the social media people net66 review: scam 850

With regard to comments made by Bad Biz 2 and the quote from the TSMP website:
"Due to an extremely high level of contact, and attempted poaching of business we are no longer displaying our existing clients to new customers. If you are interested in our services please contact our Sales Staff direct on [protected]"

1. It's interesting that the DIRECT phone number for Sales in Manchester is 272 3783 - and yet TSMPs fake Director Of Customer Service gave exactly that number as his DIRECT telephone number at his offices at Regent Street, London. (He had 'just been able to secure the number' after previously been caught out giving a 'Not in Service' one!
Strange that when I visited the Directors office address there was no-one (and never had been) from TSMP working there.
When a letter was sent to that same address it was returned 'Not Known Here'
2. Perhaps the item on the TSMP website page would more accurately read:
"Due to TSMP lying about having Blue-Chip clients, and those companies insisting that their Trademarks be removed from the website, TSMP has been forced to remove the false claims or risk legal action." (Remember e.g. Subway, Cash Generator, Menkind, Red Driving School, Interflora, TaxAssist Accountants etc).
Next they tried FALSE 'Reviews' - and removed them. (Remember: 'Eve Isk', 'Travis Perkins', Rachel Elnaugh', 'Cheap D&G Jewellery')
Then to replace 'Reviews' there is new 'Links' section - where they ripped-off other authors copyright articles, and once exposed, have removed some of them. (Real authors: Rachel Beer, Ivan Yardley, Nathan Jurgenson, Stephan Paternot, J.J. Mills)

Next lie please?
No integrity. No ethics. No honesty. - - - Loads, and loads of lies.

ooHelenoo

Welcome to 'our world'

Do not think you have been stupid; larger organisations than yourself have been Scammed by TSMP, as Tom Faulkner, Fleet Trainer, Edsarn, BadBiz 2 etc etc (there are TOO MANY to name all!) all will convey.

Read as much of the relevant posts on this site as well as well as BadBiz web site, which is a fountain of knowledge, where you will receive sound, honest and factual advice.

Welcome to the club! Watch this space, as they say, as some very interesting times are around the corner for TSMP and purgery is a criminal offense! ;)

ooHelenoo, Tom Faulkner is correct in everything that he has posted, not only on this site but also on the BadBiz Forum site as well.
I, like numerous others, have been subjected to threats of "the debt will be passed to our partner company for collection. This may include a visit to your premises".
As Tom knows, I sought legal advice and sent a recorded delivery letter to TSMP at one of their now (in)famous London addresses. This letter stated that the legal advice I received was that a "disputed debt should be settled in a Court of Law".
From this advice I took that statement to mean it wasn't a debt - it was a disputed debt, but TSMP were adamant it was a debt.
Following further advice I wrote several emails (because this is their chosen method of contact and at least you know they receive it!) to various 'nom de plumes' (you'll find the same person has numerous names within TSMP) within their organisation asking specific questions about their further actions.
Unfortunately, because of a lack of command of the Queen's English, their answers were pretty much always the same -threats, threats and more threats, but never any action.
ooHelenoo, the best advice I can give, having been down the same path as you, is to make contact with the BadBiz Forum and 'speak' to Stephen Jones who runs the site. You will find him to be extremely knowledgable about scam companies like TSMP because of his experience in challenging companies like TSMP.
Stand your ground - you are not alone, do not do anything or be intimidated by anything that TSMP say to you.
Welcome to TSMP group of disgruntled/scammed/threatened/misled/etc etc etc group.

The TSMP method could be designed to make it difficult to cancel in order to enable it to exert pressure for at least 1 more month's payment (actually, by missing the 1st cancellation deadline it leaves a customer apparently owing TWO more months in order to cancel in accordance with the (flawed) T&Cs.
Once people realise they've been 'hooked', but before they discover forums like this, there is a worrying period when some at least, will pay-up believing they are contractually obliged to.
Legal advice is the most secure way of being clear about the position - and sometimes this could be free via your professional body, business association - or even the AA!
Particularly if a letter has been sent by Recorded Delivery, the date it is received (in the legal sense) is the date it is signed for, regardless of how slowly it progresses through the TSMP system. Additionally there is case law which supports the position that even a NON-recorded letter is deemed to have been delivered from the moment it is posted; the difficulty with that is it would be difficult to 'prove' it had been posted.

