|
|
Post by elljay on Jul 26, 2014 20:05:58 GMT
[Mod hat on]
Ok, I'm going to say this ONLY ONCE.
STOP PUSHING TO SEE WHERE THE LINE IS. The next person who posts a little snippet of extra info that allows the borrower to be identified WILL BE BANNED.
We've been round this loop enough times that the regulars should know better. GSV3MIaC, this time, that means you.
Enough already!
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 26, 2014 20:54:25 GMT
Apologies, I was not trying to push any boundaries, I though that <removed word> (which I *d out most of the letter of) was still upthread, which is why I mentioned it as an issue.
I suspect then that even mention of the news source(s) is probably dodgy.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jul 27, 2014 6:51:56 GMT
Thanks, appreciate it was unintentional - the line is definitely grey, but there are definitely some things that are over it - when a partially asterisked word has exactly one match that's definitely TMI.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 27, 2014 10:10:51 GMT
As per my PM, searching the quoted source on the quoted date is already Too Much Info.
Anyway, back to the original thread (carefully) .. if you go to the web page of the company in question, there is a note from the administrors which lists a whole RAFT (I mean maybe a dozen) associated companies which are in the basket. How many of those are just shells, or leftovers from past times, is hard to tell, but there's certainly a much bigger spider web than was apparent from the original FC loan request (and goodness knows where inside the network the money actually wound up). Not much optimism on this one I fear. 8<.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jul 27, 2014 10:23:07 GMT
As per my PM, searching the quoted source on the quoted date is already Too Much Info. Hmm, good point - had better remove those too..!
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 30, 2014 12:34:39 GMT
Any readers of Private Eye on the forum? This company has been consecutive issues since April.
|
|
|
|
Post by patricko on Jul 31, 2014 9:09:54 GMT
As a newbie, may I ask why it is not allowed to identify companies on the forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 31, 2014 10:23:42 GMT
Because details of their loan, and even the fact they have one, is not available to the general public. You might want to read the FAQ before you start posting!!
|
|
|
|
Post by patricko on Jul 31, 2014 14:38:24 GMT
Because details of their loan, and even the fact they have one, is not available to the general public. You might want to read the FAQ before you start posting!! Hi GSV3MIaC, sorry you are having a bad day. Nothing in the FAQs about this. Perhaps you meant the forum rules? I wasn't asking IF this was a rule, but WHY.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jul 31, 2014 15:49:39 GMT
The reasons for not naming borrowers are:
* So they can't sue us for saying things about them.
* So we don't prejudice any recovery actions in case of loans that aren't on time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 31, 2014 16:46:09 GMT
and add:
* so the forum is not a party to a potential breach in the platform's lenders Ts and Cs
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jul 31, 2014 17:31:34 GMT
Any readers of Private Eye on the forum? This company has been consecutive issues since April. I thought I was thoroughly acquainted with this organ, but now I see I have only been playing with it. Can you provide issue number?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 31, 2014 18:06:38 GMT
Rotten Boroughs 1361, 1363, 1365.
Not consecutive issues then. Hmmm. On closer inspection, these are two different companies in the same line of business with the same name, but based in different counties. My mistake.
I had some of this loan, based on a mistaken theory that the bigger the company/group, the less likely to fail. Should have ditched that idea after the disaster of 2454, the 300k one which went under after 3 payments.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 31, 2014 20:53:41 GMT
Any readers of Private Eye on the forum? This company has been consecutive issues since April. I thought I was thoroughly acquainted with this organ, but now I see I have only been playing with it. Can you provide issue number? Oh how very Private Eye !! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by patricko on Aug 1, 2014 13:22:06 GMT
The reasons for not naming borrowers are: * So they can't sue us for saying things about them. * So we don't prejudice any recovery actions in case of loans that aren't on time. Makes sense. Thank you.
|
|
