Robin Hoods Playground

Anti-Piracy Scheme “A Scam & Legal Blackmail” Say UK Lords
Written by Ernesto

Several UK Lords have criticized the practices of law firms that send out warning letters to alleged copyright infringers demanding big payments. These schemes have been labeled a scam, and the lawyers operating them accused of “harassment, bullying and intrusion” and “legal blackmail” in the House of Lords.

ACS:LawSince 2007, UK file-sharers have been threatened with legal action if they refused to pay several hundred pounds in damages for alleged copyright infringements. It started with the respected law firm Davenport Lyons, but when they dropped out as their reputation started to suffer, ACS:Law stepped in.

Although the threats and accusations are often sent to the wrong people due to the shoddy evidence gathering techniques employed, thousands have paid off the copyright holders fearing they would end up being in more trouble if they ignored the threats. The scheme has proven to be profitable for all parties involved, except those receiving the letters.

Leaked documents have shed light on these practices, revealing that the core motivation of the companies involved is simply to generate as much cash as possible.

It will hardly surprise anyone when we allege that ACS:Law and fellow anti-piracy outfits are clearly abusing copyright for profit. However, it is good to see that our views are being supported by several Lords in the UK.

In recent weeks the law firm sending out these mass copyright infringement notices has been discussed in the UK House of Lords. The video below shows Lord Clement-Jones labeling the operation as a scam.

Anti Piracy Scheme Labeled a Scam in House of Lords


It is surprising that in the UK, copyright holders – some of which have ‘leased’ copyrights from other companies for the sole purpose of cashing in on allegations of file-sharing – can demand the personal details of thousands of alleged file-sharers without having to provide hard evidence. In most other countries this would be prohibited due to privacy concerns.

Lord Lucas has raised this problematic issue, saying that the Lords must do something to ensure that citizens’ personal details are not given out to companies like ACS:Law “willy-nilly”.

Anti Piracy Lawyers Accused of “harassment bullying and intrusion” in the House of Lords


Like many file-sharers, some Lords would like to put an end to this copyright abuse, with Lord Lucas accusing the law firm involved of “harassment, bullying and intrusion”. But the criticism of ACS:Law didn’t stop there.

Noting that it could cost around £10,000 for those accused to protest their innocence, but a payment of ‘only’ £500 to make the accusations go away, Lord Lucas called the scheme “straightforward legal blackmail”.

For the public’s sake we hope they come up with a solution to end this madness. In the meantime, anyone accused by ACS:Law can learn exactly how this scheme operates and how to defend themselves efficiently, by downloading the ‘Speculative Invoicing Handbook‘ from consumer group BeingThreatened.

You can find this at the bottom of the post

page 2:

Everything You Need To Refute a File-Sharing Legal Threat
Written by enigmax

A new wave of cash demands connected with allegations of illicit file-sharing are being received this week. In response, consumer group BeingThreatened has produced the most informative handbook ever created, empowering those wrongfully accused to refute the claims against them and hold onto their hard-earned cash.

Back in November 2009, our exclusive report forecast that thousands of UK Internet users would soon be receiving cash demands in connection with allegations of illicit file-sharing, after lawyers ACS:Law were granted more court orders to obtain their identities.

James Bench from BeingThreatened, a consumer group dedicated to helping those wrongfully accused by this law firm and their partners (such as Germany-based DigiProtect), told TorrentFreak that people are starting to receive them this week. A small number have arrived to date, fittingly by the cheapest and most unreliable regular postage method available in the UK – 2nd class.

“So far the unreliability of the evidence appears not to have been addressed,” Bench explains. “100% of victims contacting BeingThreatened as a result of this new batch state they did not commit or authorise any copyright infringement of the work they are accused of sharing.”

Indeed, the unreliability of the evidence presented as part of these threatening letters has been raised yet again, this time by the Lords involved in the Digital Economy Bill debate.

Following on from his earlier criticism, on Monday Lord Lucas noted that the firm making these accusations are “not nice people to fall foul of,” they are “not nice to deal with,” and later adding “the methods that they use to extract money are not nice.”

Lord Lucas went on to explain that ACS:Law had “been kind enough” to write to him in person, but went on to criticize the evidence their allegations are based on.

Noting that the evidence is provided by foreign companies that do not disclose the methodology used to obtain it, Lord Lucas observed: “It may well have been obtained against data protection rules – that is certainly the conclusion that the Swiss and French authorities seem to have reached.”