With reference to Edsarns point about email cancellation he/she makes a strong point. Certainly in Consumer law an email would be acceptable regardless of any conditions which the supplier attempted to impose.
It is also revealing that during the whole period whilst business is conducted TSMP use ONLY email (in my experience, and that of many others). Once TSMP decide to acknowledge a letter of cancellation - it will always be by email not a letter.
Even when customers insist that communication is conducted by mailed letter TSMP continue to send emails - but never letters.

Edsarn is right - it is very one sided in TSMP's favour. TSMP designed it that way. BUT as there are so many contentious areas in deals done by TSMP, for most customers there is probably no contract in the first place - and thus no need to cancel.
Just make sure they can't get any more money from you - unless and until YOU decide it is necessary to pay. TSMPs escalating demands are worrying at first, but no-one should feel pressured to pay more.

"Due to an extremely high level of contact, and attempted poaching of business
we are no longer displaying our existing clients to new customers
If you are interested in our services please contact our Sales Staff direct on [protected]"

And I should also add that for a supposely successful company the above remark on their website
also seems rather odd.

'Poaching of business' - surely a professional business would have chosen a sligthly less emotive word. I am always one for giving businesses like this the benefit of the doubt but perhaps the fact my questions remain unanswered also speaks volumes here.

You know what - I have never really got into all this or read the terms and conditions.

However, this thing about agreements being made verbally by phone and no cooling off period seems a little unusual.

Perhaps Tom Mcveigh or the latest face of TSMP could explain this for me.

The terms and conditions of the SMP state

'Our agreements and contracts are all made verbally by phone. '

'By paying for a service you are accepting that you have read and understood our terms and conditions set out'. -a nonsense because nobody has the chance in reality to read the term and conditions before the card number is taken and the agreement is set up). You don't get a confirmation of these terms and the reason there is no cooling off period is so that once you get to actually read these TOC you would cancel.

'Our agreements are not subject to a cooling off period'. This actually speaks volumes. What is the business motivation behind such a statement. Where a cooling off period is seen as very positive mechanism between trader and customer these days TSMP do not offer this for clear reasons.

'11.1 The Company is under no obligation whatsoever to accept the immediate cancellation of the services, or cancellation of orders incorrectly placed. Any cancellations will only be accepted if agreed in writing and within your contract period and will be subject to a 40% handling or cancellation charge. this will be 40% of the total value of the contract. Any refund given will also be minus any costs incurred by The Company i.e. directory submissions and linking strategies. In any event any setup fee and or deposit is non refundable.'

In the event of the 30 day trial we have all been subjected to, where in the TOC is there provision for a client to say we only want this trial for the 30 days. Where is there provision to confirm that demand that they only want the 30 day trial. There isn't one which makes it rather difficult to avoid triggering the rolling contract. It would actually mean giving written notice on the day of the contract being taken up. Those of us that have cancelled know that on average, despite submitting the cancellation by recorded mail, it take at least ten days to be received by TSMP office for some strange reason. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out that this is intentional to put people on a rolling contract.

It is also worth questioning why an email cancellation isn't acceptable. we all see how emails are now vital evidence in all sorts of political and economic life and have been used to expose may scandals but TSMP, while using any form of digital pretext to enforce one of their famous contracts, will not accept email cancellations.

I think the reasons are quite clear.

We got scammed.

Thought we had bought a 30 day 30000 impressions deal, turned out we had "signed up" for a rolling contract. Doh, feel SO stupid. Did the web check after we had signed up rather than before and discovered this site - thanks guys for posting, I cancelled our business credit card immediately in case it was debited by them in the future.

Another unhappy customer, to whom the same thing happened, posted to TSMP on Facebook. "Tom Johnson" who I assume is Tom McVey told her (I paraphrase) that she had just signed up for a month but that she could cancel the rolling contract at any time. So there isn't much point dealing with people who think in such a muddled way, is there folks?

