the social media people net66 review: scam 850

The issues that people have tried to express on here, some in a very basic format to enable those who's life skills do not include English, have never been answered to anyone's satisfaction; They have been very simple questions and a simple response has not been forthcoming. Instead a a torrid of irrelevances are placed by Tom McVey.

I repeat the very simple question I asked above, which was totally ignored, I ask it again:

'...I am more than happy to explain my own personal atrocious experience with your company to an independent third party, and let them make an unbiased conclusion. If the outcome proves that I have misconstrued events, then I will happily withdraw and apologies accordingly, Is the same true of yourself?..

Incidentally Tom taking words out of context does you no favours:
Scam
Noun 1. scam - a fraudulent business scheme; swindle, cheat, rig - the act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme; "that book is a fraud"
Verb 1. scam - deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"

People are referring to your companies as a Scam because your companies are " ...a fraudulent business scheme.." and you "..deprive by deceit.."

Your use of wording such 'amicable' is out of context, it is used when characterized by friendship and good will, of which you and your companies haven't displayed to date, other than when they take money from individuals, after which they generally receive a complete lack of any customer service other than abuse and threats.

So it is hardly surprising that people who have been recipient of you and your companies "customer care" that they wish to air your dirty washing in public!

I post this image that speaks for itself, and I also post on this link http://badbizforum.com/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd/the-social-network-marketing-company-ltd-pending-investigation/ In response to Tom McVey.

Manchester Misery and Informer 28 its a good point and it has been offered already. I agree totally that a third party is the best option and the correct forum for an independant opinion is a law court. If Tom McVey really wants to defend his company he and his Solicitor Johnathon Barker Smith, should firstly start with answering the Pre-Action notice formally. And in that matter that he intends to defend each and every point raised.

If he is stating that he or his company are being defamed as he keeps on he should be taking legal action to do that.

Tom McVey's silence on the law front only proves one thing. All his previous threats were false and what he is stating now is false and defamatory.

08-07-2011: The Social Media People Can’t Add-Up, 1.
(2 posts – One short; one longer with detail):
Until very recently we saw The Social Media insist that all, or most, of the contributors to this forum are ‘competitors and reputation management companies’, and such like.
Now TSMP has changed its target of blame, and claims that ‘99% are Steve BadBiz Jones’.
The blame is always with someone else as far as TSMP is concerned, but things don’t add up.
Why not analyse the 15 pages of contributions and make your own calculations.
However you do the arithmetic that claim is patently ridiculous.
Which leads to one of two possible conclusions:
1. The Social Media People is unable to do a simple arithmetical sum. (i.e. ‘it can’t add up’). OR -
2. The Social Media People is lying.
- Or possibly both!

08-07-2011: The Social Media People Can’t Add-Up, 2.
Until very recently we saw The Social Media insist that all, or most, of the contributors to this forum are ‘competitors and reputation management companies’, and such like.
Now TSMP has changed its target of blame, and claims that ‘99% are Steve BadBiz Jones’.
The blame is always with someone else as far as TSMP is concerned, but things don’t add up.
Why not analyse the 15 pages of contributions and make your own calculations. However you do the arithmetic that claim is patently ridiculous.

We know without a shadow of a doubt, that at least 2 are real customers. (TSMP published letters from one of them; and I have published many proofs which confirm me as a real customer.)
There are well over 30 different ‘identities’ who’ve posted.
At least 4 of the ‘identities’ were supporters of TSMP’s case.
At least 3 ‘identities’ are TSMP (Steven Jackson, SMP Customer Service, Tom McVey)
At least 3 are ‘spammers’. (Let’s leave them out of any calculations.)

Look at the sums on numbers of different contributors (Based on TSMP’s claim that 99% are BadBiz):
If, 4 ‘identities’ support TSMP, 3 ARE TSMP, and there are 2 genuine customers; there would need to be 991 further identities to produce the claimed figure of ‘99% are Badbiz’. Wrong!
If there were only 2 real customers, + Steven Jackson + Tom McVey + SMP Customer Services: that would mean there should be 595 other ‘identities’ posting on this thread. Wrong.
If you take out The Social Media People’s representatives, leaving just 2, provable, customers it would still mean there should be at least 298 others posting. Wrong.
There is no combination which could give a result of ‘99% is BadBiz’.

OR, looking at it from a slightly different viewpoint - The volume of ‘posts’:
(NOTES: We know that many of The Social Media People’s posts are not here now – either removed by themselves or because of complaints. The reason is not important here. The company’s early posts accounted for at least 2 pages worth of content.)
Before BadBiz entered the discussion (on the current page 3), at least some of 2 contributors posts had ‘disappeared’.
When TSMP 1st claimed that BadBiz was 99% of contributors there were12 preceding pages of complaints about them.
Before BadBiz joined there were 3 pages of ‘posts’ (or 5 if you reinstate those by TSMP!).)

Even if you accepted that there were no other contributors (not even TSMP!), the maximum possible for BadBiz would be 75%.
(And that doesn’t account for me who has made the occasional contribution!)
If you accept the fact that there is an absolute minimum of 2 genuine, provable, customers (in reality there are many, many more) + TSMP, you might come up with 50%.
So once again TSMP fails to convince. It can’t add up – on invoices, nor contribution levels on this forum.

There are only 2 possible explanations for the TSMP claim - that ‘99% are BadBiz’:
1. The Social Media People is unable to do a simple arithmetical sum. (i.e. ‘can’t add up’)
2. The Social Media People is lying.
OR - possibly both!
Once again, The Social Media People has proved, from source, that it has poor business practices and/or no honesty, no integrity, no ethics, no honour.

(Attached: Invoice – showing TSMP can’t add-up!)

As well as lacking in written English as a life skill, it would appear that the 'management' also are lacking in basic arithmetic! (re invoice above) Why am I not surprised!

For such a 'large' up and coming' company, TSMP profess to be, to produce such basic errors exemplifies the standard of company it is! More akin to "Hodge it and Bodge it"

Joe54, have a look at your bank/credit card statement, I think you will find that you were debited not by TSMP but by another. If this is the case you are under no contract to them and can claim the monies back (just contact your bank / credit card company for a cash-back) Incidentally, after researching, the TSMP's T&C are not worth the paper they are written on and in a court of law (even small claims court) you could run a train through them and win hands down

Perhaps xbox is messing with our minds? Or is it a slip of the 'Submit' button?

We may never know.
So here is another example of wrong addition by The Social Media People, on a (supposedly) VAT Invoice.
99 = 119?
Once again it claims 'VAT Number Applied for' even though the company has been registered for VAT for several months.

What's the 'Clicks' deal? Anyone been offered an agreement which was for 'clicks' rather than 'impressions'?
If so, how many 'clicks' did you get for your £99.00 (or £119.00 if you can't add up!)

Another excellent example of appalling accuracy and business practices.

I have a second business and was called on this phoneline the other day. When I said to the girl that I knew all about the Social media People and that I was fully aware of the scam, she just put the phone down.
Now if Tom McVey was running a reputable business why wouldn't his employees object or challenge my statement, surely if you believed you were offering a genuine service you would say "I'm sorry but tht's not true!", but no she put the phone down. Now if that isn't proof that they are scamming people I don't know what is.

PheonixKnight
You are jumping to conclusion, they give a flying ###!
We all know that they don't, they don't give a dam about either prospective, existing customer or previous; or as it appears their employees either! What a company. If they McVey's had a brain cell it would be lonely!
Yes this is a personal reflection on your company and you as individuals McVeys'

In such a short message Informer28 has shown great perception. When posting on the forum, there should be no expectation of a reasonable or businesslike response from The Social Media People. It has been proved many times over that it won’t happen.
Post messages to make your point, to vent a little of the anger and frustration, to share information; but perhaps most important - to enable new visitors to be unequivocally sure of just what they are dealing with, and to possibly ease their route through the mire that is The Social Media People.

