On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:23:03 +0100, Davey wrote:

They really don't help their case - which may or may not be valid, I
don't know - with some emotive over-exaggerated ******** as that. If
the interference is "illegal", why are they having to try to ban it?

This was discussed some many months ago, in a different newsgroup, and
they still use the same cringe-making language. They need to get
somebody with real PR experience to go over their website. The fact that
it has stayed so bad for so long is not to their advantage.

/understatement

As I said, read it and make up your own mind.

Oh, absolutely.

Anybody neutral will read it and make their mind up that they're a bunch
of hysterical cranks.