Kojak/PBoyles may soon be able to take a much needed break and let his ulcers settle

[Black Swan]

You hit the nail on the head.

Owner does not trade. Mods do not trade, staff do not trade (and by trade, I mean profitably as their sole source of income)

There can only ever be one outcome. Whats bleedin obvious to us goes right over their heads, add in advertising revenue's and commercial interestes, and people protecting their employers and jobs and you get the zoo that T2W has become.

on the plus side, they score 10/10 for lulz.

I know (in one of your previous identities) this is one of your old bones of contention and tbh at first I was a staunch *defender* of T2W given it has provided me directly and indirectly with a lot of info. and intelligence (mainly from the contributors). But the reasons why the Guardian doesn't have a forum, just comments through it's CiF section, and, for example, the Daily Mail <shudder> has avoided setting up a forum is due to potential legal action, they can exercise immediate control over comments on an article, large forums are an entirely different proposition. They both, (Guardian and The Daily Hate) have mini armies of recent grads. checking each and every post in the comments section for issues, and that costs, they don't just rely on the report function. Not sure what the answer is.

 

[pboyles]

There's got to be a solution, look at some of the stuff on forexfactory or forexpeacearmy, much more incriminating than most of the stuff posted here yet it doesn't get deleted. It's probably a question of which jurisdiction T2W is located in. As I said before there has got to be a solution when some websites can publish stolen classified documents and not have to delete them and we are worried about exposing companies who the regulators have issued warnings against.

 

[Pazienza]

I know (in one of your previous identities) tbh at first I was a staunch

You couldn't staunch the flow of boll0x that emanates from your keyboard could you bud mate?

bless...

 

[TheBramble]

1. -(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that -

(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher,

(b) he took reasonable care in relation to the publication of the statement complained of, and

(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement."

 

[Black Swan]

Want to make one thing clear, I wouldn't publish a facsimile on here of the pms I received on the legal issues, I'd just cover/discuss the salient points raised.

 

[TheBramble]

OTH – the probability of any company taking this site to law over issues of this nature is extremely low. Bluster and threat is one thing, but when it comes to putting up the ante for their own legal costs, it tends to go quiet.

You have to prove that the words are defamatory, the defence has to prove that the defamatory words are true if they raise justification as a defence. The defendant only needs to prove that the remarks or statements made were under a consideration of information given or that led the defendant to believe that remarks be true. i.e. the plaintiff in whatever action is not an actual crap company with scam marketing and a right rip-off merchant but did something to lead the defendant to believe he was, therefore their remarks would be justified.

 

[Black Swan]

OTH – the probability of any company taking this site to law over issues of this nature is extremely low. Bluster and threat is one thing, but when it comes to putting up the ante for their own legal costs, it tends to go quiet.

You have to prove that the words are defamatory, the defence has to prove that the defamatory words are true if they raise justification as a defence. The defendant only needs to prove that the remarks or statements made were under a consideration of information given or that led the defendant to believe that remarks be true. i.e. the plaintiff in whatever action is not an actual crap company with scam marketing and a right rip-off merchant but did something to lead the defendant to believe he was, therefore their remarks would be justified.

Sorry Tony can't agree on this, taking one threat in particular the threat was very real and nuclear, way beyond bluster. And if my experience is anything to go by you don't spend money on lawyers with big reputations (and big initial fees) for no reason.

 

[pboyles]

Right but for people with no experience of the courts it seems very daunting and they'd prefer to delete the offending material rather than fight it. I can't remember the percentages but the vast majority of these type of actions are aimed at having the offending material removed and ensuring it doesn't reappear, which for the most they have already achieved here.

 

[pboyles]

Sorry Tony can't agree on this, taking one threat in particular the threat was very real and nuclear, way beyond bluster. And if my experience is anything to go by you don't spend money on lawyers with big reputations (and big initial fees) for no reason.

Threatening it and making it happen are two different things, but you're right in what you say. There's nothing in it for T2W to fight it so they give in and delete the offending posts. So what if hundreds of decent people continue to lose their savings to these sort of companies, they won't take any action against you so they don't matter.

