Confused & Disappointed - Pension Transfer

whiteflag_3

JohnG wrote:

Hi DunstonH,

Thanks for the fresh input on this, I will have to read through it more closely later (Have spent too much time on here today already so I'm not earning any money either unfortunately....

I quickly noted you say I'm happy to pay H&L so much etc but must stress I have not made any decisions (except to "Switch" my ELife WP fund to a Money fund for the time being).

All I've done is to request the H&L booklet which I rcvd today so will read (at bedtime probably) to hopefully get a better understanding of SIPPS. I havnt decided to go with them at this point.

I've still got to decide whether a SIPPS is preferable to a Stakeholder and then who will be the best provider - I don't seem to be any closer to either decisions to be honest.

Anyway DustonH, whilst I can see you are supporting Whiteflag I will say that your comments come across much more eloquently than the way Whiteflags came across. His apparent anger and aggression simply over shadowed the argument for me and I suppose in a way had made me "Take sides" which is a bit bizarre when I'm simply looking for help that he was apparently providing. I'm sorry if I'm at fault for that but please note I don't consider I have a particular "relationship" with anyone on this board only what I consider more of an empathy perhaps?

Cheers
John

Ive read this thread yet again and my frustration only boiled over once it was apparent you had already taken sides.

Never the less please post where you found my posts to "angry and aggreassive " and I will apologise to those concerned.

JohnG

whiteflag wrote:

Ive read this thread yet again and my frustration only boiled over once it was apparent you had already taken sides.

Never the less please post where you found my posts to "angry and aggreassive " and I will apologise to those concerned.

Well Whiteflag, here are a few early examples which looking back caused me some concern. The first quote below took me by great surprise as it was a summing up response to Edinvestors previous findings on the Scottish Equitable fund which was requested by you in the first place, presumably knowing it would provide you with something to react adversely to?

Quote (Msg 42):
"Here is a clear warning to anyone else who is mad enough to follow Edinvestors advice .
This is a person who advocates doing her own research, however her own research is badly flawed and followed up with hearsay and unqualifed kak.
Avoid -your not kidding"

Quote (Msg 44):
"Your obviously thick as pig **** ..... " A not too pleasant comment aimed at Edinvestor.

"The depressing thing from my point of view is that you havent been banned from this site."
That's a bit strong isn't it or is Edinvestor so unpopular that you feel it was justified?

Quote (Msg 49):
"This board it getting beyond a joke . You can agree Ed as much as you like, fools seldom differ" Another unpleasant comment this time aimed at Kittie, surely completely unnecessary?

There are probably more but I think enough is enough.

Looking back to the beginning I think it is quite clear that I had an open mind on any help that might of been forthcoming from whomever wanted to offer it, it was only from pages 3,4 & 5 when things started to turn nasty that I felt more empathy towards Edinvestor who I didn't feel deserved such treatment from yourself.

At the same time it inevitably raised questions about the whole concept of this forum and whether it was possible to find a true answer to the isues raised? And that can't be good!

By the way, I have just been relaying details of this thread to my wife and she feels your approach, Whiteflag "Hardly helps the reputation of IFA's" which I think is a very good point to bear in mind.

Well anyway, I hope the above clarifies my viewpoint further and that future discussions/arguments can be slightly less aggressive and certainly less personal?

Regards
John

whiteflag_3

JohnG wrote:

Well Whiteflag, here are a few early examples which looking back caused me some concern. The first quote below took me by great surprise as it was a summing up response to Edinvestors previous findings on the Scottish Equitable fund which was requested by you in the first place, presumably knowing it would provide you with something to react adversely to?

Quote (Msg 42):
"Here is a clear warning to anyone else who is mad enough to follow Edinvestors advice .
This is a person who advocates doing her own research, however her own research is badly flawed and followed up with hearsay and unqualifed kak.
Avoid -your not kidding"

Quote (Msg 44):
"Your obviously thick as pig **** ..... " A not too pleasant comment aimed at Edinvestor.

"The depressing thing from my point of view is that you havent been banned from this site."
That's a bit strong isn't it or is Edinvestor so unpopular that you feel it was justified?

Quote (Msg 49):
"This board it getting beyond a joke . You can agree Ed as much as you like, fools seldom differ" Another unpleasant comment this time aimed at Kittie, surely completely unnecessary?

There are probably more but I think enough is enough.

Looking back to the beginning I think it is quite clear that I had an open mind on any help that might of been forthcoming from whomever wanted to offer it, it was only from pages 3,4 & 5 when things started to turn nasty that I felt more empathy towards Edinvestor who I didn't feel deserved such treatment from yourself.

At the same time it inevitably raised questions about the whole concept of this forum and whether it was possible to find a true answer to the isues raised? And that can't be good!

By the way, I have just been relaying details of this thread to my wife and she feels your approach, Whiteflag "Hardly helps the reputation of IFA's" which I think is a very good point to bear in mind.

Well anyway, I hope the above clarifies my viewpoint further and that future discussions/arguments can be slightly less aggressive and certainly less personal?

Regards
John

Sorry your wife feels the way she does John!

Im am somewhat amazed that after Paul Herring and Dunstonh posts which sums up basically my frustration of trying to furnish you with accurate facts, that it is only the negative side that you have conveyed to the other half!

I really cant understand I have spent now a couple of hours giving you nothing but free info on what you have been offered, and its me thats got the bad name. Why when Ive got nothing to gain from you does your wife think giving you free info does that not do IFas reputation any good.

Ive obviously been on this site a lot longer than you and have seen Ed have spats with many, many people, (seems like oceanblue has given up) .

Therefore I make no excuses for my reponse to Ed and Kittie as I thought at the time and I still think their posts on this thread were dangerous and misleading.

You yourself have already posted that you have acted on EDs advice. I know my problem is controlling the passion I have for making sure other people do not make the same mistake as you.