User talk:Helplinechap
Thanks for registering with a username - much better than an IP address, don't you think?
If you want to edit something that's substantiated and referenced in detail, why not try editing it rather than reverting to an ealier ungrammatical and biased edit?
I have nothing against Martin Lewis. The controversy which arose in this matter was real, and that's why he was interviewed at length by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News.
If there are factual errors in this:
[quote]One of the services provided by Lewis's MoneySavingExpert.com website, supported by weekly emails, was a savings "best buy" recommendation. This service led to Lewis highlighting the attractive rates offered by Icelandic banks (e.g. Kaupthing Edge recommended on 12 March 2008 [32] and Icesave recommended on 2 May 2007[33]), several of which subsequently failed during the second half of 2008 with savers' funds either lost in transit to other financial institutions (Kaupthing) or frozen pending compensation from either the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme or its Icelandic equivalent (Icesave).
Lewis was, arguably unfairly, attacked by a number of his own website users (see [34] including Lewis's explanation for recommending Icesave) for "recommending" Icelandic banks; he defended his position as merely presenting the "best buy" interest rates, and highlighted the fact that he had frequently (albeit only since around March 2007 in respect of Icesave specifically - see source above) referred to the limitations of savings compensation schemes and advised savers to spread their money between different institutions.
The attack was continued by Jon Snow on Channel 4 news[35], in a style that many viewers (according to Channel 4 website feedback) considered heavy-handed and unfair.[/quote] then do let me know - point by point.
The fact that the Shropshire Star, that renowned international investigative newspaper, reckons that Kaupthing UK was sound and that the UK Government was breaking the law in closing it down does not carry very much weight. But if you want to edit to include that reference, be my guest. Doing so, though, doesn't negate the fact that Kaupthing Edge was an Icelandic owned institution which the UK Government believed to be in default, and which ML recommended.
Much of the controversy arose because MSE readers didn't believe they would get their money back - because they shouldn't have. The government changed the compensation rules, retrospectively, to keep egg off its own face. That isn't ML's advantage - that's something which got ML out of the controversy.
I'm honestly interested in your viewpoint and editing is fine. But deleting well researched and referenced material, claiming it breaches NPOV, when in fact you clearly don't have an NPOV yourself, is just wrong.
- Updated following your feedback on my Talk page - thanks. Let's work together to get a version we are both comfortable with! MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're just being a vandal now. Kaupthing Edge, as the article now clearly says, was a fully UK regulated subsidiary of an Icelandic bank. The reason it failed was the Icelandic banking crisis, not anything else. And people who had money in Icelandic banks - or their subsidiaries - suffered risk as a result of the failure to highlight compensation schemes' limitations in the Money Tips e-mails.
- I don't have an axe to grind. The section in the article explains why people who used the website or received the Tips e-mails had a problem with Martin Lewis and his "advice". Part of their gripe - indeed a major part of their gripe - was that (a) he was making money out of referring them to Icesave and KE and (b) he didn't go overboard in warning them of risks - even after NR had collapsed.
- I don't understand why you think the fact that KE was UK registered and regulated is relevant. So was NR! And it was NR which had collapsed at that time, not anything Icelandic.
- The point is that, based on all the information available at that time, it was risky to invest over £35k (or later £50k) in any single financial institution, because of the FSCS limit. AND it was risky (and remains risky) to invest any significant amount of your own personal savings in any one financial institution, because of the time it takes for the FSCS to pay out. Yes, those problems are worse for foreign based and regulated banks. But they are bad enough for UK based and regulated ones.
- Please don't revert things which are correct simply because you don't like them. Debate the contentious points, and suggest a sensible compromise, and then we might agree. MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I want to edit this too, do you want to discuss first? Thefourthestate (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)