the social media people net66 review: scam 850

Picking nits could be regarded as a sensible thing to do. There will be less lice!

Tom Faulkner

Some might think you are 'nit picking' at the 'mistakes' which is certainly the case of TSMP/Tom McVey however, if anybody reads your comments which contain factual information with regard to the law breaking that said TSMP/Tom McVey & Co engage', it leaves little doubt to anybody who has a grain of sense as to whom is telling the 'porkies' and who is telling FACT!

So to all, read Tom Faulkners' posts, listen to the Utube recordings, digest and then read the remainder of this particular site and if your gut reaction, logical reaction do not come to the firm conclusion that TSMP/Tom McVey and his criminal close family are not the controllers of a Blagging, Scamming, Criminal group of companies I, and all affected (including LLoyds TSB) will be extremely surprised and wish to know why not?

01-09-2011:
One aspect of TSMP/Net66’s recent Registration as Data Controllers which should alarm readers, is that until 16 August 2011 the companies were operating WITHOUT such Registration (and Registration IS a legal requirement).
That means that however well – or however badly – the companies were storing and using your personal data, bank details etc, they were ‘below the radar’ of the official body overseeing the security and appropriate us of people’s personal information.

Why did they not register before being forced to?

We’ll probably never know, but my guess is that they couldn’t be bothered, and also thought they’d save the huge fee of £35.00 per company. They’d reason that the money is better in their pockets, than the government coffers!
Or just possibly, as TSMP has frequently said to me: "It was just a little mistake!"

01-09-2011: - 2. DSARs. The I.C.O. confirms that The Social Media broke the law a further x3.

More in relation to ICO and The Social Media Peoples lawbreaking:
A while ago I wrote that the Social Media People (and associated companies) had failed to respond to DSARs, which is a legal requirement. (Data Protection Act, Section 7)

The Information Commissioner’s Office has (on 25 August) now confirmed that The Social Media People (and associated companies) broke the law 3 times by not responding to DSAR’s.

Although TSMP companies returned a couple of cheques to me demanding VAT – a tax which IS NOT due on such statutory charges – the payments have been re-submitted to the companies, as I think they are in dire need of the £20.00. And they will now be thrilled to comply with the law and send the information.

I still don’t have the DSARs but await with excited anticipation their arrival.

01-09-2011 - 1. Data Controllers. The I.C.O. confirms that The Social Media broke the law x2.

A while ago I wrote that The Social Media People (and associated McVey companies) were not registered as ‘Data Controllers’ which is a legal requirement for such organisations. (‘Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations’, and ‘Data Protection Act’)
The Information Commissioner’s Office has (on 25-08-2011) now confirmed that The Social Media People had broken the law in that respect, but since 17 August they have now registered, for the first time, as Data Controllers no further action will be taken on the matter. (New Registrations: Net66 - Z2811470; TSNMC - Z2811561)

I imagine that TSMP and Net66 paid £35.00 per company, as for companies with less than 250 employees that’s the charge. (However, as TSMP has claimed to have over 600 employees perhaps it was honest enough with ICO to pay the £500.00 charge.)

(It is worth noting that The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd. (remember all those lies about ‘London’ and ‘Regent Street’ etc) is registered as a Data Controller at Portugal Street East. Manchester.)

01-09-2011: The Man With 3 Voices at The Social Media People’s scam – in under 2 minutes.

These recordings give a powerful insight into the absence of ethics and integrity of The Social Media People – Net66. They are particularly valuable as TSMP has admitted on this forum that they are genuine – so no arguments the genuine nature of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVv4_Ewl4M

In 2 short telephone messages there are at least 9 premeditated lies spoken by TSMPs Director.
Threats and harassment are the 'meat' around the lies.
The messages last approximately 108 seconds; so there is about 1 lie every 12 seconds.

No honesty (Lies). No Integrity (Pretends to be other people.) No ethics (Intimidates customers.) No accuracy (intimidates the WRONG customer). No ‘guts’ (Hides behind ‘withheld’ phone numbers & aliases.)

Bonus track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOJFDvPcOU -
Although the voice sounds familiar there are no 'Credits' available as this caller is 'Anonymous'!
-

And wait for it '...The ASA..'

resilwood you eloquently state what I feel the majority of discontented already know; although TSMP/Tom McVey will 'hang' onto displaying a misquote in the hope that people are swayed - A fools errand! It reiterates the contempt TSMP/Tom McVey express towards it's customers and ex clients by ignoring all legitimate concerns and criticism, both positive and negative.

A suggestion was made that in fact TSMP placed the adwords campaign themselves so to achieve an ASA ruling so that they could 'crow'? I personally feel that it was an ex employee from various conversations I have had with said exemployee! Regardless it is not worth the paper it has been written on and does not address any of the real concerns with regard to the abysmal business practices that TSMP engage i.e No Integrity, No Honesty, No Morals, No Service, etc.

The SMP only seem to be capable of copying and pasting one post which is about the adjudication that went their way - or so they like to think. I had to write to the ASA as I couldn't believe this decision. However, it seems that the SMP have no real grounds to use this as a victory.

