MSE News: Guest Comment: Stamping out copycat websites

Why are we only picking on online sites that do this? Post Office have been robbing people with their "Check and Send" service for decades offering an overpriced and under skilled service in the same way that these sites do.


Whilst clearly they do not offer good value, same as the Post Office, a lot has already been done to crack down on these. Most adwords/ sponsored links have been removed. Searching for a number of terms the only one I found was 1 company advertising on driving licenses and it no way looked like the DVLA or .Gov.UK site and its very clear from the copy its a "check and send" service.

As long as they actually dont miss represent their service and dont try to pass off by looking like the DVLA/.Gov.UK site then there is little that can be done. You could bribe Google and co to not carry their ads but the government standing in the way of small business is a dangerous president to set.

The only plus side of this is that maybe the Post Office's service will also have to be withdrawn now its a publicly traded company and so surely cannot be allowed to have a monopoly on this type of service

Pincher wrote: »

Still on page 1 on BING.

Does anyone use Bing?

They are on the natural results but below the NHS pages and there are no sponsored links/ ads on Google or Bing.

The usual suspects, the denier, the conspiracist and the wielders of the great non sequitur.

It is more than evident that these sites are prolific. To suggest that a lot has been done to crack down on such sites is pure dross, total misinformation. Dozens of searches result in copycat websites appearing amongst the top ten results. To suggest that anyone being stung by these rouge traders can’t read, smacks of such anecdotal gross arrogance that one can only assume that those people host such sites.

People use these sites often because they are in a hurry, with claims of being able to fast track applications which amount to no more than a hoax, notwithstanding all clues as to the illegitimacy of such a site being buried by design. Maximal obfuscation of any text that a\ in some way explains that they are only a proxy to an otherwise free service provided elsewhere, and b\ only exists so as to flout the spirit of the law though a technicality; forms the very foundation of their existence. Perhaps those condoning or dismissing such tactics are part of the supposed crack down operation, because clearly whatever crackdown is taking place is currently utterly ineffectual.

Drawing parallels between this rouge practice and that of porters and [FONT=&quot]bathroom attendants[/FONT] is no more than a fallacious argument at its best. Humouring the point however, to truly liken porters and [FONT=&quot]bathroom attendants would be to describe a scenario where an insurgent imposter unknown to the hotel, broke in and stole a porters outfit and paraded on the front of said hotel asking for money whist having tied up the real porter and thrown him in a hidden closet. As for the beleaguered bathroom attendant, he does not hide in plain sight; the choice of whether you pay anything at all is more to do with your view on charity than it being a pledge for an invaluable service. It’s not as if you weren’t aware you could wash your own hands, of that you are not being deceived.[/FONT]

Seriously a political party using propaganda, surly not. Notwithstanding irony will always be lost on some it’s entirely relevant to the ongoing MSE campaign to bring to light developments in the political space that might affect positive change. Limelight is a precious thing and sometimes it’s worth overlooking who might be holding the torch to save muddying the waters. Alas this propagandist movement known as politics just so happens to drive the modern world, like it or lathe it.

I know of a number of people that have been caught out by this scam, one of which certainly knows how to read, being an English university lecturer. All pompous impeachments aside, this is a serious issue that points to an array of loop holes in consumer law that need to be addressed pronto. Reaching deep into the realms of our lackadaisical advertising laws, which currently enjoy extraordinarily lax regulation, giving rise a plethora of disinformation and misinformation, arguably by definition, but no less unacceptable. The fact that TV blatantly spews forth adverts purporting fictitious and bogus claims straight to the living room of the masses shows beyond any doubt, we are in a total mess. A whole shake up of the law is long overdue, we need a complete crack down on snake oil and deception and it can't come soon enough.

Asking victims to 'report' these sites is an exercise in futility if ever there was one. So called action groups or trading standards bodies are so slow to act, if at all. And if they do, they barley target the root of an issue if at all, moreover firefight in a never ending spiral of futility whist maintaining job security. And how exactly does telling 'mommy' get your money back! To achieve that and punish those responsible there needs to be a change in the law, period. Short of trying your chances at obtaining a charge back on your card, since unlike the corrupt sectors of government, ironically banks are sympathetic and will often attempt to action a charge back for you without hesitation. Possibly since it is inevitable that it will go unchallenged by the 3rd party scumbag, because to go to court would mean the matter gets tested, and like private parking they don't want that.

And I do hope this conversation does not descend down the route of blaming the internet / search engines. That logical fallacy has been and gone so many times to see it still flouted in 2014 belies belief.