Describing the allegations as “totally impenetrable,” Lord Lucas said that upon receiving these letters telling account holders that they have to pay money, people have no way of disproving what they are accused of.

“I think most of their [ACS:Law's] income comes from people who just pay,” he said. “I am not aware that there have been many court cases at the end of this because of the element of bluff.”

To be more precise, ACS:Law have never taken anyone to court on file-sharing allegations, even though they threaten to.

Of course, the “bluffing” strategy can work two ways. Those who refuse to pay, admit nothing and stand their ground against any wrongful allegations, can also find that they come out on top.

So, how does a complete novice in legal matters stand up to these threats and summon the courage to do so in the face of these “totally impenetrable” allegations?

Simple. All they have to do is grab a copy of the ‘Speculative Invoicing Handbook’ just released by BeingThreatened under a Creative Commons License.

If you have been sent a letter demanding cash for an alleged copyright infringement, do nothing until you have read this handbook cover to cover – it is 100% free, absolutely comprehensive and could save you hundreds of pounds.

wanted to say thank you very much for taking such an active interest in u.k politics.

I dont really watch tv, so any insight into national matters that concern myself are greatly appreciated.

Neutralize UK File-Sharing Legal Threats – Join TalkTalk
Written by enigmax

This week the condemnation of file-sharing “legal blackmail” lawyers ACS:Law has been widespread, with extremely harsh words coming from the country’s House of Lords. Despite this the law firm are unrepentant and say they will persist with their campaign. It is, however, possible to immunize your family from this growing threat.

Ever since they first reared their heads in the UK file-sharing sphere, lawyers ACS:Law have been raising eyebrows. The tiny law firm, which took over the business of chasing alleged file-sharers from Davenport Lyons, have been steeped in controversy, making countless false accusations, misleading statements and even committing copyright infringement themselves. They have even recently dropped many cases because they were going nowhere.

Although there has been some mainstream news coverage in the past, this week the press have really stepped up, helped along by the UK Lords who labeled the ACS:Law scheme “legal blackmail” – not exactly a shining endorsement.

Nevertheless, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley has stood his ground, telling the media that his campaign will continue. Following criticism that so far he has taken a grand total of zero cases to court, Crossley told the BBC that cases are pending.

“It has been said that we have no intention of going to court but we have no fear of it,” he said.

While Crossley may not be scared of taking a couple of cut and dried cases of infringement against minnows to court to prove his point, it’s not entirely true that in all cases he has no fear of a court battle. In the words of the Lords, Crossley is engaged in a bullying scheme and, like all bullies, when the big boys step up to fight, the bullies shrink away.

On November 19th at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Crossley made NPO (Norwich Pharmacal Order) applications to force ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of subscribers the company claims had infringed their client’s rights. The NPO’s related to approximately 25,000 IP addresses harvested from UK ISP BT’s customer base and a further 5,000 from various other ISPs, covering approximately 291 movie titles. The order was granted and ACS:Law are now chasing these individuals for cash payments of around £500 each.

Someone present at the hearing provided TorrentFreak with information which suggested that several ISPs including Be, O2, BT, Plusnet, Enternet and Kingston were not opposed to the court order forcing them to hand over their customers’ private details to ACS:Law.

However, UK ISP Tiscali, whose customers had also been caught up in the ACS:Law dragnet, were strangely dropped from the court order. “Not seeking against Tiscali (previously respondent #8 in the application),” said the comment.

Tiscali were bought by TalkTalk for £236m last year. TalkTalk, as everyone must know by now, are absolutely against elements of the Digital Economy Bill and are refusing to sell their customers down the river on mere allegations of file-sharing. Could they be standing up to ACS:Law too?

We contacted TalkTalk and their response proved very interesting indeed.

“TalkTalk is the only major ISP which has refused to divulge customers’ information to lawyers pursuing alleged copyright infringers. We have held this position since the issue came into view and we continue to stick by this policy,” Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s executive director of strategy and regulation told TorrentFreak.

“If we are ever ‘instructed’ to disconnect or throttle a customer who has not been found guilty in a court of law, we will refuse to do so and challenge the instruction through the courts if necessary,” he added.