So it may be of interest that I was so incensed by the ASA adjudication in favour of the the SMP that I protested strongly. I suggested that they had not considered properly the activities of the SMP and the way they performed their business. These activities were not revealed in this advert, merely alluded to in a sponsored Google Ad which means some poor soul paid for the ad. I suggested that this ad could have been placed by anyone as the ASA had not been able to ascertain who, in fact, placed it. The ASA replied that ‘the remit of the ASA does not extend beyond advertising claims in advertising media, and we cannot deal with any issues regarding trading practice’ This means that the many issues that vex many on this board are beyond the remit of the ASA. They go on ‘we would strongly urge any consumers with any concerns about a business or its trading practices to contact Trading Standards about this matter.’
In short and regarding the ad itself, the ASA had asked for supporting evidence for the claim made in the offending advert, as that is what is required under the advertising code. ‘In this case no evidence was forthcoming, nor indeed was any comment or detail regarding the workings of the TSMP and the ways in which the advertiser considered that they were running a scam. Because we had not seen evidence to support the claim in the Google sponsored link, we had no option but to uphold the complaint…and the reason the ASA Council upheld the complaint is due to a lack of supporting evidence from the advertiser’. It is very odd that the ‘advertiser’ who, it was stated by the ASA defiantly stated that they would continue to post this advert but actually offered nothing whatsoever to back up his claim.
I think everyone can see that this decision does not consider the matters the SMP says it does, nor could it investigate them under their terms of reference. It does not clear them but merely asked for the ad to be removed by the offending advertiser – whoever that might be!
My letter also addressed other issues to do with the SMP regarding its use of intellectual property in the form of company logos. They say that ‘We note your comments about the use of logos on the Social Media People’s website. I understand that the matter is already being looked into and will therefore pass your concerns to our Complaints team.’ Subsequently, Justine Grimley, Complaints Executive, ASA has just replied to me. 'we have added your comments to our ongoing investigation into claims on this advertiser’s website.'
It is clear from this correspondence that the ASA can only look at advertising claims made by companies or individuals. In the instance of the adjudication, they did not look any further than the claims made in this sponsored link and nothing was forthcoming in the way of comment or evidence.
It in no way exonerates the SMP as the ASA can only act on evidence given to them. It does seem strange that someone would be so annoyed as go to the trouble to pay for an advert and then offer no evidence or comment to support their claims in this advert when pressed to do so.
Furthermore, the ASA is still investigating the SMP regarding other complaints – ones we are familiar with and which have brought successive changes to their website because they have been found out so it is amazing that they are crowing on this website about the adjudication as if they are virtuous and good and indeed blemish free.

Dream on!

Public Relations Team@ The Social Media People, you are the 'wordsmiths' for TSMP? Although the terminology, spelling mistakes and mathematical mistakes and general lack of written English question whether in fact Tom McVey is using a 'Team' as his latest online pseudo name.

A real blunder in TSMP's first paragraph above. I quote:

'..advertising watchdog AKA somebody/something...'

Tom McVey, do you mean ASA? or if not please advise as to what the AKA are, thank you!

It ultimately say's it all when TSMP's 'professional' public relations team can not even get the correct Acronym for the organisation that they freely miss quote to any challenge to their business practices regardless of relevance!

Lack of professionalism me thinks! lol

On a lighter note:

Please see
http://www.complaintsboard.com/thumb.php?messup=651&src=tempbig_d97f0.jpg&wmax=170&hmax=176
We understand Tom McVey!

'...the ASA...' How surprising!

As previously stated:
'...TSMP have no genuine response which will do them any justice as they can not refute:
- Irregularities in their invoicing process.
- Irregularities in their vat collection and remittance to the Inland Revinue.
- Irregularities in their submissions to Companies House
- Irregularities in their official trading addresses, which to-date have changed at times almost daily.
- Irregularities in their services offer, selling 'clicks' but administering 'impressions'.
- Irregularities in their service offer which are unmanageable and non Facebook demographics e.g. not 10, 25 or 50 miles from a town/city but offering 5 mile radius etc.
- Irregularities in their communication with existing and previous clients.
- Irregularities in their banking portal.

The above list is not a total, and each irregularity is an issue in its own right, all of which have been placed at the feet of TSMP and have been subsequently brushed under the carpet with a standard '...the ASA...' response and irrelevant accusations.

As can be observed from Tom McVey and TSMP the standard '...The ASA...' repetitive, out of context response is thrown at all challenges.

Claiming anybody who challenges TSMP's business practices is "anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals..." is exceedingly rich coming from a company who intend to do harm to 'clients' bank accounts by tricking them into a 'trial' month which in-effect is a rolling 30 day contract which they try to enforce for at least 3 months to no benefit to the client. Claiming those dissatisfied clients of theirs are obsessed when having or showing excessive or compulsive concern with something that has 'ripped' them off and scammed them of their hard earnt cash; which incidently is predominantly sole traders and small businesses. With regard to anonymous, well having been recipient of the abuse and threats from Tom McVey as have numerous other individuals who have had the misfortune to have had any dealings with the McVeys (numerous documentary recordings of Tom McVey being abusive and threatening to ex clients are available on Utube, will forward if required) so it is hardly surprising that people use nom de plume; although Tom McVey has used several on this site himself, as well as claiming to be the police, a solicitor, a legal representative, a non existent company director but to name a few of his aliases when phoning people up with threats and abuse!

So when you see the ASA misquote continually being used, ask the question: "why aren't all the other issues that are being stated on this and other complaints forums being addressed?"