The issue is the appalling business practices and lack of honesty, integrity, ethics and honour of The Social Media People.

They do say that if you had an infinite number of monkeys tapping at an infinite number of keyboards, eventually they would write The Works of Shakespear.
It seems that the monkeys at The Social Media People are going backwards! It used to be just bad spelling, bad grammar, bad construction, but now all verbs have gone missing, and the story line seems a little repetitive.

Let's not be diverted - The issue is the appalling business practices and lack of honesty, integrity, ethics and honour of The Social Media People.

WILL YOU...

Are these the words that are going to be used in defence of the company when you go to court. There cannot be a person left who belives a word you have said.

this has appeared in local tourism association newsletter to the trade

Tourism Update July 2011

Please be Aware...
We have recently been contacted by members concerning phone calls they have received from people purporting to be working for either Google Ads or Facebook Ads. These callers have used a combination of high pressure sales techniques, offers of a free trial and demands for money for services businesses have already allegedly signed up too.
Please be aware of these calls and if in doubt give yourself time to check your records and find out who you are dealing with.
If you have received any calls like this please get in touch, as we would like to know if this is a common occurrence.

I wonder who this could be

With regret, we are still made to reply to non-sense on here daily.

We have ran a very long time, very successfully. We genuinely care about our customers. YES! we have suffered some comments on here from some anonymous & some malicious individuals but they stem from the same repetitive and extremely misguided individuals.

I very strongly urge anybody who wants to do business with us to get in contact & not to take anything from some of the nonsense written on here. I am keen to see if there are any genuine people on here as I have repeatedly offered anybody to get in contact with me direct if they have apprehensions and/or questions

Kind Regards
Tom McVey

Hi There, Well I am the latest victim of The Social Media People. I have just been scammed for over £300. After receiving a cold call from them at the beginning of May, I stupidly took out a contract with them, after they convinced me that I would have 1000 impressions a day...3 months later, not one enquiry...I really don’t believe that my advert has been up at all. I have been on the phone to the very rude customer service people all morning, who refuse to give me their surname (obviously something to hide). When I wanted to cancel my subscription, I sent in a letter on the 03/06/11, and when I called them on the 07/06/2011 to see if they had received it, they said that they haven’t. They eventually confirmed they received it on the 14th of June, and as they have a 30 day cancellation period, I have now been charged again, and guess what...still no enquiries from my advert. They now blame Royal Mail, saying that a 1st class letter can take up to 15 days to be received...UNBELIVABLE. So Mr Tom McVey, I would like to get in contact with you, and let you know about my long and very expensive journey with TSMP. I believe I have been scammed, and I will stop at nothing to get my voice heard.

I have used this lot for few month now.and to be honest I dont know what is going on on here. My acount manger slipped up about online comments today & after a few looks around I can find all sorts. I am now unsure as to weather im safe or not.
althow i have to admit that i do get jobs off of my advert. an my report says i get adviews so im not sure who to beleive. althow i have to say both sides of the argyoument have had falts. social media people need to speak to people more by looks of it.and maybee be clearr to people but that badbiz guy is a skumbag iwas goin to jion and coment on there aswel cos i found both these sites. but o, mhe has made such personal and horrible comments.one thing thatmakes me fell ok about them is they havnot reacted.if people took the piss outa my family i would not bit my tongue. i know badbizguy has torrets cos me an my wife readhis site. to be honest we thinkits funny. but i will be right back on the blower to them lot to get some answers as surely all these comments cane be rong. if anyone has info i would like to know. but uptoo now, my advert is making me reddies but no-one will take me for a toby wath this spayce

i expext an answer tom mcvey by the way

Who's pulling whose chain?

11-07-2011: The Social Media People won't inform the readers - so they'll make up their own minds.
I know that TSMP doesn't feel I should be provided with an answer to any questions. But you'd have thought they might be keen to put their side of the story to others - and explain about the bogus solicitor who phoned me (5 April), which was confirmed by their own Director of Customer Service, Steven Jackson (20 April) - whose voice was identical to their 'legal agent' Jonathan Barker-Smith.
Listen here:
- YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDvXf1jcqM

Without TSMPs well balanced and thoughtful comments, people might conclude that there is something very fishy going on when TSMP phones those who've upset them.

