London Capital & Finance

BobQ

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?

AnotherJoe

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?

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.

jem16

Reaper wrote: »

I now have new information about the ban but I'm not sure what I am allowed to say. So this post may get removed (or maybe I'll get banned too). Here's what happened:
* Somebody (I won't name them) made some huge posts
* Other people objected and pressed the "Report" and "Spam" buttons
* MSE reinstated the post saying it hadn't broken any rules
* dunstonh said the posts were "a waste of space" and "creating confusion for people"
* MSE banned him giving that comment as the reason and said the ban was permanent.

Does that justify such drastic action? I'll leave you to make your own minds up.

Certainly doesn't justify such drastic action and I suspect it's been done as a knee jerk reaction, not to dunstonh's comment specifically, but as a result of all that was going on in that thread. Looks like dunstonh has become collateral damage.

Hopefully the person handing out the ban will see that it was rather over the top in the cool light of day and reconsider it.

datlex

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.

Quentin

From the forum faqs regarding this issue:

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.

BobQ

jem16 wrote: »

Certainly doesn't justify such drastic action and I suspect it's been done as a knee jerk reaction, not to dunstonh's comment specifically, but as a result of all that was going on in that thread. Looks like dunstonh has become collateral damage.

Hopefully the person handing out the ban will see that it was rather over the top in the cool light of day and reconsider it.

The same people took an equally hard line on excluding Generali who also made some excellent posts and he never returned.

SonOf

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.

Is that a typo (i.e missing word - "not")? I suspect it is as there was no disrespect of the poster. Just a reply saying that the actual post was a waste of space and confusing to those that were already confused. For example, nearly 2/3rds of the second post has nothing to do with the type of investment in question. It is was just a bunch of words that were made to look more official because of the layout, terminology used and referencing the FCA.

verybigchris

Here we go again: another thread on the Savings & Investment board about a similar unregulated investment has been closed down by the moderators without explanation. Nothing overtly concerning, just a post asking if the investment is okay and a few replies highlighting the risks.

Are we not allowed to warn about unregulated investments any more?

Locked thread: Wow: Blackmores 8.50% interest rate ????

SonOf

verybigchris wrote: »

Here we go again: another thread on the Savings & Investment board about a similar unregulated investment has been closed down by the moderators without explanation. Nothing overtly concerning, just a post asking if the investment is okay and a few replies highlighting the risks.

Are we not allowed to warn about unregulated investments any more?

Now that is an interesting decision by the board admin. Another 100% loss potential, high-risk unregulated investment being mistaken for a savings account and the board closes the thread. Perhaps there is an agenda with unregulated investments now.

Malthusian

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.

I don't believe that was the reason. I was much ruder to that poster and didn't even get a yellow card or a warning.

With the closing down of another thread on unregulated ultra-high-risk minibonds it is even more important that MSE gives us clarity on what we can and can't say about whom.

As the moderator in question is back from holiday today presumably we can expect an official answer imminently?