So, while the above-mentioned ISPs – and BT in particular – are collectively handing over thousands of their customers to be “legally blackmailed” by ACS:Law, TalkTalk will not and are prepared to fight for the rights of their customers.

TorrentFreak contacted BeingThreatened, a consumer group assisting those wrongfully accussed by ACS:Law.

“What the public want to see is a clear commitment from ISPs that they will protect their customers from the actions of these overly-litigious lawyers exploiting legal loopholes to demand money using groundless threats of court action. Given the tens of thousands of letters that have already been sent and the massive heartache caused as a result of this scheme, BeingTheatened would expect to see a concrete commitment from all ISPs,” spokesman James Bench told us.

“After all, TalkTalk’s stated position merely reflects the view of the wider industry (as stated by the ISPA) that the ‘evidence’ presented by these companies is unreliable,” he added.

“We are happy to see that one company has indicated an apparent willingness to display a degree of corporate integrity in looking after the data that its customers entrust to it and not to make this available to anyone that simply asks for it,” he concluded.

So, if you and your family are looking for an ISP run by people who are prepared stand up for your rights, look no further than TalkTalk. While Mr Crossley may not fear going to court against a lowly individual, it seems incredibly unlikely that he’ll take on TalkTalk’s lawyers.

Thanks Cofree that is really interesting seeing as I have been a BT customer for years.How is it legal for these ISPs to hand over details of their customers accounts? Funny,we all are supposed to be living in free society.Cheeky bastards,well heres one person who is looking for a new ISP. Hello Talk Talk,whats your price on unlimited broadband?

Cool, looks like a good read. Wonder how relevant it is here in the US though.

yeah nice 1 some info relevent to us uk peeps
but iv heard about this before, i was with virgin 6 yr ago and they dobbed me in to a law firm interested in taking folks across the board to court for copyright infringement ? i got a very thick letter from an large law firm saying that virgin had been taken to court (the court paperwork of the procedings was a right read to get through) and had passed over the details of high capacity users (who me ) hence the letter ! i sat on it for a bit and forgot about it only to get another 6 week l8r
, which i gota say kinda scared me but the last page of the letters asked for payment of 1279GBP for a game that i supposedly dl'd and shared (back then i knew little of pc's and was using some limewire like thingy ? )
AND THAT PROPER BAFFLED ME WHY WOULD A LEGIT LOOKING LETTER AND PRESUMABLY A COURT VISIT BE ASKING ME FOR A 1 OF PAYMENT (SCAM)i took it to a lawyer to see if this was legit and he had definatley heard of the court and the case and the TOP lawyer who signed of on this letter to me, got to the last page and grinned then said to me dont worry its probably a scam so i was gona send the edited letter to watchdog (uk tvshow) to let them know about the scam but thought better of it and after reading a quite recent 360 uk mag im very happy i didnt cos they mentioned the law firm and the cases they TRIED to bring to virgins high capacity users 200,000 people all over and beleive it or not only a few people actually paid
anyway i changed my isp to bt for a bit then heard they were doing the same as virgin and as virgin already dropped me in the shit and got "poopoo'd" i didnt think they would try again so im back with em (its a love hate thing - but we all need our net fix)

ACS:Law Try To Drop File-Sharing Cases, Fail To Appear in Court
by: enigmax

Today a judge-ordered hearing took place in the Patents Court to decide how to handle all cases filed by ACS:Law against alleged file-sharers. Despite claims by the law firm that they have no fears of going to court, last week all the cases were dropped and today, supported by claims of “an unfortunate family accident”, company owner Andrew Crossley failed to attend the hearing. All this as a new, mysterious and already controversial company appears to front the entire operation. And immediately backs out.

Last month ACS:Law made a messy attempt at achieving default judgments in the Patents County Court against 8 internet connection owners who the company claimed infringed or allowed others to infringe copyright.

Representing MediaCAT, a middle-man company for movie companies involved in so-called “pay up or else” schemes in the UK, ACS:Law made a number of errors in their presentation and all 8 defaults were denied.

Following a review of all outstanding ACS:Law cases, Judge Birss QC found a total of 27 had been filed, many of them displaying what he described as “unusual features”. In order to decide how these cases should be handled in future, he ordered a directions hearing to take place today at the Patents Court in London.

