Shilling - What do I do?

mishkanorman

Perhaps it was acceptable to call someone you have never met ( that you have just branded uptight and tetchy, yet dont mean to insult ) sweetheart in the 1950s but now its just plain cheesy, if not rude.


There is no need to bring any pet names into this as we aint ever ( thank the gods ) going to meet, besides which I wasnt tetchy towards you, bloody am now as you won and got me wound up, but point of fact I was trying to save you from yourself.

I pointed out that what i posted aimed at you was a joke but you had to keep on plowing through with your little jibes, I had written nothing unfriendly towards you prior to your 'sweetheart' dig, so how was I being tetchy and uptight ??

It amazes me how many mean spirited people there are in this world and how they choose to justify upsetting others.



mishka


PS
to save you the bother and pre-empt your reply Im sure Ive made a million spelling mistakes, contradicted myself at least twice, am frigid, two-faced, too stoopid to spell it, smell of cow poo and any other little " i dont see it as insulting" dig you care to make.:p

rose_sparky

I sometimes go to an auction and the auctioneer often shill bids (or whatever it's called) in the real world. Sometimes I've noticed he gets caught out though and after say reaching £35 then says.........ok who'll give me £20 for it?

Moglex

mishkanorman wrote:

Perhaps it was acceptable to call someone you have never met ( that you have just branded uptight and tetchy, yet dont mean to insult ) sweetheart in the 1950s but now its just plain cheesy, if not rude.


There is no need to bring any pet names into this as we aint ever ( thank the gods ) going to meet, besides which I wasnt tetchy towards you, bloody am now as you won and got me wound up, but point of fact I was trying to save you from yourself.

I pointed out that what i posted aimed at you was a joke but you had to keep on plowing through with your little jibes, I had written nothing unfriendly towards you prior to your 'sweetheart' dig, so how was I being tetchy and uptight ??

It amazes me how many mean spirited people there are in this world and how they choose to justify upsetting others.

PS
to save you the bother and pre-empt your reply Im sure Ive made a million spelling mistakes, contradicted myself at least twice, am frigid, two-faced, too stoopid to spell it, smell of cow poo and any other little " i dont see it as insulting" dig you care to make.:p

Oh dear oh dear oh dear oh dear.

All I can say is: Chill!

Try and take things a little more easily. You'll enjoy life more, honestly you will

(BTW, I note that the OP has thanked you for your post, but seems to have neglected to mention which statute makes shill bidding a criminal offence. I'm sure she will rectify that mistake asap, lest any uncharitable person would think she was just making it up).

dmg24

Just to satisfy (or maybe ... possibly ... hopefully ... silence) Moglex ...

Shill bidding would be an offence under the Theft Act 1968. More specifically it could be tried under s. 15A(1) Obtaining a Money Transfer by Deception.

In order to be convicted of the above offence, the element of dishonesty would need to be proven. A defendant will be dishonest where he realised that he was doing something that reasonable and honest people would regard as dishonest. No element of coercion or direction is required.

I believe there is also an EU Directive on e-Commerce which would be applicable, but I am not aware if it has yet been implemented in the UK as yet or of its specific content.

As stated earlier, I am not aware that this has ever been tested within England or the EU. The CPS would only pursue a prosecution if it was in the interest of the general public, and this would not be the case unless the shill bidding was on a massive scale.

There has been a successful prosecution in the US based on comparable legislation (comparable, not identical).

Moglex

dmg24 wrote:

Just to satisfy (or maybe ... possibly ... hopefully ... silence) Moglex ...

Shill bidding would be an offence under the Theft Act 1968. More specifically it could be tried under s. 15A(1) Obtaining a Money Transfer by Deception.

In order to be convicted of the above offence, the element of dishonesty would need to be proven. A defendant will be dishonest where he realised that he was doing something that reasonable and honest people would regard as dishonest. No element of coercion or direction is required.

So, really it's just your opinion that it might be an offence under the aforesaid act.

A sucessful prosecution would seem to depend on two things:

1) The presecution convining the jury that reasonable and honest people would regard shill bidding as dishonest.

2) That the prosecution proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that is how people would think.

