Motorhub/Keighley Trade Centre thread (take two!)

[Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area]

Jack Mansfield said:

Hi again!

We're trying to establish the plan on this and will keep you updated.

Are you still trying, two weeks later? I see that Motorhub are still advertising on here.

[andymc]

Come on PH, you are quick enough pulling posts regarding naming and shaming of your advertisers, you are advertising a firm whom a court have fined, are you so utterly driven by money, for shame

[Condi]

Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area said:

Jack Mansfield said:

Hi again!

We're trying to establish the plan on this and will keep you updated.

Are you still trying, two weeks later? I see that Motorhub are still advertising on here.

There is no plan.

If Motorhub want to advertise here, having been found guilty in the courts of fraud etc, then they should be allowed to do so.

However, PH members should also be free to post factually correct information irrespective of the advertising spend without having threads withdrawn or locked under the guise of some badly interpreted naming and shaming rules.

EDIT; and by 'factually correct' I mean proved, either in court or via a judgement from the ombudsman. When something becomes a matter of public record then a further publisher of that information has nothing to worry about.

Edited by Condi on Tuesday 21st May 18:29

[Camelot1971]

The name and shame rules are a load of bullst. Moneysavingexpert forums have all sorts of complaints, rumours, allegations against all sorts of firms and they don't pull threads unless it is clearly abusive.

Pistonheads clearly have no integrity when it comes to taking on business and that is a real shame.

[andymc]

so the thread requesting an answer has been moved into the thread you're ignoring, utterly fking shameful, hang your heads in shame

[andymc]

Camelot1971 said:

The name and shame rules are a load of bullst. Moneysavingexpert forums have all sorts of complaints, rumours, allegations against all sorts of firms and they don't pull threads unless it is clearly abusive.

Pistonheads clearly have no integrity when it comes to taking on business and that is a real shame.

yup and all the pulled threads have the companies who advertise with them, I hope they get stung buying ste one day

[14]

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

[Driver101]

I can't believe this company is still trading.

[andymc]

14 said:

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

Hi Haymarket

[14]

andymc said:

14 said:

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

Hi Haymarket

I don’t work for Haymarket, never have done. I work in a completely different area.

[MDMA .]

14 said:

andymc said:

14 said:

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

Hi Haymarket

I don’t work for Haymarket, never have done. I work in a completely different area.

Link for the court cases please.

Edit - will be public record so no problem posting the case numbers. Whenever you're ready.

Edited by MDMA . on Wednesday 22 May 12:59

[andymc]

MDMA . said:

14 said:

andymc said:

14 said:

I think both of you should pay PH’s legal fees from defending court cases because members have been naming and shaming companies on the forum. And no PH doesn’t delete threads because members post negative stuff about companies advertising on PH due to not wanting to affect potential advertising revenue.

Hi Haymarket

I don’t work for Haymarket, never have done. I work in a completely different area.

Link for the court cases please.

Edit - will be public record so no problem posting the case numbers. Whenever you're ready.

Edited by MDMA . on Wednesday 22 May 12:59

i'm curious as well, link?

[Bob Dong]

Camelot1971 said:

The name and shame rules are a load of bullst. Moneysavingexpert forums have all sorts of complaints, rumours, allegations against all sorts of firms and they don't pull threads unless it is clearly abusive.

Pistonheads clearly have no integrity when it comes to taking on business and that is a real shame.

Agree completely with this. Also they're not going to get sued for someone using a public forum to express a negative experience. Get a grip.

[FWIW]

Bob Dong said:

Camelot1971 said:

The name and shame rules are a load of bullst. Moneysavingexpert forums have all sorts of complaints, rumours, allegations against all sorts of firms and they don't pull threads unless it is clearly abusive.

Pistonheads clearly have no integrity when it comes to taking on business and that is a real shame.

Agree completely with this. Also they're not going to get sued for someone using a public forum to express a negative experience. Get a grip.

Absolutely this.

[14]

James Drake said:

We're often asked why the 'no naming and shaming' rule exists on PistonHeads.com.

Why can't 'bad dealers' be outed etc?