I would suggest that the ASA quote is the only piece of evidence that does not cause them too much of a headache unlike Bank investigations, visits by Trading Standards, Bailiffs, questions by Companies House with regard to the irregularities on their own companies documentation, investigation by Inland Revenue over VAT but to name a few of the 'hick cups' that TSMP and the McVeys are experiencing!

Wait for the response from TSMP/Tom McVey '...the ASA...' LOL

I have been watching this site for a while - and with some alarm. Have been angry at the way I fell for this trial offer like others here but it seems to be the same experience as others on here. Awful awful experience but have been doing some complaining myself.

Quote from The Social Media People: "anonymous, malicious & obsessed individuals..."

Sounds like a description of the boss when he phones customers to make threats to scare them off criticising 'the family business'.

Good Morning All,

We are fully aware of frustration of posters at our repetition of posts. However, seen as though our integrity as an advertiser & as a business is at stake it is only fair for any neutral to hear the ruling of an advertising watchdog AKA somebody/something credible & worth listening to. NOT lies & edited evidence. If there is as much evidence & proof & bla bla bla obout us out there why is there no actual governing body, or watchdog ruling and/or investigation against us.

We post facts NOT opinions riddled with unethical comments, and personal details of employee's etc. We post rulings of credible organisations after investigation.

A smart business person will listen to authorities such as the ASA & we would not like to pass judgement as to the type of person that would beleive annoymous people who are personaly insulting our employee's and making outragous claims.

Anybody who is unsure after reading personal insults at employees of our organisation and questions against our ethics can answered by reading the ASA's conclusion:

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/the_social_media_people_scam, -d-, co, -d-, uk/SHP_ADJ_154984.aspx

NOT unverified, annonymous & personal comments from a few malicious individuals. It is plain to see there is a few people who are trying to slander our reputation and bring personal insults into the equation. This is a lower than low tactic that you would not expect from a human being with any morals. We are not going to stoop to their level as it is plain to see that the same people under various names & aliases have embaressed themselves.

Thank you for ongoing support from all of our clients, very much appreciated. We have had several questions and enquiries from clients. This is something we appreciate, and invite. Please be careful of what you might read from un-verified sources and annonymous people online.

########################################################################
BE VERY AWARE OF CRIMINALS ON HERE ASKING FOR YOU INFORMATION, TOM F HAS PROVED HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW IN BREACHING COPYRIGHT LAW, SAME FOR BADBIZ WHO IS A CRIMINAL ON POLICE BAIL, ALSO THE SAME FOR THEIR LATEST SIDE KICK ON THEIR FORUM WHO IS A CONVICTED HACKER. WE HAVE ALWAYS PROVIDED A GOOD SERVICE AND HAVE HAD OUR REPUTATION TARNISHED BY THIS SMALL & INCOMPETENT CRIMINAL RING. WE URGE ANYBODY TO NOT DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION TO THESE CRIMINALS AS THEY HAVE PROVED TIME AFTER TIME THEY HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE LAW.
########################################################################

The reason we are repeatedly posting the ASA's conclusion that: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.

Thats The Advertsing Watchdog, not a ring of criminals!

We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -

We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER, YES OVER (More than) 25, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are conducting in despicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) 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 ASA... Blah blah blah!

TSMP/Net66/Tom McVey/Neil McVey etc will conveniently ignore TF's 31-08-2011: The Social Media People has no ethics and no integrity – And presents the proof itself, on its own website.

Why would they ignore it and continue to miss-quote the ASA, and take out of context what people have said? Well it is more convienent for them, best comparrisoion is 'placing your head in the sand' because TSMP have no genuine response which will do them any justice as they can not refute:
- Irregularities in their invoicing process.
- Irregularities in their vat collection and remittance to the Inland Revinue.
- Irregularities in their submissions to Companies House
- Irregularities in their official trading addresses, which to-date have changed at times almost daily.
- Irregularities in their services offer, selling 'clicks' but administering 'impressions'.
- Irregularities in their service offer which are unmanageable and non Facebook demographics e.g. not 10, 25 or 50 miles from a town/city but offering 5 mile radius etc.
- Irregularities in their communication with existing and previous clients.
- Irregularities in their banking portal.

The above list is not a total, and each irregularity is an issue in its own right, all of which have been placed at the feet of TSMP and have been subsequently brushed under the carpet with a standard '...the ASA...' response and irrelevant accusations.

Would you run your company with such disregard? Would you run your company with such a cavalier approach to your clients and the authorities? Would you want your company run as a scam?

TSMP/Net 66/ McVeys - No Ethics - No Integrity - No Honour - No Honesty - Willfully disobedient of the authority of a court of law and legislative bodies -Scammers!

31-08-2011: The Social Media People has no ethics and no integrity – And presents the proof itself, on its own website.

On 31-08-2011 The Social Media People’s website has articles on which it claims to have copyright, but which are the works of writers who have not given permission, and who are the real copyright holders.
Thus TSMP has ‘stolen’ the articles (or call it ‘ripped-off, or ‘used without permission’).

TSMP version: http://thesocialmediapeople.info/ -verses- http://www.whatissocialnetworking.com/
TSMP version: http://thesocialmediapeople.net/ -verses- http://www.businessinsider.com/why-myspace-had-to-die-2011-7 -and also- http://ezinearticles.com/?Learn-How-Social-Networking-Changed-the-Internet&id=4969834
TSMP version: http://thesocialmediapeople.org.uk/ -verses- http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/06/03/does-social-media-benefit-political-underdogs/

The breaches of copyright amount to more pre-meditated lies – and not just to customers, but to everyone on ‘the world-wide web’.
TSMP is proven in its lies ON ITS VERY OWN website.
Therefore: The Social Media People has – No ethics. No integrity. Tells lies.
-

31-08-2011: The Social Media People lies – Confirmed by The Social Media People

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVv4_Ewl4M

There are many reasons why the 2 minutes of recorded telephone messages are crucial in helping decide whether The Social Media People has no ethics and no integrity.
A vital fact in considering them is that - The Social Media People has admitted that the recordings are genuine.
(Both on this forum, and in telephone conversation.)

Thus any discussion on the merits or otherwise can focus on what was said and who said it; and whether the statements are true or false.
Listen and make up your own mind.

My own conclusions are that the recordings:
* Confirm that The Social Media People claimed to have had a ‘solicitor’ contact me.
(But the person that phoned me previously claiming to be a solicitor was a fake.)

* Confirm that TSMP claimed to have found out I’d ‘posted’ on this forum by ‘I.P. tracking’. – which is untrue.
(a. Because they can’t do it on this third-party website; b. Because they accused the wrong person; c . Because I hadn’t.)

* Purport to be from two people called ‘Jonathan Barker-Smith’ Legal Agent, and Steven Jackson’ Director of Customer Services.
These two employees/people do not exist at The Social Media People.

* Are of one person pretending to be two different people.

* (The recordings contain several additional lies, details of which have been described before.)

Even if only one of those conclusions is true it confirms that The Social Media People plans and tells pre-meditated lies.

If The Social Media People plans and tells pre-meditated lies – to customers or anyone else – it has:
No ethics. No integrity.
-

On a lighter note:

TF, yet again TSMP receive a 'freebie' in the basic art of written English, English Literature and comprehension!

They have also frequently had the benefit of 'free' maths lessons, as their mathematical abilities are also lacking; little things like putting vat on their debatable invoicing, doing basic percentages when the whole is greater than 100, all seems rather traumatic for them.

TSMP, Tom McVey, also requires further acting lessons to be able to pass himself off effectively as different people, as at present his distinctive Oldham/Manchester accent is that of 'once heard never forgotten.' Whether he is trying to pass himself off as the police, a solicitor, a legal adviser, a non existent customer services director or a bad lad gangster from Manchester!

Is there anything that TSMP/Net 66 do not need coaching in? Umh Scamming, being unprofessional, being amoral, being unethical, being uneducated, being threatening, being willfully disobedient of the authority of a court of law and legislative bodies, being perjurious, being criminal, being slanderous, being law breakers, being subject to court action, being contemptuous to clients and ex clients concerns, being ### of the earth but to name a few areas which they appear to have a little if any need to be educated!

There of course is the standard out of context standard response from them:

"...The ASA..." Yawn yawn! For those of you new to this forum, any legitimate concerns which are expressed directly to TSMP are generally met with abuse and threats.

Should you have any concerns with regard to TSMP and Net66 then feel free to direct them, not to the McVey's consortium, but to their bank Lloyds TSB who are currently investigating Net 66 to establish whether they really want to be associated with a Scamming Company! I think we can already guess the outcome!

McVey's, I think the phrase 'shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted' will have a greater impact on your business empire than your intellect will allow you to appreciate and understand!

Power to the People :)

The Social Media People - They still can’t do it, can they – present a cogent argument.
And keep in mind this is the Public Relations Department – the ‘wordsmiths’, the people charged with presenting the TSMP case to convincing effect!

Rather than rely on my interpretation – or that of TSMP - readers should see the actual adjudication of the ASA and judge for themselves.
http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/the_social_media_people_scam, -d-, co, -d-, uk/SHP_ADJ_154984.aspx

It’s easy to pick a comment, quote it out of context, and then rubbish it, or use it inappropriately to support your position. For example: I could take a comment from TSMP’s most recent post, referring to the ASA: “Perhaps they are a "scam””. But it’d be misleading to conclude that TSMP meant the ASA is a scam – because the context of the comment is missing.

However:
In order to bolster its case, and discredit me, TSMP quoted a comment of mine:
TF quote: "Questioning and criticising The Social Media People scam does not reflect on the honesty or efficiency of ASA."
In its inadequate attempt to demonstrate something, TSMP goes on to reason: “If the ASA has said there is NO evidence to support those claims then why would constantly suggesting the opposite (Over 1000+ times for the record) not question the efficiency of the advertising watchdog.? ... Perhaps they are a "scam"?”
- 1. Put simply the ASA DID NOT say that. It stated “...we had not seen the evidence to support the claim, ”
Which is VERY different to saying there IS no evidence. If the advertiser didn’t support his/her position with adequate evidence, it does not mean there IS no evidence.
- 2. If anyone cares to count, they will find that I have not suggested the opposite “1000+ times”. Certainly I have called TSMP a scam on many occasions, but they exaggerate and misquote, which will surprise no-one.

The ASA examines the evidence presented and adjudicates. If the evidence is not presented it has no option but to adjudicate accordingly. It does not go seeking out evidence.
It actually stated: “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.”

So I, and many others, call The Social Media People a scam because we have seen and experienced the evidence of it.
The ASA works within defined parameters, and adjudicates on the evidence presented.

