Darwin

[eek]

Just checked with nominet and they seem to agree with me that Eddy's details should be visible as it is a domain that trades.

The address looks very familiar to people who know dodgy iom scams

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think there comes a point in time when you can't make excuses for people who continue to join these schemes.

Ignorance as a mitigation only goes so far.

[ASB]

I think there comes a point in time when you can't make excuses for people who continue to join these schemes.

Ignorance as a mitigation only goes so far.

If people believe they work then they are of course welcome to take the risk. But, I don't think they pass even the vaguest of sanity checks. Even as little as 2 minutes of due diligence would surely put anything with more intelligence than a single celled organism off.

Certainly 10 or so years ago they had some plausibility, and there could be a reasonable risk/reward ratio at the time.

But now?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If people believe they work then they are of course welcome to take the risk. But, I don't think they pass even the vaguest of sanity checks. Even as little as 2 minutes of due diligence would surely put anything with more intelligence than a single celled organism off.

Certainly 10 or so years ago they had some plausibility, and there could be a reasonable risk/reward ratio at the time.

But now?

Trouble is - it's not difficult to convince someone of something that they want to believe. We have people calling us every single day asking how they can 'maximise their income' - we explain the risks, refer them here and to the BN66 thread and it makes no difference at all. We just end up saying type 90% take home into Google and pick one but don't come crying to us when it all goes hideously wrong

[jbryce]

I'm just sad now.

Trouble is - it's not difficult to convince someone of something that they want to believe. We have people calling us every single day asking how they can 'maximise their income' - we explain the risks, refer them here and to the BN66 thread and it makes no difference at all. We just end up saying type 90% take home into Google and pick one but don't come crying to us when it all goes hideously wrong

This is going to send dreadfully naive, but is there nothing illegal about what these companies do? It just seems bonkers than they can con people into using these schemes without any comeback. Especially given upcoming legislation which effectively means that any existing scheme will fall foul of GAAR and therefore be liable for APNs and FNs at some point in the future.

It's truly depressing.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

This is going to send dreadfully naive, but is there nothing illegal about what these companies do? It just seems bonkers than they can con people into using these schemes without any comeback. Especially given upcoming legislation which effectively means that any existing scheme will fall foul of GAAR and therefore be liable for APNs and FNs at some point in the future.

It's truly depressing.

There is a liability for promoters https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...dance_v1_0.pdf but it seems quite a long winded process and I am not sure how effective it will be

[eek]

There is a liability for promoters https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...dance_v1_0.pdf but it seems quite a long winded process and I am not sure how effective it will be

Sadly, Unless HMRC get the ability to make the directors of such schemes personally jointly liable for all debts they will continue to appear.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Of course they will - if the scheme promoters have no risk of liability they've got nothing to lose have they