Jump to content

Clone Financial Service Firms - SCAM


CliveH

Recommended Posts

The FCA has published warnings that now that it has been successful in closing down the "overt" boiler room scams - now the Scammers are setting themselves up as Clones of real firms here in the UK.

 

SO - IF ANY ONE COLD CALLS YOU REGARDING FINANCIAL ADVICE - IT GOING TO BE A CON ARTIST BECAUSE COLD CALLING IS BANNED IN THE UK.

 

Here is the full article from one of the pinks

 

...................

 

Another IFA falls victim to ‘clone firm’ boiler room scam

Warnings round-up: Regulator warns against two London-based boiler room operations.

 

By Michael Trudeau | Published 08:58 | 1 comments

 

Recommend 1

Print this article

Email this article

Tweet

Facebook

Linkedin

Boiler room fraudsters are contacting consumers posing as a County Durham-based advisory firm, which is the latest victim of the growing spectre of so-called ‘clone firm’ scams.

 

According to an alert published last week by the regulator, a London-based boiler room is contacting customers from an email address claiming to be adviser D&G Financial Services Limited.

 

 

The Financial Conduct Authority said the real firm, which is based in Birchley, Chester-le-Street and has been authorised since March 2002 according to the FCA register, has no affiliation with the clone.

 

The alert was one of two against London boiler room clones issued last week, the second of which warned against a scam using the name of investment firm LBV Asset Management LLP.

 

The real firm, which is also based in London but out of a different address to that given to ‘clients’ targeted by the scammers, has been authorised since July 2008 and has permissions to trade contracts for difference and other derivatives and holds client money.

 

On its own website, the real LBV has posted a disclaimer warning prospective clients against the scam and saying it takes no responsibility for whatever comes of doing business with the clone firm.

 

Clone firm frauds appear to be on the rise, with the FCA warning late last year that the second half of 2013 had seen a spirraling in the number of complaints.

 

Already this year another financial adviser has been targeted by fraudsters, with Scottish adviser firm d2 Financial Services, based in Paisley, Renfrewshire, being the subject of an alert published earlier this month.

 

In addition, last week FTAdviser sister paper Financial Adviser revealed Chelsea Financial Services had informed the FCA of a cloned firm which is cold-calling members of the public using its name.

 

In a warning to its customers and potential investors, posted on Chelsea’s website at the end of December, the firm warned that individuals claiming to be representatives of ‘Chelsea Financial’ are offering investment propositions and asking people to send them money.

 

Separately last week, the FCA also warned against Jarvis Cohen Associates, a London firm which the regulator believes is targeting UK consumers despite being unauthorised to do so.

 

Customers who do business with unauthorised firms will have no recourse to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or Financial Ombudsman Service should they feel misled or deceived, the regulator has warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Had Enough
CliveH - 2014-01-13 11:33 AM

 

The FCA has published warnings that now that it has been successful in closing down the "overt" boiler room scams - now the Scammers are setting themselves up as Clones of real firms here in the UK.

 

SO - IF ANY ONE COLD CALLS YOU REGARDING FINANCIAL ADVICE - IT GOING TO BE A CON ARTIST BECAUSE COLD CALLING IS BANNED IN THE UK.

 

Here is the full article from one of the pinks

 

...................

 

Another IFA falls victim to ‘clone firm’ boiler room scam

Warnings round-up: Regulator warns against two London-based boiler room operations.

 

By Michael Trudeau | Published 08:58 | 1 comments

 

Recommend 1

Print this article

Email this article

Tweet

Facebook

Linkedin

Boiler room fraudsters are contacting consumers posing as a County Durham-based advisory firm, which is the latest victim of the growing spectre of so-called ‘clone firm’ scams.

 

According to an alert published last week by the regulator, a London-based boiler room is contacting customers from an email address claiming to be adviser D&G Financial Services Limited.

 

 

The Financial Conduct Authority said the real firm, which is based in Birchley, Chester-le-Street and has been authorised since March 2002 according to the FCA register, has no affiliation with the clone.

 

The alert was one of two against London boiler room clones issued last week, the second of which warned against a scam using the name of investment firm LBV Asset Management LLP.

 

The real firm, which is also based in London but out of a different address to that given to ‘clients’ targeted by the scammers, has been authorised since July 2008 and has permissions to trade contracts for difference and other derivatives and holds client money.