Another statement of mine quoted and commented upon is:
TF: “If a series of crimes is committed by someone (or some company), and everyone knows the culprit, but evidence is not presented to prove the case, the culprit will not be convicted. However that does not mean the crimes were not committed by that person/company - it just means that the evidence was not presented.

TSMP: “That is pure idiocy in a literal format”
TF response: No, TSMP, it is not. But your pathetic attempts to suggest it is show you don’t comprehend written English: and liberally sprinkled through your post are plenty of examples to show you can’t compose and write it either.

The Social Media People Public Relations is incapable of presenting its case in a cogent manner –
- just like Customer Services and Tom McVey before.
-

Also we are willing to just highlight the nature of these comments. Read the above comments re-posted.

The phrase: "Questioning and criticising The Social Media People scam does not reflect on the honesty or efficiency of ASA." is particularly worth reading from a neutral point of view and assesing. If the ASA has said there is NO evidence to support those claims then why would constantly suggesting the opposite (Over 1000+ times for the record) not question the efficiency of the advertising watchdog. Perhaps they are a "scam"?

The particularly worring, naive and ridiculous statement is the ignorant reason why there are 23 pages on this forum of the same individual with the same old accusations. Read this statement and ### the business sense involved in making it:

If a series of crimes is committed by someone (or some company), and everyone knows the culprit, but evidence is not presented to prove the case, the culprit will not be convicted. However that does not mean the crimes were not committed by that person/company - it just means that the evidence was not presented.

That is pure idiocy in a literal format. As you can clearly & plainly see, and beyond any reasonable doubt, this man & his "accompusses" HAVE contacted AT LEAST 10 sperate authorities, or they have lied about their intentions to.
If they can not get anybody with credibility to listen, then the easiest thing to do is post online in the hope people read it & it may effect our business.

Sorry Mr. Faulkner, anyone with a brain can see through your malicious plot.

AGAIN, IN TIMES OF PERSONAL INSULTS AND DAILY ATTEMPTS AT CLIENT POACHING PLEASE ALLOW US TO SAY SINCERELY:
Thank you for ongoing support from all of our clients, very much appreciated. We have had several questions and enquiries from clients. This is something we appreciate, and invite. Please be careful of what you might read from un-verified sources and annonymous people online.

We are happy to deal with enquiries, and answer any questions or queries you may have.

Regards
Public Relations Team
@ The Social Media People
6 hrs 12 mins ago by Tom Faulkner 0 Votes

The Social Media People shows disdain to ALL readers of this forum - and still can't do arithmetic!

Although frequently advised of its (deliberate?) error The Social Media People really doesn't care about accuracy OR FACTS. It quotes and requotes one single piece of evidence whilst 'whistling in the dark' and ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence placed before its eyes.

One FACT is that 21 customers out of 25, 000 is 0.084%. It is not 0.0014% as claimed by TSMP.

They SAY they present 'evidence, not twisted words'...;
but they have once again proved in their own post (above) that they present twisted words, not evidence.

TSMP can't tell the truth; and it can't lie effectively. You could describe them as 'Slapstick Scammers'.

30-08-2011: The Social Media People states it does not want to be called a scam. How about -rip-off merchant' - just for a change?

TSMP continues its ‘Double Standards’ and ‘Breach of Copyright’ antics by adding another incarnation of the same crime.
A ‘spoof website’ was set up by The Social Media People/Net66 to mimic ComplaintsBoard.com. (Still 'live' today)

No-one outside TSMP (http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk) knows WHY this fake website was set up – but it is yet another ‘breach of copyright’ – and amazingly, and insultingly the copyright breached is that of the owner of this forum - ComplaintsBoard.com

Live for the past few months and still 'live' today - See: http://www.thesocialmediapeople-complaintsboard.co.uk/ - and (Attached)

I wonder how thrilled ComplaintsBoard.com is about this matter?

30-08-2011: The subject of this thread is The Social Media People and the scams it runs.

The previous 3 posts have no relevance to the subject. (Posts by: 'camilla4785', 'Likeitornot', Brenda*'; 30-08-2011)

The issue on this thread is the appalling business practices, cheating and lying of The Social Media People.

30-08-2011: The Man With 3 Voices at The Social Media People’s scam – in under 2 minutes.

Following the post by BlinkBrian, don’t forget you can hear the evidence of ‘the mysterious voices’ in recordings at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XVv4_Ewl4M

In the 2 short telephone messages there are at least 9 premeditated lies made by a Director at The Social Media People.
Threats and harassment are the 'meat' around the lies.
The messages last approximately 108 seconds; so there is about 1 lie every 12 seconds.

No honesty (Lies). No Integrity (Pretends to be other people.) No ethics (Intimidates customers.) No accuracy (intimidates the WRONG customer). No ‘guts’ (Hides behind ‘withheld’ phone numbers & aliases.)

