Another dilemma

[Alpha]

Steve

They are an excellent set of three principles however

4) As eloquently displayed in Marvel comics Spiderman #1 where Peter Parker having gained his powers allows a masked robber to escape the building because 'it was nothing to do with him'.

The robber escapes onto the street, shoots and kills his uncle.

He could have stopped him and has to spend the rest of his life living with that decision.

Phillip has been ripped off (its only a small amount) but the perpetrator can also do it to many other members which by naming him (Note it is not an intention to shame for any purpose) will be prevented.

It is possible that simply by posting on here Phillip may have prevented whoever it is from doing it again however, people who have no problems in doing this once are highly likely to conduct their business in the same way wherever possible.

I suppose the only other solution is for Phillip to PM us all to say who it is(or at least those of us who may come into contact with him), or it may be that the person is not a regular user of the forums (I sincerely hope not) in which case we may all be protected by that very fact.

I would also like to point out that we all took great pleasure in exposing an unscroupulous Dell sales rep and elsewhere the question of intent has been raised against another member.

In this respect I do not see how this situation is different and I do think that Rob and Steve are wrong in their thinking (My view only and not trying to be contentious in a hostile manner guys).

Anyway it is Phillips decision and to be honest he should not have even started this thread.

 

[Coding Monkey]

Why, I never. An accountant talking about comic books. They are real people after all

 

[winton50]

Actually it reminds me of a guy who set up a magazine near us.

We supported him by placing an ad and gave him the copy.

He put the ad in the mag with the wrong phone number and four spelling mistakes. It looked awful.

I said I wanted the ad repeated again the next month for free as we wouldn't get any sales from it and it made our company look cheap and amateurish. I would then pay him fo rthe original ad (which I reckoned was a fair deal).

Two days later our blind at the front of the shop was slashed with a stanley knife.

Might not have been him but...

 

[Alpha]

Why, I never. An accountant talking about comic books. They are real people after all Wink

Tom I was an avid collector of Marvel comics in my teens and early twenties.

Love the films they are producing now and some of the cartoons are excellent as well.

 

[VeryMark]

The point Alpha makes is one that ocurred to me, i.e. that telling other people on UKBF might stop them being ripped off by the same person.

However, I can't possibly protect everybody, and nor can I stop this person doing or trying to do the same thing to other people.

I'm not Spiderman or Superman, and the crime comitted here is a civil not a criminal one, i.e. society has decided that it's a private not a public offence - we aren't dealing with an armed masked robber who should be locked up as a matter of public safety.

 

[Alpha]

I'm not Spiderman or Superman, and the crime comitted here is a civil not a criminal one, i.e. society has decided that it's a private not a public offence - we aren't dealing with an armed masked robber who should be locked up as a matter of public safety.

Phillip have you ever heard of parables

No it is not an armed masked robber that we are dealing with but the principle remains the same.

Some one obviously carries out their business activities in an unscrupulous way and whether you as someone who may prevent it happening to others, choose to do something or not is down to your conscience.

 

[Plastics Dave]

I have been ripped off by a small injection moulding company that is continually moving around the country from estate to estate, never paying any bills with landlords or suppliers and simply moving on to the next source of supply.
I along with many others have had judgement against them in the courts but it is simply a further waste of money to try to get anything back, the sums involved being so trivial. As I see it the principle here is the same, obtaining goods or services by deception. Had I known I would not of dealt with them. they only required small amounts, not enough to justify any searches and that is the way in which they trade. Their end product then was the freebies you find in your breakfast cereals. This was some time ago and left me feeling very bitter for having been abused. I wanted then to provide a database of known bad payers available to SME's I still think it is a good idea and I still think anybody behaving like this business to business should be named.
Regards to all and thanks for a very educational input.
Dave

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Alpha

The point you make is a logical counter to my former mentor's 3 rules.

And, maybe he now has added a 4th rule - "if possible, name and shame them on the internet".

(I worked under him in the 90's before either of us had really used the internet)

However, I'd guess he hasn't added that rule.

If they get down to public accusations, these things have a tendency to tar everyone involved.

I'm sure that those close to Philip will have their cards marked if necessary and word will get around.

Also, the person who did this is now in the difficult position that he/she doesn't know who knows what.

All this embarrasment and shoddiness just to save £90.

How stupid's that?

Steve

 

[SillyJokes]

Thought I had better post my support of Cross Guard quick lest anyone imagine it was me since I did recently post about trademarking.

I like the three principles mentioned and thought that although some may not agree with them they are a recipe for sanity.

 

[Alpha]

And, maybe he now has added a 4th rule - "if possible, name and shame them on the internet".

Steve I hope you misunderstand me and the intention behind it.

The prime intent is not to shame as no good will come of that and is counterproductive. I would rather not see anyones name splashed on the forums if at all possible which is why I originally suggested that attempts were made to sort it out and avoid a misunderstanding which could have serious consequences.

I also do not think that it negates the three principles that you have posted but rather augments them.

If numbers of decent people do not stand together then they will get walked all over as they will be seen as a soft touch. its a sad indictment of our society but the unscrupulous find some an easy touch and when there is no comeback it is even easier.

It is quite possible that whoever it is honestly did it without thinking and a simple apology would surely suffice (Which would come under the three rules stated).

I also admit that there is no real answer to name without shame and therefore would hope it is not neccesary to consider this course of action.

 

[Johnuk]

This is something that always winds me up!
My stance is not to give anything for free, apart from a general opinion or comment! If I have to spend more than 10 minutes, I will charge.

John

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Hi Alpha

I think my wording may have been poorly chosen.

I understood you and your motives and I don't have any argument with your point of view. It makes sense to make sure that no-one else in the forum suffers the same result from the same person.

My mentor was happy to warn the people he knew about cowboys. But those were private conversations with people he knew.

On a forum like this, anything posted becomes public and many of the readers will be "strangers". It is also said in front of the guilty party which can lead to mud-slinging and counter-accusations.

So, it's a very different situation.

And that's why I think Philip is right not to name names.

Steve

 

[bwglaw]

I fully support Philip's decision not to 'name' the person because he is a professional. The person who 'stole' his work is clearly not a professional.

Any lawyer worth their salt will not resort to naming a person who has failed to pay for services rendered, whether a member of this forum or not.

If a lawyer on here did name the person, for sure it will breach confidentiality and a lawyer does have a duty of care to his clients whether they have paid a fee or not.

If a practising solicitor on here named a person who has not paid for their service the individual concerned can make a complaint to The Law Society and have the solicitor's career in jeopardy.

Would you employ the services of a lawyer on here in full knowledge that the lawyer is not strictly confidential? It is a common expectation that lawyers should be confidential, as you would expect from a GP, Accountant etc.

I am of the view that Philip was entitled to start this thread as a 'businessman' sharing his experience of customers taking off with his work without paying. This is clearly a business issue, whether a lawyer or not.

Legal obligations and moral obligations are two different issues. Whether we are talking about a plumber not being paid is entirely different to a lawyer not being paid - a plumber does not have an implied duty of confidentiality.

Jonathan