In my eyes, if your company has performed badly, and mistreated customers terribly, then you only get what’s coming to you. But because of the society we live in today, the person who whistle blew on that company is the one that stands to receive the most punishment! How can this be? From the business point of view, they don’t want their name described badly as it will harm their business, but I don’t think that argument stands if they have acted terribly towards the customer. They have to accept whats coming to them. For those in the industry, we all know of a few cases where certain members of the public are actively speaking out against companies where they have been treated badly. But not one of us can report on it, for fear of getting stuck in the legal proceed ins ourselves.
How is it that if a company has been down right out of order, they have the most protection and we, Joe public, can’t say a single thing out of fear of court action?
Ideally, what I’d like to set up is an anonymous site where people can leave messages and name companies, explaining how they have been treated. However, I know this isn’t possible. Surely some law can be put forward to stop giving the cowboys of this industry protection?
>If you feel brave, you could try registering the domain through a whois privacy service such as privacyprotect.org and then go ahead with the site… I have never used these so don't know how much of an obstacle they would be for someone trying to send legal threats, but its certainly going to make things more difficult
>I might have a look into it. It frustrates me that the worst companies can have their name protected by threatening legal action against those who have been treated badly.
>Whistleblowing or blowing hot air?
What about muppets from rival companies badmouthing others for the sake of it? Is that fair? What about muppets who have been sacked and just want somewhere to badmouth their former employer? Is that fair?
No of course it isn't fair, yet it is something that you appear to embrace.
Those are the same tactics used by the far left and the far right. Not a surprise to see the BNP doing so well on your poll. I bet they were all anonymous too. Cowards.
>This is something I don't embrace. If you read some of my posts I deplore tactics where rival companies slag each other off. The point about fitters being sacked and wanting somewhere to bad mouth their former employer I can understand. But my gripe is when a genuine customer has been treated badly, and is forced to keep their mouth shut by the company who were the ones providing the poor customer service. Voting for the BNP is something you can only do anonymously really. Because their views are so extreme no one is going to leave a comment on… Read more »
>Tbh…is there anything that companies can do?…Free speech of the internet..i am pretty much say anything i want to say and so can everyone else ;)
>This is the thing, companies in the wrong don't like it, so start to threaten legal action everytime something uncomfortable is written.
>If you know FACTS you can publish them , no issue. You can report facts all day , and all the threats are just that, it depends on how confident of proving your story you are
>Hi Kevin – the problem is, unless you know the source of the information your reporting on is absolutely solid, nothing can be proven, and therefore that 'information' is nothing but a tall tale. Even if there is a thread of truth in it. If it were published, the publisher would leave a million trap doors for him/herself to fall through should the matter be taken further. I receieved threats of legal action, which I had to take seriously as the information I had been given was done so anonymously, so I hadn't any proof, just speculation, and that was… Read more »
>Funny how 'Joe the Fitter' says all he has, but doesn't say who he is.
>what i said was 100% true unlike what the people who threatened you with legal action