BIG GROUP was sold to thousands of people through this forum

[BrilloPad]

CUK was the main recruiting ground.

If, as I suspect, members are being taken for a ride, then that should matter to anyone who cares about this place.

You can say it's only £15+vat per month. But WTT are earning £thousands per month.

What's worse is, if it is just smoke and mirrors, then people are being given false hope. Which is not fair.

I invite someone from WTT to refute the above. But please, no convoluted BS.

Why should they respond to you?

[TheDogsNads]

So let me get this straight, this deal or no deal character is not only claiming BG is, in effect, a fraudulent exercise taking money off people for no return. He's also linking CUK as being complicit in this by being the active recruitment platform and that CUK, who presumably vet adverts on the site, did little or none in the case of BG?

That's the gist of deal or no deal's 'BIG GROUP was sold to thousands of people through this forum,' yes?

[eek]

So let me get this straight, this deal or no deal character is not only claiming BG is, in effect, a fraudulent exercise taking money off people for no return. He's also linking CUK as being complicit in this by being the active recruitment platform and that CUK, who presumably vet adverts on the site, did little or none in the case of BG?

That's the gist of deal or no deal's 'BIG GROUP was sold to thousands of people through this forum,' yes?

Did Big Group actually place Ads on the forum - I don't remember any?

[TheDogsNads]

Did Big Group actually place Ads on the forum - I don't remember any?

neither do I but does anyone need to place ads if something is 'sold through this forum' as claimed?

[eek]

neither do I but does anyone need to place ads if something is 'sold through this forum' as claimed?

Your accusation is that CUK, who presumably vet adverts on the site, did little or none in the case of BG

Yet you now admit that Big Group didn't advertise which means you are left with the forum but the HMRC Enquiry forum has always been buyer beware - with everyone allowed to post until they do something obviously wrong.

What seems to really annoy a lot of the recently appearing posters here is that they didn't have the same idea.

[starstruck]

So let me get this straight, this deal or no deal character is not only claiming BG is, in effect, a fraudulent exercise taking money off people for no return. He's also linking CUK as being complicit in this by being the active recruitment platform and that CUK, who presumably vet adverts on the site, did little or none in the case of BG?

That's the gist of deal or no deal's 'BIG GROUP was sold to thousands of people through this forum,' yes?

I don't think anyone has been quite so blunt as that.

Recently people, myself included, have highlighted issues they have had with BG; such as a lack of transparency, a business model that has a conflict of interest with its members, webberg's conflict of interest when posting on CUK. The symbiotic relationship between CUK and webberg (not suggesting collusion, just a mutual benefit), poor responsiveness to BG members, a lack of 'individual' support, the lack of tangible progress etc.

I would add BG/WTT not sharing council opinion to members directly, no insight or accountability when it comes to spending BG contributions. The lack of any evidence behind the provision of success/failure percentage estimates to members. I can think of loads more, there's a whole load of stuff that people can legitimately question.

I joined because I read about it here. I regret joining, so simply wanted to feedback on here my thoughts. Maybe if someone had done earlier I would have saved some money myself. It's not some great conspiracy, it's simple, legitimate feedback and questioning. The issue is a lot of people don't like what's being said because it conflicts with their belief system.

In response to a week of difficult questions from a handful of posters, webberg has chosen to leave the forum. I fully expect him to return before too long.

[creativity]

I don't think anyone has been quite so blunt as that.

Recently people, myself included, have highlighted issues they have had with BG; such as a lack of transparency, a business model that has a conflict of interest with its members, webberg's conflict of interest when posting on CUK. The symbiotic relationship between CUK and webberg (not suggesting collusion, just a mutual benefit), poor responsiveness to BG members, a lack of 'individual' support, the lack of tangible progress etc.

I would add BG/WTT not sharing council opinion to members directly, no insight or accountability when it comes to spending BG contributions. The lack of any evidence behind the provision of success/failure percentage estimates to members. I can think of loads more, there's a whole load of stuff that people can legitimately question.

I joined because I read about it here. I regret joining, so simply wanted to feedback on here my thoughts. Maybe if someone had done earlier I would have saved some money myself. It's not some great conspiracy, it's simple, legitimate feedback and questioning. The issue is a lot of people don't like what's being said because it conflicts with their belief system.

In response to a week of difficult questions from a handful of posters, webberg has chosen to leave the forum. I fully expect him to return before too long.

