Fraud Office Thread

Uxb1

I would add that the real purpose of any forum is merely to make money for the owners/controllers.
Anything posted that starts to give them aggravation from companies,advertisers on the site, the law, or from adverse publicity or is likely to lead to costs and expenses is going to be deleted.

badger09

masonic wrote: »

The process is that MSE is contacted by a party who feel they have been libelled and challenged with court action if they do not remedy the situation. MSEs only defence is to provide the contact information of the individual who made the purported libellous post so that this individual can defend the case instead of MSE. This only happens with this individual's permission (and they would have to provide their contact details). Otherwise the post is deleted. I don't think anyone has been asked if they wish to defend a libel claim for something they have posted in recent times, MSE just deletes the posts - probably for the reason you suggest, people could just give fake details to the claimant.

However, it's important to understand that when you post a lot of specific information about an issue you are having, this could be enough for a company to identify you, so you should be careful not to post anything malicious or libellous.


The purpose of this forum is discuss topics related to moneysaving. The forum rules are quite clear that "if a post may be unlawful, it has to go".

Sadly, you are wrong. Even when you haven't.

I will not (cannot) comment in any more detail, except to say my response does not relate to the disappeared thread about which I started this one:cool:

masonic

badger09 wrote: »

Sadly, you are wrong. Even when you haven't.

I will not (cannot) comment in any more detail, except to say my response does not relate to the disappeared thread about which I started this one:cool:

Interesting, the approach has certainly appeared to be to summarily delete without even informing the individual concerned. Quite a few of my posts in certain long-running threads have gone that way in recent times. I guess some just want the content removed, but others are not satisfied even with that.

jonnygee2

In the opening post, the OP;

1) Admitted to an activity that could well be criminal fraud
2) Described how the activity had benefitted them
3) Described how they had committed the potentially fraudulent activity, in a way that would make it repeatable by others
4) Asked for advice on how to keep up this activity without further risk of detection.

In further posts they bragged that they had done this a large number of times without being caught, and that it was easy to do.

So, all in all, it's not a huge surprise it was deleted.

Also, the OP called me stupid, so obviously they deserved their thread to be deleted :cool:

kuratowski

All this is true. BUT, it was hugely entertaining :rotfl:

And it introduced me to the Dunning–Kruger effect. :T

xlnc99

sounds like an intresting read, gutted i missed it. What was the OP thinking putting a story like that out on here.

when i read the title i just assumed he was the victim of fraud not the actual perpetrator!

badger09

jonnygee2 wrote: »

In the opening post, the OP;

1) Admitted to an activity that could well be criminal fraud
2) Described how the activity had benefitted them
3) Described how they had committed the potentially fraudulent activity, in a way that would make it repeatable by others
4) Asked for advice on how to keep up this activity without further risk of detection.

In further posts they bragged that they had done this a large number of times without being caught, and that it was easy to do.

So, all in all, it's not a huge surprise it was deleted.

Also, the OP called me stupid, so obviously they deserved their thread to be deleted :cool:

Just to clarify - the opening post and OP to which you refer is not badger09 or the opening post in this thread;).

CKhalvashi

masonic wrote: »

Interesting, the approach has certainly appeared to be to summarily delete without even informing the individual concerned. Quite a few of my posts in certain long-running threads have gone that way in recent times. I guess some just want the content removed, but others are not satisfied even with that.

Depends how serious it is.

I have been targeted on here by some who share different views. If it’s continued I would have no hesitation proceeding with the matter through the courts.

Those concerned thankfully seem to have gone quiet.

masonic

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Depends how serious it is.

I have been targeted on here by some who share different views. If it’s continued I would have no hesitation proceeding with the matter through the courts.

Those concerned thankfully seem to have gone quiet.

I was thinking about companies objecting to their products and services being berated here, the disclosure of past criminal convictions of certain company directors, or evidence that a product or service is a scam. Those are the sort of posts I frequently see get taken down as a result of libel complaints.

I rarely come across anything sufficiently malicious posted against a forum member that it might get traction in the courts. I could hazard a guess at what views you were targeted as a result of expressing (sigh)

EachPenny

jonnygee2 wrote: »

In the opening post, the OP;

1) Admitted to an activity that could well be criminal fraud
2) Described how the activity had benefitted them
3) Described how they had committed the potentially fraudulent activity, in a way that would make it repeatable by others
4) Asked for advice on how to keep up this activity without further risk of detection.

In further posts they bragged that they had done this a large number of times without being caught, and that it was easy to do.

So, all in all, it's not a huge surprise it was deleted.

Also, the OP called me stupid, so obviously they deserved their thread to be deleted :cool:

I have no idea what this subject is about, but on the basis of points 1 to 4 I have to wonder whether someone had the idea of taking a copy of the original OP (not badger09's ) and forwarded it on to the institution involved?