Scosey Farewell (ish)

[wackypete2]

Nothing bamboozling about it. I reinstated it, but it has now been deleted by admin for legal action reasons. I'm asking admin if we can't leave the thread title (or a notice if the title itself is legally challenged) so that everyone knows what's what.

Not blaming you jon. I realize it wasn't your doing.
However, this legal reasons is getting mighty lame.
Check babypips, eitetrader, forecfactory, forexpeacearmy...same info, NOT removed? why?

Here's a quote from Steve on another thread about that:

LMcQ , that's a good point about why some things can't be left when others are deleted. There may be a reason I am not aware of but i'll certainly give that some thought as I further develop the policy for dealing with this stuff.

Regarding things being left elsewhere, Google being the example given, there's no motive to that. If something is left behind in any of these situations it is more than likely the removal of it was not requested. That's down to the legal teams involved. As I said last night, there will inevitably be a list of demands and then some negotiation leading to the action being taken. If a firm don't ask us to do something then it is never on the negotiables list so it will not be dealt with.

Thanks for the contributions so far.

Steve

So it's likely that removal from other forums does not happen because it was never requested to be removed by anyone? Same information that gets posted here so why does only t2w get the removal requests, or only t2w removes the requested threads? Easy...t2w folds like a cheap suit at the mere mention of legal mumbo jumbo. I also don't see any of those other forums being sued by anyone.

Peter

 

[pboyles]

Nothing bamboozling about it. I reinstated it, but it has now been deleted by admin for legal action reasons. I'm asking admin if we can't leave the thread title (or a notice if the title itself is legally challenged) so that everyone knows what's what.

Look at it another way. A partner offer was issued, it was exposed by the membership, a withdrawal of sorts was issued and then reference to the illegal scheme in question was removed on the quiet when the fuss died down.

That won't make good reading when this thing blows up and millions disappear. Still you'll always have your solicitors letter to prove you were just following orders. I'm sure if someone loses their house to this scam they will fully understand your position.

 

[barjon]

Not blaming you jon. I realize it wasn't your doing.
However, this legal reasons is getting mighty lame.
Check babypips, eitetrader, forecfactory, forexpeacearmy...same info, NOT removed? why?

Here's a quote from Steve on another thread about that:


So it's likely that removal from other forums does not happen because it was never requested to be removed by anyone? Same information that gets posted here so why does only t2w get the removal requests, or only t2w removes the requested threads? Easy...t2w folds like a cheap suit at the mere mention of legal mumbo jumbo. I also don't see any of those other forums being sued by anyone.

Peter

Pete

I have no idea about other forums, but as a UK registered company T2W's ownership is clear cut and thus a clear target for anyone wishing to mount a legal action. The financial risk is thus much greater for T2W than those forums where ownership is more obscure and hidden in the ether.

I think it's a bit unfair to say that T2W folds like a cheap suit. When complaints are received, however fierce in legal threats, they are passed to mods (independent) for consideration of the posts. Should mods retain them - which is usual - there the matter rests unless and until the prospect of legal action is ratcheted up to a degree requiring Admin to take over to decide on the basis of their solicitor's advice and the interests of T2W business as a whole.

I know from discussions with them that Admin's first thought is to try and hold the line and they often do that beyond the point regarded as prudent by their solicitors.

jon

 

[Lightning McQueen]

Pete

I have no idea about other forums, but as a UK registered company T2W's ownership is clear cut and thus a clear target for anyone wishing to mount a legal action. The financial risk is thus much greater for T2W than those forums where ownership is more obscure and hidden in the ether.

I think it's a bit unfair to say that T2W folds like a cheap suit. When complaints are received, however fierce in legal threats, they are passed to mods (independent) for consideration of the posts. Should mods retain them - which is usual - there the matter rests unless and until the prospect of legal action is ratcheted up to a degree requiring Admin to take over to decide on the basis of their solicitor's advice and the interests of T2W business as a whole.