 

On its own website, the real LBV has posted a disclaimer warning prospective clients against the scam and saying it takes no responsibility for whatever comes of doing business with the clone firm.

 

Clone firm frauds appear to be on the rise, with the FCA warning late last year that the second half of 2013 had seen a spirraling in the number of complaints.

 

Already this year another financial adviser has been targeted by fraudsters, with Scottish adviser firm d2 Financial Services, based in Paisley, Renfrewshire, being the subject of an alert published earlier this month.

 

In addition, last week FTAdviser sister paper Financial Adviser revealed Chelsea Financial Services had informed the FCA of a cloned firm which is cold-calling members of the public using its name.

 

In a warning to its customers and potential investors, posted on Chelsea’s website at the end of December, the firm warned that individuals claiming to be representatives of ‘Chelsea Financial’ are offering investment propositions and asking people to send them money.

 

Separately last week, the FCA also warned against Jarvis Cohen Associates, a London firm which the regulator believes is targeting UK consumers despite being unauthorised to do so.

 

Customers who do business with unauthorised firms will have no recourse to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or Financial Ombudsman Service should they feel misled or deceived, the regulator has warned.

 

Good post Clive. I'm sorry not of our our huge band of avid investors has responded so I'll give it a little boost.

 

I note it's from 'one of the pinks'. Wouldn't you think that people would be keen to discuss this?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FCA issues fresh sextet of ‘clone’ firm warnings

 

Warnings round-up: Regulator publishes 10 consumer warnings, including another six ‘clones’ of authorised firms.

 

By Donia O'Loughlin | Published 09:05 | 0 comments

 

 

 

In a fresh spate of alerts last week the Financial Conduct Authority warned consumers against dealing with six unauthorised firms that are using the name of regulated entities and high-pressure sales tactics to dupe investors.

 

As previously reported, one of these warnings concerned a clone of FCA-authorised Chelsea Financial Services that is using the London address of the clone firm in communications with prospective investors.

 

The regulator said the ‘clone’ is giving out the regulated firm’s postal address in Moore Park Road, London, to convince investors of its credentials, but it is giving out a different telephone number, email address and website address.

 

The telephone address given is 0203 514 5582, while the email and web address given are www.chelseafinancial.org and info@chelseafinancial.org respectively. At the time of writing, the website is still active.

 

The FCA’s intervention comes after Chelsea itself reported the clone to the watchdog in December.

 

In another warning, the FCA said suspected ‘boiler-room’ fraudsters are using the name of FCA-authorised lender Skipton Building Society to target UK customers.

 

Virginia-based GlassRise Bank is claiming to work for Skipton but the FCA has said there is no association between the two and warned that scammers may give out other false details or mix these with some correct details of the authorised firm.

 

Other clones, which the FCA said are also likely to be high-pressure boiler room operations, were:

 

• London-based Zelomit Insurance, clone of FCA authorised Saffron Insurance Services Limited, based in Essex;

 

• London-based Alfred Weber Wealth Management, clone of EEA authorised Alfred Weber, based in Austria;

 

• Middlesex-based LGS Commerce Insurance, clone of FCA authorised Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance Company Limited, based in Durham; and,

 

• London-based FE Wealth Management, clone of EEA authorised Frank Eppendahl, based in Germany.

 

Last week, the FCA also warned against four other financial services firms which may be targeting UK customers despite not having proper authorisation, which were:

 

• Hong-Kong based Asia World Capital;

 

• London-based Ledbury Moore;

 

• OffShore Private Bank Plc/OffShore Private Scotland Plc, operating online; and,

 

• Rochdale-based The Prime Mortgage & Finance Limited.

 

Investors who do business with unauthorised firms will not have recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme should things go wrong."

 

.......................................

 

ANY unsolicited phone call re financial matters is VERY likely to be a SCAM as "Cold calling" is banned in the UK.

 

 

:-S

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Enough - 2014-01-22 9:45 AM
CliveH - 2014-01-13 11:33 AMThe FCA has published warnings that now that it has been successful in closing down the "overt" boiler room scams - now the Scammers are setting themselves up as Clones of real firms here in the UK.SO - IF ANY ONE COLD CALLS YOU REGARDING FINANCIAL ADVICE - IT GOING TO BE A CON ARTIST BECAUSE COLD CALLING IS BANNED IN THE UK.Here is the full article from one of the pinks...................Another IFA falls victim to ‘clone firm’ boiler room scamWarnings round-up: Regulator warns against two London-based boiler room operations.By Michael Trudeau | Published 08:58 | 1 commentsRecommend 1Print this articleEmail this articleTweetFacebookLinkedinBoiler room fraudsters are contacting consumers posing as a County Durham-based advisory firm, which is the latest victim of the growing spectre of so-called ‘clone firm’ scams.According to an alert published last week by the regulator, a London-based boiler room is contacting customers from an email address claiming to be adviser D&G Financial Services Limited.The Financial Conduct Authority said the real firm, which is based in Birchley, Chester-le-Street and has been authorised since March 2002 according to the FCA register, has no affiliation with the clone.The alert was one of two against London boiler room clones issued last week, the second of which warned against a scam using the name of investment firm LBV Asset Management LLP.The real firm, which is also based in London but out of a different address to that given to ‘clients’ targeted by the scammers, has been authorised since July 2008 and has permissions to trade contracts for difference and other derivatives and holds client money.On its own website, the real LBV has posted a disclaimer warning prospective clients against the scam and saying it takes no responsibility for whatever comes of doing business with the clone firm.Clone firm frauds appear to be on the rise, with the FCA warning late last year that the second half of 2013 had seen a spirraling in the number of complaints.Already this year another financial adviser has been targeted by fraudsters, with Scottish adviser firm d2 Financial Services, based in Paisley, Renfrewshire, being the subject of an alert published earlier this month.In addition, last week FTAdviser sister paper Financial Adviser revealed Chelsea Financial Services had informed the FCA of a cloned firm which is cold-calling members of the public using its name.In a warning to its customers and potential investors, posted on Chelsea’s website at the end of December, the firm warned that individuals claiming to be representatives of ‘Chelsea Financial’ are offering investment propositions and asking people to send them money.Separately last week, the FCA also warned against Jarvis Cohen Associates, a London firm which the regulator believes is targeting UK consumers despite being unauthorised to do so.Customers who do business with unauthorised firms will have no recourse to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme or Financial Ombudsman Service should they feel misled or deceived, the regulator has warned.
Good post Clive. I'm sorry not of our our huge band of avid investors has responded so I'll give it a little boost.I note it's from 'one of the pinks'. Wouldn't you think that people would be keen to discuss this?

 

Taking the sentence in red above it seems that, once again (taking the usual vein in which HE tends to post......argumentative) HE just can't resist an opportunity to 'have a go'.

 

If I have read this differently to it's intent then I apologise..........if, as I suspect I have read it correctly............with sarcastic and antagonistic intent then PLEASE HE ...........GIVE IT A BLOODY REST!!!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
RogerC - 2014-01-27 2:41 PMTaking the sentence in red above it seems that, once again (taking the usual vein in which HE tends to post......argumentative) HE just can't resist an opportunity to 'have a go'.

 

If I have read this differently to it's intent then I apologise..........if, as I suspect I have read it correctly............with sarcastic and antagonistic intent then PLEASE HE ...........GIVE IT A BLOODY REST!!!!!!

You really are the nastiest piece of work (next to Peter James) on this forum. And sometimes, as in this slimy example, you can be stupid and stirring.You continually find excuses to have a pop at me and to stir the pot. Up to now I've resisted the urge to respond but I've had enough now of your vile attempts to foment argument, so here goes:This post of mine wasn't in isolation and was part of a ding dong that Clive and I had. It was, if your tiny brain hadn't noticed, five days ago! It has now ended and Clive and I have settled it and it's over.But as has happened in the past Roger Curmudgeonly can't resist coming along and resurrecting it for his own nasty, stirring ends and mainly because he's partisan and one of the most biased and unfair people I have ever come across.Why have you felt the urge to post this five days after it's settled down? Do you derive some kind of twisted pleasure from it?For you information, during this ding dong, Symbol Owner posted this in support of a similar post from Brian Kirby:'Sorry Clive, but I back Brian all the way on this one - I am afraid that it is your obsessive ( and, in my view, childish) wish to have the last word - on EVERYTHING - and not just in answer Frank either, that has spoiled thread after thread on this section of the forum, and, I suspect, deterred many a would-be poster from joining in, on occasion, as it has certainly done with me -- I frame a sensible set of replies/remarks in my head, only to think: "Why bother, if all it attracts is this kind of cr*p?" Frank, is of course little better -- you both need to grow up!'Did you complain about Clive's input in this argument? Of Course you didn't. Your blinkers were on as usual.Now I have no wish to stir anything with Clive again, it's over and I haven't been in Chatterbox since but I'm sick to death of your one-sided vindictiveness.You're a nasty and thoroughly unpleasant old git with a hateful attitude to the world and a raft of conspiracy theories to back them up. Now do everyone a favour and stop these constant attacks and the stirring that you intend from them.So why have you resurrected this after it's been dead for five days? I'm sure we'd all love to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank - for goodness sake stop PLEASE stop taking the comments personally.

