The London Gazette
Discussion
is now confirming the SCoM are in Administration?
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3504774
Just this mean we are now allowed to talk about them or not?
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3504774
Just this mean we are now allowed to talk about them or not?
jeremyc said:
ou've said just about everything that can be said.
Everything else would likely just be unsubstantiated opinion and conjecture, and potentially defamatory, so goes against the rules of the forum.
But considering on the now deleted thread someone had a car on SOR and was trying to determine who the administrators were it might be useful to allow some form of discussion, also can you defame a defunct entity?Everything else would likely just be unsubstantiated opinion and conjecture, and potentially defamatory, so goes against the rules of the forum.
In fact if the company has ceased to exist then the serious harm cannot exist ergo they cannot be defamed?
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
Harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
Harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's easy to find who the administrators are, as you have proven. 
The entity isn't defunct - it's a business in administration.
Most of the posts on the subject of the business have sadly been highly emotive, vitriolic and targeted at individuals as well as the company. All from anonymous "people on the internet", and therefore unsubstantiated.
Put simply, Pistonheads defines the rules that forum users need to comply with, and naming and shaming of businesses and individuals is against these rules.
A reminder as to why the no naming & shaming rules exist: The Truth About Naming & Shaming
jeremyc said:
A reminder as to why the no naming & shaming rules exist: The Truth About Naming & Shaming
Thanks. Nobody here, or in any of the deleted threads, is questioning the rules. But as it is now widely accessible public information what is happening, surely that isn't naming and shaming? It's merely stating a fact. Glassman said:
Thanks. Nobody here, or in any of the deleted threads, is questioning the rules. But as it is now widely accessible public information what is happening, surely that isn't naming and shaming? It's merely stating a fact.
So how many posts/threads do you want that just state this one fact? It's already been said; there's nothing more to discuss.I'd also point out that whilst nobody may have been questioning the rules, all of them had broken the rules in the deleted threads, hence why they were removed.
Edited by jeremyc on Thursday 27th February 10:41
Technically the company will still be trading. The administrator will decide what course of action will be required and then act accordingly. At some point a Liquidator or reciever may be appointed. Until that time there is no faits accommpli.
In the meantime perhaps we should spare a thought for the staff members and creditors who are - no doubt - desperate for a more positive outcome.
In the meantime perhaps we should spare a thought for the staff members and creditors who are - no doubt - desperate for a more positive outcome.
Steve Rance said:
Technically the company will still be trading. The administrator will decide what course of action will be required and then act accordingly. At some point a Liquidator or reciever may be appointed. Until that time there is no faits accommpli.
In the meantime perhaps we should spare a thought for the staff members and creditors who are - no doubt - desperate for a more positive outcome.
fully agree, never good when a business seems to be in trouble. I never dealt with them, but as far as I can remember people were always complementary about them In the meantime perhaps we should spare a thought for the staff members and creditors who are - no doubt - desperate for a more positive outcome.
Enough already! This isn't a discussion on the Pistonheads naming & shaming policy which is explained very clearly here.
The Pistonheads statement on Specialist Cars of Malton is here.
The Pistonheads statement on Specialist Cars of Malton is here.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff