Fat Prophets

[Lightning McQueen]

I have to laugh. You where a moderator and happily towing the party line when those posts where being routinely deleted, and members banned in some cases for making them.

The removal of the FSA warning is a great example of the blatant hypocrisy of t2ws management. We have Barjon who 'conviniently can't recall' the incident, and even expressing doubts that it ever happened. We have trader33 who banned me (or one of my nics) for mentioning the incident, and comments regarding that case are still routinely deleted (as will be this post)

Then we have Steve claiming from now on members will at least be informed why this stuffs happening (and of course, in common with all promises past and present, they fail to materialize)

It's good that you've finally seen the error of your ways, buy YOU personally need to take some responsibility for the part that YOU played during your role as a moderator.

well if i recall back, yes we were kind of involved, but only up to a certain point, we didn't deal if it went legal, only the lesser stuff went through us. the one i recall most was when lawyers protected a land bank scammer and successfully got official publicly available info on them deleted from these boards. this was the straw that broke the camels back for me and i quit the process. you may or may not recall there was similar process of dealing with contentious posts announced a time back, very similar if not the same structure to what has been announced recently. in fact i don't see any change at all. it's the same. member mods aren't now and weren't then involved in deleting lawyer related stuff, admin do that.

for sure it's a difficult one for them and i sympathise on their position, feed the lawyers, don't feed the lawyers. those lawyers letters are very clever and sure twist things around. the cost involved in generating some of the docs wouldn't be cheap and defending against them far more expensive i'd imagine.

 

[the hare]

the one i recall most was when lawyers protected a land bank scammer and successfully got official publicly available info on them deleted from these boards. this was the straw that broke the camels back for me and i quit the process..

You deserve credit for taking an ethical stand and withdrawing your support. I guess whilst others are prepared to turn a blind eye, or worse still proactively support these decisions the problem will remain.

I do have sympathy with t2w's position, and I understand the futility of becoming involved in costly and contentious legal disputes. However, I do think their subsequent handling of the initial decision to delete the link to the FSA website has been handled badly, and it continues to damage their credibility.

If ever there was a case for sticking a solicitors letter in the shredder and not even sending a reply, this was it, although I would have been tempted to reply with a simple but robust two word response.

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Was it UK Land Investments that caused that controversy? Maybe the people running it are now running something else, must have a look.

no, not that i recall, it was far east land bankers cold calling prospective clients in uk. can't remember their exact location. uk lawyers were down on t2w like a ton of bricks, but they didn't go after the fsa as far as i know, as that info stayed up.

 

[wackypete2]

I see there have been a few deletions from this thread.

The very reason I don't bother posting on these types of threads anymore. Waste of my time posting something useful or publicly available only to see the post(s) removed.

Peter

 

[the hare]

The very reason I don't bother posting on these types of threads anymore. Waste of my time posting something useful or publicly available only to see the post(s) removed.

Peter

I haven't posted anything remotely useful for years, and I'm not sure i ever did anyway so its no great loss that I no longer contribute.

My only suggestion is that Steve implements a function that allows any vendor to delete, or modify any post they wish, rather than going through this charade

The outcome would be exactly the same as currently, but achieved a lot faster with a lot less time trouble and expense

t2w can absolve themselves of any blame, and spend time dealing with other more pressing matters
Disputes would be resolved faster
Vendors and frauds would have the protection they require in order to post
Lawyers would lose revenue
Members who are currently unhappy with the way these things are handled would continue to be unhappy with the new method, but tough.

Seams like the perfect solution. Why make life more difficult than it needs to be ?

 

[neil]

The very reason I don't bother posting on these types of threads anymore. Waste of my time posting something useful or publicly available only to see the post(s) removed.

Peter

Maybe if criticisms of these people were simply reported, " it is said in such a newspaper or other media that xxxx company is under investigation or fined or people say that yy lost money and blames K company which allegedly did such and such".
This third party sort of reporting is safer than direct allegation?

 

[the hare]

Maybe if criticisms of these people were simply reported, " it is said in such a newspaper or other media that xxxx company is under investigation or fined or people say that yy lost money and blames K company which allegedly did such and such".
This third party sort of reporting is safer than direct allegation?

It might still be deleted. Even links to official FSA warnings have been removed in the past, and I doubt things are very different in today's climate.

 

[neil]

It might still be deleted. Even links to official FSA warnings have been removed in the past, and I doubt things are very different in today's climate.

Yes -just think how much time and legal fees would be saved if the T2W Lawyers posted a letter or report framework that posters could use to avoid the legal minefield. But piggies will acquire the power of flight before that happens

 

[pboyles]

Maybe if criticisms of these people were simply reported, " it is said in such a newspaper or other media that xxxx company is under investigation or fined or people say that yy lost money and blames K company which allegedly did such and such".
This third party sort of reporting is safer than direct allegation?

All the information posted was from the FSA register and the ASIC website. I don't recall any scam/crook type allegation other than comments about other firms. I think what really did it was their names being mentioned in relation to their previous roles. I don't think the language used would have affected it, they wanted that stuff deleted at all costs.

 

[neil]

All the information posted was from the FSA register and the ASIC website. I don't recall any scam/crook type allegation other than comments about other firms. I think what really did it was their names being mentioned in relation to their previous roles. I don't think the language used would have affected it, they wanted that stuff deleted at all costs.