I have read a lot here but not exhaustively. I can't see why Trading Standards hasn't taken action yet - why are they still trading? I don't get it. Has there been any kind of formal setting-out of the issues, signed by a number of people?

Best wishes,
Helen

Oh, I forgot "...the ASA..."

Unfortunately, Tom McVey and his co directors whether they be fictitious or not are trying to bamboozle everybody who challenges them with threats of legal action for contravening T&Cs which are Not legally binding; as well as attempted intimidation for those who ask legitimate questions which are backed up by the abysmal and inaccurate documentation produced by TSMP.

Were there to be any truth in 'malicious' individuals bad mouthing TSMP and it associated directors and companies, there would surely be several court cases to 'clear' Tom McVey and 'friends of these heinous crimes!

But of course this would never occur as Pandora's box would be opened and the whole world would see TSMP nee Net 66 and their Directors for what they are - No good Scammers, who have No Honesty, No Integrity, Amorale and ### Of The Earth, father and son alike.

Tom Faulkner I have to agree with your comments completely. I have watched the video and they act as fake company directors and act as fake Solicitors.

Companies House Records Prove that The Social Media People lie all day long 12 years they have been in business, accordingly that hav'nt even been in business 12 months. They have broke Companies House Law in other words commited a criminal offence. I wonder what other crimes they have committed.

The Social Media People are a Scam end of story eveything about them is completely fake.

Clive_Wilmot Yes just the same as the people that write to others on Twitter, I don't suppose that Clive_Wilmot would like to reveal his true identity. If as you say my forum is little and silly why do you even bother to mention it.

Companies House Records Prove that The Social Media People lie all day long 12 years they have been in business, accordingly that hav'nt even been in business 12 months. They have broke Companies House Law in other words commited a criminal offence. I wonder what other crimes they have committed.

The Social Media People are a Scam end of story eveything about them is completely fake.

12-08-2011:
Informer28 rightly presses for an answer to the question of why, (not 'if') The Social Media People telephoned and pretended to be a solicitor in order to make threats.
In the telphone message from The Social Media People which confirmed that such an action occurred, TSMP also told a pre-meditated lie about tracing me on ComplaintsBoard, through 'I.P. tracking'.
Hear the lies yourself by listening to the recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsdMJgoQDqI

Quote: "Er, we have instructed a solicitor to review the case, one of our in-house legal advisors; and obviously I believe he spoke to you a little while back in terms of some slanderous comments that you’d been makin’.
It now appears through a little bit of research on the internet IP trackin’, that kind of stuff that on complaintsboard.com err, 17hours and 20minutes ago from today you have again actually posted something libellous."

Think about it - if TSMP could trace someone as it described:
1. They could trace EVERYONE using this forum.
2. They wouldn't have accused the wrong person of libel (because - as they admitted later - it wasn't me!)

Fake solicitor - premeditated lie. I.P. tracking - premeditated lie. Fake director - premeditated lie. Accusation of libel - wrong.

TSMP obviously, it would appear, have little understanding of what is in question. Comprehension or otherwise.

Fleet Trainer, Fran687, liki, Edsarn and myself are but a few of the aggrieved that TSMP Scam have touched; and all of us have similar thoughts upon the trading practices of TSMP and Tom McVey.

Tom, did or did you not in your various guises speak to your 'clients' claiming to be a solicitor and threaten legal action?

Simple question, yes or no would suffice.

If you continue to copy and paste an ASA decision which clearly states that no evidence was produced to substantiate the Adwords claim, but did not categorically say you were not Scammers, you will be reminiscent of a Black Adder sketch. Placing your fingers in your ears, pencils in your nostrils...before you go over the trenches to your imminent death! In other words placing yourself in denial and ranting irrelevances in the hope somebody will take you serious!

If, as you claim, you and your fathers directorship of the Net 66, and all of it's sub companies e.g. TSMP are 'squeaky' clean, customer orientated, value for money, honest and totally legit; then why stoop to the abuse, threats and deception that you and your companies blatantly engage? of which there is an abundance of Facts and Evidence to support. Have you taken the morale high ground? No, you have stooped into the cesspit of which it would appear you are accustomed.

