James Hurley - Times Journalaist

Looks OK to me. Village idiot has just replied to a photo of tins of Spam uploaded by Lancashire Bill.

Rachel has reinstated JamesH's post (deleted this morning) she apologizes. Your followup is not there.

p2pindependentforum.com/thread/6786/uncaring-property-loans-jailing-criticism?page=6

p2pindependentforum.com/thread/6867/short-property-london-14978-forever

Hi adrianc, I actively welcome the potential opportunity to redress the current imbalance of power between the FC P2P platform and its retail lenders. It was a whole different story a few years ago when we retail lenders were welcomed with open arms. However, whilst I accept that all things change (and in this case most definitely not for the better), I do find it leaves a very bitter taste to have a latter day metaphorical Lord Lucan (AKA: Samir - they seek him here, they seek him there...), that previous self appointed saviour of the small investor oppressed by the nasty big Banks (allegedly), becoming just another source of the same old, same old.

I'm aware there are some serial forum pacifists on the FC forum (and here too maybe?), just as there are some serial forum antagonists - but I have enough history with FC and more than enough evidence to demonstrate that FC really no longer give a toss about the small retail lender. I don't know why they actually try to keep up the all too transparent pretence that they do?

The decay started when they accepted UK Government money and this initial rot was sealed when the Institutional Investors rode into town - at that point the circle was complete.

I wish Lord Lucan well - and I'm sure his new yacht (or whatever) will be a source of joy to him - but I don't ever want to see him on TV again doing his false evangelical act - I'd actually rather like to see Paxman or Humphries do a surgically incisive interview on him - not that I'm vindictive!?!

So, adrianc, as you can see, I really am hoping to get what I wish for.

But apart from that - it's Friday night, my health and that of my family is good, we have food aplenty and a roof over our heads - so I guess it's rant over - until James Hurley calls me that is.

There's a difference between responsible journalism highlighting actual problems, and tabloid-esque sensationalism.

Hi adrianc,

The Times in my humble experience is not renowned for it's tabloid tendencies (albeit now available in tabloid dimensions). Furthermore, I suggest there are no shortage of 'actual problems' that need addressing to mitigate the growing mistrust and dissent felt by many FC lenders - five minutes on the FC forum gives a flavour of the myriad issues involved.

If FC won't address the issues directly with their lenders then they are simply inviting them to take their dissent elsewhere for resolution.

Retail lenders may now constitute only a small portion of the FC fund subsequent to Corporate money arriving - but I suggest they can do a disproportionate amount of damage if terms of public perception of the company if their legitimate issues remain unaddressed. Who knows, maybe FC intend to follow the big Banks down that dark alley too? Extrapolating that idea, I hear Fred Goodwin is currently looking for a job and might be available to help ?!?!

Hi adrianc,

Let me guess - you'll be a Guardian reader ??

Indeed. If I had had more time a complaint to the IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) was fully justified as he seemed to break several clauses in the Editor's Code of Practise (section 1 accuracy)

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information ....

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given ...

iv) The press, while free to editorilse and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.


The whole premise of his reporting that story was flawed because of the need to create a sensationlist story.  There was an underlying story that would have been fascinating to read if only he had bothered to write it - how ethics does and should influence investment decisions. Plenty has been written in relation to investment ethics with respect to equity finance, but nothing on investment ethics and debt finance.  To write a story that confuses investment risk with investment ethics was not the standard of journalism that The Times once aspired to.

At no point did he discuss any of the 3 parameters which relate to investment risk on that loan, LTV / £ per square foot / 8% investment yield.  The crux of the issue with that loan is the 8% investment yield used to calculate the valuation - is that the right number ?  A serious journalist would have done what many lenders on that loan have done, compare that with other investment opprtunities surrounding Bristol, and concluded that it is probably the correct number.

The story was clearly comment dressed up as fact  (breaking point iv) was misleading as it was confusing investment risk with investment ethics (breaking point i) and the valid, sensible response given by SS that the background of the borrower does not affect investment risk was ridiculed (breaking point iii as it was not a fair opportunity given it was ridiculed).