Menu
Login
firstly they try to sell you either Google search engine optimization or Facebook advertising.. be warned you will not receive either ...what will happen is ...they sneakily attempt to get you on a rolling contract which takes 30 days written notice to cancel by then you've probably already paid a whopping £500 for something that might cost £20 to do your self . These people will then threaten you will all sorts of stuff including personal debt collectors and legal action if you should cancel your debit / credit card ...
these say they work in london have a po box address in london but are really a manchester out fit with 2 adresses
/removed/
more info on him to follow...
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
URGENT MESSAGE TO POSTERS IF YOU RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM CAMILLAS CHINCHILLA DO NOT RESPOND, WE HAVE HAD OUR COMMENTS HACKED AND IF YOU RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM THEM PLEASE NOTIFY US AS THEY MAY HAVE CLIENT INFORMATION.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:
I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.
Please read these details:
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"
Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.
*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************
We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:
Tel: Tel: [protected]
Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
Good Morning Readers,
Anybody who receives any confidential information about us please email to:
legal.team@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
________________________________________________________________________________
Please do not get distracted from the point, we have had many nasty accusations from personal to business, and from people taking pictures of the building to hacking our online forum accounts, both on here and badbiz.
Please do not get distracted from a good company defending its reputation and having proof that there is no evidence to prove we are ever have been, or have ever participated in any "scams".
________________________________________________________________________________
Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:
I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.
Please read these details:
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"
Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.
*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************
We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:
Tel: Tel: [protected]
Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
There's much to confuse, and many irrelevant exchanges and insults -
Keep in mind that the issue is the appalling business practices, and lack of integrity, honesty and ethics of The Social Media People.
When a company director phones customers using a fictitious identity while making threats it shows the company in its true colours.
Listen to : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8
The fake director states that a solicitor contacted me - but the solicitor was a fake too - and TSMP refused to say who it was. The other character, Jonathan Barker-Smith phoned another customer and demanded the customer phone back to speak to him; but the customer was never able to make contact - because of course - he was a fake.
TSMP has continuously ignored this issue and never offered an explanation either in private or in public.
To answer the question would reveal the despicable double dealings of TSMP and its directors.
Hello all, this does make for interesting reading. I too was promised a nationally exclusive advert on Facebook costing over £350 for a month. I was made aware that the advert taken out through the Social Media People would be shown to 10's of thousands of people, as long as their interests were matched with the keywrds relating to my advert. Needless to say, my facebook page for the business in which the advert was for has hundereds of likes to relevent pages yet the advert was not displayed to me once. I even ran a competition for anyone that liked my page that sent a screenshot of the advert on their screen, to win a prize. No one sent anything.. yet more indication that the advert did not actually exist. When having sent the letter cancelling the advertising with them, the same as many people have found "we have received no letter". This was only realised by myself after i received an invoice from them saying payment had been taken for a second months advertising, days prior to the end of the month i had running with them. A second letter was sent to them the same day as receiving this early second invoice, this was recieved and email confirmation was sent saying my account had been closed. I have since received further communications from them stating that this second letter was also received too late and that i owe them yet more money. What i do have though is a littl nugget of information, evidence of just how unprofessional this company is...
On trying to speak with the manager of the company i was put on hold telling me they were not available. I held on for a loing time, feeling sure something fish was going on i called on my mobile on my other hand, i was told i was going to be put straight through and the lady thought she had put me on hold... i have my mobile phone recirding of a conversation that i then heard within the office of the social media people, realising who i was on thios second line, them meking up stories about how i had apparently told the firstman i was placed on hold by, that i was going to come down there, kick off, and that i was swearing at them. This of course is not true at all. I then continued to hear that the member of staff that was apparently unavailable ask around the offuice to see if anyoine else wanted to speak with me as they "couldnt be bothered to deal with me". When someone did come ont he phone they were made aware of the fact i had the conversation recorded and needless to say, crapped their pants.
Since then they have tried to say this is not allowed, it is if they were aware of it, and there is auditory evidence showing they were. I have since spoken with trading standards and my solicitor and in am now awaiting them taking legal action against me. I will certainly be defending myself with the quite thick foilder of counter evidence against them, as well as making a counter claim against them for breach of contract for not actually lfilling their role of advertising my company.
SPEAK TO TRADING STANDARDS PEOPLE AND DONT GIVE UP IS YOU DID EVERYTHING RIGHT!
