Quatloos!

ForumWars wrote: I'm not sure they could be considered scammers though, not if they don't charge for their services. I don't think they do, they only ask for donations.

They are, at least, a gateway to scammers. They introduce ordinary people to the idea that you can get out of debt free, and to freedman techniques. They promote and overlap with for-profit scams like WeRe Bank. They lie about their success rate. Their "free" advice ends up being very costly to those who follow it.

I think we agree that they are a Very Bad Thing, and that it's sad that the current legal environment is conducive to their existence.

ForumWars wrote: I'm not sure they could be considered scammers though, not if they don't charge for their services. I don't think they do, they only ask for donations.

Donations can be worse, because people will feel a degree of social pressure to give in exchange for the advice given. If it's a charge people will look at the advice in a different light and might even see through it at an earlier stage. It also allows them to build a level of trust with a mark, the best way to get something is often to pretend that you don't want it.

It is also apparent that GOODF acts as a system that recruits and promotes other peoples scams and will farm marks out to other scammers, they promoted Peter of England for example, who's scam bank has made a lot of money while providing little aid in addressing peoples debts.

Isn't it about time the title of this thread was changed seeing as this was not a DWB case?

Droopy wrote:Isn't it about time the title of this thread was changed seeing as this was not a DWB case?

No the thread should be locked and the two who started it should find somewhere else to air their differences. This forum is about fraud and scams, not for lovers tiffs.

I am not a mod though and i am guessing they have their own reasons for letting the puerile debate continue. I lost interest to be fair on the first thread, this must be about the third on it. Stick to the subject matter and debate that, simple as.

I will give you one, DWB has claimed in the past he was a commercial pilot, evidence has been presented he made the claim, his answer when called out on it was to claim he has a pilots licence and "access" to a couple of aircraft in Blackpool.

He may have a PPL, who cares but he is full of shit and never been an Airliner in his life other than as self loading freight.

Anything else he say's is bollocks, he is living a lie, and is very easy to spot. That is why many regulars have not even bothered commenting.

Referring to it 'The DWB Case' is wrong - it was never a DWB case. It was originally a Ron Clark case, who billed the debtor quite a sum. The debtor contacted many advisors including DWB who offered some advice, but it was never a DWB case. The debtor did ask DWB to attend the court hearing as it was nearby and DWB attended on the second day to watch the proceedings and offer some support, all free of charge.

The bailiff's barrister was asked to draft the final judgement and the wording was agreed with the parties. However, the barrister made his own addition that DWB was representing the debtor and got mightily upset when this falsehood was pointed out to him. It's unclear why he tried to do this, but Peter Felton was present, who is an aggressive critic of DWB. The final judgement was thankfully amended.

I know there are some things going on behind the scenes regarding defamatory posts on here, so I thought it would be wise to make an amendment.

Droopy wrote:Referring to it 'The DWB Case' is wrong - it was never a DWB case. It was originally a Ron Clark case, who billed the debtor quite a sum. The debtor contacted many advisors including DWB who offered some advice, but it was never a DWB case. The debtor did ask DWB to attend the court hearing as it was nearby and DWB attended on the second day to watch the proceedings and offer some support, all free of charge.

The bailiff's barrister was asked to draft the final judgement and the wording was agreed with the parties. However, the barrister made his own addition that DWB was representing the debtor and got mightily upset when this falsehood was pointed out to him. It's unclear why he tried to do this, but Peter Felton was present, who is an aggressive critic of DWB. The final judgement was thankfully amended.

I know there are some things going on behind the scenes regarding defamatory posts on here, so I thought it would be wise to make an amendment.

Honestly i do not care, and I don't think i am alone.

I was taking to one of the mods on CAG last evening and he said that this behavior is Parr for the course.

Apparently they get a couple of people per month complaining about being ripped of by Mr Bailey/Benisson. Usually within a couple of hours two new posters appear, spouting personal insults about the complainant. There follows a short flame war and the thread is closed, works very well as it has here.


If you look on BHF this morning you will see another ex client getting the same treatment, after they dared complain. i of course fully understand why this forum would not want to get involved in such a horrible business.

Skeleton wrote:

Droopy wrote:Referring to it 'The DWB Case' is wrong - it was never a DWB case. It was originally a Ron Clark case, who billed the debtor quite a sum. The debtor contacted many advisors including DWB who offered some advice, but it was never a DWB case. The debtor did ask DWB to attend the court hearing as it was nearby and DWB attended on the second day to watch the proceedings and offer some support, all free of charge.

