Anybody heard of this company

D

Deleted member 2457

Guest
Interesting place lobby, how did you find them?

Is that all brand new stock?

Thanks
 

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
1
0
Personally I'd avoid any site without a physical address and a phone number for contact. Not to mention an address being required by distance selling regs...

And if it seems to good to be true...
 
D

Deleted member 2457

Guest
nads:99.9999% Scam site.

What makes you say that?

The too good to be true prices?

Thanks
 
D

Deleted member 2457

Guest
Andrew Everard:

While I couldn't be as certain as nads clearly is, personally I'd avoid any site without a physical address and a phone number for contact.

And if it seems to good to be true...

Snap
 

scene

Moderator
Sep 25, 2008
784
181
19,070
Warning: There are some very worrying on-line comments about the website. Among others, people have checked their claimed Euronics and Retra membership, both have apparently never heard of these people.

I'm just doing some further research - they sound to good to be true.

OK - everyone else seems to have seen the same - 'nuff said.
 

lobby

New member
Jun 30, 2008
161
0
0
Was about to help out another member of the forums on current prices and decided to check out the Sony befopre advising them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
these sites are common and the police have been trying to crack down on them. I believe they are organised crime related and various websites are used across various high end categories.
 

AVLee

New member
Nov 6, 2009
16
0
0
woollyjoe:

various websites are used across various high end categories.

what exactly do you mean by this? it just sounds like your pretending to be 'in-the-know' about this. verbal padding
 

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
1
0
I took it as meaning categories such as hi-fi, photography, computers, etc.

I don't see any reason for that aggressive post, AVLee.
 

Big Aura

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2008
520
8
18,895
Andrew - it might be an idea to stick a "NOTE FROM MODERATOR - this site is apparently dodgier than a Tory expsenses claim" in the original post, in case some poor fule clicks on the link without reading the rest of the thread.

G
 

Andrew Everard

New member
May 30, 2007
1,878
1
0
Big Aura:Andrew - it might be an idea to stick a "NOTE FROM MODERATOR - this site is apparently dodgier than a Tory expsenses claim" in the original post, in case some poor fule clicks on the link without reading the rest of the thread.

I think the rest of the thread makes the opinions clear, and I fear your analogy would not play too well with our Lord and master
 

The_Lhc

New member
Oct 16, 2008
1,175
1
0
Big Aura:apparently dodgier than a Tory expsenses claim

In the interests of polictical balance, the three MPs being prosecuted for their expenses claims are all members of the Labour Party or were until the whip was withdrawn...

Lord Hanningfield, also being prosecuted, IS a Tory peer however.
 

Frank Harvey

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2008
567
0
18,890
Andrew Everard: Personally I'd avoid any site without a physical address and a phone number for contact. Not to mention an address being required by distance selling regs...

And the fact that it's just a Wordpress page, which anyone can set up for free.
 

The_Lhc

New member
Oct 16, 2008
1,175
1
0
Big Aura:Apologies. prosecutions aside, moat-maintenance and duck lodgings are what swing it for me!

Neither of which have been deemed to be illegal it seems.

I don't really want to get into this but there are two points which simultaneously amuse and infuriate me about the expenses "scandal":

Firstly, the idea that all those people "outraged" by MPs' expenses claims wouldn't have done exactly the same thing in their position is ludicrous. I'd say at least 90% of the public, upon receiving a phone call from their employer asking "Do you realise you haven't claimed sufficient expenses this month? You should claim for this, this, this and this.", would have replied, "Oh right, ok, cheers" and ticked the box.

Secondly: this. Absolutely brilliant, the body being set up to oversee MPs' expenses is going to cost 6 times the amount that MPs were asked to pay back. So if nobody had said anything, the taxpayer would actually have been better off letting MPs trough to their hearts' content!
 

hammill

New member
Mar 20, 2008
212
0
0
the_lhc:

Big Aura:Apologies. prosecutions aside, moat-maintenance and duck lodgings are what swing it for me!

Neither of which have been deemed to be illegal it seems.

I don't really want to get into this but there are two points which simultaneously amuse and infuriate me about the expenses "scandal":

Firstly, the idea that all those people "outraged" by MPs' expenses claims wouldn't have done exactly the same thing in their position is ludicrous. I'd say at least 90% of the public, upon receiving a phone call from their employer asking "Do you realise you haven't claimed sufficient expenses this month? You should claim for this, this, this and this.", would have replied, "Oh right, ok, cheers" and ticked the box.

Secondly: this. Absolutely brilliant, the body being set up to oversee MPs' expenses is going to cost 6 times the amount that MPs were asked to pay back. So if nobody had said anything, the taxpayer would actually have been better off letting MPs trough to their hearts' content!

Your opinions are unusual and I dare say unpopular, but I agree with you completely.
 

Big Aura

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2008
520
8
18,895
I actually agree with you, to an extent. MPs' pay is fairly shoddy for what's expected of them, so the inflated expenses was the common work-around to remunerate them properly. That said, the general public do expect a higer degree of accountablilty from John Bull MP, than Johnny 'the plumber' Bull.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts