Just £16 to get off any private parking ticket

TDA

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

I advertised the service on every single blog post, via a link to the PTAS web site, not just on Oct 29.


The removal of the comment was purely to annoy you.


The comment was posted by a friend of the original person who ran the business (KIFL). KIFL emailed me on Friday to tell me he was no longer associated with the business, so I'm not quite sure why his friend keeps trolling my blog. As the statement made incorrect assertions, I was happy to delete it rather than give it air time.

Clearly

What were the incorrect assertions? It appears to have been confirmed that there was, indeed, a conflict of interest?

Parking-Prankster

TDA wrote: »

Clearly

What were the incorrect assertions? It appears to have been confirmed that there was, indeed, a conflict of interest?

That I always intended to remove the links.

TDA

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

That I always intended to remove the links.

Thanks for clearing that up

BenefitMaster

TDA wrote: »

What were the incorrect assertions? It appears to have been confirmed that there was, indeed, a conflict of interest?

I think its worth noting that, even if there were a conflict of interest (and I don't accept that there is in this scenario) it would be decent of Pranky to keep advertising the competition, as well as offering a link to the new business, which will be making a markedly different offering when it launches.

Additionally, Prankster's reasoning for his actions has been published and transparent. It's only a troll that has been claiming there's anything underhanded going on.

The_Deep

It's only a troll that has been claiming there's anything underhanded going on.

But there have been underhanded things going on, how can you deny it.?

Trebor16

What sort of underhanded things? Can you be more specific?

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

It's only a troll that has been claiming there's anything underhanded going on.

But there have been underhanded things going on, how can you deny it.?

I'm not aware of any of the "underhandedness" claimed - so what is there to deny.

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

The_Deep

But is it not underhand to advertise a service last Saturday and not provide it today, or is the website no longer accepting clients?

As far as I aware, the website is the same, but the person now running it does not appear to have the expertise which was there say two months ago.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, just saying that this is a mess, and it is problematic whether someone paying their £16 today would get the same level of expertise which they would have received a month ago.

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, just saying that this is a mess, and it is problematic whether someone paying their £16 today would get the same level of expertise which they would have received a month ago.

To be honest, I'm sad its got to this stage - I'm working behind the scenes to try to resolve the issue, and so I'm going to step away from the discussion.

However, I stand my my earlier comments.

Quentin

BenefitMaster wrote: »

To be honest, I'm sad its got to this stage - I'm working behind the scenes to try to resolve the issue, and so I'm going to step away from the discussion.

However, I stand my my earlier comments.

Now that you tell us you are actually involved trying to resolve the issue, why come here and post about it the way you have??


How do you see posting all this in a public forum can assist the resolution?