a program broadcast by Ch4+1 called "Joy of teenage sex" and Ben D was captured in full view of the camera, offering a teenage girl, who had appeared on the show, £10,000 to have anal sex with him/someone else.

And this is the sort of person who is using the legal system to screw - excuse the pun - money from innocent people.

Isn't there a law against soliciting for sex????
Stressed_Out
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:19 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby flibberdy » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:19 am

While it is true that the European Convention on Human Rights is applicable only to states, those states have an obligation to ensure that the rights in question are properly protected. As a result, the ACS:Law / Mediacat shambles could be (easily) argued to be a breach of the Convention by the United Kingdom.
flibberdy
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:09 pm

Stressed_Out wrote:While we are on the subject of "Dodgy Characters" involved in this unsavoury carp I found this interesting .

Got a heads-up about an event which happened thursday evening.

I didn't see the program but apparently at about midnight on that night the titles were about to roll at the end of a program broadcast by Ch4+1 called "Joy of teenage sex" and Ben D was captured in full view of the camera, offering a teenage girl, who had appeared on the show, £10,000 to have anal sex with him/someone else.

And this is the sort of person who is using the legal system to screw - excuse the pun - money from innocent people.

Isn't there a law against soliciting for sex????


Horrid little man isn't he. I think it will be on next week, like a WHOLE feature. (Yes I realise the Video is crap, just uploaded for archive reasons)

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJYaCR5G1FE
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:17 am

Ben Dover Honeys attempt to scam money from innocents by claiming copyright infringement for what it appears to be basically him (As Lindsay Honey), him (As Steve Perry) or him (As Ben Dover) having sex (Not quite the level of Citizen Cane!) is not the kind of image he is trying to portray in recent years.

In an interview about his son starring in a sitcom HERE, it has:
Lindsay, who lives with Tyger's mum, ex-glamour model Linzi Drew, 51, in a mansion with a swim pool and fleet of supercars in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, has made millions from the porn industry.

But in recent years he has tried to distance himself from his sordid past.

Also, in an online talent website HERE he describes himself as an actor / musician, without any mention of what he is most famous for.

There is also the fact HERE that he and his wife were jailed for selling un-rated pornography videos.
Dover worked for years with his girlfriend, actress Linzi Drew, who gave birth at 37 to their child, Tyger Drew-Honey. He used the Videx equipment and mail order list to start his own business. He would sell his films from a car boot. Both he and Drew were jailed in the 1990s for selling porn videos.

As we have seen from other questionable characters who have adopted this scam, it fails. Anybody who adopts the speculative invoicing scam aligns themselves with these characters and their reputations, and in the end they will fail.
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:26 pm

bpaw wrote:Ben Dover Honeys attempt to scam money from innocents by claiming copyright infringement for what it appears to be basically him (As Lindsay Honey), him (As Steve Perry) or him (As Ben Dover) having sex (Not quite the level of Citizen Cane!) is not the kind of image he is trying to portray in recent years.

In an interview about his son starring in a sitcom HERE, it has:
Lindsay, who lives with Tyger's mum, ex-glamour model Linzi Drew, 51, in a mansion with a swim pool and fleet of supercars in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey, has made millions from the porn industry.

But in recent years he has tried to distance himself from his sordid past.

Also, in an online talent website HERE he describes himself as an actor / musician, without any mention of what he is most famous for.

There is also the fact HERE that he and his wife were jailed for selling un-rated pornography videos.
Dover worked for years with his girlfriend, actress Linzi Drew, who gave birth at 37 to their child, Tyger Drew-Honey. He used the Videx equipment and mail order list to start his own business. He would sell his films from a car boot. Both he and Drew were jailed in the 1990s for selling porn videos.

As we have seen from other questionable characters who have adopted this scam, it fails. Anybody who adopts the speculative invoicing scam aligns themselves with these characters and their reputations, and in the end they will fail.


I suspect that what you mean is Citizen Kane.

Although I am sure that if all else fails, he could diversify and appear in a film that is called "Citizen Cane".

In any event, I don't see much of a simlarity with Orson Welles in terms of career direction. Welles is reported to have once said of his career "I started at the top and worked my way down".
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:45 pm

Mullard47 wrote:I suspect that what you mean is Citizen Kane.

Although I am sure that if all else fails, he could diversify and appear in a film that is called "Citizen Cane".

In any event, I don't see much of a simlarity with Orson Welles in terms of career direction. Welles is reported to have once said of his career "I started at the top and worked my way down".

Of course, a slight oversight. Although your observational comment makes it worth the inaccuracy!
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Stressed_Out » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:13 am

@ Hickster

Thanks for that mate. The cheek of it. I wasn't sure if the heads-up was correct as I couldn't find the vid.