Bonus track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOJFDvPcOU - (No 'Credits' available as this caller is 'Anonymous'! –
- Although that voice sounds familiar?)
-

Why does your company send VAT Invoices with the statement 'VAT number applied for' when the company IS registered for VAT?
"The ASA."
Why do your companies persist in sending out documents which breach Companies Act law, despite the intervention of Companies House?
"The ASA."
Why did your company fail to have a functioning Registered Office Address, in breach of Companies Act law?
"The ASA."
Why can't you do simple arithmetic?
"The ASA."
Why do you claim to have over 600 employees when in reality there are only a handful?
"The ASA."
Why did you renage on undertakings to the ASA?
"The ASA."
Why did you change your website at the insistence of the ASA?
"The ASA."
Why have you impersonated a 'Legal Agent' using the alias 'Jonathan Barker-Smith?
The ASA."
Why have you phoned to make threats to customers and others, using hidden telephone numbers and refusing to say who you are?
"The ASA."
Why do you lie to banks when trying to hold on to the money you obtained by scamming customers?
"The ASA."
Why do you tell customers that Facebook reports aren't available, then send Facebook reports to banks?
"The ASA."
Why did your company lose a County Court judgement and fail to comply with the ruling?
"The ASA."
Why do you breach the copyright of writers and website owners?
"The ASA."
Why did you breach Data Protection laws by not registering as required?
"The ASA"
'Finally - for the moment...Why are you deceitful, unethical, scamming, amoral, unprofessional etc...'
'...The ASA.'

(Informer28: I hope I haven't breached your copyright?)
(New readers: TSMP avoids answering questions. It also regularly has posts removed from this forum, which just endlessly repeat a point about the ASA. If the TSMP posts have gone when you read the forums - that's the reason that 'The ASA' appears in this context.)

Hello,
Just to defend myself. Who are The Social Media People to judge me that I have a criminal record? I’d like a DIRECT answer to this question.
How does The Social Media People respond when there are recordings taken from their clients from a legal agent / solicitor and a customer service rep and an anonymous caller of whom all three phone calls are voiced by the same person. Tom McVey I know Tom McVey well I’d like to ask why he phones and abuses myself but not least their old clients.
25, 000 clients? You’ve been established since November. To do a little maths we’ve seen your price structure so at the very least at 25, 000 clients at £99 a year this would make your turn over since November (10 months) at £2475000. Would this be correct?
I’d invite The Social Media People to read my blog post about them http://bseo.co/net66 and ask for a direct message (not a copy and paste) from their messages before but rather a direct message responding to the recordings of Tom McVey slamming his ex-clients.

If anybody does care to know the circumstances regarding my criminal conviction I invite you to read http://bseo.co/hacking

Blah, Blah, Blah

'...Tom McVey, what is your name?'
'...The ASA...'
'Your company has been told to toe the line by your bank, is that correct?
'...The ASA..'
'...You have been acting illegally with regard to accounting methods and siphoning of monies to Net 66 Ltd...'
'...The ASA..'
'...Why have you impersonated a solicitor, police officer, a non existent Director...'
'...The ASA..'
'...why do you insist that you are operating from London, when in reality your operation is trading from the back of Piccadilly railway station Manchester?
'...The ASA..'
'...why are you deceitful, unethical, scamming, amoral, unprofessional etc...'
'...The ASA..'

30-08-2011: The Social Media People scam is still unable to present an arguement accurately:
Quote (above): "We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent!"

1. Of course TSMP stands by its ethics. No one has questioned that point. TSMP's ethics are non-existent, and TSMP stands by that.
TSMP is certainly not speaking from the moral high ground.

2. Questioning and criticising The Social Media People scam does not reflect on the honesty or efficiency of ASA.
The ASA judged the evidence presented to it and had no alternative but to adjudicate the way it did.
If a series of crimes is committed by someone (or some company), and everyone knows the culprit, but evidence is not presented to prove the case, the culprit will not be convicted. However that does not mean the crimes were not committed by that person/company - it just means that the evidence was not presented.
The Social Media People has committed crimes (Companies Act, Data Protection Act), and has also acted following the intervention of ASA.

Good Morning All,

Anybody who is unsure after reading personal insults at employees of our organisation and questions against our ethics can answered by reading the ASA's conclusion:

http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/7/the_social_media_people_scam, -d-, co, -d-, uk/SHP_ADJ_154984.aspx

NOT unverified, annonymous & personal comments from a few malicious individuals. It is plain to see there is a few people who are trying to slander our reputation and bring personal insults into the equation. This is a lower than low tactic that you would not expect from a human being with any morals. We are not going to stoop to their level as it is plain to see that the same people under various names & aliases have embaressed themselves.

Thank you for ongoing support from all of our clients, very much appreciated. We have had several questions and enquiries from clients. This is something we appreciate, and invite. Please be careful of what you might read from un-verified sources and annonymous people online.

########################################################################
BE VERY AWARE OF CRIMINALS ON HERE ASKING FOR YOU INFORMATION, TOM F HAS PROVED HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW IN BREACHING COPYRIGHT LAW, SAME FOR BADBIZ WHO IS A CRIMINAL ON POLICE BAIL, ALSO THE SAME FOR THEIR LATEST SIDE KICK ON THEIR FORUM WHO IS A CONVICTED HACKER. WE HAVE ALWAYS PROVIDED A GOOD SERVICE AND HAVE HAD OUR REPUTATION TARNISHED BY THIS SMALL & INCOMPETENT CRIMINAL RING. WE URGE ANYBODY TO NOT DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION TO THESE CRIMINALS AS THEY HAVE PROVED TIME AFTER TIME THEY HAVE NO REGARD FOR THE LAW.
########################################################################

The reason we are repeatedly posting the ASA's conclusion that: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CLAIMS WE ARE A SCAM.

Thats The Advertsing Watchdog, not a ring of criminals!

