London Capital & Finance

Paul_Herring

Malthusian wrote: »

presumably we can expect an official answer imminently?

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Zola.

Still no word?

atush

BobQ wrote: »

I cannot understand why MSE are defending London C. are they owned by the same firm?

Surely MSE has an obligation to state if it has a conflict of interest?

This. How can MSE protect a company, when banning a member for a reasonable view?

Going to ban me? I also think LC are a dodgy firm, selling high risk invetments to those who are not of the right risk profile to consider such investments,

i really hope MSE is not financially involved here, as I will certainly not support a forum that uses such practice.

atush

AnotherJoe wrote: »

You’ve misunderstood. Dh was not banned for saying anything bad about those misleading adverts, or the company .

He was banned for being slightly obnoxious to an obsessive poster who didn’t and wouldn’t accept that 20k word multi part missives could be wholly misleading and were pointless. Had he merely pointed out that the posts, because they were ludicrously overlong and didn't get to the point, could give some readers the impression that the company’s products were good simply because of their length, and because of the misleading way that poster said they were “approved” by MSE, he may have escaped censure, but that censure was, I think we all agree, far too harsh.

And now that censure has also lead to a number of posters thinking L&C complained which AFAIK they’d didn’t, or that MSE are supporting them, which AFAIK, they aren’t.

After all many times posters have said how misleading their adverts are without censure.

What proof do you have that this was the reason for censure? Surely there are many others here, myself included who comment on posts being pointless.

atush

datlex wrote: »

When it comes to long posts I personally don't bother reading them. I don't care about someone's long winded opinion especially when it looks like a document rather than an opinion. I saw dunstonh's comment, it was disrespectful of a fellow poster. No one says he has/ had to be in agreement with other posters.

I am not a fan of longwinded posts.

But read some of Bowlhead's. You are bound to learn something. I always do

atush

Quote:
In the past, we tried hard not to PPR long-standing forum users. Sadly, we had so many issues taking time away from our core MoneySaving work, that protection had to go. Now, if someone's persistently causing trouble, they're PPR'd. If they are, please don't talk about them on the forum. It's unfair to do this when they aren't able to respond.

D does not coonsistantly cause trouble no 1, no2 the above means they dont have enough staff to do the job required.

Hire more.

Pollycat

atush wrote: »

D does not coonsistantly cause trouble no 1, no2 the above means they dont have enough staff to do the job required.

Hire more.

They have enough to start 'Money Moral Dilemmas' such as these:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5734341

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706898

Aegis

The silence is deafening...

robatwork

atush wrote: »

I am not a fan of longwinded posts.

But read some of Bowlhead's. You are bound to learn something. I always do

I have been here many years, and have learnt lots on the purely financial forums, especially Savings and Pensions.

You atush, bowlhead and dunston would be my top 3 "experts" in the sense that, having read 100s of missives from yourselves, it's blindingly obvious that 1) you all know what you're talking about from a position of expertise and 2) you don't have any ulterior motives in posting, that's just what you enjoy doing.

As you've all criticised the same posts and also MSE itself, perhaps you'll all be banned together and these forums will be a much poorer place.

I dearly hope not.

sarahemmm

elsien wrote: »

It's not just about re-instating though, is it? If the PPR was in respect of the unregistered companies mentioned previously in the thread, then the same is likely to happen again but leading to a permanent ban.
MSE needs to grow a pair, clarify exactly what is and isn't acceptable in these circumstances and hold their hands up to submitting to pressure from said companies. Which, in the absence of any other explanation, appears to be what they are doing to the detriment of the forums and the site's reputation.

I had an attempt to force me to remove a (truthful) post about what appears to be a dubious company. Fortunately I was able to prove what I had said was true, but it does show how easy it is for a company to have dissenting voices in forums removed.

Thanks and best wished to dunstonh, whose posts about pensions have been so helpful to me.