Now I've known of several people who have admitted to shilling (usually when they have made a mistake in the initial valuation such as the person who discovered that a book he'd listed at 99p was a first edition), and in all cases they have been genuinely surprised and upset to find that others objected (in principle) to their action.

They merely considered that they'd made a dynamic adjustment to the price of the item. I don't think the ebay fee issue had even occured to them.

In summary, I don't think you can say that shill bidding is illegal. All you can say that you personally believe a case can be made for a prosecution, but that is not the same thing as proving illegailty.

For my part I think a prosecution would be bound to fail.

It would only need one juror to disagree that the action was dishonest and, although they jury might persuade said juror to change his/her mind, when it came to proving point 2, there would be a prima facie case for maintaining from the sample in the jury room that a normal person might not believe the action to be dishonest.

mishkanorman

Moglex, i take life with great joy every day, i know its worth and thank whatever genius gave me what I have every day. Ive no need to chill, a bit of passion (steady on, not that kind !!) over things i believe in does not make me wound up (you do ,

Perhaps those uncharitable ones among us could pass around a few apologies, I think the OP has proved the point you called them out about to the best of their ability, as you requested. (And my blood is still boiling at being called sweetheart, tetchy and uptight)


What may be of no importance to you, holds great value to others.

mishka

mishkanorman

Oh no we cross posted,

seems he may have a point at last,

Still got time till the cows come home, lets debate some more.


mishka

Kinnairdy

Bit off Topic sorry.
:wave: Moglex you can call me sweetheart, honeybun, lover, darlin or anything else you like any time, I will not be offended.
He Who Must Be Ignored calls me 'an old tart' about 100 times a day, I assume it's a term of endearment but who knows or cares?.

Moglex

mishkanorman wrote:

Moglex, i take life with great joy every day, i know its worth and thank whatever genius gave me what I have every day. Ive no need to chill, a bit of passion (steady on, not that kind !!) over things i believe in does not make me wound up (you do ,

OK, sorry about that (and Honeybuns). I thought your asking if I shilled and then saying it was just a joke was a bit much so I put in the "sweetheart" to wind you up.

Perhaps those uncharitable ones among us could pass around a few apologies, I think the OP has proved the point you called them out

Actually, they haven't. They've simply mentioned a statute that I was already aware of and stated an opinion that shilling is an offence under that act.

That is not the same as "confirming it's illegal".

If a judge felt the case had merit and allowed it to continue it would be a matter for the jury of the day.

(And my blood is still boiling at being called sweetheart, tetchy and uptight)

Well, I wasn't that upset at your question about whether I shilled, and I certainly didn't intend to upset you so much. Just be a tiny bit irritating

What may be of no importance to you, holds great value to others.

It is important to me that this upsets people, but I see using optimum bidding techniques and determining the value you place on an item by means other than what other bidders have done to be the best defence.


Edit: I wrote all this before I saw post #78

dmg24

Moglex,

You obviously know very little about the English legal system, and have misinterpreted what I think I phrased very simply.

If a judge felt the case had merit and allowed it to continue it would be a matter for the jury of the day.

That is correct. Every criminal offence is only illegal according to the view of the jury. A person intentionally killing another is only a crime if the jury believes it to be.

1) The presecution convining the jury that reasonable and honest people would regard shill bidding as dishonest.

2) That the prosecution proving beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that is how people would think.

Look at the views of people on here. On the assumption that we represent a majority of people, it seems a foregone conclusion that people believe shill bidding to be dishonest.

Your misinterpretation of the second point is wholly incorrect. It is irrelevant what the defendant believed a reasonable person would believe.

It would only need one juror to disagree that the action was dishonest and, although they jury might persuade said juror to change his/her mind, when it came to proving point 2, there would be a prima facie case for maintaining from the sample in the jury room that a normal person might not believe the action to be dishonest.

Even with one person dissenting, a majority verdict could (in certain circumstances) still be passed. As noted earlier, your second point is incorrect so your further argument invalid.

If you ask me to demonstrate a point, I would ask that you do not do me the discourtesy to argue against something which you clearly do not understand.