Well, there are a number of reasons...

1) It's simply a matter of fairness. All too often you heard a 'horror' story about a dealer only to later talk to the dealer involved and find that there are considerably different views on what actually took place. In other words, there are bad customers out there as well as bad dealers. Some people expect too much, distort the facts in their favour, etc. etc.

2) Who are we to act as judge and jury when someone posts something bad about a business? We can't verify the 'facts' as presented. If the dealer doesn't even know that the message has been posted then it's very unfair on their business to be slated in public with no opportunity to respond.

3) Even if the dealer or company does frequent this site, is it right that a dispute should be argued out in public? That's no way to resolve matters sensibly.

4) If any of this happens, PistonHeads then becomes involved as a 'publisher' of what may be libelous, making matters even more complex. If we're asked to remove comments by a company and we consider them potentially libelous then we will take them off the site. That then leaves you open to litigation, not us.

To summarise, disputes are best dealt with in the real world through normal channels. Doing it online merely opens a can of worms for the person posting the message, for PistonHeads and for the business being discussed.

We've got no desire to become embroiled in disputes and start providing transcripts of threads to solicitors (yes, it has happened).

Many people do not realise that they are opening themselves up to accusations of libel too. "But what I posted was true" is a frequent retort. That's may be true, but all too often emotions creeps into messages and people end up stepping over the line, putting themselves in a position where they could invite a whole heap of trouble.

So, the answer is that we ask people not to indulge in 'name and shame' discussions. It's the simplest solution found. Equally, please remember that you agreed to this rule when you signed up to PistonHeads.

Thanks

JD

That is why there’s a no naming and shaming rule on the site.

[dudleybloke]

But publicly available court records are not just one person's opinion, they are fact, as proven under oath in a court of law.
About as far away from rumour as you can get.

Plus it's not us acting as judge and jury but an actual judge.

Edited by dudleybloke on Wednesday 22 May 16:51

[andymc]

the long and the short is the revenue is more important

[MDMA .]

14 said:

James Drake said:

We're often asked why the 'no naming and shaming' rule exists on PistonHeads.com.

Why can't 'bad dealers' be outed etc?

Well, there are a number of reasons...

1) It's simply a matter of fairness. All too often you heard a 'horror' story about a dealer only to later talk to the dealer involved and find that there are considerably different views on what actually took place. In other words, there are bad customers out there as well as bad dealers. Some people expect too much, distort the facts in their favour, etc. etc.

2) Who are we to act as judge and jury when someone posts something bad about a business? We can't verify the 'facts' as presented. If the dealer doesn't even know that the message has been posted then it's very unfair on their business to be slated in public with no opportunity to respond.

3) Even if the dealer or company does frequent this site, is it right that a dispute should be argued out in public? That's no way to resolve matters sensibly.

4) If any of this happens, PistonHeads then becomes involved as a 'publisher' of what may be libelous, making matters even more complex. If we're asked to remove comments by a company and we consider them potentially libelous then we will take them off the site. That then leaves you open to litigation, not us.

To summarise, disputes are best dealt with in the real world through normal channels. Doing it online merely opens a can of worms for the person posting the message, for PistonHeads and for the business being discussed.

We've got no desire to become embroiled in disputes and start providing transcripts of threads to solicitors (yes, it has happened).

Many people do not realise that they are opening themselves up to accusations of libel too. "But what I posted was true" is a frequent retort. That's may be true, but all too often emotions creeps into messages and people end up stepping over the line, putting themselves in a position where they could invite a whole heap of trouble.

So, the answer is that we ask people not to indulge in 'name and shame' discussions. It's the simplest solution found. Equally, please remember that you agreed to this rule when you signed up to PistonHeads.

Thanks

JD

That is why there’s a no naming and shaming rule on the site.

Did you manage to find the court case links yet for when Haymarket was in court? Tried a search but can't find any. Wouldn't mind a read of them.

[Scrump]

In case anyone missed it, there is a thread on the Motorhub situation:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[DuraAce]

andymc said:

the long and the short is the revenue is more important

Bosh. This is the truth sadly.

Money talks.