 

And yes Symbol Owner did agree with Brian on an individual point.

 

But Brian also posted :-

 

"Dave225 - 2014-01-24 8:44 PM

 

Clive,

 

All you say is true but always forgets that most people are not in the brackets you define. If I had a 200K pension pot I would not be worrying, and yes, I would get someone to look after it for me. But the original discussion was about pension pots of £18000 or less, a totally different thing. ...............

 

 

 

- Dave, I think you are being a little hard on Clive. He is, IMO, right. The obvious proviso is that to have a choice one has a) to have been self employed and done well, or b) to have worked for a firm with no pension scheme and done well, or c) just to have done well. 'Twas ever thus!

 

If one worked for an employer who provided a pension scheme and a modest salary that's yer lot, take it or leave it - and I don't think one can actually leave it! If one didn't do well, or one didn't start pension or savings provisions 40 odd years ago, one is inevitably liable to have lost out.

 

What you say is true, to the extent it reflects the circumstances of those who didn't act when they ought, or didn't earn enough to accumulate an adequate pot. However, none of that is the fault of pensions or ISAS, or IFAs: it is just life, and for some it doesn't come out well. Folk can reasonably blame bad career choices, investment decisions, inherited genes, or even when they were born, for their not having the wherewithal, but for those who have it, and so the ability to choose, ISAS are a very good alternative to the restrictions and complexities of pensions products. I think that is all Clive is arguing.

-----

Brian"

 

.................................

 

I think you are wrong to label ANYONE "the nastiest piece of work on this forum"

 

Sadly this is an all too typical post from you.

 

Why do you do it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
CliveH - 2014-01-27 5:28 PM

 

Frank - for goodness sake stop PLEASE stop taking the comments personally.

 

And yes Symbol Owner did agree with Brian on an individual point.

 

But Brian also posted :-

 

"Dave225 - 2014-01-24 8:44 PM

 

Clive,

 

All you say is true but always forgets that most people are not in the brackets you define. If I had a 200K pension pot I would not be worrying, and yes, I would get someone to look after it for me. But the original discussion was about pension pots of £18000 or less, a totally different thing. ...............

 

 

 

- Dave, I think you are being a little hard on Clive. He is, IMO, right. The obvious proviso is that to have a choice one has a) to have been self employed and done well, or b) to have worked for a firm with no pension scheme and done well, or c) just to have done well. 'Twas ever thus!

 

If one worked for an employer who provided a pension scheme and a modest salary that's yer lot, take it or leave it - and I don't think one can actually leave it! If one didn't do well, or one didn't start pension or savings provisions 40 odd years ago, one is inevitably liable to have lost out.

 

What you say is true, to the extent it reflects the circumstances of those who didn't act when they ought, or didn't earn enough to accumulate an adequate pot. However, none of that is the fault of pensions or ISAS, or IFAs: it is just life, and for some it doesn't come out well. Folk can reasonably blame bad career choices, investment decisions, inherited genes, or even when they were born, for their not having the wherewithal, but for those who have it, and so the ability to choose, ISAS are a very good alternative to the restrictions and complexities of pensions products. I think that is all Clive is arguing.

-----

Brian"

 

.................................

 

I think you are wrong to label ANYONE "the nastiest piece of work on this forum"

 

Sadly this is an all too typical post from you.

 

Why do you do it?

 

 

I'm baffled as to why you tell me not to take comments personally. I was replying to a very nasty post from RogerC which was extremely personal.

 

For your information this is one of many where he's entered a thread with no other intention but to have a dig at me.