 

[Black Swan]

Threatening it and making it happen are two different things, but you're right in what you say. There's nothing in it for T2W to fight it so they give in and delete the offending posts. So what if hundreds of decent people continue to lose their savings to these sort of companies, they won't take any action against you so they don't matter.

Not sure how you square this bit with T2W specifically. Can't see how anyone could "lose their life savings" through one of the advertisers on T2W.

 

[TheBramble]

So what if hundreds of decent people continue to lose their savings to these sort of companies, they won't take any action against you so they don't matter.

Don't have any problem with your motives sir, but couple of points.

t2w are not responsible for protecting bods against bad investment decisions. Be it specific trades or purchasing materials, products services advertised on their site. It's up to the individual to protect themselves through appropriate care and due diligence.

If any individual does ‘lose their savings’ to any company and there is demonstrable cause to question the legality of the basis the company used to extract this money from the individual or if there is sufficient cause to believe that company was legally culpable for their loss, then the individual has exactly the same recourse through law to take the company to court.

In reality, for cost reasons, most in that position will not bother. But I suspect, even if they did, they would come off losing twice. Companies that provide training and support of this nature are extremely careful to protect themselves in their contracts from the result of the end of the honeymoon when naïve dreams are dashed on the rocks of reality.

As far as this site goes with defamation/libel, rather than simply delete potentially damaging material, it could temporarily withdraw the post and offer the poster the opportunity to reframe it in terms that carried the same message, but without specific legal implications.

To state “Company A are a thieving bunch of shysters” is perky, but potentially an issue. Whereas “I attended company A’s course and subsequently lost all my money.” Is less so.

 

[pboyles]

10k lost on dodgy software and a training course is big money for plenty of people. I also know of two people who have said they are giving up work and flying to the UK (from Singapore and Hawaii) to take a course in the belief they will get a full time trader post afterwards (the trainer has inferred that's what will happen).

These dodgy companies do serious harm to people.

 

[Trader333]

staff do not trade (and by trade, I mean profitably as their sole source of income)

Cleverly worded but your hero Socrates also fits this categorisation as he also made money from activities other than trading. Anyone with any trading sense knows that diversification of income streams makes perfect business sense. After all if a trader is unable to trade for whatever reason whether by illness or injury (which does happen more often than many would realise), then their income stops dead unless they have other sources. I openly admit that I have sought to build passive income streams that generate cash without me having to do almost anything after the initial work to build it. It is quite nice to switch on your pc each morning and get emails telling you that your income levels have increased overnight as well as during the day and to know that this will continue regardless of what I am doing.


Paul

 

[Black Swan]

10k lost on dodgy software and a training course is big money for plenty of people. I also know of two people who have said they are giving up work and flying to the UK (from Singapore and Hawaii) to take a course in the belief they will get a full time trader post afterwards (the trainer has inferred that's what will happen).

These dodgy companies do serious harm to people.

In the first instance if that's the price for the course (residential or otherwise) then thats their choice. If they are of the belief that they stand a greater chance of making it in this game by going to a trader UNI, then nothing you can do or say will convince them otherwise. They'll believe that the software and tutoring they get is worth it. But who are we to establish what's a fair price when we both know (believe) the real market price is zero?

Secondly these courses are very careful to state that there may be opportunities to trade with them/for them. Anyone not seeking evidence of that before parting with cash to re-locate is very gullible.

You do seem to be on a crusade of sorts, I'd just move on if I were you before it becomes obsessional. (Sadly?) looking after numero uno is right up there in the list of requirements for this *job*.

 

[Pazienza]

You do seem to be on a crusade of sorts, I'd just move on if I were you before it becomes obsessional.

Ignore this pboyles. You help a lot of people and make life much more difficult for scrotes and scammers. If you do a search for these chumps, it's amazing how often a link to one of your posts comes up on google. Sadly, if you click on them you find that a lot no longer exist, but that obviously isn't your fault.