Good Morning Readers,
Thanks for posting yet more irrelevant information. If you were contacted by a legal agent it is because you committed what's called libel, as has Steve Jones. As have one or two other people. If you have not been taken to court it is due to your assets not out weighing the cost.
You can put a spin on anything, you have made so many complaints that if you had any actual case for these criminal acts you claims TSMP have committed then we would have had to answer to them.
Infact the only 1 who has taken you seriously DID investigate our company and I think by now you know what they have found:
Before we remind you of that please read:
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:
I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.
Please read these details:
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"
Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.
*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************
We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:
Tel: Tel: [protected]
Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
Possibly for the very first time, The Social Media People has responded to the question about the fictitious solicitor. However the explanation is unsatisfactory as the facts of the event differ from those offered as explantion.
TSMP's Public Relations Department just wrote:
"Thanks for posting yet more irrelevant information. If you were contacted by a legal agent it is because you committed what's called libel, as has Steve Jones. As have one or two other people. If you have not been taken to court it is due to your assets not out weighing the cost. ..."
My response is as follows:
I was contacted by a person claiming to be a solicitor - not a legal agent. The contact was confirmed by a Director of TSMP in his phone message to me. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority has no record of the solicitor, nor the Firm he claimed to work for; which effectively means he and the Firm do not exist. The accusation was slander, not libel (that came later).
In the phone message to me the Director of TSMP lied by saying I had been traced by 'IP tracking, that sort of thing...' As TSMP was accusing the wrong person (a fact confirmed by TSMP in an email published on this site) it couldn't have traced be by that method, because it was not me.
Whether or not TSMP decided to take me to court is irrelevant to this part of the discussion. Whatever another person may, or may not be worth financially is irrelevant to this part of the discussion.
TSMP faked being a solicitor - and therefore lied.
TSMP faked up a Director - and therefore lied.
TSMP faked up a 'legal agent (Barker-Smith) to threaten someone else - and therefore lied.
TSMP faked up a method of tracing me to accuse me of libel in order to silence crticism - and therefore lied.
TSMP has now made a feeble attempt to explain the issue - and has missed the point; deliberately or not?
What is the Adjudication number of this case that the ASA has ruled on? The problem is that where they say no evidence has been produced, the ASA only looked at the advert as published on the net whereas we all know that is not where the problem with this company lies. Knowing what has been purported for the truth here we don't know who actually put this advert up in the first place, and the ASA acknowledge this, and it very conveniently allows a complaint. Let's not forget that the language of this 'advert' actually comes from a similar stable.
It's a good point that Edsarn makes. A problem for companies like The Social Media People, Net66 etc is that when they get such a bad reputation, people are suspicious about everything to do with them.
The advert may have been genuine, created by an aggrieved ex-employee, or anyone else with a low opinion of TSMP. (Form an orderly queue!) In refusing to change the ad. an adjudication was inevitable when a complaint was made.
But if you have a less than favourable attitude towards TSMP - as I believe some visitors to this thread have - you could envisage that TSMP might have created the advert itself, then complained about it in the full knowledge that an adjudication in its favour would follow; and hey-presto! there is something which seems to support its view of itself.
I don't know which is true, but whatever the truth is, it does not outweigh the mountain of evidence which demonstartes the multiple shortcomings and misdemeanours of The Social Media People.
But at least TSMP has now recognised that the phone calls to me were genuine, so everyone who hears them can judge them in that knowledge.
The Social Media People. a company who claims to have, variously, 12, 000 customers, 15, 000 customers, 24, 000 customers and today 200, 000 customers over 11 years but have not actually been going that long according to the records of companies house. That's simply amazing, don't you think?
Tom Faulkner, I think you give an exact precise and I quote:
"...TSMP faked being a solicitor - and therefore lied.
TSMP faked up a Director - and therefore lied.
TSMP faked up a 'legal agent (Barker-Smith) to threaten someone else - and therefore lied.
TSMP faked up a method of tracing me to accuse me of libel in order to silence crticism - and therefore lied.
TSMP has now made a feeble attempt to explain the issue - and has missed the point; deliberately or not?.."
But rest assured they will invariable 'paint' over the issues that concern people the most because they are incapable of answering them with any reasonable satisfaction as they will expose themselves for the SCAM they are!
Incidentally, I am not Steve Badbiz although I now have a passion to do everything in my power to ensure that anybody who has any doubts to your companies ability, integrity, honesty, professionalism and ethics will be educated; and I will do my utmost to ensure that they know what a malicious, liar and scammer you and your companies are.
