Intelligent Money

[SDJones]

Can you confirm what their sponsorship of the forum entitles them to do?

I see the thread I’d commented on in the Finance subforum has now been closed. Maybe Adam’s threats of ‘moderation’ weren’t so hollow after all?

Either way, I think it would be good to get some transparency on it. If only positive posts are going to be accepted we could probably all save a lot of time commenting.

[Ben Lowden]

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

[Ken_Code]

Ben Lowden said:

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

How have any posts breached those rules? The firm went bankrupt after findings of serious mismanagement by the regulator. You seem to suggest that it’s not acceptable to repeat what they found.

[Forester1965]

I'm now banned from posting in the finance forum for bringing Intelligent Money's issues to people's attention.

It appears Pistonheads is keen to take money from firms who've cost innocent pensioners millions and silence those who want to post factual information pointing it out.

[guyvert1]

[craig1912]

Ben Lowden said:

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

Intelligent Money as in the entity that were at fault are in administration and there was nothing libellous or defamatory that risked any legal action.
What was probably worse was the sponsors representative being abusive and threatening to moderate people.
Pretty shameful if you ask me but I’ll leave it there.

[outnumbered]

I also commented on that thread as a disinterested observer.

I feel this is a disappointing response by PH, given the "sponsorship" (what does that actually mean?) of the Finance forum by the entity being discussed, which at the very least seems to create a conflict of interest.

[MaxFromage]

Ben Lowden said:

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

I did not post any content in breach of those rules. I consider what Adam has posted on that IM thread regarding disruption to be defamatory as he is including all individuals posting on that thread.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

If I have no right to reply, his posting regarding disruption needs to be removed.

[Rufus Stone]

SDJones said:

Can you confirm what their sponsorship of the forum entitles them to do?

I see the thread I’d commented on in the Finance subforum has now been closed. Maybe Adam’s threats of ‘moderation’ weren’t so hollow after all?

Either way, I think it would be good to get some transparency on it. If only positive posts are going to be accepted we could probably all save a lot of time commenting.

Why do you care so much, you have only been here a week?

[craig1912]

Rufus Stone said:

Why do you care so much, you have only been here a week?

The same question could be asked of yourself- why are you bothered?

I think it is a reasonable question to ask whether someone has been here a week or ten years. The member can make up his/her mind as to whether it’s a waste of time commenting on a particular thread. If nothing can be posted that is negative against a sponsor I personally think this is wrong and goes against an open and honest forum.
A lot of the information in the deleted thread was useful and if it stopped one member making bad decisions about their investments/retirement then it is a good thing.

[Rufus Stone]

craig1912 said:

The same question could be asked of yourself- why are you bothered?

I think it is a reasonable question to ask whether someone has been here a week or ten years. The member can make up his/her mind as to whether it’s a waste of time commenting on a particular thread. If nothing can be posted that is negative against a sponsor I personally think this is wrong and goes against an open and honest forum.
A lot of the information in the deleted thread was useful and if it stopped one member making bad decisions about their investments/retirement then it is a good thing.

Depends on the motive really I guess. I seriously doubt SDJones is seeking to provide a public service.

[MaxFromage]

Ben Lowden said:

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

Ben- I have sent you an email on this matter. Thank you for your assistance.

[Ken_Code]

Rufus Stone said:

Why do you care so much, you have only been here a week?

These attempts to shut down conversation on this company are strange, but very in keeping with the impression that they were run by the sort of people best avoided.

A company going into administration to avoid its obligations and then working to keep any criticism suppressed is acting more like a dodgy car dealer than a regulated financial services provider.

[Rufus Stone]

Ken_Code said:

These attempts to shut down conversation on this company are strange, but very in keeping with the impression that they were run by the sort of people best avoided.

A company going into administration to avoid its obligations and then working to keep any criticism suppressed is acting more like a dodgy car dealer than a regulated financial services provider.

Given that Julian contributed to the thread I think your observations are misplaced. It clearly attracted some people with a grievance though. PH is not the place to conduct that argument.

[Forester1965]

It's hard to maintain a 'name and shame' stance when the thread in question was merely repeating information published by the press, the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman, Intelligent Money's administrators and the company itself. Also when the first page of the Finance forum contains a 32 page thread about St. James's Place, much of which is highly critical of them. Why is that thread OK but one about a forum sponsor, not?

Secondly, if Intelligent Money is in administration, who is paying Cargurus to sponsor the Finance section? Seeming Cargurus is an FCA regulated entity, surely as good practice it should be declaring any financial relationships as an introducer?

[Rusty Old-Banger]

Forester1965 said:

It's hard to maintain a 'name and shame' stance when the thread in question was merely repeating information published by the press, the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman, Intelligent Money's administrators and the company itself. Also when the first page of the Finance forum contains a 32 page thread about St. James's Place, much of which is highly critical of them. Why is that thread OK but one about a forum sponsor, not?

Secondly, if Intelligent Money is in administration, who is paying Cargurus to sponsor the Finance section? Seeming Cargurus is an FCA regulated entity, surely as good practice it should be declaring any financial relationships as an introducer?

I'm sure PH will refund you your membership fee if you're that worried. Otherwise their forum, their rules. There are plenty of others if you're desperate to post.

[okgo]

What comes over EVEN more sad is you lot with money invested that think IM would piss on you if you were on fire. Pathetic.

Also the bloke last night firing shots around, total embarrassment.

[Black can man]

Ben Lowden said:

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

Surely the Mr Bates against the post office thread should be closed too then.

[craig1912]

Black can man said:

Surely the Mr Bates against the post office thread should be closed too then.

Ah but the Post Office don’t sponsor these forums although I still maintain that there was nothing but facts in that thread and no intention of naming and shaming.

Edited by craig1912 on Thursday 27th June 12:47

[Tenacious]

Ken_Code said:

Ben Lowden said:

The recent new thread on Intelligent Money was removed as it was in breach of rule 5 of our rules of posting:

Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory. To do so puts you at risk of legal action and we may be obliged by law to disclose your personal data.

How have any posts breached those rules? The firm went bankrupt after findings of serious mismanagement by the regulator. You seem to suggest that it’s not acceptable to repeat what they found.

Interesting if that occured, and there's possibly a criminal enquiry into this, that Pistonheads could well be aiding and abetting.