Tom, I am not BadBiz but thanks for the compliment; I wish it were me taking you to the Queen's Bench and suing you, your fellow directors (fictitious or not), and your companies; although I am sure I will be present as will many others!

Jesus tonight, do you call yourself professional Mr. Badbiz? Do you really need to type in CAPS? Stop advertising your silly little forum with a hundred self-created members. You still haven't admitted or denied to links with Yes Loans yet.

THERE IS OBVIOUS [censored] FROM THE SOCIAL MEDIA PEOPLE TRYING TO INSINUTATE MY WEBSITE WAS TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE LIBEL MY QUESTION IS PROVE IT IRONICALLY
BADBIZ FORUM IS BACK ONLINE FROM A MOVE OF SERVERS OBVIOUSLY NET 66 WHO ALLEDEGEDLY PRODUCE WEBSITES HAVE NEVER MOVED A WEBSITE FROM ONE SERVER TO
ANOTHER ONE DAY THEY WILL HAVE TO IF THEY ARE STILL IN BUSINESS AS THEY CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 12 + YEARS BUT COMPANIES AGAIN PROVES THESE AS
LIARS AS THE COMPANY WAS ONLY REGISTERED LAST YEAR. FACT all genuine people come join http://badbizforum.com we can then vouch for as genuine even them that think I am wrong it will then prove who the liars are The Social Media People aka Tom McVey

another brilliant post - probably by TSMP

11-08-2011: The Social Media People proves - yet again, in its own words & figures, that it can't do simple arithmetic!

Don't take my word for it; read the previous TSMP Public Relations post relating to unhappy customers %, and do the arithmetic yourself.
Certainly don't believe The Social Media People as what it has said is UNTRUE. (No surprises there!)

And not that anyone believes any of the figures presented by TSMP (as its VAT Invoices have clearly shown it can't add up), but:
What % of 15, 000 is 21?
21 divided by 15, 000, x 100 + 0.14%

NOT 0.0014%! So when presenting its fabricated claim it makes a 1oo fold error.
Haven't they even got a pocket calculator?

I should imagine some of the poor sods that you deal with have not finished work much before midnight - what an absolute crass thing to say - and perhaps a little desperate.

As for your website it doesn't actually say anything at all, no clickable links, no examples of your work, no genuine reviews. Shall I go on?

lol someone posts a picture of a willy and you ### try and insinuate it was an aggrieved customer... Professional as ever I see... You're honestly fooling nobody. Prob posted it yourselves in order to make people believe it's a site used by weirdo's or even in the vain hope it shuts down the forum as I can guess it may be causing your company a few issues. As for the ASA repetition we're not daft, people who come on this site will listen to the truth, with the evidence. Not the deluded ramblings of a company who are clearly on their ### and clutching at willy pictures to divert peoples attention from the scam at hand. And who gives a toss if there's people on this at midnight? The sleepless nights your company gives innocent people it's no wonder, we need something to occupy our worried minds. Wee tip, you are doing yourselves absolutely no favours with your posts, you sound manipulative, petulant, childish and utterly idiotic. But hey - if the cap fits...

Good Morning All,

In regards to yet more clutching at straws, and a few ridiculous insinuations from Steve BadBiz Jones (informer28) ironic name, he claims to inform yet both his forum & his website have been closed down. Amidst all the speculation against Tom Faulkner in 2008 when 5 of his pupils made public claims of abuse, posting that picture under an alias (alickilickilick) Shows everybody the type of people who are commenting on here on a daily basis. As we now know - websites CAN be closed down if their full of lies & libel. Why are we still going after all this time & these 2 malicious individuals are resorting to picking anything they can including spelling, grammar and re-publication of stories.
_________________________________________________________________________________

May I take this opportunity to thank all clients and all local people who know these 2malicious individuals who are on a crusade to ruin our reputation. Again, the ASA are a much more credible source of information, we are sure readers are smart enough to smell a rat with some of these claims and we thank all the business' up & down the country who have contacted us offering help, support & evidence against these malicious individuals.

