I was at the Court of Appeal and I heard the entire O'Shea case so I understand the judgement - do you?
Nonsense, the entry I am restoring, and the one you persistently remove, was the one placed in by Robo. I agree that a link to the court of appeal judgement is a good idea, why not place it further up, rather than trying to use it to restore text removed for being misleading and out of context? Perhaps it could be put in at the start where it refers to the judgement? Have you read the judgement yourself? If so, how can you possibly attempt to present this as a sweeping rejection of credit card fraud in operation ore? Paragraph five states explicitly that the judgement was NOT examining these issues. Paragraph 37 then acknowledges that whilst the judgement was NOT considering this issue, both experts did appear agreed on the existence of some level of credit card fraud. To therefore suggest, as you do, that the court of appeal found that this was all down to 'conspiracy theories' is wrong. You must know you shouldn't be doing this. It is wrong to misrepresent the findings of a court of law in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManWithaFlan (talk • contribs) 12:00, 3 January 2011
- Note: The above comment was incorrectly placed on your user page instead of here, on your user talk page. I've moved it here. Adambro (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the linked thread above. I have not mentioned any users by name but it concerns the current revert war in which you are engaged.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)