"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:57:39 on Mon, 28 Feb
2011, tim.... remarked:

What is it that you think is (legally) wrong here.

They are claiming that their proposed dis-easement trumps the NCoC, when
several of us think it's the other way round.

Of course, if their proposed dis-easement is lame, then there's no
particular problem with them introducing it[1], but I'm afraid they'll try
to persuade passengers that it does have an effect, when it appears it
doesn't.

As long as all they are doing to "trying to persuade" then no law has been
broken. This is no different from the staff in Dixons/Currys/Comet telling
you that they have no liability to you and you have to take up a problem
with the manufacturer, something which happens frequently (apparently).

tim