04-08-2011:
And the evidence that TSMP claimed to have had a solicitor contact me, as well as the lie about tracing me through IP tracking, and the threat to another customer from the fictitious Jonathan Barker-Smith; are all in the recordings which can be heard on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8
And by an amazing coincidence the 2 voices sound remarkably similar, and remarkably like...?
Remarkably one and the same Mr Thomas McVey!
Would you trust such a company?
Do so at your own risk.
But lets be serious, only those affected by the appalling experience they have received by TSMP & Co genuinely contribute to this site; not satisfied companies, who incidentally if they existed would have no need to vent their frustrations. Prospective 'victims' view this site to try to get an angle on TSMP and then we have the McVey's in their various identities most of which are fictitious, as are their trading addresses, location and service they provide!
Good Morning Readers,
From today onwards, we are under instruction to invite customers & people who may be interested in doing business to contact us. Its plain to see that people are hell bent on continuing with malicious intentions of ruing a good companies reputation. The Social Media People is part of an organisation that is, was and always will be successful.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We do not however want to distance ourselves from people who may be thinking of becoming a client, again, we have a large customer care team who are on hand to deal with any enquiries.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
05-08-2011: Quote from TSMP Public Relations – writing about criticisms of the company :
“Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent.”
In its recent response, TSMP Public Relations accepted that:
a. TSMP phoned me posing as a solicitor (as confirmed in the phone message).
b. Threatened me with a libel action (when it was someone else who’d made the comment).
c. Lied in a phone message, about the solicitor and ‘IP tracking’ (which everyone can listen to as evidence).
TSMP Public Relations now asks readers to accept that these are small, irrelevant mistakes!
1. NOT small.
2. NOT irrelevant – how would anyone feel if threatened with legal proceedings.
3. NOT MISTAKES – premeditated actions of a company director without integrity.
I didn’t ‘wait for them to make a mistake’ - TSMP took the initiative, jumped in with both feet, and acted in a premeditated way, without integrity, ethics, or honesty. I merely report the event afterwards as an example of the mountain of mistakes, (small and large), and intentional dishonesty of the company.
The recording of TSMPs premeditated lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8
More TSMP mistakes and dishonesty – nit-picking or otherwise – to follow.
01-08-2011 The Social Media People scam:
A now aggrieved customer didn’t feel that the following insult of a VAT Invoice was a ‘small and irrelevant mistake’ :
Despite the cynical attempts of TSMP to bring an angry customer ‘back under control’ the customer has provided a document for publication - a full, unedited, complete, and GENUINE VAT Invoice from TSMP.
Readers should keep in mind that TSMP claims that VAT Invoices:
1. Are generated automatically, so a ‘typing error’ could not explain any variations from the norm.
2. Always have a ‘link’ to the Terms and Conditions.
The first attached invoice won't be easy to read, but you can see enough to know that the next version, which shows the relevant detail more clearly, is not edited to hide any ‘inconvenient’ details.
Problems/errors/mistakes/lies?:
TSMP sells services in a different currency to all other businesses in UK!
TSMP is unable to produce a valid VAT Invoice. (As previously posted)
TSMP gets the customer’s address wrong.
TSMP does not provide a ‘link’ to the infamous Terms & Conditions, thus denying a customer the possibility of checking.
So – lots of VAT Invoices now published, and all wrong in many different ways; and frequently changing in style and format: from an automatic system?
These are examples of the typical level of accuracy and efficiency of The Social Media People. An individual one could possibly be regarded as a small mistake, but when virtually every type of document – including many VAT Invoices has them, its no longer small and certainly not irrelevant.
Who would want to spend that much money - ‘ �142.80 ‘ with TSMP?
By the way – if you’re in Glasgow I hear that ‘Azure’ is a great place to go for a night out!
http://iloveazure.com/ (Thanks to fran687.)
I also have been a victim of the "Social Media People". Offering me a one month trial via a phone conversation I paid the £150 for set-up and 10, 000 impressions. I was very unimpressed as I didn't see the advert appear on facebook, and anybody I asked hadn't either. My targets we're very local so was surprised that nobody had seen the ad. I made sure during the sales call that I would be contacted and have the option to cancel at the end of the first month. Unfortunately this didn't happen and instead they took another £100 from my account for the second month! After a series of phone calls I eventually sent a cheque for £24 to receive a copy of the sales phone conversations. The cheque was cashed, however I never received the calls. Further to this, and despite additional emails to them, they are yet to contact me back regarding the matter! STAY AWAY!
