Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website

Valli

Sheldon_Cooper wrote: »

If people would stop responding to hpuse this thread would die a lot more quickly and would not spend most of its life near the top of the front page of this forum.

hpuse wrote: »

I completely agree with that.

And yet you reply.

:rotfl:

You can 'sense' my despair can you?

:rotfl:

And there was me thinking you had no sense...

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

I completely agree with that.

In my view, what posters should do is watch Government, Google and other agencies tackling this issue (slowly but steadily) rather than hailing legality of a non-ethical online trade.

In that case, hpuse, stop posting stupid irrelevant links that you fail to understand.

Legal is legal - whether you like it or not.
'Ethics' has nothing to do with this.

Have you learned nothing throughout these 70 pages?

hpuse wrote: »

At this stage, I can also sense that most of the posters who defended legality and bank's position on refunds are in despair now.
The major blow was Google removing copycat ads, so yes, that leads us to believe that the search giant and government thinks they're misleading and doesn't deserve an advert slot on search results page.

You will see no 'despair' from any posters on this thread if these websites are closed down.

Posters have been telling you that throughout these 70 pages. Have you learned nothing?

hpuse wrote: »

The major blow was Google removing copycat ads, so yes, that leads us to believe that the search giant and government thinks they're misleading and doesn't deserve an advert slot on search results page.

It may lead you to believe whatever you wish.
Do not include me in that group

hpuse wrote: »

The principle is simple :- If a consumer is not mislead - then he or she wouldn't have purchased this, so yes they deserve a refund.

Being deserving of a refund and being eligible legally for a refund are two very different things.

I guess there'll be no links to your claims as I requested in post #1390 then, hpuse.....

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

You will see no 'despair' from any posters on this thread if these websites are closed down.

Hey Pollycat, how are you doing ?

Here is a tip for you: Google removing ads of copycats from search results page are as good as closing them down.


Ads shut = Cash flow shut.
That means their owners have to pay and bear the cost without revenue to 'legally' exist:rotfl:

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Here is a tip for you: Google removing ads of copycats from search results page are as good as closing them down.

Ads shut = Cash flow shut.
That means their owners have to pay and bear the cost without revenue to 'legally' exist:rotfl:

And here are 2 tips for you:
answer questions that people ask you.
provide links when people ask you to substantiate your sources

I'm not disputing the logic of this:

hpuse wrote: »

Here is a tip for you: Google removing ads of copycats from search results page are as good as closing them down.

I asked for substantiation of these 2 claims you made in an earlier post:

hpuse wrote: »

Google has a team of engineers working round the clock to stop copycat ads getting displayed by these perpetrators.

Government is in the process of amending legislations to curb copycat activities....

Given your failure to provide proof, I guess you don't have it.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

But, hpuse, the only reason WHO4 are not trading anymore is because they were stupid enough to fall foul of HM Revenue & Customs.
Do not delude yourself that there is any other reason.

Ah, Pollycat - here you come again.

Could you please quote a source that shows your "the only reason" claim.

Valli

http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/2/WHO4-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_246296.aspx

This is the finding of the complaint to the ASA which was NOT upheld and WHO4 were NOT found to have been in breach of CAP code edition 12 rules 3.1 and 3.3.

So THAT didn't stop WHO4 trading!

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Ah, Pollycat - here you come again.

Could you please quote a source that shows your "the only reason" claim.

My source is the link to 'thisismoney' in your post #1368.

WHO4 failed to comply with HM Revenue & Customs rules.
That is the only reason they were closed down.
They were not closed down because they operated copycat websites.
4 posters, including myself, have already told you this.
Why do you continue to argue?

So - I have shown you where my source has come from.
Please provide the source for these claims.

hpuse wrote: »

Google has a team of engineers working round the clock to stop copycat ads getting displayed by these perpetrators.

Government is in the process of amending legislations to curb copycat activities....

If you can.

Azari

Pollycat wrote: »

Please provide the source for these claims.

If you can.

Actually, there's probably some very small element of truth in the first claim. (Sorry, I know I shouldn't be encouraging him.)

Google certainly have a 24 hour capability to respond to 'take down' notices so they do have people present who can do this.

However, that's not the picture: "Google has a team of engineers working round the clock to stop copycat ads getting displayed by these perpetrators." paints. There is not a group of people sitting in Google Towers intently scanning monitors waiting for someone to open up a copycat of a UK government site so they can instantly zap it.

In reality, the taking down of the sites referred to in this thread would be a microscopic part of their work and almost certainly only something done reactively.

Pollycat

Azari wrote: »

Actually, there's probably some very small element of truth in the first claim. (Sorry, I know I shouldn't be encouraging him.)

Google certainly have a 24 hour capability to respond to 'take down' notices so they do have people present who can do this.

However, that's not the picture: "Google has a team of engineers working round the clock to stop copycat ads getting displayed by these perpetrators." paints. There is not a group of people sitting in Google Towers intently scanning monitors waiting for someone to open up a copycat of a UK government site so they can instantly zap it.

In reality, the taking down of the sites referred to in this thread would be a microscopic part of their work and almost certainly only something done reactively.

I'm expecting - from the claim made by hpuse - to see proof that "Google has a team of engineers working round the clock to stop copycat ads getting displayed by these perpetrators", not that Google employs people who work round the clock.

hpuse

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm expecting - from the claim made by hpuse - to see proof that "Google has a team of engineers working round the clock to stop copycat ads getting displayed by these perpetrators", not that Google employs people who work round the clock.

T8. [903001] Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): Last weekend I was searching for a V14 form to return a tax disc, I did a search on Google and a copycat website came up offering services that cost money. What efforts are being made by the Government to work with the advertising agencies to try to deal with copycat websites that are ripping people off?


Mr Maude: My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and I had a meeting with Google and others last week to address exactly this issue. We are taking urgent steps, with Google and with the Advertising Standards Authority, to address it. It is a real concern, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it and we are on the case.


Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140312/debtext/140312-0001.htm#140312-0001.htm_wqn16


Is that enough for you, Pollycat?