Despite ACS:Law previously stating that they have no fear of taking cases to court, last week the 27 defendants started receiving new letters, some of them arriving as late as Saturday. The letter informed them that their case had been dropped. For those who have followed the antics of ACS:Law and their clients for the past several years, the news came as absolutely no surprise.

Despite this last minute manoeuvring, the hearing ordered by Judge Birss QC would go ahead today as planned.

This morning at 10:30 GMT the hearing got under way, with the announcement that the Judge would at the moment be refusing to accept the discontinuation of the cases. Lawyers for some of the defendants present said they would be seeking costs.

MediaCAT then informed the Court they were unsure what to do now. Why? Because even at this late stage ACS:Law had managed to introduce yet another ‘unusual feature’ into these cases. Citing “an unfortunate family car accident at the weekend” as a reason, ACS owner Andrew Crossley failed to turn up in Court.

Journalists present in the Court said they intend to confirm the validity of Crossley’s claim.

After discussion about whether or not MediaCAT are even licensed to bring these claims to court on their own, the hearing was eventually adjourned until 24th January.

Tomorrow we will report in depth on the more technical points of today’s hearing.

A reporter from the Court told TorrentFreak: “Crossley looks in serious trouble, both defence barristers are seeking all costs, including ‘wasted costs’ and order to show ‘due cause’ both of which require serious misconduct in order to be awardable; prima facie case put forward on that basis.”

Crossley will now have one week to recover from the weekend’s mishaps in order to participate fully on the 24th and help the Court understand the tangled web he and MediaCAT have created.

But not before they’ve tangled it up just a little bit more for good measure.

Last week, continuing the well-worn theme of conducting their business in the most confusing and controversial way possible, the MediaCAT and ACS:Law circus threw out yet another curved ball.

People who had outstanding pay-up-or-else letters from ACS:Law were informed by post that the law firm is no longer instructed by MediaCAT to send out letters or to enter into correspondence in file-sharing cases. ACS:Law would only get involved if there was a need to take legal action against people who refuse to pay, or so the letter claimed.

The new kid on the block, a previously dormant company called GCB Limited – whose sphere of businesses is reported as ‘Transport via Railways’ – was introduced to letter recipients by ACS:Law with orders that people should send payments to them now, not ACS:Law or MediaCAT.

Enclosed with the letters were copies of misleading court rulings, one of which – in breach of copyright – was taken directly from the BBC website.

Adding to the confusion, the return mailing address is for a firm of accountants called McLean Reid who were originally responsible for registering GCB Limited as a company. TorrentFreak contacted Mclean Reid to find out how they fit into all this.

“We have no connection with ACS:Law or MediaCat and have never had,” they told us. “We were the registered office of GCB until we became aware of this matter when we terminated the relationship.”

A worrying notice quickly appeared on the McLean Reid website.

GCB Ltd was formed by us and appears to be being misused by some third party. We are taking urgent steps to ensure that our name is not in any way abused in this connection.

“GCB Ltd was a dormant company formed by us at the request of a client, we were the registered office for convenience,” McLean Reid said in a further statement.

“Our client thought he was helping out an ‘associate’ of his by allowing that ‘associate’ to use this dormant company for a business venture (which we knew nothing about). Neither we, nor our client, knew it was going to be used for this purpose.”

According to a report on Consumer Action Group today, GCB Limited has just moved to a new address and is being run by a Mr David Fisher.

While we wait for the new directions hearing, there will probably be people reading this article who are in receipt of a letter from GCB Limited and are wondering what to do now.

Today, TorrentFreak called the GCB Limited ‘Payment Center’ telephone number in the UK to ask a few questions. We were greeted by a recorded message which stated that the letters people had received should be disregarded as GCB Limited were “no longer pursuing the matter stated in the letter.”

So, the advice is simple.

Don’t worry. Ignore these letters but keep them safe somewhere. But most importantly don’t pay them or any subsequent companies or law firms a single penny, at least until Judge Birss QC gets to the bottom of this whole sorry episode on the 24th.

Tune in tomorrow for our report on the more technical points of today’s hearing.

Update: Mclean Reid have issued another statement in response to a question from TorrentFreak about what they intend to do with any payments they may receive for GCB Limited.

We will take legal advice, however our intention is to return any post to sender should we receive any.

We are advised that the Director has taken the decision stop further trading through GCB Ltd in respect of alleged copyright infringement. We believe that he has moved swiftly to minimise the damage to his name in taking this decisive action. We are further advised that he was unaware of the background involved in these claims or the precise nature of the claims.