Aaron
Track21studios,
Your experience is exactly what we have all suffered I am afraid. I do wonder about those that aren't computer savvy, and wouldn't think of trawling the internet to see if there something about this company. They would be completely in the dark and still paying probably.
It is a pity you have joined now because you will have missed some of the unbelievable posts that have been put up in the name of the company and a number of aliases. I take it you have spoken to your bank.
06-08-2011: The Social Media People fails to live up to a promise made by the Managing Director –
or perhaps it’s just a ‘small mistake’:
On approx 20 July; Tom McVey, Managing Director, wrote:
“Morning all,
Lady1000, can you please contact me with your customer number and I will immediately look into your case and get s speedy resolution. Might I add, we are NOT a con, you 100% will have had the full terms explained to you. I am happy to provide any call START TO FINISH so you can understand clearly. You will have also been sent the terms and forwarded to them on our website. I am sorry if you have miss-understood any will work with you to come to an amicable result but, why jump to conclusion about our ethics without contacting us first?”
Apparently an ‘open’ gesture to supply recordings, to help customers understand what had transpired during phone conversations?
Yet, On 5 August; Track21 wrote:
“After a series of phone calls I eventually sent a cheque for £24 to receive a copy of the sales phone conversations. The cheque was cashed, however I never received the calls. Further to this, and despite additional emails to them, they are yet to contact me back regarding the matter!”
Why was Track21 experiencing such difficulties – and why had he/she paid £24.00?
It seems there is a small glitch in the process of putting the intentions of the Managing Director into practice.
By accident or design? Surely the Managing Director wouldn't have made a hollow promise?
07-08-2011:
Director of The Social Media People confirms a 'solicitor' - not a 'legal agent' - threatened a customer on behalf of The Social Media People.
And the threat was 'slander' not 'libel'.
TSMP Public Relations, and the Managing Director want people to believe differently, but listen to the recording yourself:
Listen to : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8
The fake director states that a solicitor contacted me - but the solicitor was a fake too.
Another fake - Jonathan Barker-Smith - phoned another customer with a similar threat.
TSMP has previously ignored this issue, and now in answering it tries to re-write the script.
To answer the question honestly would reveal the despicable double dealings of TSMP and its directors.
When a company director phones customers using a fictitious identity while making threats it shows the company in its true colours.
Tom Faulkner and all aggreaved who have been victim, yes victim of the McVey's Company SCAM.
TSMP, and specifically Tom McVey in all his various pseudo names and identities on this site, as well as his altered ego as a solicitor, a non existent Customer Services Director of his company's, Jonathan Barker-Smith but to name a few of his aliases has no intention of using any integrity, honesty or compassion when dealing with anybody who challenges him or any of his related companies business practices.
Tracker21 was even scammed a second time when he/she paid for a a copy of the sales phone conversations, which she never received!
The reason is blatantly clear, it would incriminate and confirm to all that he/she had been scammed! If I am wrong, which I am 100% positive that I am not, why has TSMP not produced the recording (unedited)? Umh You do not need a Phd to come to a firm conclusion, as with all the other misdemeanors:
Incorrect vat receipts
Incorrect invoices
Incorrect company records at Companies House
Incorrect trading addresses
Incorrect, and non existent, email addresses
Incorrect testimonials on their website
Incorrect claims to their cost effectiveness to businesses
Incorrect Terms & Conditions
Incorrect billing details
Incorrect legal notices
Incorrect advertising method (not pay per click as they claim)
Incorrect compliance to legislature
Incorrect business practice
This list is not endless, it also includes:
Threats, both written and verbal
Impersonating a solicitor
The list goes on and on and on...
Attempted intimidation by implying that those who have openly challenged Tom McVey, and his businesses, are deviants. Which in itself are the hallmark of the uneducated (and for your benefit Tom McVey I am not necessarily referring to a lack of academia) when they start to make personal digs to at their critics .
Would you want to knowingly conduct your business like this?
Would you want to have business dealings with a company like this?
Would any of your concerns about a business like this be alleviated by Tom McVeys attitude and behavior?
No! No! No!
Hear, Hear!
Informer28 will undoubtedly be accused of being someone else, and of unsubstantiated claims; but the items on his list have already been substantiated with published documents and the statements of TSMP on this forum, and - of course - the personal experiences of all the cheated customers.
