Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

jimexbox

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

How on earth can a bigot expect to claim the moral high ground?

Sad coming from confirmed troll/liar.

SwanJon

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

Now considering this is a Utility Warehouse thread (not an anti-UW one), that kind of turns the tables. That makes us the guardians of fair play here and you are the trolls.

Woah! Talk about an over inflated ego. Just because you are pro-UW, doesn't mean this thread is. It's not anti-UW either.
It is a place to discuss UW (ideally calmly, truthfully and rationally).

Even if this was designated a pro-UW thread, by what means are you the guardians of fair play?

SwanJon

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

the rules constrain the pros but not the antis.

I don't see that at all. Which rules?
Both sides should stick to the truth, but we have had a good few cirumstances of outright untruths, and a few more of barely technical truths aimed to mislead - from both sides. Some pros obviously not constrained by that.
We see plenty of vitriol from the Pro-UW side (not with in the forum ettiquette), so they definately don't feel constrained by that 'rule.'
Some UW IDs come on here trying to make sale (and get rapidly removed by MSE) - these are never condemmed by the pro-UW side. Another rule sidestepped.

The one rule they (mainly) stick to is to declare their financial stake in UW's reputation. TBH, the regulars are not the problem as those who are have been bounced very rapidly, so I'm not fussed if this isn't mentioned very often.

(Note I am not condoning the above practice from either side, just using them as examples)

Mike_by_the_Sea

SwanJon wrote: »

I don't see that at all. Which rules?
Both sides should stick to the truth, but we have had a good few cirumstances of outright untruths, and a few more of barely technical truths aimed to mislead - from both sides. Some pros obviously not constrained by that.
We see plenty of vitriol from the Pro-UW side (not with in the forum ettiquette), so they definately don't feel constrained by that 'rule.'
Some UW IDs come on here trying to make sale (and get rapidly removed by MSE) - these are never condemmed by the pro-UW side. Another rule sidestepped.

The one rule they (mainly) stick to is to declare their financial stake in UW's reputation. TBH, the regulars are not the problem as those who are have been bounced very rapidly, so I'm not fussed if this isn't mentioned very often.

(Note I am not condoning the above practice from either side, just using them as examples)

Hi SJ

As a "Pro-UW" as per your quote, one of the aspects of this thread that I find extremely disappointing are the generalisations made by posters. Again, I am just using your post as an example, not an accusation. I don't wish to be on one side or the other, I would prefer to be just a poster on MSE who, when it is appropriate, identify my "affiliation" to UW.

For example,

Some UW IDs come on here trying to make sale (and get rapidly removed by MSE) - these are never condemmed by the pro-UW side.

This is example of the type of generalisation that I am talking about. It isn't accurate as it negatively impacts us "Pro-UW" every time it happens and I for one am quick to point it out if I spot it early enough. Fortunately, as you say, these are often removed before I have even seen them.

As for accuracy, I agree that some of the posts on here are not always 100% correct, but this is often down to misunderstandings or mis-quoting, or even over-enthusiasm.

A good example, at the moment, would be the "Best Buy" for Energy from a well known consumer magazine. This is not a totally accurate statement, as has been pointed out a number of times. The accurate statement would be that UW achieved "Best Energy Provider" in both the 2008 and 2009 survey in a well known consumer magazine.

This "mistake" will be pounced on very quickly, but no attempt is made purely to correct the statement.

I sadly see plenty of vitriol from a number of posters on this thread (not within the forum ettiquette), it would be so much better if we could all "try harder" to be more respectful and courteous to each other and ideally stop acting like married couples continually bringing up past indiscretions every time things get a bit heated.

I live in hope :kisses:

Mike

PS I am an ID for UW

kippen_noedel

Well considered post Mike :beer:

It's a pity to see a thread topic that had some good arguments & challenges degenerate into a petty bickering fest.

Now I see the same boring things repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated & repeated..................

Yet that is a tactic used regularly by politicians unwilling to answer a question. So the scene has been set.

Ignore a question or challenge then ask your own & repeat & repeat & repeat.

NigeWick

SwanJon wrote: »

It is a place to discuss UW (ideally calmly, truthfully and rationally).