To that end anyone receiving letters from or on behalf of GCB Ltd in respect of copyright infringement should ignore these letters. We have been assured that no further action will be taken.

Senior Judge ‘Astonished’ By Actions Of ACS:Law in File-Sharing Cases
by: enigmax

Following on from our article detailing ACS:Law’s no-show at the directions hearing for their 27 active file-sharing cases, today we take a closer look at yesterday’s proceedings. Judge Birss QC said that he found ACS:Law’s actions both “remarkable” and “unprecedented” and was “frankly astonished” by their behavior, while defense lawyers made serious allegations concerning ACS:Law’s conduct.

Following a review of all outstanding active ACS:Law cases, last month Judge Birss QC found that a total of 27 had been filed, many of them displaying what he described as “unusual features”. In order to decide how to progress these cases he ordered a directions hearing to take place at the Patents Court in London yesterday.

As detailed in TorrentFreak’s report last evening, things did not go well, with ACS:Law again managing to surprise even seasoned legal professionals with their behavior.

Today, with the help of consumer group BeingThreatened.com, who were present at yesterday’s hearing and have been supporting victims of ACS:Law predatory lawsuit activities, we look at what happened and where the cases go from here.

Late last week, ACS:Law business partner MediaCAT, the middle-man company who claim to have rights over dozens of movies, tried to pull the rug from under yesterday’s proceedings. Last Thursday, with only a single working day left to go, it wrote to the 27 file-sharing defendants informing them it would discontinue the cases against them.

The defendants, some of them prepared to head off to court on Monday, reasonably thought their case was now over and that they did not have to attend. However, thanks again to ACS:Law’s apparent misreading of the law, MediaCAT were actually not authorized to drop the claims without the court’s permission.

The problem lies in the strange fact that MediaCAT aren’t the copyright holders of the works they are using to extract payments out of file-sharers. Another company, the David Sullivan-owned Sheptonhurst Ltd is believed to be, but even that is yet to be proven.

It was at this point that confusion set in with MediaCAT’s counsel, Tim Ludbrook. The man-in-the-know, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley, wasn’t in court on the back of claims of a “family car accident” at the weekend and had simply ordered Ludbrook to seek an adjournment of proceedings. This is where events took yet another turn for the unusual.

While MediaCAT had indeed tried to discontinue the cases against the 27 alleged file-sharers, last Thursday ACS:Law told the court that they intended to refile them all at a later date, apparently after correcting the numerous errors that were present when they were originally filed.

Noting that five of the defendants had already filed defenses, Judge Birss QC said he was “astonished” at the refiling notion and described it as “unprecedented in his personal experience and career at the bar.”

At his discretion the Judge allowed one of the defendants to have his case discontinued but refused 26 others noting complaints that by filing and then discontinuing cases, Crossley had obtained an unfair advantage by seeing defenses.

Another allegation was levelled at Crossley in court by defense lawyers, one which raised eyebrows with Judge Birss QC. With reference to the earlier Solicitors Regulatory Authority investigation into his affairs, it was alleged that Andrew Crossley is “involved in a champertous agreement” in breach of the solicitors’ code of conduct.

The actual agreement between MediaCAT and Sheptonhurst was produced which showed, to the apparent surprise of the Judge, that ACS:Law is contracted to take 65% of the revenue and that rights to the movies in question had been allocated purely to prosecute and that no exploitable rights had been transferred.

Defense lawyers pushed for an order to force Andrew Crossley to file a defense against the champerty, code of conduct and civil procedure rule breaches. At this stage the Judge refused – the issue will be dealt with at a later hearing.

For MediaCAT, however, the situation they find themselves in with ACS:Law is nothing short of a mess. Lawyers representing some of the defendants are seeking ‘wasted costs’ “off the scale”, a reference to costs which are punitive and a reflection that there has been wrongdoing.

“MediaCAT’s attempt to discontinue all twenty-seven cases and pay costs to the defendants shows how fundamental ACS:Law now consider the problems in these claims,” said BeingThreatened.com spokesperson James Bench.