Who Informer28 is, or is not, does not invalidate the evidence of TSMP's crimes etc.
An ASA adjudication provides TSMP with a single piece of evidence with which to retort: but that one document sitting next to the mountain of evidence against them is of little help in attempting to support redundant claims to honesty, integrity, ethics and good business practices.
The Social Media People has no integrity. No honesty. No ethics. No good business practices.
Good Morning All,
Again we have been verbally assaulted over the weekend, the interesting point is one of them is at MIDNIGHT again.
We trust people reading this can establish that yes, you could listen and take on board what people right very late at night and give out "business advice" to our organisation, or you could simply read what the UK’s independent advertising watchdog have concluded about our business.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We have over 15, 000 social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:
I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.
Please read these details:
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"
Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.
*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************
We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:
Tel: Tel: [protected]
Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
The Public Relations Department
'There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:'
Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.
Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!
The Public Relations Department
'There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:'
Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.
Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!
The Public Relations Department
'There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:'
Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.
Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!
The Public Relations Department
'There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:'
Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.
Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!
repetition is tedious way of posting isn't it?
Tom McVey aka The Public Relations Department aka Jonathan Barker-Smith etc etc ets
Unfortunately, yet again you quote the ASA who stated that no information was submitted to confirm you and your company (TSMP) are SCAMMERS, fact. That does not detract from your companies running a scam, they only go on the evidence submitted, It is a shame that the rest of the ASA was not privvy to the information and FACTS that are abundant here from dissatisfied customers who have documentary proof and audio proof of your companies foul practices!
Where you not to have 'upset' so many individuals and companies do you seriously think TSMP / Net 66 would have gained 27 odd pages, and that is just on this site, of comments decrying you and your 'empire'? I think not.
Continually quoting an UK's independent regulator of advertising across all media, now including marketing on websites, does not answer the basic questions that have been put to you, which have no relevance to the ASA what so ever! So why continually quote them?
I suspect you will yet again 'spot off' quoting ASA again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again etc etc! Without saying anything!
Informer28 - perhaps something for posters to this site (and any would be customers of their's) to think about is that TSMP are really saying more about their activities by not saying anything than they do by saying something!
In my situation we have a saying for what they do say - LOB - yep that's right, it's a load of b------s.
It appears to me that they have reached a stalemate where they are now trying to bore the pants off people by sheer repetition of gobblygook.
Fleet Trainer, your 'observation' I feel has been prevalent for the last few weeks!
Or should I comment '..The ASA...' lol
It is blatantly obvious that Tom McVey aka Steve Jackson, Jonathan Barker-Smith, and all the other pseudo names and aliases that he uses, as well as the Complaints Department (which company has one of those? lol) Public Relations Department, Debt Recovery Department, Legal Department which in reality is a hell of a lot of work for his 'little' sister Grace or should I say something 'stein' to manage; anybody who has any degree of intelligence realises that an organisation which has possibly 10 or 12 employees at the most (not the 600 that it is claimed), including the McVey father and Son Directors, is trying to create an illusion of grandeur in the same manner as their fictitious stateside and mainland european operation addresses (that is not taking into account their UK operation based in Manchester yet claimed to be in the Capital City!)
All the above is smoking mirrors to deter people knowing that Net 66 is the money siphon for their enterprises, and is highlighted by their appalling administration which is designed to cause confusion, in a labyrinth of deception and lies which are by design to SCAM all that they come in contact with.
Answer that Thomas M, without quoting the ASA, if you dare (not that you will as it will prove your deception)!
Role on the Queens Bench!
No Integrity, No Honesty, No Morale Values, No Good at Anything, SCAMMERS
... and the 'network of customer care agents', ... and the 'team of customer services agents', ... and Collections Department, ... and the 'Manager', Shane P. who didn't even know they had a Collections Department, and the team of qualified (no scrub that - they no longer claim to have qualified designers) the team of 'experienced' designers ...
Surely they need more than the claimed 600+ staff?!
10-08-2011: The Social Media People chooses money before principles and promises:
Recently The Social Media People stated on this forum, that the company hadn’t pursued legal action against me (and also another person) because they couldn’t make any money out of it.
Quote (TSMP Customer Relations) 03-08-2011:
“If you have not been taken to court it is due to your assets not out weighing the cost. “
That’s O.K. TSMP is entitled to make such a decision.
The problem is that TSMP had previously assured me – no guaranteed – no promised - that it would take me to court to defend its integrity. No mention of financial gain then; if the company’s integrity was unjustly called into question they would pursue legal action to ‘right the wrong’ done to them. It was a matter of principle!
