Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

1carminestocky

jimexbox wrote: »

Im slightly confused by the direction of your recent posts directed at me. I dont believe Ive ever claimed that I activly push tariffs on anyone, of course unlike UW salesman who we know do this purely out of altruistic motives. I also have never claimed to be stuffed with moral fibre, or be a champion of the oppressed energy user. If you wish me to comment on any posts Ive made, please feel free to quote me, so I can comment directly on what Ive wrote and not an assumtion made by yourself.

My point is and always has been that someone who can't categorically state they at least *attempt* (for free) to get their family/friends paying not a penny more for their utilities with the knowledge they have gleaned from this forum is on shaky ground criticising someone who tries to help them to pay less for a small fee. You have admitted you don't make it your priority to do this for your friends/family. If you won't do this for family/friends off your own bat without them asking you, then how can you criticise a UW rep? I've already made it entirely clear in MANY challenges on here that UW can be the cheapest deal out there, with or even without use of the cashback card. My latest figures are just a few posts back. Still no challenge to them. Which, in a thread as confrontational as this one, tends to tell me they can't be effectively challenged, lol.

Here's a question: if a member of your family approached you for help and wanted to change their gas/electric/phone/BB arrangements and UW came out cheapest for their requirements....would you recommend them to your family member as the best deal for them?

Decado23

Quentin wrote: »

No private individuals would consent to having their name, address and landline phone number put on the net.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdZcBC0Kf9k

In the case of the video showing how Pat gets Sonia's family names and phone numbers as contacts she will be ringing, then uw should obviously have removed the personal details before uploading it onto the net - or are you naively expecting us to believe they gave their permission, to uw to publicise their names and landline phone numbers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA01IudvaaU

Should I point out that I'm not aware of them ever really being 'publicised' until you posted the links on a public forum? The videos are linked on 'distributor only' websites, requiring a log in, such as networker plus and gary's own site. Perhaps it was unwise hosting the videos on youtube where it's possible for them to turn up in a search, but how many people apart from you are likely to find them and splash them all over public forums?

UW distributor

Quentin

Decado23 wrote: »

Should I point out that I'm not aware of them ever really being 'publicised' until you posted the links on a public forum? The videos are linked on 'distributor only' websites, requiring a log in.....

Whenever anything you see as detrimental to uw is posted you always want "sources" as proof.

Now you grumble when you are given them!

You clearly do not require to "log in", the links are to freely accessible web pages, and are easily found via google/youtube etc, and are available to anyone.

Decado23

Available is not the same as publicised.

publicised
adjectivemade known; especially made widely known

You say they are easily found on google/youtube, I say only if you are looking for them. We don't generally walk the streets shouting out 'check out UW videos on youtube, just google them!'

Although the videos are accessible without a log in, the supporting articles which link to them (ie actual links, not google searches) are posted on distributor only sites that require a log in, eg networkerplus.co.uk.


UW distributor

Quentin

Are you saying the videos which we see via google and youtube should really be secret?

Cardew

Decado23 wrote: »

Should I point out that I'm not aware of them ever really being 'publicised' until you posted the links on a public forum? The videos are linked on 'distributor only' websites, requiring a log in, such as networker plus and gary's own site. Perhaps it was unwise hosting the videos on youtube where it's possible for them to turn up in a search, but how many people apart from you are likely to find them and splash them all over public forums?

UW distributor

What is the problem having them 'splashed all over public forums'?

They graphically illustrate the recruitment methods endorsed by UW.

The implication is that you UW distributors are ashamed of the techniques used.

If you were proud of these videos you would be delighted that Youtube had put them in the public domain for all to see.

You know, I know, and every thinking person knows, that they are an embarrassment!

Decado23

Quentin wrote: »

Whenever anything you see as detrimental to uw is posted you always want "sources" as proof.

Only since you falsely accused me of 'cynically' and 'intentionally' posting false information.

You have failed to even attempt to counter mine or Carmine's demonstration that the info I posted was in fact accurate.

In the absence of anything to counter the information we posted, you have failed to acknowledge your error, correct your statements or offer me any apology (although the MSE forum team have modified your posts to remove the accusations aimed directly at me).

You have in fact failed to offer any response at all on this issue since it arose, choosing to ignore it entirely and hope it goes away and offering up any piece of information you can find by scouring the internet in an attempt to distract. This has included more false information, extremely selective quoting (in one case the source you quoted entirely discounted the point you were trying (but failed) to make with your selective quoting) and very misleading statements.

In fact, you later quoted one of my posts and said 'as usual you attempt to mislead'.
When asked, you failed to point to any previous intentionally misleading post to back up this statement.

Had the information been proven false I would have accepted that, apologised and corrected my statement. I would still expect you to demonstrate the 'cynical' and 'intentional' aspects of your false accusation though, as this is patently untrue.


Given all of the above, I hope it is clear why I expect you to be able to back up your claims - I clearly cannot simply take you at your word.


UW distributor

Decado23

Cardew wrote: »

What is the problem having them 'splashed all over public forums'?

They graphically illustrate the recruitment methods endorsed by UW.

The implication is that you UW distributors are ashamed of the techniques used.

If you were proud of these videos you would be delighted that Youtube had put them in the public domain for all to see.

You know, I know, and every thinking person knows, that they are an embarrassment!

Hi Cardew, if you read back a couple of posts quentin was complaining that the videos contain personal information and should not have been 'publicised'. I was merely pointing out that he has done more to publicise them by posting them here than any UW distributor I know of.


If you feel UW endorses bad practice in it's distributors then surely that's a matter for ofgem and ofcom to resolve. I must say I still haven't seen UW getting any £1.8mil fines for doorstep mis-selling



UW distributor

Quentin

Decado23 wrote: »

I hope it is clear why I expect you to be able to back up your claims

So don't grumble when you are given the "sources".

NigeWick

Quentin wrote: »

But in Post #2169, the question had already been answered

>>>As it doesn't say that, I couldn't read that!<<<
Are you now saying that you believe copyright doesn't exist for something because you just "found" the item on the internet?

Due to previous posts, you must now be aware that the videos you linked to are copyrighted. I suggest that you remove those links.