“It has been clear since the speculative invoicing scheme first made an unwelcome appearance in this country, that there were massive and fatal flaws in the model. It does not provide a solution to copyright infringement, it is apparent that the evidence is untrustworthy and the laws and precedent which ACS:Law believe underpin its work do not support their position. It is good news that Judge Birss has seen fit to put this practice under the spotlight and expose it for the unsupportable and flawed legal shambles it is”.

The Judge said that two further hearings are likely to be required. One to resolve the problems with the joining of the copyright owner, and another to discuss the procedural failings and decide on ‘wasted costs’.

The hearing in the remaining cases will recommence 24th January.

ACS:Law and MediaCAT Completely Shut Down Both Their Businesses

Hot on the heels of the recent announcement in court that ACS:Law will stop chasing alleged file-sharers, comes an even more dramatic development. According to a document seen by TorrentFreak, both ACS:Law and their copyright troll client MediaCAT have just completely shut down their businesses. The news comes just days before a senior judge is due to hand down a ruling on the pair’s activities.

In a statement handed to the Patents County Court earlier this month, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley delivered some good news for once. The anti-piracy business had all got too much for Crossley – he would now stop chasing alleged file-sharers.

Crossley, in his usual spin-doctor style, tried his best to blame just about everyone else for his downfall but for those who have followed these cases closely it was clear who was to blame. Crossley and client Lee Bowden, owner of copyright troll MediaCAT, had been the architects of their own doom.

With the Patents County Court hearing adjourned by Judge Birss QC, most observers believed that his ruling, which is now due next week, would be the next significant milestone in this whole sorry affair. But for companies that operate as unusually as ACS:Law and MediaCAT, there’s always a surprise in store.

Since TorrentFreak were the first outlet to report on the activities of ACS:Law back in 2008, it’s perhaps fitting that we should now be the ones to break the news of the company’s ultimate demise.

According to a copy of a document obtained by TorrentFreak, which appears to have been sent out by Crossley during the last week, ACS:Law have not only stopped all file-sharing related work as previously reported, but actually shut down completely 31st January 2011.

Furthermore, the document adds that ACS:Law’s only remaining speculative invoicing client – MediaCAT – has also ceased trading.

“Ahead of Judge Birss’ judgement due on Tuesday, it would seem to some that Mr Crossley and Mr Bowden are attempting to avoid not just ‘judicial scrutiny’ but financial responsibility for the flawed claims that they foolishly decided to issue,” consumer group BeingThreatened told TorrentFreak on hearing the news.

“They perhaps hoped that they might gain a judgement which they could use to threaten future letter recipients, instead their greed has led to the exposure of the significant and manifold flaws in the legal and evidential basis of the speculative invoicing scheme they employed.”

There has been recent speculation that MediaCAT may choose to close their business, particularly since they are now facing an application for “wasted costs” following their recent catastrophic legal venture against 27 alleged file-sharers. But even closure may not save the company’s owner from some hefty payouts.

“MediaCAT’s status as a private limited company may not protect [Bowden] from personal legal liability for the costs that will be demanded by the defendants of the claims MediaCAT brought,” notes Bench. “ACS:Law was not a limited company in any sense. Mr Crossley will remain entirely and personally liable for all the actions of his firm.”

Joe Hickster, the blogger behind the ACS:Bore blog who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes supporting many people who have fallen victim to ACS:Law and similar companies, welcomed the news.

“The news of the pair’s demise is a vindication for the people who stood strong against ACS:LAW/Media C.A.T,” he told TorrentFreak. “The damage they have caused cannot be overestimated, so it’s great news that their campaign of fear against many innocent people seems to be at an end.”

“With Crossley’s upcoming appearance at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, a warning has been sent out to those Solicitors who think they can pick up the poisoned baton of Speculative Invoicing.”

Perhaps the big question now is how the closure of ACS:Law and MediaCAT will affect next Tuesday’s court hearing where Judge Birss QC is due to deliver a ruling on the pair’s activities.

“The timing [of the closures] will be no coincidence, but while these actions may have been conceived as a damage limitation exercise, they will do nothing to appease Judge Birss who is already wise to the ‘twists and turns’ of this scheme and who is unlikely to let the duo’s plan work out quite as they perhaps intend,” concludes BeingThreatened’s James Bench.

So, the show isn’t over yet. Be sure to tune in here on Tuesday to hear what Judge Birss has to say. And bring some popcorn, this should be very interesting indeed.

Hi, I am new.This is my frist post ...lol.
say hi to all.