Telephone conversation Steven Jackson/T Faulkner 21-04-2011:
Quote (Steven Jackson): “Don’t get me wrong, we don’t want to spend a hell of a lot of money on a legal case. Will we if we have to? Certainly, yeh. I take our integrity, and so does our company take our integrity very, very, very seriously, and if it means spendin’ a bit of money to get information that’s said out of pure malice and no actual substance, then we’ll take it all the way.”
The Social Media People – No principles. No Integrity. Broken promise.
And of course – another reason TSMP didn’t take me to court – No case.
There seem to be no natural or obvious links between the groups of terms: ‘plagiarism’ and ‘breach of copyright’, verses ‘ethics’, ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’.
A more compatable link is possible if: ‘plagiarism’ and ‘breach of copyright’, are linked to ‘NO ethics’, NO integrity’ and ‘NO honesty’.
Recently TSMP added a new page to its website entitled ‘Links’.
The page included links to various articles on big issues and world affairs in relation to social media. The articles showed copyright of TSMP, and certainly didn’t credit anyone else with authorship.
Imagine my surprise (not!) when, on Googling chunks of text from the articles, several were actually written by other authors and appeared on various sites, with copyright to the original author.
How pleased would the original authors be to know their work had been hi-jacked and their authorship and copyright ignored?
One of the articles has already disappeared from the TSMP website, so someone wasn’t happy!
The ORIGINAL, by Rachel Beer is at: http://www.charitycomms.org.uk/articles/insider_secrets/why_charities_need_to_use_social_media
The plagiarised, TSMP version is nowhere to be found.( http://thesocialmediapeople.org/ )
The Social Media People – plagiarists. No integrity. No ethics. No honesty.
The Social Media People plagiarises the work of others; 2:
Whoops! Another one bites the dust!
Looks like another article has been removed from the ‘Links’ page on TSMP website.
The original article, written by Ivan Yardley, can be read at:
http://www.zulucreative.co.uk/blog/18/02/2011/social-media-changes-world/
The same article, under the title ‘How Social Media Has Changed Business’ – but with no credit to the author, and false TSMP copyright appeared on TSMP website until it vanished.
It makes you wonder whether any more will go the same way?
Tip for The Social Media People: Write your own, original material and you won’t need to steal other people’s.
Good Morning All,
In regards to yet more clutching at straws, and a few ridiculous insinuations from Steve BadBiz Jones (informer28) ironic name, he claims to inform yet both his forum & his website have been closed down. Amidst all the speculation against Tom Faulkner in 2008 when 5 of his pupils made public claims of abuse, posting that picture under an alias (alickilickilick) Shows everybody the type of people who are commenting on here on a daily basis. As we now know - websites CAN be closed down if their full of lies & libel. Why are we still going after all this time & these 2 malicious individuals are resorting to picking anything they can including spelling, grammar and re-publication of stories.
_________________________________________________________________________________
May I take this opportunity to thank all clients and all local people who know these 2malicious individuals who are on a crusade to ruin our reputation. Again, the ASA are a much more credible source of information, we are sure readers are smart enough to smell a rat with some of these claims and we thank all the business' up & down the country who have contacted us offering help, support & evidence against these malicious individuals.
None of these individuals own or run a credible business and no info is available at companies house as if they do its likely their turnover is kept in a bum-bag. So the irony of constant "business advice" can be taken in context.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We trust people reading this can establish that yes, you could listen and take on board what people right very late at night and give out "business advice" to our organisation, or you could simply read what the UK’s independent advertising watchdog have concluded about our business.
_________________________________________________________________________________
We have over 15, 000 social media clients and have had 21 genuine complaints.
That is 0.0014% of customers unhappy about the service.
If you are a genuine customer who is unhappy or wishes to lodge a complaint, please get in contact. Due to the amount of lies from non-customers & competitors please have your customer details ready.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Having to defend our ethics on a daily basis has now got beyond a joke. If we put a comer or full stop in the wrong place we are the victim of a tirade of abuse. If anybody who participates in these daily insults should not only be ashamed of themselves but should rethink the point they are trying to make. Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent. We have been reported to every authority in the UK by most of you & they have all found us to comply with law.
We have worked with 200, 000 clients over the past 11+ years and we have always had fantastic feedback.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Also as long as people try to call us a "scam" and unethical we WILL continue to post details of the ASA regulation. Because neutral readers deserve facts not one person pretending to be 12's opinions & lies.