As I said before people. Could C4+1 be adjudged to be aiding and abetting the solicitation of sex for money? And isn't that against the Law in the UK?
Maybe the more legally minded will know the answer.
Stressed_Out
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:19 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Stressed_Out » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:34 am

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ed_Kingdom

Ah Ha!

According to the link above and the section on "Prostitution" "Third Parties"- it appears Simon has broken every law in the land.

And this from a man who was persuing "Alleged Illegal File-sharers" through the courts. Either he has been very brave or very stupid.
I'll leave you to decide. :wink:
Stressed_Out
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:19 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:03 pm

Stressed_Out wrote:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom

Ah Ha!

According to the link above and the section on "Prostitution" "Third Parties"- it appears Simon has broken every law in the land.

And this from a man who was persuing "Alleged Illegal File-sharers" through the courts. Either he has been very brave or very stupid.
I'll leave you to decide. :wink:


I would contend that the statement "it appears Simon has broken every law in the land" would be hard to maintain.

As to the legal position with paying porn movie participants in the context of prostitution laws, I am not aware that this has been argued in the UK courts but for the US position see HERE.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby bpaw » Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:48 am

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011 ... udge-says/

Appeal over legality of Digital Economy Act could be successful, judge says

BT and TalkTalk have a "real prospect of success" in arguing that the UK's Digital Economy Act (DEA) violates EU laws on liability for communications made over the internet, a UK judge has said.
"Hatton & Berkeley, which provides financial services to small businesses, sent the letters on behalf of its client TCYK LLC to Mrs Drew. Robert Croucher, managing director of Hatton & Berkeley, said: "They [the letters] are part of what's referred to as a pre-action protocol. We send them before action...They don't actually make a demand for money."
Source Link: BBC News
bpaw
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:09 pm
Location: ACS:Law leaked spreadsheet

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Stressed_Out » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:34 am

@ Mullard

Thanks for that Mullard. I take your point with regard to your link although as you correctly point out it refers to US Law (California State Law) and has yet to be tested here in the UK.
I was taking the :
UK Sexual Offences Act Sections 52, Third Parties, Causing or inciting prostitution for gain:
- and section 53, Controlling prostitution for gain, literally. Probably a mistake on my behalf. Thanks again.
Stressed_Out
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:19 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Stressed_Out » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:40 am

bpaw wrote:http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011/october/appeal-over-legality-of-digital-economy-act-could-be-successful-judge-says/

Appeal over legality of Digital Economy Act could be successful, judge says

BT and TalkTalk have a "real prospect of success" in arguing that the UK's Digital Economy Act (DEA) violates EU laws on liability for communications made over the internet, a UK judge has said.


Great at last some common-sense from the judiciary. We may just get some protection of our personal information after all in one guise or another.
Errr where is bSkyb in all of this??
Stressed_Out
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:19 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:08 am

Stressed_Out wrote:@ Mullard

Thanks for that Mullard. I take your point with regard to your link although as you correctly point out it refers to US Law (California State Law) and has yet to be tested here in the UK.
I was taking the :
UK Sexual Offences Act Sections 52, Third Parties, Causing or inciting prostitution for gain:
- and section 53, Controlling prostitution for gain, literally. Probably a mistake on my behalf. Thanks again.



I think that whether or not funded sexual activity is "prostitution", boils down to positional relationships as to who is doing what, who pays whom for what, and who gets the therapeutic benefit.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby DukePPUk » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:20 am

Stressed_Out wrote:Great at last some common-sense from the judiciary. We may just get some protection of our personal information after all in one guise or another.
Errr where is bSkyb in all of this??


BSkyB, VirginMedia etc. are all quite happy to sit on the sidelines; as companies with ties to major copyright groups, they're either being pressured from on high to support the DEA (which BSkyB did; it was pushing for a 50:50 split on costs between COs and ISPs) or think their costs under the DEA will be cancelled out by their increased revenue from it.

As for the Judge's comments; all he seems to have done is allow their appeal - whether or not that succeeds will be for the court to decide. Also, permission was granted over a month ago (slightly misleading headline there), so I'm not sure if this is news.

The pornography/prostitution issue is rather interesting - at least, enough for me to waste about an hour reading up on the SOA2003, and the case law on s52-s53. s53 is probably the most useful, being about "controlling" prostitution (which was given the rather wide, dictionary definition of "directing" in R v Massey). However, s53 is linked to the similar s49; which covers controlling under-age prostitution and pornography, so there's an argument there that s53 isn't meant to cover pornography. On the other hand, "pornography" is defined (in s51) as recording an indecent image of the person, and a "prostitute" someone who "offers or provides sexual services to another person in return for payment or a promise of payment", so one could argue that, as not all pornography necessarily involves providing sexual services to another, so there is a distinction. It might come down to definitions of "sexual services" (of which there's a definition in s9 Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, but that may be of limited application). Erm, anyway, what were we talking about?
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:39 am

The judgment where BT were granted permission to appeal may be found HERE.