I have messaged the genuine clients & hope to assist accordingly. If any of you do not receive the messages I have sent I will keep trying as there seems to be an error on complaintsboard when sending messages.

Thanks for repeating yourself yet again Tom Faulkner. You were contacted by an in-house legal adviser. Due to the fact you committed libel - written defamation. Your comments have been malicious and insinuate dis-honesty. As I have repeatedly mentioned we provide a good service at a good price. You were only contacted due to lying in a public forum. As you also lied to your bank to try to deceive your bank intending to gain a refund, would you like to inform the rest of the forum the outcome of that. Surely an investigation of the process from the bank carries more weight than your opinion? If you would like to share with everyone the outcome of that & we were proved to have not provided the add as promised surely that would prove something as apposed to your constant repetition of your opinions & speculations.

Again, we have nothing to hide, we a re a successful market leading company and are keen to receive any GENUINE feedback. Get in contact if you are an active, or potential client as we have genuine customers who can inform you of the service we provide, not mindless speculation trying to scare monger.

We are happy to report that what is said on these forums is un verified speculation & has not affected our business in any way shape or form. I would like, if not URGE anybody to get in contact with us as there is some very malicious lies on this thread. I have proved a certain individual has a track record for pretending to be other people to back up his views, and he seems to be keeping up his old trick of pretending to have been "scammed" by us. I can confirm we DO NOT, nor have we EVER traded dishonestly in any way.

I appreciate that the 2individuals involved in constant changing of names & identities are trying to play on the sceptical nature of consumers, based on the old "theres no smoke without fire" they seem to keep commenting in hope that they put people off using us. But seen as though we have genuine reviews, this is not working at all.
Please do not take the lies of somebody you have never met as fact.

Again, any questions, queiries or enquiries, please get in contact direct with us.

Kind Regards
Tom McVey

Also please be aware everytime a new post goes on here we are getting approached by companies who claims to not be associated with complaintsboard.com offering a "reputation management". They seem to have a reputation for extortion, so please be careful what you read into in some of the unverified speculation on here.

http://www.zimbio.com/Exposing+Scams/articles/OnvCa8fpyxJ/Complaintsboard+com+Extortion+Site+NOT+CLICK

http://jonathan-warren.blogspot.com/2009/07/pissedcunsumercom-[redacted]com.html

http://onlineextortion.com/other-gangs-2/other-gangs/

http://scamfraudalert.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/complaintsboard-is-hurtful-to-business/

http://consumeronlineprotection.net/complaints/internet-scam-sites/consumer-online-protection

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/scamfoundorg-c384895.html

Of our tens of thousands of customers, there will inevitably be 1 or 2 customers that are slightly unhappy, but we have NEVER been involved in any crimes or deliberate dishonesty.
Again, there is a lot of scaremongering going on, if you are unsure get in contact.
As a company director I have taken time to consistently defend our ethics on here. This is the level of commitment we have, as a company, to serve our customers. I will happily accept that a handful of people might not have been as much of a success with us as they would of liked & maybe on a few occasions they could even of had a better experience, that I can accept, being called scammers & liars I WILL NOT ACCEPT AS IT IS LIES!

The Social Media People has finally engaged - to respond to a couple of specific points.
I will post 2 messages; each deals with one of the TSMP ‘claims:

TSMP Claim 1: That I was not contacted by a ‘solicitor’, but ‘an in-house legal advisor’.
TSMP Claim 2: Concerning a ‘Chargeback’ through my bank.

