London Capital and Finance

verybigchris

It's quite scary to see how the amateurs on this little forum are so far ahead of the professional regulators. The FCA could literally just employ an intern to browse MSE every day and that'd have more effect than anything they've done so far.

robatwork

Not sure if this was covered in the first 100 pages but the BBC just rehashed this story regarding the Grand Designs front man Kevin and his mini-bond scheme...

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/kevin-mccloud-saga-i-d-never-have-invested-if-i-d-known-he-would-bail-out-1.4014566

AnotherJoe

TL;DR. LCF and associated parties are a bunch of low life scammers.

bigadaj

AnotherJoe wrote: »

TL;DR. LCF and associated parties are a bunch of low life scammers.

Well you can say that now.

A couple of years ago people were getting PPRd for much less on this exact subject.

MSE fighting for consumers and standing up to rip off artists, not if they receive the whiff of a legal letter. It's a £100 million pound comoany, owned by a much larger price comparison site, but isn't prepared to publish material that could have saved vulnerable people millions, very poor.

GDB2222

bigadaj wrote: »

Well you can say that now.

A couple of years ago people were getting PPRd for much less on this exact subject.

MSE fighting for consumers and standing up to rip off artists, not if they receive the whiff of a legal letter. It's a £100 million pound comoany, owned by a much larger price comparison site, but isn't prepared to publish material that could have saved vulnerable people millions, very poor.

Surely, if MSE wanted that fight, they’d write the material themselves? Defending something written on a forum that they have not researched is obviously a mug's game. Hence, they take it down.

masonic

GDB2222 wrote: »

Surely, if MSE wanted that fight, they’d write the material themselves? Defending something written on a forum that they have not researched is obviously a mug's game. Hence, they take it down.

If they just took it down, that would be sufficient to avoid legal action. However, they took it down and banned some of the posters who were warning people something was amiss. Clearly that was heavy handed and unnecessary because they don't seem to take that approach any more.

masonic

IanManc wrote: »

Talking of whom, I haven't seen a posting by Dunstonh for ages, and I miss his contributions. Does anyone know why he's not posting any more?

I believe he is still around. Either that or someone else is doing a great job of imitating his posting style.

bigadaj

masonic wrote: »

I believe he is still around. Either that or someone else is doing a great job of imitating his posting style.

It's a relative I believe.......

jimjames

bigadaj wrote: »

MSE fighting for consumers and standing up to rip off artists, not if they receive the whiff of a legal letter. It's a £100 million pound comoany, owned by a much larger price comparison site, but isn't prepared to publish material that could have saved vulnerable people millions, very poor.

What has surprised me when seeing the biogs for the people standing for the creditors committee is how many accountants and professional finance people are amongst them. I wouldn't class someone who is a Chartered Accountant as vulnerable, to me they had no excuses at all for not spotting the warning signs when the number of people on here could see what was happening. With their knowledge they should have seen that the accounts didn't add up and that the money was being loaned to linked non trading companies so it would suggest that they didn't bother to do any due diligence.

masonic

jimjames wrote: »

What has surprised me when seeing the biogs for the people standing for the creditors committee is how many accountants and professional finance people are amongst them. I wouldn't class someone who is a Chartered Accountant as vulnerable, to me they had no excuses at all for not spotting the warning signs when the number of people on here could see what was happening. With their knowledge they should have seen that the accounts didn't add up and that the money was being loaned to linked non trading companies so it would suggest that they didn't bother to do any due diligence.

Are these people really bondholders, or are they representing bondholders?