Icesave/Kaupthing - is Martin to blame?

wes88

I think someone should say that 31May2008 is annoyed because he put up a parody of Martins self-proclaimed "large WARNING" he is now telling all the media was bold as day.

I think most people would say that reassuring note about thuis highly unlikely event simply making things a bit more "difficult" is not really what most would call a "large WARNING" .. but thats each to his own on that.

It was deleted which I think is a shame because we are all adults here and any reference to Martin was only in relation to his putting himself on TV, running this site, etc.

Kind of hard not to refer to the owner when he is decision-making frontman.

It would be like trying to critice Man uniteds tactics but not mentioning Alex Ferguson.

And if you do mention him then your posts may be deleted.

As I say, its a shame as I think most people on here are over 18 and would be perfectly capable of reading the contextual nature quite easily.

Whether theyd agree or not is of course everyones right.

Former_MSE_Forum_Manager

wes88 wrote: »

I think someone should say that 31May2008 is annoyed because he put up a parody of Martins self-proclaimed "large WARNING" he is now telling all the media was bold as day.

I think most people would say that reassuring note about thuis highly unlikely event simply making things a bit more "difficult" is not really what most would call a "large WARNING" .. but thats each to his own on that.

It was deleted which I think is a shame because we are all adults here and any reference to Martin was only in relation to his putting himself on TV, running this site, etc.

Kind of hard not to refer to the owner when he is decision-making frontman.

It would be like trying to critice Man uniteds tactics but not mentioning Alex Ferguson.

And if you do mention him then your posts may be deleted.

As I say, its a shame as I think most people on here are over 18 and would be perfectly capable of reading the contextual nature quite easily.

Whether theyd agree or not is of course everyones right.

We've let a LOT of anti Martin / anti MSE threads and posts exist this week and have hardly removed anything. Infact, we've been at pains to be more liberal given the nature of what has happened. See my post > HERE <

I think we've stressed over and over that you can present your point of view providing it isn't personal. The post removed was personal, and i'm leaving the post above so you can see exactly why the account was closed. If you don't think our warning was big enough, that's fine and your opinion, but to start making it a personal comment on Martin isn't acceptable on this thread, or this forum. This isn't Icesave specific, it's common courtesy and forum policy across the board.

payless

I posted this on the other thread

--

I'm not going down the lines of who is to blame ... advice or no advice.. own fault etc...

but what this does show is that there are various non-regulated routes ( whether it be TV, newspapers, websites) that make a profit from giving quasi- advice, yet don't have to come under the regulations / pay the fees.
(although stranglely at the moment I don't believe advice of cash deposits is a regulated activity ).

I do think Martin has helped consumers become more aware of finances , but with that comes a degree of responsbility ( something I assume he is not taking lightly )

I do rememember years ago questioning the Nvesta "capital protected " products mentioned some years back ( counterparty risk) and it being said the issue was so remote - plus even this year I've had MSE emails that he said - " This means if the ridiculously unlikely even a bank went bust, "

the " safer saving article" has been beefed up over the last 6-8 months , but trouble is people have acted on original reports , and also many won't read the full articles ( not saying thats Martins fault)


The responsibility is more so as many recommendations do now come with a payment to the site.( not saying thats wrong , but seems slightly off the original basis for the site - ie to promote his other works) .

Its growth does mean its needs the income, but I also think that the site ( mainly the forum) as a whole has outgrown itself .. what does it want to be , profit or not - a financial site, a discount site, an ebay community site, a gambling site or a chat room

payless

Wayback site will show what was said and warning given

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-accounts-best-interest

http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings

Gambit

I really dont understand the logic of people blaming Martin - I really dont. Yes, he advised that Icesave had the highest ISA rating but he also warnned us that Icesave wasnt completely protected by the FSCS. I was aware of this when I invested my house deposit into Icesave but when I found out the news earlier this week the first thing I wanted to know was how I would be able to get hold of my money. And where was I able to find all the information to help me with this??? Oh yeah, HERE. I imagine that the guys have been working their !!!!!$ off this week in order to bring us the most up to date information and help alleviate our fears and for this I am very grateful.

Why are we in such a blame culture? Why were people on here as soon as they found out blaming Martin for his advice? You didnt have to listen to it... no one forced you did they?? I wish people would just be happy that they are getting their money back from Icesave and stop with all the negativity. Either that or move onto another forum and find someone else to blame when the next bank goes under...

** end of rant ** :rotfl:

Former_MSE_Dan

payless wrote: »

Wayback site will show what was said and warning given

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-accounts-best-interest

http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings

Hi Payless

The text i have quoted twice above is what we have been saying, I went back into our own archives and pasted it from there.

Dan

payless

Hi Dan, I'm sure it is correct, just m,entioning its a way for people to look at old these articles

itsnever2lateisit?

Didn't think I would be posting here again.

I am amazed that folk get so upset about 'personal attack' posts being deleted, this site is owned by someone, and as such they have the right to do as they think fit.

Even Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" didn't extend to, and I will also, at my expense provide you with the forum with which to say it:rolleyes:

I do not see any mechanism provided by (say) the Sunday Times to allow reader to slag them off for putting Icesave in their 'bestbuy' tables. Indeed the Sunday Times go further by compiling a table of most consistent interest payers. The inference of that table is ' for those of you that review your finances once in a blue moon, this is the place to put your money' and forget it. Maybe such savers would be blissfully unaware that their bank had gone bust;)

wes88

MSE_Forum_Manager wrote: »

We've let a LOT of anti Martin / anti MSE threads and posts exist this week and have hardly removed anything. Infact, we've been at pains to be more liberal given the nature of what has happened. See my post > HERE <

I think we've stressed over and over that you can present your point of view providing it isn't personal. The post removed was personal, and i'm leaving the post above so you can see exactly why the account was closed. If you don't think our warning was big enough, that's fine and your opinion, but to start making it a personal comment on Martin isn't acceptable on this thread, or this forum. This isn't Icesave specific, it's common courtesy and forum policy across the board.

I do think you are being a bit naughty.

Firstly, by leaving up a post with the most offensive word in the English Language (after Icesave itself of course) it implies he made a vitriolic post.

It wasnt .. it was a satirical, swear-free lampoon of how Martin is portraying his role on TV (ie distancing himself from his self-proclaimed financial guru tag to a mere lister of interest rate tables ... with huge WARNING attached .. which personally I feel is also a bit naughty).

And I cant see how anyone can safely criticise the sight if editorial deletions are made at the sites own discretion.

To claim it was personal is disingenuous ... its like saying anyone can criticise the governemnt but cannot say anything personal about anyone.

So youd have to tip toe around mentioning Gordon Brown and so on. Essentially a carte blanche to censorship.

Given one man is calling the shots and fronting the whole thing the site/Martin blurs into one anyway.

His post related to his revisionist stance on the matter and contained not one jot of personal reference other than what he has said and how 31May2008 viewed this.

I agree you have not been heavy handed at all but I think 31May2008's post got banned because he said something a bit too close to the real issue of the site's authenticity.

It was a Private Eye-type skit .. nothing more nothing less. It lasted less than five seconds before it was removed and he was told off. thats why he lost it I think.

Folk may have agreed disagreed .. thats a public forum ... but to label it as though it was personal abuse is just way wide of reality.

And to leave his c*nt post up is unfair .. let his posts stand or delete them .. but dont cherry pick which bits you will leave up.

I would say put it back and let folk see what it was ... its turned into a lot of fuss about very little really.

disney_cjd

if it was NOT for Martin's advice then I would not have knowm about the 35k limit some moths ago and spread the risk. SO I SAY THANKS!!!!!!!