Let’s look at TSMP Claim1, and consider some points:
TSMP QUOTE: “You were contacted by an in-house legal adviser.”
TF response: No.
1. The person who phoned CLEARLY stated that he was a solicitor.
2. TSMPs Director of Customer Service CLEARLY stated in the recorded telephone message that a solicitor had contacted me.
(Listen again at: YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDvXf1jcqM

TSMP QUOTE: “Due to the fact you committed libel - written defamation.”
TF response: No.
1. On 5 April, when the ‘solicitor’ phone call was received it was about a different topic – alleging slander.
2. When the Customer Service Director left his phone message he CLEARLY, and unequivocally, confirmed it was a ‘solicitor’ who phoned, and it was about slander. (Listen to the recording.)
He went on to make a new allegation – of libel. An allegation which TSMP later acknowledged as WRONG. (see email)
On 03-05-2011, TSMP sent me an email which CLEARLY, and unequivocally, stated that they had got it wrong. (Full email attached; extract here):
QUOTE: “RE: Libel and Defamation FAO: THOMAS FAULKNER Dear Thomas Faulkner,
We have recently been in communications about Libel and Defamation. After further investigations it turns out 'iockus' isn't you, ”

TSMP QUOTE: “You were only contacted due to lying in a public forum.”
TF response: No.
BOTH the ‘solicitor’ contact [protected]) AND the Customer Service Director telephone message [protected]) PRECEDED any of the posts on public forums. (The ‘iockus’ post to which they refer was placed on 20-04-2011, but TSMP concedes it wasn’t me.)

So in this response you can see that even when the evidence is before their very eyes, TSMP is unable to provide a credible response.
In another post, I’ll respond to their other claim...

I am aware that the attachment on the previous post is difficult (or impossible) to read. Message me if you want a good copy via email. I may at some time, repost the email in a more legible form. (The quote from the email, in the previous post, is correct.

12-07-2011: Response to TSMP CLAIM 2 - Concerning a ‘Chargeback’ through my bank.

TSMP QUOTE: “As you also lied to your bank to try to deceive your bank intending to gain a refund, would you like to inform the rest of the forum the outcome of that. Surely an investigation of the process from the bank carries more weight than your opinion?”

TF response: I made a ‘Chargeback’ claim on the basis of ‘Non-delivery of Service’.
The only points I made to the bank were: ‘I didn’t see the advert. No-one else saw the advert. There was no response to the advert (calls or website activity). BUT MOST IMPORTANY BY FAR – TSMP failed to provide verifiable evidence that the advert had appeared.’
To rebut my ‘Chargeback’ claim, TSMP had available all the staff, expertise and facilities of a large limited company, PLUS the evidence from Facebook (reports, invoice details, confirmations etc). Yet it failed to convince the bank.

The bank accepted my ‘Chargeback’ claim.
The bank repaid me my money. I won my case.

As TSMP states in its recent ‘accusation’, (TSMP QUOTE):
“Surely an investigation of the process from the bank carries more weight than your opinion? If you would like to share with everyone the outcome of that & we were proved to have not provided the add as promised surely that would prove something...”
I AGREE WITH TSMP!
And the bank judged against TSMP. The bank judged in my favour. The bank got my money back for me.
So, using the judgement that TSMP said would be conclusive, and not based on my opinion - Who is the liar?

Also read all the other protestations in the 2 recent TSMP posts – and weep – with laughter at the pathetic, desperate attempts to shore up a deservedly ravaged reputation.
No credibility. No honesty. No honour. No integrity. No ethics. No idea!

Just for anybody who actually might believe Mr. Falkner, the reason he is on a crusade is we notified the police that a group of no less than 12 of his ex-pupils had started a group on Facebook about there ordeal with him in his "driving lessons" there were several allegations of a sexual nature, one used the phrase "scarred for life" and "it still hurts to this day" - this is undeniable truth and can be proved, we have all the screen shots saved & can prove beyond reasonable doubt & without prejudice, that these allegations were made and we reported them.

We exposed this vicious individual & now he seems to be on a crusade to tarnish our reputation. I would be interested to see proof of the so called "charge back win" as I have it on good authority that is yet another LIE!

Unfortunately some people might be of the opinion that Tom Faulkner is a human being with ethics morals & even brains, and it does pain us to stoop to his level, but repeated lies about our business will NOT be tolerated.

