London Capital and Finance

eskbanker

robatwork wrote: »

Sorry that's a real cop out and not good enough.

When everyone, mostly the long-term and respected variety of poster, is saying that a forum post is dodgy, unhelpful or spammy/scammy it's up to you to respect these members. Between us we have thousands of "thanked" posts and over 100 years of posting history.

If we all "decide for ourselves" on everything then you wouldn't take down any scam. We've all decided - and you shouldn't be undermining us (and by inference the newer more gullible forum members).

A bit of devil's advocacy here perhaps, but I think I'd be more inclined to side with Evelyn Beatrice Hall on this, i.e. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", in that I'm not convinced that groupthink by itself is a rationale for wiping those posts on the basis of the opinions of some/many/most posters, regardless of perceived status.

I do feel that those posts are way too long but IMHO that actually means they're less likely to be read by the gullible who are more prone to misunderstand the true nature of the product.

As above, I do agree that it could be inferred from the style of the pieces that MSE somehow endorses them and clarification on that would help, but I'm not sure that deletion is necessary.

Yes, investing in LC&F would be much riskier than some gullible folk would believe but I'm not aware of any clear evidence that it's a scam as such, even though their advertising may be on the edge of what's acceptable.

Likewise, bail-in offers some opinions which are there to be challenged but it is a discussion forum so we're all free to do so. I can't see any reason to call the posts spammy and can't see either bail-in or MSE explicitly or implicitly endorsing LC&F themselves, so is there not some overreacting here? Yes, the posts are verbose, but is anyone able to highlight exactly which forum rules are being broken that would warrant removal by MSE?

Discuss....

TrustyOven

eskbanker wrote: »

Likewise, bail-in offers some opinions which are there to be challenged but it is a discussion forum so we're all free to do so. I can't see any reason to call the posts spammy and can't see either bail-in or MSE explicitly or implicitly endorsing LC&F themselves, so is there not some overreacting here? Yes, the posts are verbose, but is anyone able to highlight exactly which forum rules are being broken that would warrant removal by MSE?

Discuss....

I think initially bail-in's posts seemed spammy. It looked like it was copied and pasted from some other format (i.e. not typed up in the MSE forum reply window). At the time we didn't know that it was bail-in's work. Now we do.

On a slight tangent, I wonder how MSE Andrea's reply applies to the Asset Life Plc threads. I suppose now we have confirmation that posts should stay up:
- if either negative or positive
- because readers will do their own research
- if it's your own content (not plagarised)
- regardless whether the information is correct or incorrect.

bigadaj

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi

All Forum readers must do their own research and no-one should ever take action based on anything anyone says on the Forum without doing that research first.

As a Forum Team we've let bail-in post them because they are bail-in's own work. We don't remove content just because it's negative (or overly positive).

We're not saying the information is correct or incorrect. It's up to people reading any post on the Forum to decide that for themselves.

Andrea

Please confirm how I may formally complain about your posts please.

robatwork

eskbanker wrote: »

Likewise, bail-in offers some opinions which are there to be challenged but it is a discussion forum so we're all free to do so. I can't see any reason to call the posts spammy and can't see either bail-in or MSE explicitly or implicitly endorsing LC&F themselves, so is there not some overreacting here? Yes, the posts are verbose, but is anyone able to highlight exactly which forum rules are being broken that would warrant removal by MSE?

Discuss....

OK I'll play for a bit. The posts were offensive to me. I realise that "being offended" is a value judgement and it would be up to a mod to find it offensive.

I would also postulate that the posts would have been removed by Martin pre moneysupermarket takeover.

verybigchris

*edited by forum team* I suppose we'll just have to make the other posts stand out more...

Don't invest in bonds from London Capital and Finance

eskbanker

robatwork wrote: »

OK I'll play for a bit. The posts were offensive to me. I realise that "being offended" is a value judgement and it would be up to a mod to find it offensive.

Offensive - really?!

As per the rules, the forum team don't moderate as such (and hence Andrea's fence-sitting stance) but do review reported posts and act if deemed necessary. Clearly some posters reported bail-in's posts for suspected breach of copyright and these objections were dismissed, presumably after assurances from bail-in, but have you reported the posts if they offend you, and, if so, for what breach of the rules exactly?

As mentioned earlier, I'm not seeking to defend the content of the posts, and they're undeniably waffly and pompously presented, but I don't see them as dangerous enough to warrant deletion when there don't really seem to be any valid grounds for doing so under the current rules....

robatwork

Blimey bail-in is quick enough to thank you for your admirable defence but searingly quiet on the matter himself...

eskbanker

robatwork wrote: »

Blimey bail-in is quick enough to thank you for your admirable defence but searingly quiet on the matter himself...

And just for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not defending bail-in, and certainly not LC&F, but the principle of free speech (my turn to be pompous now!)

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

Thanks for your thoughts.

We haven't changed Forum policy for many years. If you take a look at the forum rules you'll see they're pretty outdated and could do with a good update - it's on the list!

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs

As explained but not in so much detail, the problem we've had with this is that some of you used the spam button on bail-in's original post and/or complained it broke copyright and it was automatically removed.

The forum member contacted us and once we were satisfied it didn't break copyright we said bail-in could re post it. We asked bail-in to include a note explaining we'd said it could be posted so it's not reported again.

We don't generally remove content just because someone doesn't like the format it's been posted in, or feels it's negative or incorrect.

We might ask them politely to re-post it in a format that's easier for everyone to read, though, so people can understand easier. If this happens again please think about doing that if you could.

Thank you all for your understanding, it really is appreciated.

@bigadaj Could you read the very top of our Forum Rules please? Thank you

Andrea

Chickereeeee

Well, it is not ALL bail-in's own work:

The first chunk of text from his spiel I googled came up with this (paragraph 3):

http://www.retailbondexpert.com/Blog/Commentary/2016/09/Investors-Sweat-as-Mini-bond-Issuer-Goes-Bust/

"Retail Bond Expert and sister site DIY Investor have consistently called for investors to be wary of mini-bonds and to be fully apprised of the risk they may be exposed to and the differences that exist between mini-bonds and other forms of fixed income products such as retail bonds"

Exact same wording. I sure I could find more if I could be bothered....