markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766 
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on May 16, 2015 21:33:20 GMT
Today he was banned from holding office in any company for 5 years by the Official Receiver. Where did you manage to find that little gem (local news? I vaguely recall you live near there?). FC's comments on the loan say 6 years.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on May 16, 2015 22:02:15 GMT
Where did you manage to find that little gem (local news? I vaguely recall you live near there?). FC's comments on the loan say 6 years. I got the information from a local legal eagle. There will be lots more on this in the public domain early June but cannot name names or sources at this stage. I should be able to give a day or so warning and where to look.
CORRECTION. He has been banned for 6 years not 5. If you are interested I am informed the full details were published in the London Gazette recently.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Jun 1, 2015 15:02:44 GMT
For those of you who had their fingers burnt on this loan, and for anyone else with a passing interest, <removed>. No doubt FC will also come in for a few brickbats on this loan for apparently failings in the DD dept. <removed>
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 1, 2015 15:11:20 GMT
I appreciate it's very frustrating, but please don't identify borrowers.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 1, 2015 15:18:31 GMT
I hope they focus the criticism on the 'borrower' and not on FC. One of the challenges for a P2P operator is to minimise the spend on assessment consistent with acceptable losses. Some 'undeserving' but determined borrowers are always going to be able to get money they should not. What FC needs to do is to ensure that in clear cases such as this 'borrower', they never let go however long it takes to make an example of them, pour encourager les autres.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Jun 1, 2015 19:43:57 GMT
For those of you who had their fingers burnt on this loan, and for anyone else with a passing interest, <removed>. No doubt FC will also come in for a few brickbats on this loan for apparently failings in the DD dept. <removed>I did not nor had no intention of identifying the borrower. All I wanted to do was <removed>.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 1, 2015 21:53:05 GMT
C'mon guys, carry on this way and this thread will be locked and some people will be banned. No more warnings.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Jun 1, 2015 22:09:09 GMT
C'mon guys, carry on this way and this thread will be locked and some people will be banned. No more warnings. are FC paying you a retainer or something, because your behaviour on here appears to me to bit just a bit too over bearing. So now I guess you will ban me for criticising you!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 1, 2015 22:18:36 GMT
C'mon guys, carry on this way and this thread will be locked and some people will be banned. No more warnings. are FC paying you a retainer or something, because your behaviour on here appears to me to bit just a bit too over bearing. So now I guess you will ban me for criticising you!!!!!!!!!!! No, criticism is fine!  Posting details that may end up in legal action being taken against the moderators who run this forum "for fun" is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jun 2, 2015 7:48:04 GMT
How can mentioning that there is an <removed> about the risks of p2p lending be equated to "identifying a borrower"?? The <removed> does not mention the borrower name, not the lending platform, although I imagine the <removed> will.
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Jun 2, 2015 15:11:47 GMT
How can mentioning that there is an <removed> about the risks of p2p lending be equated to "identifying a borrower"?? The <removed> does not mention the borrower name, not the lending platform, although I imagine the <removed> will. Well, I've looked through the <removed> and cannot see anything obviously about P2P so if you could share the <removed> I'll be grateful. On the other hand I did see some <removed>John
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jun 2, 2015 15:31:35 GMT
Well, I've looked through the <removed>and cannot see anything obviously about P2P so if you could share <removed> I'll be grateful. Whilst it could be referring to a different <removed> entirely, I would note that at time of writing the moderators on the official FC forum have so far allowed a link to a forthcoming <removed> to remain in a thread entitled <removed>.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jun 2, 2015 15:48:57 GMT
Nope, it's definitely the same <removed> .. I copied the link from here before our (somewhat overzealous, IMO) mods nobbled it. I suppose if everyone misses it they can still get it via the <removed> for a few weeks thereafter, by which time maybe we'll be allowed to talk about it under a <removed> thread in 'chat'. 8>. OTOH it may be a storm in a teacup and will only get 30 seconds of <removed> anyway .. you know how 'accurate reporting' and '<removed> journalism' fit together (although in this case I suspect they have had some help from forum members, who they will probably still manage to misquote).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 2, 2015 16:23:08 GMT
It is really good to see that post in the other place. It may be that moderation over there is pretty slow or it may be that they are happy to have the discussion in a place where they can control it - we will see.
I do have some sympathy for the mods here because the borrower should not be identified, and that includes indirect identification by linking towards somewhere which has or will or may be expected to identify the borrower. The mods here take the risk personally while having no balancing reward - and so we cannot expect them to take any risk. Pointing to a link posted on another place is technically a breach, imo, but of course all that the FC moderators have to do is take down the link if they do not like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 2, 2015 16:55:51 GMT
How can mentioning that there is an <removed> of p2p lending be equated to "identifying a borrower"?? The <removed> does not mention the borrower name, not the lending platform, although I imagine <removed> will. Because, as someone else already said, posting the details in *this* thread links it to *this* borrower. If the post had been made elsewhere then there would have been no link. If the link has multiple scrap dealers then I guess you could argue it doesn't say which one is this borrower, but I think the likelihood is there will only be the one, and then the link is made.
|
|
Posting details that may end up in legal action being taken against the moderators who run this forum "for fun" is not.