 

I included the criticism of you to show RogerC that our ding dong wasn't just me and that others thought you were just as guilty. I did leave in the comment about me being just as bad!

 

I stated that I think that RogerC is the nastiest piece of work on this forum (next to Peter James) because that is what I believe. He is vindictive and stirring. Why else would he make his nasty little post five days after it had all ended?

 

And for your information I have resisted the urge to respond to at least three similar unpleasant and one-sided attacks from him but this last one was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

I have no intention of resurrecting this with you. It is between me and RogerC so I'll be obliged if you'll leave it to us.

 

You will note that I have not entered Chatterbox for five days in an attempt to cool things but his post, after it was all over, was too much I'm afraid. The man is a hateful sh*t stirrer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense - Frank - you simply accuse others of what you are quite (sadly) expert yourself.

 

Why not try just winding back a bit - winding your neck in, not seeing personal slights in everything that people say.

 

I could have taken what you said re my post personally - after all it was you that made the totally unnecessary comment and Roger simply commented that this was - yet again an action typical of your behaviour.

 

Now I do not want a another "spat" with you and I refuse to get drawn into reacting.

 

But I will continue to ask "why do you do this"

 

Why is Roger a "hateful sh!t stirrer" and you are not when what you post is infinitely more obnoxious?

 

 

Answer me that please!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Had Enough
CliveH - 2014-01-27 6:53 PM

 

Nonsense - Frank - you simply accuse others of what you are quite (sadly) expert yourself.

 

Why not try just winding back a bit - winding your neck in, not seeing personal slights in everything that people say.

 

I could have taken what you said re my post personally - after all it was you that made the totally unnecessary comment and Roger simply commented that this was - yet again an action typical of your behaviour.

 

Now I do not want a another "spat" with you and I refuse to get drawn into reacting.

 

But I will continue to ask "why do you do this"

 

Why is Roger a "hateful sh!t stirrer" and you are not when what you post is infinitely more obnoxious?

 

 

Answer me that please!

 

 

 

I thought I'd explained it but here goes again:

 

This is just one of a number of occasions where he's attacked me but ignored others in the thread who were arguing just as much as I was was. He doesn't like me and he's partisan and unfair.

 

I ignored his previous attacks but I've had enough I'm afraid.

 

He's an obnoxious stirrer because this had died yet five days later, FIVE DAYS later, he resurrects it just so that he can have another go at me.

 

Now, as I said, this isn't about you and I've explained that I quoted what I did simply to show that this was a two sided argument.

 

Now please Clive, this isn't about you. I do not want to continue this with you. I haven't criticised or insulted you yet so seem to to doing a lot of it to me. I will not react. Please leave this to the two people involved.

 

Ps I'm still baffled. How could I not take what he said personally? Haven't you read it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some excellent advice on the FCA website but the main point is that as cold calling is banned in the UK - ANY call out of the blue will most likely be a fraudster.

 

.............

 

This direct from the FCA website :-

 

http://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/scams/investment-scams/cloned-firms

 

Cloned firms and individuals

 

Published: 14/05/2013

 

Find out why fraudsters claim to be from a legitimate firm authorised by us, how to protect yourself and what to do if you are scammed.

 

Fraudsters look for new ways to scam consumers, but one increasingly reported to us involves share scammers pretending to be from firms we authorise.

 

These scammers typically cold-call investors to promote shares, property or other investment opportunities that are non-tradable, worthless, overpriced or even non-existent.

 

But a new tactic has seen fraudsters using the name, ‘firm registration number’ (FRN) and address of firms and individuals authorised by us to suggest they are genuine. This is what we call a ‘cloned firm’.

 

 

How it works

 

As a firm needs to be authorised by us to sell, promote or advise on the sale of shares and other investments in the UK, some fraudsters claim to represent authorised firms – or even try to change firms’ contact details on the Register – to appear genuine.

 

The scammers then give their own phone number, address and website details to possible victims.

 

We have also heard of fraudsters claiming that a firm's contact details on the Register are out of date, but this is unlikely as we update the Register each evening.

 

These scammers often claim to be from overseas firms that appear on the Register as these firms do not always have their full contact and website details listed.

 

These scammers may even copy the website of an authorised firm, making subtle changes such as to the phone number listed. We have even seen fake versions of our website and Register that include the fraudsters’ contact details rather than those of the genuine, authorised firm.