PB I was not criticising you or refering to any of your posts. It was but a general comment

 

[pboyles]

Yes -just think how much time and legal fees would be saved if the T2W Lawyers posted a letter or report framework that posters could use to avoid the legal minefield. But piggies will acquire the power of flight before that happens

It's not about following a certain set of rules, is all about individual incidents, sometimes nobody complains and nothing happens, sometimes they do complain and someone figures out whether or not to cave in or ignore it. That's why nobody is able to say what's acceptable and what's not.

A bunch of crooks on the FSA warning list got posts deleted but on the other hand good old Mahmoud has all sorts of lurid allegations against him still viewable, he just gave up complaining.

 

[pboyles]

PB I was not criticising you or refering to any of your posts. It was but a general comment

I didn't think you were, no problem

 

[the hare]

It's not about following a certain set of rules, is all about individual incidents, sometimes nobody complains and nothing happens, sometimes they do complain and someone figures out whether or not to cave in or ignore it. That's why nobody is able to say what's acceptable and what's not.

A bunch of crooks on the FSA warning list got posts deleted but on the other hand good old Mahmoud has all sorts of lurid allegations against him still viewable, he just gave up complaining.

Acceptable criticism and comment is context sensitive dependent on the size of your opponent

 

[petrovski]

To the original question, is there anyone who has used this service (FP) for a year or more, anyone of the currently active 25 000 users, 70% of whom are return users (17,500) who can talk about their experience about the effectiveness, that is, the results they have achieved?

 

[pboyles]

To the original question, is there anyone who has used this service (FP) for a year or more, anyone of the currently active 25 000 users, 70% of whom are return users (17,500) who can talk about their experience about the effectiveness, that is, the results they have achieved?

Yes there are some people who used it. They have posted their experiences at the start of this thread, it seems most if not all lost money.

 

[Steve]

yikes, yep have to be very careful, but the removal of mention of public info harks back to the days when the fsa, uk newspapers etc can publish info on cold call warnings from land bank operators from overseas, yet uk ambulance chasers can get threads and posts removed for linking to such. dark times.

Firstly I'm sorry about the delay in commenting on this.

The problem is not the public information, it is how the overall post is worded, I know I keep saying this but unless people learn how to phrase these things we'll keep finding ourselves in the same situation.

Here's an example:

"bloggo and co have been fined by the whatever for whatever. Here's a link..."

This cannot be claimed to be defamatory and nor could it be deemed unlawful as the poster is simply stating a fact. If posts a simple as this have been removed recently then those of you that still have them please send me the details and i'll look into it. If I'm wrong i'll admit it and try to find out why they went.

Here's another example:

"that thieving bunch of scammers at bloggo have been fined by the whatever for whatever. Typically they are now ripping people off in their new firm selling wind farms to yorkshiremen. Here's a link...."


Whether any of you agree or not and whether you like it or not, upon being warned of court action, a post like this will almost certainly be removed. This is not about dark days or double standards or any of those other things that get levelled against us. It is about the law of the land.

Describing them as a 'thieving bunch' and that they are now 'ripping people off in their new firm' may or may not be true but can you defend your assertion with evidence? Real evidence, not just gut feel or what your experience tells you?

This is the test that has to be applied which is why much of this stuff ends up going.

 

[Steve]

I have to laugh. You where a moderator and happily towing the party line when those posts where being routinely deleted, and members banned in some cases for making them.

The removal of the FSA warning is a great example of the blatant hypocrisy of t2ws management. We have Barjon who 'conviniently can't recall' the incident, and even expressing doubts that it ever happened. We have trader33 who banned me (or one of my nics) for mentioning the incident, and comments regarding that case are still routinely deleted (as will be this post)

Then we have Steve claiming from now on members will at least be informed why this stuffs happening (and of course, in common with all promises past and present, they fail to materialize)

It's good that you've finally seen the error of your ways, buy YOU personally need to take some responsibility for the part that YOU played during your role as a moderator.

What FSA warning? Give me the detail please.

 

[Steve]

in fact i don't see any change at all. it's the same. member mods aren't now and weren't then involved in deleting lawyer related stuff, admin do that.

I doubt the mods would want to be directly involved LMQ, but they are certainly kept in the picture nowadays as details are posted in a legal action forum that they have access to. They are also very welcome to ask me at any time for explanations as to what is going on and why.

 

[pboyles]

If I recall correctly the sequence of events was that Fat P instigated matters by putting forward the good character of the company, stating the rest of the City operate to a much lower moral standard. A question was posed about whether or not his company had been in any sort of trouble with the authorities, he denied this was the case, he was offered a chance to think again, he stated that proof should be shown or else legal proceedings may result, proof in the way of a link to ASIC was then posted.

I don't recall the language used but I think it was fairly neutral.

 

[Steve]

If I recall correctly the sequence of events was that Fat P instigated matters by putting forward the good character of the company, stating the rest of the City operate to a much lower moral standard. A question was posed about whether or not his company had been in any sort of trouble with the authorities, he denied this was the case, he was offered a chance to think again, he stated that proof should be shown or else legal proceedings may result, proof in the way of a link to ASIC was then posted.

I don't recall the language used but I think it was fairly neutral.

Sorry Peter, I meant this as a general point rather than connected to FP as the discussion had widened. I have said previously that I can't comment on FP specifically as it is still ongoing but I will one there is a conclusion.