I know from discussions with them that Admin's first thought is to try and hold the line and they often do that beyond the point regarded as prudent by their solicitors.

jon

having been on the other side and having had dealings with the system. i can vouch that what jon is saying is what happens. though i'd add that the "independent" statement, though true in part, is now not so clear cut as it once was.

if i recall correctly the current system was set up to allow mods on the front line to deal with any complaint, thereby allay fears of an admin cover up/wrong doing. it was felt by admin the mods would be in a better position to judge whether the vendor/member complaint had merit, and be able to give feedback up the chain to admin and also to members.

the main problem is the uk legal system, whereby uk lawyers can stick their snouts in the trough and protect all sorts of dodgy individuals with trumped up legal docs. a cold calling hong kong land bank scammer springs to mind there maybe that one was the last straw, i don't remember. i took no further part on the complaints front after that or something similar.

 

[barjon]

...............though i'd add that the "independent" statement, though true in part, is now not so clear cut as it once was.........

It's true as far as the two mods are concerned, LM, but being so thin on the ground Trader333(staff) has to help out particulary during mod absences.

We do need to thicken up the mod team a bit - you gonna come back into the fold

jon

 

[timsk]

That won't make good reading when this thing blows up and millions disappear. Still you'll always have your solicitors letter to prove you were just following orders. I'm sure if someone loses their house to this scam they will fully understand your position.

Peebee,
You could easily set up your own site, saying whatever you like about whoever you like, and the people you're looking to protect will find you either by your high Google rankings that you're so skilled at achieving - or via your T2W profile. That way, you'll overcome all these issues about threads/posts being deleted. Your own site, with you in complete control - what could be better? You have the necessary attributes to make it happen - time and know-how. The people you help will know exactly where to go and who to thank.

The only reason I can think of for not going down this route is one of cost. Seemingly, you're more than happy to run up T2W's legal bill, but you're not willing to take on that responsibility yourself. If I'm wrong about that and you've contacted Steve and Sharky asking them to forward the invoices from T2W's solicitors with an offer to settle them in full - then I'll happily retract my comments and tender my apologies.
Tim.

 

[pboyles]

Timsk

How many times are we going to go over this nonsense. You're in the business of selling advertising to generally dodgy, and sometimes illegal, operators. When this is exposed you incur legal costs because the advertisers are terrified of being caught out. That is the cost of doing your type of business. How many legal challenges does your fishing forum get?

If you want to avoid legal costs then investigate your advertisers in advance an ensure they are not crooks. Ive offered to do this for you for free.

 

[pboyles]

A perfect example is superfundfx, how much did you get for the partner offer and how much have they cost you now in legal fees? I'm guessing the fees are higher so that is a net loss. At the risk of pointing out the obvious it woul have been better not to have run that add.

I guess what youre really saying is that you'd rather keep running these sort of ads and have us all clear off so that they don't get exposed.

 

[R.Charnock]

I still like to believe that you can say anything if it's true. If you want to get away with telling lies you have to go into politics.

 

[timsk]

I guess what youre really saying is that you'd rather keep running these sort of ads and have us all clear off so that they don't get exposed.

Peebee,
From your answer, I'll assume you haven't offered to pay T2W's legal bill.

You can only 'expose' someone for doing something wrong. Yes, we sent out a partner offer which should not have been sent out. We've apologised. When will you be happy - when all T2W staff are tarred and feathered and put in stocks in Trafalgar Square so you, the hare & Co can come and throw rotten tomatoes at us? Seriously PB, it really is time to draw a line under that episode and move on.

"You're in the business of selling advertising to generally dodgy, and sometimes illegal, operators." This is an outrageous comment, unacceptable and completely untrue. You can't blame T2W for everyone else's misdemeanors. By your logic, we'll be responsible for the Euro zone financial crisis next!
Tim.

 

[the hare]

Peebee,
From your answer, I'll assume you haven't offered to pay T2W's legal bill.

You can only 'expose' someone for doing something wrong. Yes, we sent out a partner offer which should not have been sent out. We've apologised. When will you be happy - when all T2W staff are tarred and feathered and put in stocks in Trafalgar Square so you, the hare & Co can come and throw rotten tomatoes at us? Seriously PB, it really is time to draw a line under that episode and move on.

"You're in the business of selling advertising to generally dodgy, and sometimes illegal, operators." This is an outrageous comment, unacceptable and completely untrue. You can't blame T2W for everyone else's misdemeanors. By your logic, we'll be responsible for the Euro zone financial crisis next!
Tim.