 

 

How to protect yourself

 

Remember: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

 

We strongly advise you to only deal with financial services firms that are authorised by us, and check the Register to ensure they are.

 

To verify the identity of an authorised firm ask for their FRN and contact details, but always call them back on the switchboard number given on the Register. If there are no contact details on the Register or the firm claims they are out of date, contact our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768.

 

You should access the Register from our website – www.fca.org.uk - rather than through links in emails or on the website of a firm offering you an investment. Also check the address of our website is correct and there are not subtle changes that mean it is a fake.

 

With fraudsters adapting their tactics you should make additional checks to confirm you are dealing with the financial services firm in question and have the correct contact details – especially if you have been cold-called. This might include checking the details on the firm’s website, or with directory enquiries or Companies House.

 

If you give money to a cloned or unauthorised firm, you will not have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong.

 

There are more steps you can take to ensure you are dealing with the authorised firm that you think you are – find out how to protect yourself from investment scams.

 

 

What to do if you have been scammed

 

If you have been scammed or contacted by an unauthorised firm – or a firm you suspect is not legitimate – you can report to us by contacting our Consumer Helpline on 0800 111 6768.

 

Find out more about what to do if you think you have been scammed...........................

 

............See the FCA website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
antony1969 - 2014-01-27 9:12 PM

 

ffs ..........funny financial scam or fat folk sink .

 

I'll find out tomorrow :-S....................I'm going in the pool 8-)................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HE....you posted:
Goodpost Clive. I'm sorry not of our our huge band of avid investors has responded so I'll give it a little boost.
I note it's from 'one of the pinks'. Wouldn't you think that people would be keen to discuss this?

Given your propensity for digs and sarcastic/antagonistic comments I read it as such.  Even you have to admit your comment 'huge band of avid investors' reads as if posted with strong sarcastic intent.  Given your propensity for so doing it is not unreasonable to read it in such a manner. However in my response I wrote the following:
If I have read this differently to it's intent then I apologise..........if, as I suspect I have read it correctly............with sarcastic and antagonistic intent then PLEASE HE ...........GIVE IT A BLOODY REST!!!!!!

Now PLEASE note what I had written previously.............I have enlarged it(above in red) so you can't miss it through your 'red mist' of anger.

My post was nothing to do with your ongoing, or otherwise, spat with Clive.  It was simply in response to what I read as yet another 'go'.  You have to admit you seem to have a 'thing' about Clive posting extracts from the 'Pinks' ergo your comment was read as such.  You have built a reputation for being argumentative and generally unpleasant which you have just reinforced by your vitriolic diatribe posted in your undisguised attack on myself.

You wrote:
Why have you felt the urge to post this five days after it's settled down?

I answer........because I had just read your response.

Is there a 'time scale' rule on replies to threads?  If there is then I apologise unreservedly.  However I have read the forum rules and there's nothing in there to that effect.  In fact the only rules broken in 'this' discourse have been broken by you.

15.4.10

be threatening, abuse or invade another's privacy, or cause annoyance,inconvenience or needless anxiety;

15.4.11

be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person.


The points in red above are, unfortunately, as a matter of fact, a regular occurrence in here so I accept that it is part and parcel of a mildly moderated forum for which I feel we should be grateful.

Mr 'blood boiling' HE might I suggest you go and calm down somewhat and reconsider your unwarranted attack.  It was not my intent to 'foment' argument as you put it.  To reiterate.......I made my apology clear at the start.  In a nutshell, maybe a simple 'Yes you read it wrong.... apology accepted' would have been the response of a reasoned, moderately minded adult.
Had you done so I could have responded in kind by posting a short confirmation of my apology.
However all you have done is to rant and rave, resorting to baseless,unfounded insults and juvenile name calling which in and of itself reflects on your own maturity, or rather lack of it.

In closing I have to thank you because the mental image I have of you pouring over your keyboard, steam coming out of your ears,  red faced in anger,
blood boiling,  eyes bulging to the point popping out of your head (which has given rise to the number of your posts repeating your perceived ideas of me as a person) has given me a real good laugh.

Please note, that despite the nastiness in your post attacking me I have the maturity to resist the opportunity of responding in kind............I'm too busy laughing to resort to juvenile name calling.