We stand by our ethics and to call us a scam is basically calling the ASA a LIAR or Incompetent! -

We know who we'd believe!
________________________________________________________________________________
We would incourage any genuine customers to not give out personal data to any "data poachers" on this or any other site. It transpires some of the people on here who are claiming to "offer assistance" are under investigation form various organisations and we would urge people to listen to the advertising watchdogs conclusion as apposed to comments that are just defamatory.
________________________________________________________________________________

We have OVER, YES OVER (More than) 25, 000 (We are obviously not posting detailed information due to the some malicious individuals on here who are conducting in despicable tactics to try to ruin our reputation.) 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

30-08-2011: Over the weekend of 20-22 August The Social Media People broke the law AGAIN.
Its website showed a false Registered Office Address which was in contravention of Sections 82 to 84 of the Companies Act 2006.

It is irrelevant whether this was an intentional lie, or just one of TSMPs ‘little mistakes’ – The Social Media People broke the law – AGAIN.
TSMP has since rectified the mis-information which shows an awareness that it’s under scrutiny from Companies House.

30-08-2011 3. Also from the same website, on a new thread:

From: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=139948
Post from: ‘Oh No Its’ 1 July 2011
Re: The Social Media People
“Scammers.
Done it before! Doin' it now! Will probably do it again!
Tom McVey, Neil McVey, Grace McVey.
See also: Net66.co.uk, The Social Network Marketing Company, www.thesocialmediapeople.co.uk www.tmandcoweb.com "

Looks like BadBizforum.com and ComplaintsBoard.com are not the only websites receiving helpful contributions to inform people about the truth of The Social Media People and Net66 scams!

2. Another ‘The Social Media People scam’ reference on the same forum:

From: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=1062351#post1062351
Post from: ‘net66scam’ 16 March 2011.
Re: tmandcoweb.com
“BEWARE OF TMANDCO and the likes, - THEY ARE NO DOUBT A BIG SCAM! -
indeed they are ... - this is Tom mcvey's bit of the Net66 scam (neil mcvey) and daughter grace (the social media people AND SOCIAL NETWORK MARKETTING PEOPLE )
its one big SCAM THEY SNEAK IN A BLAH BLAH "TERMS AND CONDITIONS " INTO A RECORDED CONVERSATION AND THEN HOOK YOU INTO A ROLLING CONTACT THAT CAN ONLY BE TERMINATED VIA A LETTER GIVING 30 DAYS NOTICE ...** THE TIME U REALIZE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE YOUR £500 OUT OF POCKET ...”

Now where have we seen that business model, and the names before?

The Social Media People scam - refurbished, refreshed and brought up to date.

30-08-2011: 1. This is just an observation relating to the phrases and ideas used by writers of 'posts'.

There has been discussion that TMandcoweb.com was a precursor or template for TSMP. I don’t know if that is true, but it is interesting to see posts, allegedly from a helpful supportive customer, using an unusual phrase also recently used by TSMP Customer Relations and Tom McVey.

Looking back to November 2009:
From: http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=1062351#post1062351
Post from: ‘BusinessOwnerDorset’ 16 November 2009 – at 06:18am
Re: www.tmandcoweb.com
“... This is just getting silly now, with people who have had no experience whatsoever with the company continually posting at what seem strange times. ...”

So it seems that it’s not just TSMP which is concerned about people not getting a good night’s sleep!

30-08-2011: Judging by past performance of The Social Media People scam it would probably be a waste of time (and a stamp!) to write to ANY address used by them - whether it's an out-of-date 'Registered Office Address' (as suggested by 'HelloNet66'), or any other.

- TSMP never replied to a 'Formal Letter of Complaint' and several DSAR & other 'official' requests which were sent by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery. (And some were even signed for by 'Neil McVey, so the letters were definitely received.)
- The official government body 'Companies House' had letters to TSMP returned marked 'Not Known Here'.
- After becoming alarmed and suspicious about the business methods of TSMP some customers insisted that all future contact should be via the post; yet TSMP persisted in using email despite clear instructions from the customers.

Anyone writing may get some satisfaction by doing so - but should have no expectation of it producing a helpful or meaningful response.

If you have any complaints send them in writing to me.

Neil McVey
Phone - [protected]
7 Wentworth Ave
OL10 2BX

29-08-2011: Someone disregarded The Social Media People Terms and Conditions: - Guess who?

Double standards have been applied already by The Social Media People when criticising others.

There is another interesting twist of ideas on double standards on the website: http://thesocialmediapeople.co.uk/terms.php

On the above TSMP website page, in the inviolable ‘Terms & Conditions’, the following points are made:

“Site Information
Unless otherwise stated, all rights in the material on the Site including copyright and database rights, are owned by
Net66 Web Services Ltd. You are not permitted to print or download extracts from this material for any use.
Using our site
a. You agree to use the Site for lawful and ethical means only.”

That’s all very well - laudable even; BUT:

1. On the same TSMP website, see page: http://thesocialmediapeople.net//
There is an article, a ‘blog’, which is an overt breach of copyright of 2 different authors – neither of which is ‘The Social Media People. (Attribution: “2011 © Cutural History | The Social Media People”)

Whose been unlawfully ripped-off by The Social Media People?:
1. Stefan Paternot: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-myspace-had-to-die-2011-7
2. JJ Mills: http://ezinearticles.com/?Learn-How-Social-Networking-Changed-the-Internet&id=4969834

As I’m a bit biased, I'd welcome the views of objective readers on whether The Social Media People uses its site “for lawful and ethical means only.”?