_________________________________________________________________________________
With regret we are forced to expose a few characters for their nasty tendencies, opinions & backgrounds so their wrongful claims against us can be treated with the level of belief they should - NONE AT ALL.
We may be biased, in that our organisation has been involved in business 11+ years & is now suddenly wrongfully accused of having no ethics & even "scamming". This has been a hard accusation to face as we are a family business, and our directors have taken a few insults personally and even resorted to defending their integrity themselves. Needless to say it has fell on deaf ears and accusations are constantly thrown in our direction.
We have no personal feelings either way, yes we think there is incredulous people commenting and lying on here, but on the whole we know the truth. So do our expanding clients base.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So, is The Social Media People a scam, are people right to group together to try to ruin the reputation of a company within a an organisation for 11+ years?
Let me provide some EVIDENCE not twisted words or opinions - EVIDENCE:
There was an add set up, the creator was never proven beyond reasonable doubt as the address & contact details did not match up and could have been set up anonymously by anyone. For this reason we will blank the web address, bout the info is readily available from the ASA:
ASA Adjudication on the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk
Date: 27 July 2011
Media: Internet (search engine)
Sector: Business
Number of complaints: 1
Complaint Ref: A11-154984
Ad
A Google sponsored search ad stated “Social media people scam net66-the social media people AVOID this company is a scam www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk.”
Issue
The Social Media People objected that the ad denigrated their business.
Response
www.the-social-media-people-scam.co.uk said the ad was produced by an individual who had worked for The Social Media People. He stated that the claims in the ad were true and that he intended to continue making similar claims on other sites.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted that the complainant’s company was called The Social Media People and understood that any consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim, we considered that that implication was disparaging to the complainant’s company. We therefore concluded that the ad denigrated The Social Media People.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.42 and 3.43 (Imitation and denigration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I will also quote one of our directors responses in relation to this as it suits our view point perfectly:
I will refer back to the ruling of an ADVERTISING WATCHDOG for people to read & derive their opinions of us not anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals.
Please read these details:
The ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) Says: "consumers searching for ‘Social Media People’ via Google would see the advertisers’ sponsored search ad appear alongside the search engine results. We considered that the ad was alleging that the Social Media People was a company running a scam and because we had not seen evidence to support that claim"
Who Are The ASA: The ASA is the UK’s independent watchdog committed to maintaining high standards in advertising for the benefit of consumers, advertisers and society at large. Visit this section for an introduction to the ASA, our remit, history and meet our senior team members.
*************************************************************************************************************
If you wish to call us a scam, please don't expect to be believed, complaints are fine, with the amount of customers we have we expect to have unhappy customers, but calling us a scam is different, not ethical & certainly NOT TRUE.
*************************************************************************************************************
We are available for contact For any body who is looking for answers, or is still unsure:
Tel: Tel: [protected]
Email: publicrelations@thesocialmediapeople.co.uk
We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.
Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
lol someone posts a picture of a willy and you ### try and insinuate it was an aggrieved customer... Professional as ever I see... You're honestly fooling nobody. Prob posted it yourselves in order to make people believe it's a site used by weirdo's or even in the vain hope it shuts down the forum as I can guess it may be causing your company a few issues. As for the ASA repetition we're not daft, people who come on this site will listen to the truth, with the evidence. Not the deluded ramblings of a company who are clearly on their ### and clutching at willy pictures to divert peoples attention from the scam at hand. And who gives a toss if there's people on this at midnight? The sleepless nights your company gives innocent people it's no wonder, we need something to occupy our worried minds. Wee tip, you are doing yourselves absolutely no favours with your posts, you sound manipulative, petulant, childish and utterly idiotic. But hey - if the cap fits...
I should imagine some of the poor sods that you deal with have not finished work much before midnight - what an absolute crass thing to say - and perhaps a little desperate.
As for your website it doesn't actually say anything at all, no clickable links, no examples of your work, no genuine reviews. Shall I go on?
11-08-2011: The Social Media People proves - yet again, in its own words & figures, that it can't do simple arithmetic!
Don't take my word for it; read the previous TSMP Public Relations post relating to unhappy customers %, and do the arithmetic yourself.
Certainly don't believe The Social Media People as what it has said is UNTRUE. (No surprises there!)
And not that anyone believes any of the figures presented by TSMP (as its VAT Invoices have clearly shown it can't add up), but:
What % of 15, 000 is 21?