The bailiff's barrister was asked to draft the final judgement and the wording was agreed with the parties. However, the barrister made his own addition that DWB was representing the debtor and got mightily upset when this falsehood was pointed out to him. It's unclear why he tried to do this, but Peter Felton was present, who is an aggressive critic of DWB. The final judgement was thankfully amended.

I know there are some things going on behind the scenes regarding defamatory posts on here, so I thought it would be wise to make an amendment.

Honestly i do not care, and I don't think i am alone.

ditto that, the whole sorry shower have shown themselves to be spiteful, petulant and vindictive, not anyone of them you'd trust to look after a hamster never mind pay for and take advise on ANY form of legal issue.

Worzel Gummidge wrote:I was taking to one of the mods on CAG last evening and he said that this behavior is Parr for the course.

Apparently they get a couple of people per month complaining about being ripped of by Mr Bailey/Benisson. Usually within a couple of hours two new posters appear, spouting personal insults about the complainant. There follows a short flame war and the thread is closed, works very well as it has here.


If you look on BHF this morning you will see another ex client getting the same treatment, after they dared complain. i of course fully understand why this forum would not want to get involved in such a horrible business.

Oh for God's sake, there's no threads on CAG about Jason and anyone can see that. The only closed threads on CAG are the work of the chimp verbally abusing anyone who disagrees with him. Why do you want to try and disrupt this thread?

Droopy wrote:The final judgement was thankfully amended.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at least one person here has been asking to see such court docs since this nonsense began.

Or should we just take your word for it? Maybe Sneezy and Dopey could weigh in as well.

wserra wrote:

Droopy wrote:The final judgement was thankfully amended.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at least one person here has been asking to see such court docs since this nonsense began.

Or should we just take your word for it? Maybe Sneezy and Dopey could weigh in as well.

I don't have the final copy myself I've only seen it. However, seeing as the member who started this thread 'Detroit Express' is Ron Clark, who is the only one that's ever billed the debtor involved, and he's claiming this to be a DWB case, perhaps he should provide everyone wih a copy of the judgement.

Here's a snippet of an email he sent the debtor. It seems he's telling him to put in a fake invoice:#

Finally I am sending an invoice to you – not for £425 but for £1161. (Lowest grade solicitors are £105 per hour). You need not be alarmed as you are not being asked to pay it. It exists so that if the court awards costs against LB Newham for this hearing, the invoice represents what LB Newham should expect have to pay and of course you can deduct £425 from it as being yours after they have paid you the £1161.

[.[/quote]

Oh for God's sake, there's no threads on CAG about Jason and anyone can see that. The only closed threads on CAG are the work of the chimp verbally abusing anyone who disagrees with him. Why do you want to try and disrupt this thread?[/quote]

Do you see how silly your comment is ?
You rightly admonish someone for verbal abuse, then you call them a chimp.

Droopy wrote:

Worzel Gummidge wrote:I was taking to one of the mods on CAG last evening and he said that this behavior is Parr for the course.

Apparently they get a couple of people per month complaining about being ripped of by Mr Bailey/Benisson. Usually within a couple of hours two new posters appear, spouting personal insults about the complainant. There follows a short flame war and the thread is closed, works very well as it has here.


If you look on BHF this morning you will see another ex client getting the same treatment, after they dared complain. i of course fully understand why this forum would not want to get involved in such a horrible business.

Oh for God's sake, there's no threads on CAG about Jason and anyone can see that. The only closed threads on CAG are the work of the chimp verbally abusing anyone who disagrees with him. Why do you want to try and disrupt this thread?

You wont listen will you, WE DO NOT CARE. Here is a tip, look for a door with a big exit sign above it and use it. Not my call but i can say with some degree of certainty if you do not find it yourself shortly, you will be lead to it. Take a hint, a Jason fan club seller is not going to last long on these forums. He was debunked by his own posts by the end of page 1, live with it.

You are being disingenuous here there are many threads n there started by his victims, it is just that, that particular forum does not allow names to be put up. Your behavior on here proves the point anyway.

Worzel Gummidge wrote:You are being disingenuous here there are many threads n there started by his victims, it is just that, that particular forum does not allow names to be put up. Your behavior on here proves the point anyway.

Worzel my apologies. My comment was not aimed at you. Your reply to Dreary chaps comment was not supposed to hqve appeared.

I'm calling a time out on this thread. I'm locking it temporarily until we have more information to post about the original reason it was created. It's been wandering off topic for too long. Besides, the OP has quit posting and won't be back.