Have a go at the service, the website the add design team, have a go at my tie, whatever, but DO NOT question our ethics as we are a family company with a history of good service within the industry!

I want every to here our message that we want to speak to any potential clients so get in touch, I will re-post so The last post riddled with lies is ignored.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Again, we have nothing to hide, we a re a successful market leading company and are keen to receive any GENUINE feedback. Get in contact if you are an active, or potential client as we have genuine customers who can inform you of the service we provide, not mindless speculation trying to scare monger.

We are happy to report that what is said on these forums is un verified speculation & has not affected our business in any way shape or form. I would like, if not URGE anybody to get in contact with us as there is some very malicious lies on this thread. I have proved a certain individual has a track record for pretending to be other people to back up his views, and he seems to be keeping up his old trick of pretending to have been "scammed" by us. I can confirm we DO NOT, nor have we EVER traded dishonestly in any way.

I appreciate that the 2individuals involved in constant changing of names & identities are trying to play on the sceptical nature of consumers, based on the old "theres no smoke without fire" they seem to keep commenting in hope that they put people off using us. But seen as though we have genuine reviews, this is not working at all.
Please do not take the lies of somebody you have never met as fact.

Again, any questions, queiries or enquiries, please get in contact direct with us.

Kind Regards
Tom McVey

Keep plugging away Tom McVey.

When I posted here a while ago you contacted a number of posters to basically warn them off to remove their posts that gave your company in a bad light - this is your ethical tactic. I was one of these people. I spoke to you personally and on the face of it you seemed to agree that we could go our separate ways but in the ensuing correspondence we had you continually accused me of lying to my bank to get my money back, ( I was successful) that I wasn't to post again on these boards, basically I was to keep quiet but I wasn't prepared to accept these bully boy tactics. I offered to go to court and I never heard for a month but the reply was yours to make. A month later I get a reminder that we were now three months in arrears and there was no mention of previous correspondence. Strange that a cancellation that you eventually acknowledge is tossed out of the window, strange how you will attempt to screw another couple of months from a very unhappy customer who you have never tried to reconcile this matter with. There is not a jot of verification to back up that any ads were placed - ever.

It is even stranger how you always offer, on here at least, to talk to genuine customers, when in fact you have no intention of doing that whatsoever. Perhaps I should now publish that correspondence that showed how you changed your position from one of conciliation, which I sought to part company, to my seeking clarification which revealed you were completely untrustworthy.

Will you now respond?

I will continue to post details on the extortion we are having to deal with:

Also please be aware everytime a new post goes on here we are getting approached by companies who claims to not be associated with complaintsboard.com offering a "reputation management". They seem to have a reputation for extortion, so please be careful what you read into in some of the unverified speculation on here.

http://www.zimbio.com/Exposing+Scams/articles/OnvCa8fpyxJ/Complaintsboard+com+Extortion+Site+NOT+CLICK

http://jonathan-warren.blogspot.com/2009/07/pissedcunsumercom-[redacted]com.html

http://onlineextortion.com/other-gangs-2/other-gangs/

http://scamfraudalert.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/complaintsboard-is-hurtful-to-business/

http://consumeronlineprotection.net/complaints/internet-scam-sites/consumer-online-protection

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/scamfoundorg-c384895.html

Of our tens of thousands of customers, there will inevitably be 1 or 2 customers that are slightly unhappy, but we have NEVER been involved in any crimes or deliberate dishonesty.
Again, there is a lot of scaremongering going on, if you are unsure get in contact.
As a company director I have taken time to consistently defend our ethics on here. This is the level of commitment we have, as a company, to serve our customers. I will happily accept that a handful of people might not have been as much of a success with us as they would of liked & maybe on a few occasions they could even of had a better experience, that I can accept, being called scammers & liars I WILL NOT ACCEPT AS IT IS LIES!

12-07-2011:
TSMP claims several 'identities' are false - and indeed some are duplicates. And that's one they were right to be cautious about. I'll assume they won't be writing to me again.
Oops - sorry; a message just came in from Tom McVey. Must rush to read and enjoy it; more later...

We do NOT do character assanation, we have took constructive feedback from clients for over a decade. I have messaged you: Manchester Misery & asked you to provide customer details so I can assist. You ignored and carried on with LIES!

The only reason we will show people to be the liers they are is to dis-prove credibility. All the comments on here have ZERO effect on our business. I respond out of principal, as I said dislike what ever you like call us every name under the sun, but DO NOT call us unethical as we are not!

12-07-2011:
Following Tom McVeys earlier personal message to me I telephoned his mobile.
When he suspected it was me phoning (from a 'number witheld' phone) he hung up, but telephoned back a few seconds later on a 'number witheld' phone number. Strange how he knew where to telephone?!
We then had a long chat.
We agreed that our perceptions concerning the whole affair differed.
Apparently I have misunderstood and twisted everything, and I should be ashamed of myself for badmouthing an honourable, honest, ethical company.

If, and that was a good film, TSMP and associated companies are "...honourable, honest, ethical company.." then it should be a very short Court Hearing!

Or is it the case that Tom McVey has complete contempt for the law of the land and is choosing to ignore the opportunity to place his case in front of an impartial third party i.e. The Queen's Bench and receive the full benefit of the Law?

Should TSMP and associated companies be as he professes, and he is a misunderstood individual (bless) whilst everybody else are liars, cheats what has he go to lose ? Complete exposure of the ethics of his companies and their business practices! What is there to lose? Umh, have to think about that one for a nano second!

Do not question our ethics as we are a family company? Have you never heard of Don Corleone you ###wit McVey? How is the fact that you are a family business an assurance that you act ethically? I reckon Romani Gypsies have got more honour than you ### family. Like maggots festering over a dead body the Mcyey family aren't a family they're a colony of bacteria feeding off other people's hard earned money.
Watch out Tom you amoeba domestos kills germs.

"The only reason we will show people to be the liers they are is to dis-prove credibility"
Yet further evidence that Tom Mcvey went to the same school of illiteracy as Stephen Jackson.
This is quite a philosphical concept that Tom Mcvey has put foward:
The social media people are going to disprove (without the hyphen) credibility. Do you think if they achieve this that the world will disolve into the sort of chaos that they would thrive on? Disprove credibility and credibility no longer exists, in which case no one would question their lack of ethics as their would be no ethics.
Perhaps the Social Media People is an Orwellian organisation aiming to strike a blow at the very heart of civilisation and give rise to the power of rats?

TOM MCVEY GIVE ME THE NAME OF YOUR ACCOUNT MANAGER AT FACEBOOK YOU LYING SON OF A ###

To be fair, excluding the degree of sarcasm, Mr. Faulkners recent comment is the most mature & unbiased comment we have ever seen. Kudos Mr. Faulkner. Looking, assessing & commenting on the subject amicably & without prejudice is a breath of fresh air.
A prime example of unwitting speculation & loose insinuations of disregard for the law & whats right is prominently displayed directly below by informer.
If anybody is a GENUINE customer with issues or apprehensions, I am more than willing to discuss & resolve any of the previous to the best of my ability & resources. I have resolved mis-conceptions & mis-understandings on various occasions and am very keen to do so.
As I said & I will stand by my words till the day i die - WE CARE ABOUT OUR CUSTOMERS.
I have invited genuine feedback & questions many many times. If you come on here to call us this, that & whatever then please expect us to respond to you with the same level of respect displayed.
If your unhappy - that's fine. If you think we could of been better - fine. If you would like to make a complaint - Fine.
But DO NOT call us liars, scammers cheats etc. - BECAUSE WE ARE NOT!

I have nothing to gain by commenting on here & negotiating apart from a personal pride & code of ethics, that both myself & the family involved in our business have lived by for the previous 12 years.

Again, if you want to give constructive feedback it is more than welcomed.

As I have almost finished we have yet another time wasting finger pointer with an opinion & the back bone of a worm.
Why insult Family? You obviously have no dealing with us & to be honest a comparison to Don Corleone is potentially the most dramatic statement used in the history of the world & the universe in its entirety(no sarcasm intended) I doubt very very much that gangsters would get involved in online marketing.
It is a fantastic synopsis of the attitude some of anonymous comments have displayed. If your a customer that feels youve been treated badly then I could understand a few personal digs, but to mask under a anonymous name and make ridiculous comments is not only spineless but ridiculous, funny, but ridiculous.

When are you going to respond to me Tom McVey. Its as if you are ignoring me.

hi phoenix,

are you a client?

i am trying to establish why you think you are entitled to any co-operation from us. You have made some, frankly, horrible comments & I would like to be a man about it & sort them out.
Are you willing to co-operate

No Mr Mcvey I'm not going to reveal who I am as I am not prepared to be accused of paedophilia and rape as has happened to other genuine complainantss on here.

12-07-2011:
Regarding that notorious telephone message previously quoted, let’s now move away from the Customer Service Directors confirmation that a bogus ‘solicitor’ had contacted me – to another important point where there is clear dishonesty. (Unless someone can tell us how TSMP can track IPs in another companies website. And that if they can, why they then come to the wrong conclusion about what they find.)

The recording: YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNDvXf1jcqM
Transcript (extract) 20-04-2011; Steven Jackson Customer Service Director, The Social Media People:
“It now appears through a little bit of research on the internet, IP tracking that kind of stuff, that on complianceboard.com erm... 17hours and 20minutes ago from today, you have again actually posted something libellous.”

1. It has already been shown in an email from TSMP, that it later conceded it accused the wrong person.
So it is agreed that I was not the writer who posted the information to which TSMP objected.
2. Yet, in the message SJ stated that they had traced me through “... internet IP tracking, that kind of stuff...”
If they ‘traced’ me that way; - how? How could they, as it wasn’t me? (And of course – if they COULD trace someone that way they would know the real identity of everyone contributing to this forum!)
It was clearly a lie (or to use TSMP definitions ‘a little mistake’) because if they COULD track the writer in such a way they’d have accused the right person. The IP tracking ruse was just used to give them an excuse to attack a genuine, but aggrieved and vocal customer who was making waves.
3. And it was stated “... you have AGAIN actually posted something libellous.” Yet I had not done it on this occasion, and not on any previous occasion. So TSMP was wrong yet again in the accusation.

Yet another demonstration of TSMP’s low standards across the board.

Eloquent and to the point TF.
It is a shame that TSMP do not have the same degree of decorum, but in reality if ones expectations are low, then one is not disappointed or surprised at the complete lack of professionalism, deceit and dishonesty which has been continually displayed.
The ability to ignore both positive and negative criticism can be best described as putting ones head in the sand, or cesspit!

13-07-2011:
The Social Media People failed to comply with Companies law.

If I asked you for your address, how difficult or time consuming would it be to provide it? Would you risk £1, 000 to avoid telling me?
If you are a Ltd. company there is a legal obligation to provide your Registered Office Address, plus some additional information, within 5 working days, if requested to do so.

The following points are made with reference to:
“Statutory Instruments 2008 No.495, COMPANIES, The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008, 9 & 10.”

If a Ltd. company fails to comply with such a request, it commits a breach of the Companies Act, which is considered to be a criminal act.
A fine not exceeding £1, 000 could be imposed by a court.

Guess what. The Social Media People failed to comply with such a request. (Attached)

Imagine what would happen if lots of people each made such a request, and TSMP failed to comply.
Each failure would be a new breach. Each failure could cost them £1, 000.

Chronology:
(a) 25-04-2011: Original email sent.
(b) 04-05-2011: Follow-up Recorded Delivery letter received by TSMP.
(c) 13-07-2011: Still no reply.

Either The Social Media People doesn’t mind paying fines or committing criminal acts, or it is just VERY inefficient.
In either case, who would want to trust them with their business?