Hot Topics

MBS billing

  Forum Editor 11:41 02 Sep 2007

This is a continuation of the thread that was originally posted in the Helproom. That thread ended up being 21 pages long, with over 800 posts, and has been closed. In response to requests I'm opening this here, in Consumerwatch which is a more appropriate place, so the discussion may continue.

You can read the original thread if you click here

  Forum Editor 17:07 30 Oct 2007

If you go to page 1 of this thread you'll see that I posted a link to the original MBS thread. You'll find the MBS response there.

  Forum Editor 17:26 30 Oct 2007

Thank you. I'm a little confused here; why would you want to bring it to the attention of MBS that they didn't need a tick box on the site's index page?

  Forum Editor 18:06 30 Oct 2007

I still don't get it - you say that you advised MBS they didn't need a tick-box, and you say that happened in July, but what I can't understand is why you would want to tell them that in the first place - surely a tick box is the one thing that is needed to bring peoples' attention to the fact that they're agreeing to something?

Perhaps I'm missing something here, and you can put me right.

  wee eddie 21:15 30 Oct 2007

"what happens to a company once it turns over £64k a year? that is where to start, follow the money trail."

Well ~ What does happen to a company that turns over more than £64k per annum? I can't see the logic of your argument.

  wee eddie 11:32 31 Oct 2007

And what difference will VAT Registration make?

  wee eddie 13:13 31 Oct 2007

Chumbawamba ~ raba5000 appears somewhat confused and I would have serious doubts that any of the claims are valid.

There appears to be some misunderstanding of the way in which business finances work. He/She has scattered "Buzzwords" about, without any suggestion as to how the concepts mentioned might be carried out.

  wee eddie 20:45 31 Oct 2007

raba5000 is saying that ~ Not MBS

  Forum Editor 22:34 31 Oct 2007

anyone who wants to post an allegation of deception on the part of a company or an individual must be able to provide me with some pretty good evidence to demonstrate the truth of their allegation before submitting it. Allegations that haven't first been cleared in this way will be deleted without any further reference to the person concerned.

We're not here to indulge in innuendo or speculation - let's stick to facts.

  wee eddie 21:12 02 Nov 2007

Although I agree with much of what you say and many have denied visiting the afore-said Site we have no proof of an alternative delivery method.

Until there is proof of an alternative Delivery method then we, that is those that do not have MBS's Software on our PC's, have little alternative but to believe MBS.

  Forum Editor 00:05 03 Nov 2007

If you repeat or summarise a defamatory statement made by someone else - here or in another place - you are yourself guilty of defamation, unless you have evidence to prove that what you say is true.

I'm not going to expose our company to the risk of a libel action, and for that reason I'll routinely delete anything which in my opinion may be libelous. This isn't something I'm prepared to argue about, because there's no argument - we simply will not permit allegations of illegal activities on the part of companies, individuals, or groups of individuals unless they are backed up with verifiable evidence. It's a strict rule, and will be strictly enforced - I'll make the judgments about what is or isn't defamatory, and I'm afraid my decisions on that subject are final.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

1x1 pixel
Elsewhere on IDG sites

Save a staggering 82% when you upgrade to Windows 10 Pro now

Akira art show continues in absence of virus-hit Olympics

Apple doubles price of MacBook Pro RAM upgrade

French Days 2020 : dates, sites participants & bons plans