I have always advocated dealing with HMRC direct if you wanted to settle and put this behind you. I found it very easy, along with the maths which is very basic accounting.
Webberg has no special powers for negotiating - what was due was due, it's as simple as that.
However, if you wanted to fight and not settle hoping for HMRC to return all your APN payments then sure go ahead and pay a couple of grand and join BG or WTT or whoever.
For me it was never worth it, it was disguised renumeration no doubt. The fact I have settled and happy to accept HMRC's view is further evidence I'm providing to Felicitas if I ever receive an SD.
I dont know where others stand who have refused to settle arguing they were loans in one hand against HMRC and in the other hand disputing they were not loans verses Felicitas? Guess the argument with Felicitas should be they arent in a legal position to demand the so called loans.
I would rather prove they were disguised numeration that's for sure...

[TheDogsNads]

Your accusation is that CUK, who presumably vet adverts on the site, did little or none in the case of BG

Yet you now admit that Big Group didn't advertise which means you are left with the forum but the HMRC Enquiry forum has always been buyer beware - with everyone allowed to post until they do something obviously wrong.

What seems to really annoy a lot of the recently appearing posters here is that they didn't have the same idea.

Forgive me, you seem to want to run with the hare and the hounds all too frequently. You always want to dissect things others have posted so you can jump from one side to the other and appear smug inyour ivory tower.

Well done. All you do is drive a wedge in where there shouldnt be.

There's no admitting anything and it is your poor understanding of a straight forward post that makes you think I suggested BG advertised here. I did not.I made an analogy (look it up) about it. But knock yourself out swaping your horses mid course.

I'll make the point clearer for you: The statement was from the OP that the group sold themselves to thousands via the forum. The suggestion there is that CUK is complicity as it was the platform. Presumably, CUK vets adverts on its site yet no vetting of BG seems to have taken place as BG continually used the site to communicate its efficacy.

Now please, stop chasing hares and hounds, it makes you utterly unreliable.

[starstruck]

The suggestion there is that CUK is complicity as it was the platform. Presumably, CUK vets adverts on its site yet no vetting of BG seems to have taken place as BG continually used the site to communicate its efficacy.

That's a reasonable suggestion IMO. I don't see a problem with experts on the forum; it's clearly a boost to all involved. Someone like ILIkeTax who has nothing to sell is a super addition to the site. Issues arise when experts have something to sell; because then there is a clear conflict of interest.

Even legitimate and valid free advice can be made as part of a deliberate effort to gain new business; is this advertising? I think it's a form of marketing for sure. What about when what is being said can't be verified, or is wrong, and it nudges people in a certain direction?

The problem is CUK, not being tax experts, can't distinguish all fact from fiction. They've probably carried out some limited due diligence into webberg and WTT; that they exist etc. But I doubt they've reviewed their plan, spoken to their council, assessed their chances of success and the risks being taken by members etc.

Do CUK endorse BG? Well, I've never seen a warning against webberg's posts and he's been described by mods as "a person of integrity" (https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2837877) so I would say on balance, yes, they probably do.

I think more could be done to improve transparency, in terms of the motivations behind the various posters; messages against posts/users indicating what companies they represent and what services those companies offer for example. But then again, it's just a public forum after all and anyone can create an account and within reason say anything.

[eek]

That's a reasonable suggestion IMO. I don't see a problem with experts on the forum; it's clearly a boost to all involved. Someone like ILIkeTax who has nothing to sell is a super addition to the site. Issues arise when experts have something to sell; because then there is a clear conflict of interest.

Even legitimate and valid free advice can be made as part of a deliberate effort to gain new business; is this advertising? I think it's a form of marketing for sure. What about when what is being said can't be verified, or is wrong, and it nudges people in a certain direction?

The problem is CUK, not being tax experts, can't distinguish all fact from fiction. They've probably carried out some limited due diligence into webberg and WTT; that they exist etc. But I doubt they've reviewed their plan, spoken to their council, assessed their chances of success and the risks being taken by members etc.

Do CUK endorse BG? Well, I've never seen a warning against webberg's posts and he's been described by mods as "a person of integrity" (https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2837877) so I would say on balance, yes, they probably do.

I think more could be done to improve transparency, in terms of the motivations behind the various posters; messages against posts/users indicating what companies they represent and what services those companies offer for example. But then again, it's just a public forum after all and anyone can create an account and within reason say anything.

Once again an intentional misquote

Cojak is stating that webberg (unlike other posters in this forum) checked before doing things and abided by the decisions made.

... has asked me regularly on requesting approval for posts, abides by decisions and generally has contributed a lot to the forum.

I find him a person of integrity.