bill cobbett wrote:AWE wrote:bill cobbett wrote:erolz3 wrote:boulio wrote:The proof is that the ECHR has deemed it a valid means of fair redress
to a point however there have been issues latley that g/c have withdrawn their application or even not excpeted the verdict and are going back to the echr
Which is exactly the point. If the IPC is not a valid means of redress or stops becomming one then it is and will be answerable to the ECHR for that. So the idea that the IPC itself could take a 25% cut of every settlement under the table and get away with it is plainly nonsense of the highest order, but clearly that does not stop the likes of bill cobbett posting such nonsense as proven fact in order to try and 'brainwash' others.
Why don't you try clicking on the google links given mate. ... fearful of hearing of people's experiences with the "ipc" ??????
I just did and got, Page Not found for the CY link and the other 2 links to he same page with 500 internal Server Error - did you notice that 2 of the links were the same?
In fact one article that is repeated and reposted several times, is this a case of if you allege it enough time, without providing evidence, it become true?
So what did you make of the links VP posted ???
What links, I can see any in this thread posted by VP?