In finality might I be so bold to suggest that if you moderated your argumentative, antagonistic, sarcastic (and in this instance rude and abusive) replies to posts on here you might find that other members, myself included might actually welcome your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Whoever corrects an abuser often wins further abuse; whoever rebukes the abuser gets personal abuse. An abusive individual who is rebuked will only hate you and show it in their posting by way of yet further, more personal abuse.

 

In contrast the wise , when corrected, will appreciate your input and thank you for it.”

 

From “Dealing with Trolls”

 

Their suggested Guidelines:-

 

1. Know your troll. A troll is someone who persistently seeks to derail rational discourse through mindless abuse, needling, hectoring, or even threats of violence. A troll is NOT someone who disagrees with you, dislikes your work or disapproves of your moral choices. That's an idiot.

 

2. The line is not always so easy to draw. There is a grey area between spirited dissent and out-and-out trolling that houses the passionately misinformed, the casually profane, schoolchildren taking the piss and otherwise intelligent people who don't put spaces after commas. For the sake of convenience this group is often referred to as "the internet".

 

3. Don't feed the trolls. Trolling is one of those rare problems best handled by ignoring it – if you do, it usually goes away. Trolls want your attention and discomfiture; they feed on your impotent rage. If they're trying to be funny, your willingness to rise to the bait provides the punchline. If you don't, there's no joke. The secret to withholding attention is consistency: never respond. That way, the trolls can't even be sure you've read their abuse.

 

4. Unmask your troll. Trolls thrive on anonymity, but they're not, in my experience, too careful about guarding it. A little digging will usually turn up something that makes their bile seem beside the point. The information you uncover needn't include names, addresses or photographs – just enough to turn your rage into pity. I, for example, enjoy reading the blogs of people who tell me I can't write, can not spell or have missed out a comma!

 

...........................

 

Interesting this - I suppose that having always dealt with "wise" people, I can only surmise I have been ill-equipped to deal with the odd "Un-wise" individual (for want of a better term) that pops up on here.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is still following this thread's origional subject, can I flag up something else.

As we head for retirement my fellow director and I have been sonsidering the value of our business, and were approached out of the blue by someone from Knightsbridge Plc. He visited the office, examined a few bits of paper, and said that our business is worth about 4 times more than seems likely, and that he had venture capitalists queueing up to buy such opportunities. All we had to do was pay him a £1000 registrsation fee, and 5% of the sale price. Fortunately our company cheques require both our signatures, so no harm is done. The ratbags earn their living from the registration fees,, and then, when you get fed up of waiting for your venture capitalist to turn up you cancel the contract, they tell you that they had someone at the point of buying who has now pulled out, so they sue you for their commission, and their system is so good that they have won.

AGD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that anyone who has been savvy enough to build a business, wouldn't:-

 

a)Enter into discussions with someone who has just approached them, "out of the blue"...

b)Would not let them paw over their paperwork..

and

c) Give'em £1000, plus a percentage of the "sale price" for their troubles.. ..! 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took the words right out of my mouth Pepe.

 

Very few businesses and business people do not discuss with their accountants and or advisers what the best "exit from the business" strategy might be.

 

And of course how to do this varies enormously, so there is no "one size fits all" panacea.

 

But of one thing I am certain - discussing this with someone who arrived "out of the blue" is seriously not a good idea.

 

 

But sadly - expect some do.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Pepe63 and CliveH, you are absolutely right, but I use "we" as in the royal we, in solidarity with my business partner.He, for the record, is a former tax inspector/parttime proffessional wrestler/Morris dancing/potholing/folksinging Yorkshire Tyke. He is also a Quaker. It is said that whilst you can tell that he's a Yorkshireman, you can't tell him anything else.He is the very essence of human kindness, always willing to help anyone in need, great fun, and a good mate, but he's a nightmare. Everyone who contacts the office is invited round to tell their story and make their pitch. That's why we have two signaturess on the cheques, and all the real paperwork is with the accountant. I do occasionally feel sorry for these poor sods who turn up at the office, and then spend weekschasing him up before they bump into me and I put them right.

Whilst I accept that what you say is right in most cases, my years in an earlier existence as a management consultant doing small business rescues, showd me that there are more than enough desperate people about who will lose their heads to the promises made by a good conman. I just wanted people to be aware that these things do happen.

AGD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...