I agree. Don't forget to notify members of your affiliation though.

I am an independent distributor with Utility Warehouse and the views I express may not be shared by the company.

jimexbox

Mike_by_the_Sea wrote: »

This "mistake" will be pounced on very quickly, but no attempt is made purely to correct the statement.

Mike, there are many statements of fact made in this thread which are blatant attempts to deceive or designed to intimidate posters. A very good example were the claims that various posters had deliberately libelled Which? magazine. That is a very serious allegation, and when asked to provide evidence, which is very useful to prove these allegation. None was forthcoming. I don't recall any UW reps asking that these serious allegation be proved or withdrawn.

So yes a happy love fest thread would be nice, but you and others need to act rather stand back and watch when a fellow PUWF member oversteps the mark.

Cardew

Mike_by_the_Sea wrote: »

Hi SJ


This is example of the type of generalisation that I am talking about. It isn't accurate as it negatively impacts us "Pro-UW" every time it happens and I for one am quick to point it out if I spot it early enough. Fortunately, as you say, these are often removed before I have even seen them.

As for accuracy, I agree that some of the posts on here are not always 100% correct, but this is often down to misunderstandings or mis-quoting, or even over-enthusiasm.
A good example, at the moment, would be the "Best Buy" for Energy from a well known consumer magazine. This is not a totally accurate statement, as has been pointed out a number of times. The accurate statement would be that UW achieved "Best Energy Provider" in both the 2008 and 2009 survey in a well known consumer magazine.

This "mistake" will be pounced on very quickly, but no attempt is made purely to correct the statement.

Mike,
It is not just " misunderstandings or mis-quoting, or even over-enthusiasm."

If we consider the WHICH issue, even you(perhaps the most balanced UW ID on the thread) imply above that there is little difference between a Best Buy award and the result of a reader's survey. i.e. you state "This is not a totally accurate statement"

Well of course it is a completely innacurate statement, and regarding price WHICH are at pains to point out that UW are 20% more expensive than the cheapest.


Maz(a UW ID), who has been posting here for a long while, despite the discussion about Best Buys she has recently incorrectly posted that UW have been Awarded a Best Buy for energy. Despite being challenged about it, she has refused to withdraw the statement.

Do you think it conceivable that she, and many others, don't sell their gas and electricity on that false claim - which has been posted often on MSE.

Another(patman99) posted some ridiculous Electricity prices he claimed to get with UW. Maz, gave him support stating 'he knows what he pays as he has seen his bill"

The point is that no matter what innacuracies, advantaging UW, are posted here, there is never any comment/correction from the PUWF.

You can make exactly the same points about the TVG.

Cardew

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

Is the Which? terminology not confusing as well?

Best Energy Supplier 2008 & 2009

This might be semantics but the WHICH report I have in front of me doesn't actually say "Best Energy Supplier 2008 & 2009)*

The report is headed "Energy companies rated: Survey results - energy satisfaction"

* It may give your exact quote in other places - I just haven't seen it.(can you point out where please?) However there is the world of difference between WHICH testing a product and awarding a Best Buy, and a reader's survey, especially where vested interests can influence.

P.S.
Are you not just a little concerned that you have breached WHICH's copyright? - I won't report you - but Jimx might;)

1carminestocky

All this semantics regarding Which? Best Buy or not is just ridiculous. Fact is UW they came out way at the top of a poll to see how satisfied customers are with their supplier. In that respect, they are the UKs best energy supplier. Again, the fact is the Big 6 did, as per usual, extraordinarily badly (npower brought up the rear with 28% and British Gas came second last with 38%, almost half of UWs score). Pathetic scores and surely cause for concern if you are a customer of one of these companies but instead what do we get? Committed Big 6 customers (in at least one case a committed Big 6 employee who apparently still doesn't declare it on here) arguing the toss in this thread. Maybe the employee should devote more of his energies to helping his employer scrape themselves off the 2nd last placing next time? But probably not...

This industry, due to the actions of the Big 6 and a Govt. who clearly don't give a toss, is actually less well thought of than even the banking industry but all you Big 6 customers can do is spend your time on here 'scoring points'. Laughable.