None of these individuals own or run a credible business and no info is available at companies house as if they do its likely their turnover is kept in a bum-bag. So the irony of constant "business advice" can be taken in context.
_________________________________________________________________________________

We trust people reading this can establish that yes, you could listen and take on board what people right very late at night and give out "business advice" to our organisation, or you could simply read what the UK’s independent advertising watchdog have concluded about our business.
_________________________________________________________________________________

We have over 15, 000 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 Social Media People plagiarises the work of others; 2:

Whoops! Another one bites the dust!
Looks like another article has been removed from the ‘Links’ page on TSMP website.

The original article, written by Ivan Yardley, can be read at:
http://www.zulucreative.co.uk/blog/18/02/2011/social-media-changes-world/

The same article, under the title ‘How Social Media Has Changed Business’ – but with no credit to the author, and false TSMP copyright appeared on TSMP website until it vanished.
It makes you wonder whether any more will go the same way?
Tip for The Social Media People: Write your own, original material and you won’t need to steal other people’s.

There seem to be no natural or obvious links between the groups of terms: ‘plagiarism’ and ‘breach of copyright’, verses ‘ethics’, ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’.

A more compatable link is possible if: ‘plagiarism’ and ‘breach of copyright’, are linked to ‘NO ethics’, NO integrity’ and ‘NO honesty’.

Recently TSMP added a new page to its website entitled ‘Links’.
The page included links to various articles on big issues and world affairs in relation to social media. The articles showed copyright of TSMP, and certainly didn’t credit anyone else with authorship.

Imagine my surprise (not!) when, on Googling chunks of text from the articles, several were actually written by other authors and appeared on various sites, with copyright to the original author.
How pleased would the original authors be to know their work had been hi-jacked and their authorship and copyright ignored?

One of the articles has already disappeared from the TSMP website, so someone wasn’t happy!
The ORIGINAL, by Rachel Beer is at: http://www.charitycomms.org.uk/articles/insider_secrets/why_charities_need_to_use_social_media

The plagiarised, TSMP version is nowhere to be found.( http://thesocialmediapeople.org/ )
The Social Media People – plagiarists. No integrity. No ethics. No honesty.

10-08-2011: The Social Media People chooses money before principles and promises:

Recently The Social Media People stated on this forum, that the company hadn’t pursued legal action against me (and also another person) because they couldn’t make any money out of it.
Quote (TSMP Customer Relations) 03-08-2011:
“If you have not been taken to court it is due to your assets not out weighing the cost. “

That’s O.K. TSMP is entitled to make such a decision.

The problem is that TSMP had previously assured me – no guaranteed – no promised - that it would take me to court to defend its integrity. No mention of financial gain then; if the company’s integrity was unjustly called into question they would pursue legal action to ‘right the wrong’ done to them. It was a matter of principle!
Telephone conversation Steven Jackson/T Faulkner 21-04-2011:
Quote (Steven Jackson): “Don’t get me wrong, we don’t want to spend a hell of a lot of money on a legal case. Will we if we have to? Certainly, yeh. I take our integrity, and so does our company take our integrity very, very, very seriously, and if it means spendin’ a bit of money to get information that’s said out of pure malice and no actual substance, then we’ll take it all the way.”

The Social Media People – No principles. No Integrity. Broken promise.

And of course – another reason TSMP didn’t take me to court – No case.

... and the 'network of customer care agents', ... and the 'team of customer services agents', ... and Collections Department, ... and the 'Manager', Shane P. who didn't even know they had a Collections Department, and the team of qualified (no scrub that - they no longer claim to have qualified designers) the team of 'experienced' designers ...

Surely they need more than the claimed 600+ staff?!

Fleet Trainer, your 'observation' I feel has been prevalent for the last few weeks!

Or should I comment '..The ASA...' lol

It is blatantly obvious that Tom McVey aka Steve Jackson, Jonathan Barker-Smith, and all the other pseudo names and aliases that he uses, as well as the Complaints Department (which company has one of those? lol) Public Relations Department, Debt Recovery Department, Legal Department which in reality is a hell of a lot of work for his 'little' sister Grace or should I say something 'stein' to manage; anybody who has any degree of intelligence realises that an organisation which has possibly 10 or 12 employees at the most (not the 600 that it is claimed), including the McVey father and Son Directors, is trying to create an illusion of grandeur in the same manner as their fictitious stateside and mainland european operation addresses (that is not taking into account their UK operation based in Manchester yet claimed to be in the Capital City!)