In the meantime, does anyone have any information as to if, and if so when, the Initial Obligations Code will be made public, apart from the succession of excuses for the delay accompanied by "not long now" promises that have now been going on for months.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby DukePPUk » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:25 am

Mullard47 wrote:The judgment where BT were granted permission to appeal may be found HERE.

In the meantime, does anyone have any information as to if, and if so when, the Initial Obligations Code will be made public, apart from the succession of excuses for the delay accompanied by "not long now" promises that have now been going on for months.

Thanks for the link, I didn't realise it was there; I knew I shouldn't have stopped my daily perusing of Baili's recent decisions list... Interesting that he rejected the appeal on the monitoring ground, but good to see he allowed all the others (noting that the Kenneth Parker J disagreed with the Commission on at least one of them - not a good sign).

According to James Firth, Ofcom now expect that the first warning letters won't be sent before summer 2013... so they're not in any rush. Assuming no complains are made, the Costs Order should be returning from the EU next week, so we can probably expect that to be snuck through (again) while no one is looking; but there doesn't seem to be any indication of when the IOC will appear. Although my understanding was that DCMS had a "final" version back in May, but it's possible it was sent back to Ofcom due to DCMS not being happy with it (or to take preventative action based on the arguments raised by BT and TalkTalk in the DeaJR). It seems that the entire situation is one huge mess (which isn't all that surprising as the DEA wasn't really high on the current government's plans, and you have conflicting opinions on the matter coming from DBIS and DCMS, and then the web-blocking and phone-hacking stuff taking priority), so ... allowing for 6 months warm-up time and maybe 6 months for the notification, we could be looking at next summer for the IOC to appear.

They may also be waiting to see what happens with the DeaJR appeal and the Newzbin2 block (interesting to see that BT is only fighting the first of these; i.e. the one that will actually cost it money).
DukePPUk
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:50 am

DukePPUk wrote:
Mullard47 wrote:The judgment where BT were granted permission to appeal may be found HERE.

In the meantime, does anyone have any information as to if, and if so when, the Initial Obligations Code will be made public, apart from the succession of excuses for the delay accompanied by "not long now" promises that have now been going on for months.

Thanks for the link, I didn't realise it was there; I knew I shouldn't have stopped my daily perusing of Baili's recent decisions list... Interesting that he rejected the appeal on the monitoring ground, but good to see he allowed all the others (noting that the Kenneth Parker J disagreed with the Commission on at least one of them - not a good sign).

According to James Firth, Ofcom now expect that the first warning letters won't be sent before summer 2013... so they're not in any rush. Assuming no complains are made, the Costs Order should be returning from the EU next week, so we can probably expect that to be snuck through (again) while no one is looking; but there doesn't seem to be any indication of when the IOC will appear. Although my understanding was that DCMS had a "final" version back in May, but it's possible it was sent back to Ofcom due to DCMS not being happy with it (or to take preventative action based on the arguments raised by BT and TalkTalk in the DeaJR). It seems that the entire situation is one huge mess (which isn't all that surprising as the DEA wasn't really high on the current government's plans, and you have conflicting opinions on the matter coming from DBIS and DCMS, and then the web-blocking and phone-hacking stuff taking priority), so ... allowing for 6 months warm-up time and maybe 6 months for the notification, we could be looking at next summer for the IOC to appear.

They may also be waiting to see what happens with the DeaJR appeal and the Newzbin2 block (interesting to see that BT is only fighting the first of these; i.e. the one that will actually cost it money).


You would have thought that they would await the outcome of the judicial review appeal, but if that leads to a reference to the ECJ, it might be a long wait.

As to Newzbin, an explanation of BT's deployment of Cleanfeed may be found HERE. If Cleanfeed still works today in that way, then blocking Newzbin is going be somewhat more involved (and expensive) than merely feeding the system with URL's in addition to those that come from the IWF.

The judgments relating to Newzbin have the hallmarks of the technical people (who really know the issues) not having been properly consulted in a timely manner, and I think that there is cause to suppose that this is continuing. I suspect that this will evolve into a learning curve that does not bend in the direction that those learning thought it would.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Countalucard » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:25 am

Those SRA people really come down hard don't they

http://tinyurl.com/667tx78
Last edited by MrFredPFL on Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: made link clickable
Countalucard
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:29 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:30 am

Countalucard wrote:Those SRA people really come down hard don't they

http://tinyurl.com/667tx78


I suspect that when the SRA looked into this to start with, that they had not at that stage gone into the DL case in depth, and it might be that some of the implications of the matter had not been fully perceived by the SRA. Who knows? - they might have "got out whilst the going was good" before this sort of activity was ever properly and thoroughly investigated.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:57 am

Mullard47 wrote:
Countalucard wrote:Those SRA people really come down hard don't they

http://tinyurl.com/667tx78


I suspect that when the SRA looked into this to start with, that they had not at that stage gone into the DL case in depth, and it might be that some of the implications of the matter had not been fully perceived by the SRA. Who knows? - they might have "got out whilst the going was good" before this sort of activity was ever properly and thoroughly investigated.


