Quote:
Originally Posted by OF1975
My petition was rejected not only the spurious grounds of "duplication" but also because in their words it is:
* Potentially libellous, false, or defamatory statements
To say I am angry is to understate things. I immediately fired off an email back to them pointing out that BT have themselves admitted to the trial last july and that they had no consent. I gave them links to the relevant articles and forcibly reminded them that BT executives are NOT above the law.
I will be resubmitting another petition in a few minutes time then going to watch channel 4 news and then the Manchester United V Roma match.
---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------
OK another petition submitted which is smaller and a little gentler... added a few "potentially" and "may have contravened" etc etc What are you betting they reject it again still saying that its libelous etc
|
like i said about Alexanders first one, they took loads of time with that ,but yours came back rejected dead quick.
they must have had the lawyers look it over and anything now comeing in with BT and Phorm in there now, will get a 'dont pass go' sticky slapped on it, perhaps that accepted totally seperate one is serving their purpose and keeping the real hard one's off the page.