All the above is smoking mirrors to deter people knowing that Net 66 is the money siphon for their enterprises, and is highlighted by their appalling administration which is designed to cause confusion, in a labyrinth of deception and lies which are by design to SCAM all that they come in contact with.

Answer that Thomas M, without quoting the ASA, if you dare (not that you will as it will prove your deception)!

Role on the Queens Bench!

No Integrity, No Honesty, No Morale Values, No Good at Anything, SCAMMERS

Informer28 - perhaps something for posters to this site (and any would be customers of their's) to think about is that TSMP are really saying more about their activities by not saying anything than they do by saying something!
In my situation we have a saying for what they do say - LOB - yep that's right, it's a load of b------s.
It appears to me that they have reached a stalemate where they are now trying to bore the pants off people by sheer repetition of gobblygook.

Tom McVey aka The Public Relations Department aka Jonathan Barker-Smith etc etc ets
Unfortunately, yet again you quote the ASA who stated that no information was submitted to confirm you and your company (TSMP) are SCAMMERS, fact. That does not detract from your companies running a scam, they only go on the evidence submitted, It is a shame that the rest of the ASA was not privvy to the information and FACTS that are abundant here from dissatisfied customers who have documentary proof and audio proof of your companies foul practices!
Where you not to have 'upset' so many individuals and companies do you seriously think TSMP / Net 66 would have gained 27 odd pages, and that is just on this site, of comments decrying you and your 'empire'? I think not.
Continually quoting an UK's independent regulator of advertising across all media, now including marketing on websites, does not answer the basic questions that have been put to you, which have no relevance to the ASA what so ever! So why continually quote them?
I suspect you will yet again 'spot off' quoting ASA again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again etc etc! Without saying anything!

The Public Relations Department

'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:'

Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.

Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!

The Public Relations Department

'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:'

Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.

Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!

The Public Relations Department

'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:'

Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.

Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!

The Public Relations Department

'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:'

Can you tell us a little bit more about this advertisement that you complained about. Did you report it as a sponsored advert. That means someone must have paid for it presumably, if I am correct. so you CAN confirm who it was that set it up. Is that correct? I am led to believe that is correct. So why would the ASA have the correct information but you don't.

Its not that I doubt you but all things can be ascertained, as you have said in the past - 'anonymously by anyone' could mean that - anyone!

repetition is tedious way of posting isn't it?

Good Morning All,

Again we have been verbally assaulted over the weekend, the interesting point is one of them is at MIDNIGHT again.

We trust people reading this can establish that yes, you could listen and take on board what people right very late at night and give out "business advice" to our organisation, or you could simply read what the UK’s independent advertising watchdog have concluded about our business.
_________________________________________________________________________________

We have over 15, 000 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

Hear, Hear!

Informer28 will undoubtedly be accused of being someone else, and of unsubstantiated claims; but the items on his list have already been substantiated with published documents and the statements of TSMP on this forum, and - of course - the personal experiences of all the cheated customers.
Who Informer28 is, or is not, does not invalidate the evidence of TSMP's crimes etc.
An ASA adjudication provides TSMP with a single piece of evidence with which to retort: but that one document sitting next to the mountain of evidence against them is of little help in attempting to support redundant claims to honesty, integrity, ethics and good business practices.
The Social Media People has no integrity. No honesty. No ethics. No good business practices.