So – it was The Social Media People which broke its own Terms and Conditions.

Double Standards. - Double Dishonesty. - Extinct Ethics. - Infinitesimal Integrity. - Loads of Lies.

Hello All,

As an SEO Consultant myself, I've taken to my personal blog and have given a factual based report. I'd also like to point out the two videos of which Tom McVey is portraying three different people to an ex customer.

http://bseo.co/net66

(oh and Tom.. bseo.co is a personal short url service which I use to monitor various metrics 'b' stands for blink) I wouldn't expect a company of your status to understand metrics, or the use of short url services.

28-08-2011: The Social Media People scam - and Tax

This is an interesting angle, which was prompted when someone sent me a copy of a letter relating to the VAT authorities, and made a comment about why they had been contacted. The person doesn't wish to slug it out on the forum, but like many others would like to 'do their bit'.
The Social Media People has all those thousands of clients - and lots of them don't get the VAT Invoices to which they are entitled.
TSMP - which is registered for VAT - produces VAT Invoices but claiming 'VAT Number Applied For', whereas they should quote the correct VAT number.

The thought was that the VAT authorities might be interested in knowing about companies which have 'unusual' methods in relation to VAT and other taxes.

The attached letter states that the investigation of complaints etc is done 'confidentially'; so we may never know the outcome - unless The Social Media People tell us afterwards.
I suppose anyone could make such an approach to Customs & Excise (VAT) if they had their own concens.

27-08-2011: - The Social Media People scam – Banking and Payment Pathways

It was interesting to see the recent report that Lloyds TSB had been writing to customers asking whether they had received the agreed services from, and how satisfied they were with, Net66.

The majority of dissatisfied customers know without a shadow of doubt that they NEVER received ANY advertising services from Net66 – because they didn’t make an agreement with Net66.
Their deals were with The Social Media People (The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd.)

So how come that banks sent their complaints and claims to Lloyds TSB about its account holder Net66?

Anyone whose bank statement showed ‘Net66’ or ‘Online Web Services’ had their payment processed through Net66; you might say ‘laundered’ because it shouldn’t have happened.

So Lloyds TSB has forced TSMP/Net66 to put its house in order – or else presumably lose its banking facility, or have the ‘deposit’ increased to such a high level it would probably bankrupt TSMP/Net66.

The result is that TSMP has re-shuffled the companies so now:
“The Social Media People is a trading brand of Net66 Web Services Ltd.”

TSMP (possibly) now tows the line at Lloyds TSB, but all the other corrupt practices will probably remain unchanged.

It would have been such fun to post: No honesty. No Integrity. No ethics. No good business practices. - AND NO bank!
But the bank bit wouldn't have been true.

Was: "The Social Media Network Marketing Company Ltd. trading as The Social Media People."

Is now: "The Social Media People is a trading brand of Net66 Web Services Ltd."

Net66 also has another trading name - "Online Web Services" - as seen on some bank statements and invoices.

And don't forget, tucked away in the background, waiting to be launched is Gracie's own little venture "Net66 Ltd."
And still lurking in the background, 'resting' is "The Social Media People Ltd."

Finally the change of Registered Office Address last week, for The Social Network Marketing Company Ltd. which is now:
145-157 ST JOHN STREET
LONDON
ENGLAND
EC1V 4PW

...and would you believe it!

www.westbury.co.uk/about/company_formation/2.html - Their advertising blurb reads '...Fast Company formation, printed certificate of incorporation, prestigious registered office at 145 -157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY..'

Thomas McVey you really are showing your lack of intelect after all that has been proved about your families companies and personalities! - In other words Tom, your a thick ###!

Although it is known that you consider yourself to be super clever, you really have ###ed up on more than one front; to think all the 'little people' have and are causing you, your criminal family and your scamming businesses a lot of stress, and the pressure has just started!

On a lighter note:

Poor old Daddy No Thumbs Neil McVey must be cringing in his seat:

NM 'Oh Thomas, what have you done to our family empire'?
TM 'It's all ###ed, I was very messy on the white powder and it's all going tits up'
NV 'We'll have to try and salvage some of this or else I will have to stop your allowance, as I have been such a good businessman that I allowed you and my greed to get the better of us!'
TM 'I've got it! Eureka! we'll get my little sister to make some very serious claims to the 5050 (police) about all those idiots who have caused our scam to collapse and when they are off the scene we'll start again. Just like that guy from Matchmaker Marketing and the place where I once worked Lavora Marketing - job done. Is that OK daddy no thumbs?'
NM 'Well Tom you are daddy's clever little boy aren't you? Do you think little Gracie is up to it?'
TM 'She'll be alright, she can tell better porkies than me, coz she looks so innocent and credible, god she's got a sweet little mouth!
NM 'Yes your right, she's done it before, she can do it again. Phew, what a good family we've got. A liar of a daughter, a conman of a son, and me! The world is our oyster they deserve to be scammed, the lot of them!
TM 'Shall we have a look at who we can throw the blame on here in-house if it gets really messy?
NM 'Lets start that this weekend, coz we do not want to really have any family 'fingered', although I am sure one of boys could take the wrap I really want somebody else to do the time for our crime, ha ha!

Tom, have a pleasant bank holiday in the self created quagmire that you and your amoral family live!