JD Classics, what have they been up to?
Discussion
king gullible. Do your research, question everything.DonkeyApple said:
I guess that is something that could be viewed from different perspectives.
Personally, I would like to see those who steal £500 from people who only have £500 publicly beaten to death. Whereas, those who steal £5m from people who have £50m maybe should only be beaten with sticks every day for a few years.
For me, the amount stolen is not as relevant as what percentage this is of the victims wealth. Taking the collection cup of a homeless person is a far more heinous crime than that which Tuke or Charme subjected themselves to by choosing not to double, triple check the details.
For me, it’s not the amount that matters or carries any relevance other than its ability to grab tabloid headlines but it’s the true impact on the victim. No one at Charme or Tuke himself will be losing a roof over their head, missing a mortgage or rent payment or going hungry as a result of their misfortune.
Thank you. Personally, I would like to see those who steal £500 from people who only have £500 publicly beaten to death. Whereas, those who steal £5m from people who have £50m maybe should only be beaten with sticks every day for a few years.
For me, the amount stolen is not as relevant as what percentage this is of the victims wealth. Taking the collection cup of a homeless person is a far more heinous crime than that which Tuke or Charme subjected themselves to by choosing not to double, triple check the details.
For me, it’s not the amount that matters or carries any relevance other than its ability to grab tabloid headlines but it’s the true impact on the victim. No one at Charme or Tuke himself will be losing a roof over their head, missing a mortgage or rent payment or going hungry as a result of their misfortune.
I must say iSore's comments do seem somewhat provocative. It is all to easy to criticise Michael Tuke, but there has been many a person misled by a silver tongue. Remember Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme? This affair pales into insignificance compared to that. And gaol sentences have oft depended on the scale of the robbery. The Great Train Robbery showed that. From what I understand Mr Tuke was looking for an investment that would offer more than a bank deposit, and was I suppose dazzled by the sumptuous offices and works that was JD Classics. How was he to know that Hood was buying cars at £85,000 and selling them to him at £255,000 when the agreement was a 10% commission on the profit on resale and nothing up front? Trust must come into the affair somewhere. No Mr Tuke won't lose his shirt and is building rather a classy house at the moment (or perhaps it's finished now) but whatever his personal situation, Hood has surely contributed to the fall in market prices and consequently loss of revenue and jobs throughout the classic car scene. He was supposedly worth £125 million I believe, but that may well have been in part valuing his residual shareholding, now worth the square root of, and yes, perhaps there won't be enough money to pay out to the three claimants. Out of curiosity, is there a pecking order here? Does Mr Tuke come first in line because he started his action first or are all treated equally, getting 50p in the pound as DH contemplates his new 8x8 bedroom?
aeropilot said:
Interesting that some people on here seem to have created their own offence called 'relative fraud' based on relative worth, or not, of the person being defrauded, and if you've got a few quid its perfectly OK to be 'relieved' of some of it by a crook.
If you hire somebody as your agent, and don't manage them at all, you do indeed shoulder much of the culpability. That's the point of an agency relationship - the principal is responsible for (some of at least) the agent's actions!If Hood had been offering fund management services, that would have been different. But Tuke wanted much higher returns than he could obtain from any form of regulated advice or investments.
Tuke wasn't an innocent retail investor; he was in essence in business with Hood as his agent to profit, and as such should be judged by the same rules we'd apply to any business dealing - sometimes culpability is just shared.
skwdenyer said:
aeropilot said:
Interesting that some people on here seem to have created their own offence called 'relative fraud' based on relative worth, or not, of the person being defrauded, and if you've got a few quid its perfectly OK to be 'relieved' of some of it by a crook.
If you hire somebody as your agent, and don't manage them at all, you do indeed shoulder much of the culpability. That's the point of an agency relationship - the principal is responsible for (some of at least) the agent's actions!If Hood had been offering fund management services, that would have been different. But Tuke wanted much higher returns than he could obtain from any form of regulated advice or investments.
Tuke wasn't an innocent retail investor; he was in essence in business with Hood as his agent to profit, and as such should be judged by the same rules we'd apply to any business dealing - sometimes culpability is just shared.
Burwood said:
skwdenyer said:
aeropilot said:
Interesting that some people on here seem to have created their own offence called 'relative fraud' based on relative worth, or not, of the person being defrauded, and if you've got a few quid its perfectly OK to be 'relieved' of some of it by a crook.
If you hire somebody as your agent, and don't manage them at all, you do indeed shoulder much of the culpability. That's the point of an agency relationship - the principal is responsible for (some of at least) the agent's actions!If Hood had been offering fund management services, that would have been different. But Tuke wanted much higher returns than he could obtain from any form of regulated advice or investments.
Tuke wasn't an innocent retail investor; he was in essence in business with Hood as his agent to profit, and as such should be judged by the same rules we'd apply to any business dealing - sometimes culpability is just shared.
skwdenyer said:
aeropilot said:
Interesting that some people on here seem to have created their own offence called 'relative fraud' based on relative worth, or not, of the person being defrauded, and if you've got a few quid its perfectly OK to be 'relieved' of some of it by a crook.
If you hire somebody as your agent, and don't manage them at all, you do indeed shoulder much of the culpability. If you go right back to the beginning of this thread etc., the story was that Tuke was a JD customer with purchase (maintenance?) of a single car, or a couple(?) whilst still in his business and then over a period of time grew the personal friendship with Hood (or so he thought)
At some point later Tuke has sold his company and at some point afterwards Hood has suggested he might like to invest that money in a classic car portfolio with glossy tales of the returns that would bring (no doubt thinking I know what I'm going to be doing, but he doesn't!)
Sure, Tuke was naive in trusting the advice of a dodgy car dealer who he thought was a friend, rather than adopt the primary rule of don't ever go into business with friends or relatives!! but I think Hood clearly cultivated the hook-line-and sinker scenario.
A crook is a crook in my book.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff