- This topic has 74 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Corm, in the thread you have locked you claim you removed the original thread ‘on advice’ and it was not a matter of ‘censorship’.
May I ask (and I believe I may do so on behalf of others);
a) who’s advice
b) what was the advice- Total Posts 17716
char·la·tan
(shärl-tn)
n.
A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
Ffs, Corm – why????Lets just support cormack guys.
This is a really useful forum and well run. I am sure there are reasons.
So lets just enjoy our interchange of views, and let it continueA real shame IMHO.
The best thread I’ve seen on here since I’ve been around and fantastic work in spending money and dedicating time and effort from the thread starter on behalf of others.
It’s just a sad fact that in all walks of life nowadays people who appear to do wrong end up being protected and seem to have more rights than those who don’t.
For a second there, I thought Mr Naughton had got in touch and given his half of the story.
We knew they were bad, but I, for one, didn’t know expensive tipping services could be
that
bad.
Ta for that, AJ.
Can’t believe the thread was pulled. The fact that it ran for over a week before it was removed makes it even more of an injustice IMO. Very twitchy.
Comrades, Comrades. Please do not feel sad. Chairman Cormack knows what is best for you. The Party agrees with him and even dear old Uncle Joe if he were still alive would support The Party line on this matter.
Have you forgotten all that The Party has done for you? Surely not. Remember the old days when Csar Nick allowed you to live and die in poverty. Chairman Cormack has changed all that and it is thanks to him and him alone that we are now able to enjoy the scraps of bread on our tables. Be grateful, be happy, love The Party.
What is more important…free speech and democracy or the opportunity to make The Chairman happy?
But let me warn any dissenting voices. If you continue your wicked ways you will be crushed into defeat and your existence will be wiped from the pages of history. It will be as though you never happened.Ken
P.S. These days, the forum shenanigans remind me of that cartoon where the character with the rubber, rubs himself out of the picture. Judging from recent forum traffic that seems a distinct possibility here. Timidity is not one of life’s most appealing qualities, except in puppies and goldfish.
Cormack wrote…It’s not a case of censorship but we do need to act prudently in the best interests of the forum.
Of course it’s censorship, Cormack. When you say we need to act prudently…who is the we, please? The bottom line is that this is, and perhaps never has been, a forum of the people, for the people.
It’s Cormack’s enterprise and he and he alone decides what’s good for us but, more importantly, what’s in his own best interests.Cormack wrote… You’ll hopefully appreciate that we very rarely remove threads/posts.
Sorry to disagree Cormack…but I’ve seen more censorship than ever over recent months. It’s one of the reasons I feel the forum has become so very innocuous and uninspiring these days. To suggest censorship is very rare is doing yourself an injustice.
Rather than hide your reasoning behind PM’s would it not be more appropriate to let everyone have the opportunity to read your thoughts on the matter? This might enable us to avoid falling into a similar situation at a future date. After all, if you’ve received learned advice then perhaps we could benefit and become ‘better’ members by avoiding the pitfalls of ‘crossing the line’ into what you perceive as no-go areas.
Ken
- Total Posts 17716
Thank you, Corm, for doing what needed to be done. It is not worth risking the existence of the Forum for the sake of the Naughton Thread, which was an unholy mixture of the Obvious and the Actionable. Do these people think they can write anything without consequence to themselves, and to the Forum in which they write? Good riddance.
A shame that it had to go – the man is deceiving the paying public with (deleted) claims of ‘my man this, my man that’, yet has immunity from criticism.
Smithy, why pick on him? Why Naughton? Why not anyone of the fifty or so tipsters who advertise in the Post every week. Was there some personal agenda inherent? Why did the OP not choose Brimardon, a tipping agency no stranger to Trading Standards. Robert Croft? The Sweeney? There are plenty to choose from.
Inventing gallops contacts, paddock men, form gurus, deep throats and nose-tappers is part of the context for a tipster and has been for years. Describing the sunset over the Watered Gallop when said tipster has never left Hartlepool is just descriptive banter – you’d have to be bonkers to believe it. Cynical, yes. Deserving of vicious attacks? Is it
really?
All this thread has proved is that firstly, Naughton isn’t a particularly good tipster, and secondly, that there is a pack mentality amongst men which is deeply unpleasant. To be frank, the reek of burning torches in the last twenty or so posts was a bit below the forum. In fact a lot below it. Cormack did the right thing on this occasion and generally, I’m against any censorship except self-censorship.
Max,
Once you go down the route of operating a tipping line, you are surely fair game for criticism? Why not Brimardon, why not The Sweeney? Why not indeed – perhaps they are next in the OPs sights. The slight difference being those two firms a) don’t appear on our tv screens three times a week and b) aren’t marketed as ‘The Ethical Edge’.
eth·i·cal
/ˈɛθɪkəl/ Show Spelled[eth-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2.
being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.What if PN had had an exceptional week’s tipping – we would all have read about how good he was and it may have drummed up extra business for him.
I think there"s a bit of dramatics going on here! Fair play to Armchair/Equi/Media for exposing Peter Naughton as a Chancer,but thats all he is,he"s no worse than the sellers of Strawberrys and Cream at Glorious Goodwood who rob the racegoer blind and the course bookmakers who offer 1/5th the odds instead of a 1/4! We"re all "Gullible Gordons" at times!
Max
Descriptive banter it may be but if it isn’t true it’s misleading all the same. I know the OFT had cases a couple of years back that dealt with misleading advertising and the claims these telephone sevices make ought to have some sort of accountability applied to them. If they say they are £100 up to level stakes this flat season they ought to be able to back that up with verifiable facts. What I can’t fathom either is why the flowery talk is needed as its just a filler for keeping the caller on the phone as long as possible at £1.50 a minute. Get rid of the chat and just charge a flat rate for the information supplied, horse,time,course, bet type. No my man says this, no excuses if beaten, just the basic info required. £5 a call for thirty seconds rather than 3 minutes of waffle talking about what they had for breakfast.
Smithy, why pick on him? Why Naughton?
All this thread has proved is that firstly, Naughton isn’t a particularly good tipster, and secondly, that there is a pack mentality amongst men which is deeply unpleasant. To be frank, the reek of burning torches in the last twenty or so posts was a bit below the forum. In fact a lot below it. Cormack did the right thing on this occasion and generally, I’m against any censorship except self-censorship.Agree totally. Well done Corm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.