Tom Faulkner and all aggreaved who have been victim, yes victim of the McVey's Company SCAM.
TSMP, and specifically Tom McVey in all his various pseudo names and identities on this site, as well as his altered ego as a solicitor, a non existent Customer Services Director of his company's, Jonathan Barker-Smith but to name a few of his aliases has no intention of using any integrity, honesty or compassion when dealing with anybody who challenges him or any of his related companies business practices.
Tracker21 was even scammed a second time when he/she paid for a a copy of the sales phone conversations, which she never received!
The reason is blatantly clear, it would incriminate and confirm to all that he/she had been scammed! If I am wrong, which I am 100% positive that I am not, why has TSMP not produced the recording (unedited)? Umh You do not need a Phd to come to a firm conclusion, as with all the other misdemeanors:
Incorrect vat receipts
Incorrect invoices
Incorrect company records at Companies House
Incorrect trading addresses
Incorrect, and non existent, email addresses
Incorrect testimonials on their website
Incorrect claims to their cost effectiveness to businesses
Incorrect Terms & Conditions
Incorrect billing details
Incorrect legal notices
Incorrect advertising method (not pay per click as they claim)
Incorrect compliance to legislature
Incorrect business practice
This list is not endless, it also includes:
Threats, both written and verbal
Impersonating a solicitor
The list goes on and on and on...
Attempted intimidation by implying that those who have openly challenged Tom McVey, and his businesses, are deviants. Which in itself are the hallmark of the uneducated (and for your benefit Tom McVey I am not necessarily referring to a lack of academia) when they start to make personal digs to at their critics .
Would you want to knowingly conduct your business like this?
Would you want to have business dealings with a company like this?
Would any of your concerns about a business like this be alleviated by Tom McVeys attitude and behavior?
No! No! No!

07-08-2011:
Director of The Social Media People confirms a 'solicitor' - not a 'legal agent' - threatened a customer on behalf of The Social Media People.
And the threat was 'slander' not 'libel'.

TSMP Public Relations, and the Managing Director want people to believe differently, but listen to the recording yourself:
Listen to : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8

The fake director states that a solicitor contacted me - but the solicitor was a fake too.
Another fake - Jonathan Barker-Smith - phoned another customer with a similar threat.

TSMP has previously ignored this issue, and now in answering it tries to re-write the script.
To answer the question honestly would reveal the despicable double dealings of TSMP and its directors.

When a company director phones customers using a fictitious identity while making threats it shows the company in its true colours.

06-08-2011: The Social Media People fails to live up to a promise made by the Managing Director –
or perhaps it’s just a ‘small mistake’:

On approx 20 July; Tom McVey, Managing Director, wrote:
“Morning all,
Lady1000, can you please contact me with your customer number and I will immediately look into your case and get s speedy resolution. Might I add, we are NOT a con, you 100% will have had the full terms explained to you. I am happy to provide any call START TO FINISH so you can understand clearly. You will have also been sent the terms and forwarded to them on our website. I am sorry if you have miss-understood any will work with you to come to an amicable result but, why jump to conclusion about our ethics without contacting us first?”

Apparently an ‘open’ gesture to supply recordings, to help customers understand what had transpired during phone conversations?

Yet, On 5 August; Track21 wrote:
“After a series of phone calls I eventually sent a cheque for £24 to receive a copy of the sales phone conversations. The cheque was cashed, however I never received the calls. Further to this, and despite additional emails to them, they are yet to contact me back regarding the matter!”

Why was Track21 experiencing such difficulties – and why had he/she paid £24.00?

It seems there is a small glitch in the process of putting the intentions of the Managing Director into practice.
By accident or design? Surely the Managing Director wouldn't have made a hollow promise?

Track21studios,
Your experience is exactly what we have all suffered I am afraid. I do wonder about those that aren't computer savvy, and wouldn't think of trawling the internet to see if there something about this company. They would be completely in the dark and still paying probably.
It is a pity you have joined now because you will have missed some of the unbelievable posts that have been put up in the name of the company and a number of aliases. I take it you have spoken to your bank.

I also have been a victim of the "Social Media People". Offering me a one month trial via a phone conversation I paid the £150 for set-up and 10, 000 impressions. I was very unimpressed as I didn't see the advert appear on facebook, and anybody I asked hadn't either. My targets we're very local so was surprised that nobody had seen the ad. I made sure during the sales call that I would be contacted and have the option to cancel at the end of the first month. Unfortunately this didn't happen and instead they took another £100 from my account for the second month! After a series of phone calls I eventually sent a cheque for £24 to receive a copy of the sales phone conversations. The cheque was cashed, however I never received the calls. Further to this, and despite additional emails to them, they are yet to contact me back regarding the matter! STAY AWAY!