21 divided by 15, 000, x 100 + 0.14%
NOT 0.0014%! So when presenting its fabricated claim it makes a 1oo fold error.
Haven't they even got a pocket calculator?
another brilliant post - probably by TSMP
THERE IS OBVIOUS [censored] FROM THE SOCIAL MEDIA PEOPLE TRYING TO INSINUTATE MY WEBSITE WAS TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE LIBEL MY QUESTION IS PROVE IT IRONICALLY
BADBIZ FORUM IS BACK ONLINE FROM A MOVE OF SERVERS OBVIOUSLY NET 66 WHO ALLEDEGEDLY PRODUCE WEBSITES HAVE NEVER MOVED A WEBSITE FROM ONE SERVER TO
ANOTHER ONE DAY THEY WILL HAVE TO IF THEY ARE STILL IN BUSINESS AS THEY CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 12 + YEARS BUT COMPANIES AGAIN PROVES THESE AS
LIARS AS THE COMPANY WAS ONLY REGISTERED LAST YEAR. FACT all genuine people come join http://badbizforum.com we can then vouch for as genuine even them that think I am wrong it will then prove who the liars are The Social Media People aka Tom McVey
Jesus tonight, do you call yourself professional Mr. Badbiz? Do you really need to type in CAPS? Stop advertising your silly little forum with a hundred self-created members. You still haven't admitted or denied to links with Yes Loans yet.
TSMP obviously, it would appear, have little understanding of what is in question. Comprehension or otherwise.
Fleet Trainer, Fran687, liki, Edsarn and myself are but a few of the aggrieved that TSMP Scam have touched; and all of us have similar thoughts upon the trading practices of TSMP and Tom McVey.
Tom, did or did you not in your various guises speak to your 'clients' claiming to be a solicitor and threaten legal action?
Simple question, yes or no would suffice.
If you continue to copy and paste an ASA decision which clearly states that no evidence was produced to substantiate the Adwords claim, but did not categorically say you were not Scammers, you will be reminiscent of a Black Adder sketch. Placing your fingers in your ears, pencils in your nostrils...before you go over the trenches to your imminent death! In other words placing yourself in denial and ranting irrelevances in the hope somebody will take you serious!
If, as you claim, you and your fathers directorship of the Net 66, and all of it's sub companies e.g. TSMP are 'squeaky' clean, customer orientated, value for money, honest and totally legit; then why stoop to the abuse, threats and deception that you and your companies blatantly engage? of which there is an abundance of Facts and Evidence to support. Have you taken the morale high ground? No, you have stooped into the cesspit of which it would appear you are accustomed.
Tom, I am not BadBiz but thanks for the compliment; I wish it were me taking you to the Queen's Bench and suing you, your fellow directors (fictitious or not), and your companies; although I am sure I will be present as will many others!
12-08-2011:
Informer28 rightly presses for an answer to the question of why, (not 'if') The Social Media People telephoned and pretended to be a solicitor in order to make threats.
In the telphone message from The Social Media People which confirmed that such an action occurred, TSMP also told a pre-meditated lie about tracing me on ComplaintsBoard, through 'I.P. tracking'.
Hear the lies yourself by listening to the recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsdMJgoQDqI
Quote: "Er, we have instructed a solicitor to review the case, one of our in-house legal advisors; and obviously I believe he spoke to you a little while back in terms of some slanderous comments that you’d been makin’.
It now appears through a little bit of research on the internet IP trackin’, that kind of stuff that on complaintsboard.com err, 17hours and 20minutes ago from today you have again actually posted something libellous."
Think about it - if TSMP could trace someone as it described:
1. They could trace EVERYONE using this forum.
2. They wouldn't have accused the wrong person of libel (because - as they admitted later - it wasn't me!)
Fake solicitor - premeditated lie. I.P. tracking - premeditated lie. Fake director - premeditated lie. Accusation of libel - wrong.
Clive_Wilmot Yes just the same as the people that write to others on Twitter, I don't suppose that Clive_Wilmot would like to reveal his true identity. If as you say my forum is little and silly why do you even bother to mention it.
Companies House Records Prove that The Social Media People lie all day long 12 years they have been in business, accordingly that hav'nt even been in business 12 months. They have broke Companies House Law in other words commited a criminal offence. I wonder what other crimes they have committed.
The Social Media People are a Scam end of story eveything about them is completely fake.