Tim, you have to accept that some of your advertisers have been involved in operations that have been shown to be illegal. Furthermore im many cases 2 minutes of basic research prior to running these ads would have highlighted these issues.

You have to judge t2w's record on this stuff in a wider context. You can't simply draw a line under historical problems and move on. Lessons do not seam to be being learned, and we witness problems time and time again

You have to be judged on a track record, and that includes previous successes and failures.

We have to take an evidence based approach, and that means looking at ALL of the available evidence, not rejecting things we don't like, or evidence that doesn't support the conclusion that we'd like to draw.

 

[pboyles]

Peebee,
From your answer, I'll assume you haven't offered to pay T2W's legal bill.

You can only 'expose' someone for doing something wrong. Yes, we sent out a partner offer which should not have been sent out. We've apologised. When will you be happy - when all T2W staff are tarred and feathered and put in stocks in Trafalgar Square so you, the hare & Co can come and throw rotten tomatoes at us? Seriously PB, it really is time to draw a line under that episode and move on.

"You're in the business of selling advertising to generally dodgy, and sometimes illegal, operators." This is an outrageous comment, unacceptable and completely untrue. You can't blame T2W for everyone else's misdemeanors. By your logic, we'll be responsible for the Euro zone financial crisis next!
Tim.

I'm not suggesting you expose anyone. I'm suggesting you do some checks prior to taking advertising. This may prevent the cost an embarrassment of them being exposed here at a later date. Is that hard to understand?

 

[pboyles]

"You're in the business of selling advertising to generally dodgy, and sometimes illegal, operators." This is an outrageous comment, unacceptable and completely untrue"

Really?

Advertiser and former preferred fx broker that was fined $20 million for defrauding clients. Dodgy or not?

 

[pboyles]

Former rebate partners who were both fined for defrauding clients. Dodgy or not?

 

[pboyles]

Former partner the subject of a BBC radio investigations program tomorrow night. Dodgy or not? Seems we're about to find out.

 

[timsk]

"You're in the business of selling advertising to generally dodgy, and sometimes illegal, operators." This is an outrageous comment, unacceptable and completely untrue"

Really?

Advertiser and former preferred fx broker that was fined $20 million for defrauding clients. Dodgy or not?

Peebee,
Apologies if I didn't make my point clear - which is this . . .
To my way of thinking, the inference of your comment is that T2W purposefully goes out of its way to get advertising specifically from people/companies that we know to be dodgy. If that's what you meant, then it is an outrageous, unacceptable and completely untrue allegation. If it's not what you meant, by all means edit your posts to clarify your position and I'll respond in kind.
Tim.

 

[the hare]

To my way of thinking, the inference of your comment is that T2W purposefully goes out of its way to get advertising specifically from people/companies that we know to be dodgy.
Tim.

How on earth could you reach that rather ridiculous conclusion ?

Time after time you've been criticized by p boyles for the complete lack of due diligence regarding these companies.

 

[YouAreNotFree]

edit

 

[timsk]

How on earth could you reach that rather ridiculous conclusion ?

the hare,
You frequently reach the most ridiculous conclusions from posts made by others. Seriously, I meant what I wrote. It might well be ridiculous, but that's not the point. The point is that - that's how Peebee's comment comes across to me and, therefor, others might interpret it the same way. If it came across differently, then I wouldn't have expressed my outrage at it would I?

Tim.

 

[pboyles]

Peebee,
Apologies if I didn't make my point clear - which is this . . .
To my way of thinking, the inference of your comment is that T2W purposefully goes out of its way to get advertising specifically from people/companies that we know to be dodgy. If that's what you meant, then it is an outrageous, unacceptable and completely untrue allegation. If it's not what you meant, by all means edit your posts to clarify your position and I'll respond in kind.
Tim.

No I didn't say you went out looking for them. Merely that when you found them, or they found you, nobody looked into them. The end result is you make 1000 on the ad and spend 2000 clearing up the legal mess that results from getting involved with people like this.

My figures are by way or an analogy, no need to argue the point that legal advice is more expensive.

My main point is that if you rejected adds from the worst scammers youd be better off in the end.