Aaron

01-08-2011 The Social Media People scam:

A now aggrieved customer didn’t feel that the following insult of a VAT Invoice was a ‘small and irrelevant mistake’ :

Despite the cynical attempts of TSMP to bring an angry customer ‘back under control’ the customer has provided a document for publication - a full, unedited, complete, and GENUINE VAT Invoice from TSMP.

Readers should keep in mind that TSMP claims that VAT Invoices:
1. Are generated automatically, so a ‘typing error’ could not explain any variations from the norm.
2. Always have a ‘link’ to the Terms and Conditions.

The first attached invoice won't be easy to read, but you can see enough to know that the next version, which shows the relevant detail more clearly, is not edited to hide any ‘inconvenient’ details.

Problems/errors/mistakes/lies?:
TSMP sells services in a different currency to all other businesses in UK!
TSMP is unable to produce a valid VAT Invoice. (As previously posted)
TSMP gets the customer’s address wrong.
TSMP does not provide a ‘link’ to the infamous Terms & Conditions, thus denying a customer the possibility of checking.

So – lots of VAT Invoices now published, and all wrong in many different ways; and frequently changing in style and format: from an automatic system?

These are examples of the typical level of accuracy and efficiency of The Social Media People. An individual one could possibly be regarded as a small mistake, but when virtually every type of document – including many VAT Invoices has them, its no longer small and certainly not irrelevant.

Who would want to spend that much money - ‘ �142.80 ‘ with TSMP?

By the way – if you’re in Glasgow I hear that ‘Azure’ is a great place to go for a night out!
http://iloveazure.com/ (Thanks to fran687.)

05-08-2011: Quote from TSMP Public Relations – writing about criticisms of the company :
“Why nit pick & wait for a company to make the smallest irrelevant mistake and jump on them with insults insinuating they are incompetent.”

In its recent response, TSMP Public Relations accepted that:
a. TSMP phoned me posing as a solicitor (as confirmed in the phone message).
b. Threatened me with a libel action (when it was someone else who’d made the comment).
c. Lied in a phone message, about the solicitor and ‘IP tracking’ (which everyone can listen to as evidence).

TSMP Public Relations now asks readers to accept that these are small, irrelevant mistakes!
1. NOT small.
2. NOT irrelevant – how would anyone feel if threatened with legal proceedings.
3. NOT MISTAKES – premeditated actions of a company director without integrity.

I didn’t ‘wait for them to make a mistake’ - TSMP took the initiative, jumped in with both feet, and acted in a premeditated way, without integrity, ethics, or honesty. I merely report the event afterwards as an example of the mountain of mistakes, (small and large), and intentional dishonesty of the company.

The recording of TSMPs premeditated lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8

More TSMP mistakes and dishonesty – nit-picking or otherwise – to follow.

Good Morning Readers,

From today onwards, we are under instruction to invite customers & people who may be interested in doing business to contact us. Its plain to see that people are hell bent on continuing with malicious intentions of ruing a good companies reputation. The Social Media People is part of an organisation that is, was and always will be successful.
_________________________________________________________________________________

We do not however want to distance ourselves from people who may be thinking of becoming a client, again, we have a large customer care team who are on hand to deal with any enquiries.

_________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Remarkably one and the same Mr Thomas McVey!
Would you trust such a company?
Do so at your own risk.
But lets be serious, only those affected by the appalling experience they have received by TSMP & Co genuinely contribute to this site; not satisfied companies, who incidentally if they existed would have no need to vent their frustrations. Prospective 'victims' view this site to try to get an angle on TSMP and then we have the McVey's in their various identities most of which are fictitious, as are their trading addresses, location and service they provide!

04-08-2011:
And the evidence that TSMP claimed to have had a solicitor contact me, as well as the lie about tracing me through IP tracking, and the threat to another customer from the fictitious Jonathan Barker-Smith; are all in the recordings which can be heard on YouTube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-LQ4kFaa8

And by an amazing coincidence the 2 voices sound remarkably similar, and remarkably like...?