Oh they knew alright Mullard, (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/two-so ... ly-tactics)that is what is so sickening about this. The actual arrogance of Hall, to say that it was "according to the SRAs interpretation of the rules", Tilly Bailey Irvine should now be immediately referred to the SDT for gross incompetence, imagine being taken to Court and then saying to the Judge, "Well it is YOUR interpretation, but I dont accept it", I dont think that would go down to well.

But lets not forget, they were advised by Andrew Hopper QC...The man who literally wrote the rules for the SRA, well according to Crossley that is..

I have a Blog post comming for those interested, however I am holding off at the moment as I am SO angry..
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:30 pm

Hickster wrote:
Mullard47 wrote:
Countalucard wrote:Those SRA people really come down hard don't they

http://tinyurl.com/667tx78


I suspect that when the SRA looked into this to start with, that they had not at that stage gone into the DL case in depth, and it might be that some of the implications of the matter had not been fully perceived by the SRA. Who knows? - they might have "got out whilst the going was good" before this sort of activity was ever properly and thoroughly investigated.


Oh they knew alright Mullard, (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/two-so ... ly-tactics)that is what is so sickening about this. The actual arrogance of Hall, to say that it was "according to the SRAs interpretation of the rules", Tilly Bailey Irvine should now be immediately referred to the SDT for gross incompetence, imagine being taken to Court and then saying to the Judge, "Well it is YOUR interpretation, but I dont accept it", I dont think that would go down to well.

But lets not forget, they were advised by Andrew Hopper QC...The man who literally wrote the rules for the SRA, well according to Crossley that is..

I have a Blog post comming for those interested, however I am holding off at the moment as I am SO angry..


It is not whether or not the SRA "knew" - it is clear that they did. It is the way that they tackled the matter. There appears to have been some sort of leaning curve - and learning curves are not always about acquiring factual knowledge.

I suspect that when Crossley's turn comes, that setting aside any factual differences from DL, that there will still be significant differences in how the SRA raise the various matters, and that people will say that, by comparison, DL "got away" with something.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby concerned100 » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:30 pm

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicit ... elpoutcome

I'm sure they got out while the going was good. At least they got some punishment for writing those letters implying that their threats were backed by law.

They agreed not to deny the SRA's findings yet Hall said they are

“delighted to be able to dispose of this matter in a way that makes it clear that the firm has never acted with any conscious or deliberate impropriety”

If that's not denial I don't know what is. Obviously writing the letters in the way that they did was both conscious and deliberate. This should be drawn to the SRA's attention.
concerned100
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 am

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Hickster » Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:03 am

I agree concerned100

Just updated my Blog

I included this file in the post, which I think is rather ironic listening to TBIs blathering over "Clients rights" and the "Criminality of copyright infringement" (http://bit.ly/tae1vI) Of course we DO know that TBI and Andrew Crossley later come to form an alliance with Andrew Hopper QC "The man who wrote the rules for the SRA", see you would have to wonder why the SRA knowing this, and able to read it for themselves would not have punished TBI more.

Sending TBI to the SDT which is independant, is the ONLY way, otherwise this just smacks of old school tie mentality.
Please feel free to email me at:
acs.bore@gmail.com

Read the BLOG Here
http://acsbore.wordpress.com

Faceless Keyboard Warrior
User avatar
Hickster
Faceless Keyboard Warrior
 
Posts: 1503
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Re: Official ACS:LAW/DL letter/legal threat discussion

Postby Mullard47 » Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:30 am

Actually, when you go to that SRA page HERE, it appears that they cannot even spell the solicitors firm name correctly and in places, including a search link near the foot of the page, "Tilly" is spelt "Tilley".

I suppose the SRA, like the firms it regulates, just cannot get the staff these days.

The other issue is the comment attributed to TBI's Mr Hall on that Legal Futures site where he is quoted as saying:

"We take pride in our reputation for fighting our clients’ corner to the best of our ability. Although on this occasion the SRA has ruled that we went too far – on their interpretation of the rules – we shall continue always to put the interests of clients first, as our clients and the public generally would expect."

My opinion is that the SRA should be asked whether that sort of comment, in particular the highlighted passage, is in order, and whether the SRA should consider investigating whether that statement potentially engages the operation of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Regulatory Outcome.
Mullard47
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Torrent Download Court Action Threat/Settlement Letter Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com