No credit where credit is due

NO Thanks

None at all!

A couple of days ago the Beagles posted up a new article on their site promoted via Twitter and a thread on the Legal Beagles consumer forum. The article refers to Carl Wright, the owner of the infamous Cartel Client Review Ltd, a claims management company that ripped off thousands of people who paid them to have their debts “cleared” or “written off”. The company was set up in 2007 and shut down by the MoJ in 2010. Nothing unusual, there were many such companies at the time. Looks like Mr Wright carried on doing business using a number of other companies, again, nothing unusual there.

Whose work was it?

The thread on the Legal Beagles forum can be found here: Carl Wright’s Assets Seized – Ref Cartel Client Review and this is the article they published on their main site: Carl Wright Cartel Client Review. They also tweeted about it as one would expect. All well and good, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Beagles are taking all the credit themselves! They think a post like this one: Celestine on Carl Wright’s Assets Seized is enough to show recognition for “all those who worked on this”.

CelCarlWright

Beagle justice:

  • No credit given
  • Efforts rewarded with a ban

So WHO were they? Surely, if they had people working on a project of that kind, they’d know who those people were. They were not random posters merely cheering on the site, nor were they just filling the database with characters like Nemesis does, no, those were real people who went out of their way to do real work alongside some of the owners of Legal Beagles. They put in the hours and the effort without rewards or remuneration, they were volunteers.

A little credit goes a long way

It is disgraceful that Legal Beagles should decide to take all the credit for something that was a team effort. Once more, nothing unusual there, that’s what they’ve been doing all along! Taking the credit for a great site that, for years, was run by someone who then got dumped without notice, taking the credit for helping people who were actually helped by members who were subsequently banned, taking the credit for content that was contributed by others who were either banned or told to stay away. But this is different. Here we are talking about people who met with the owners and attended meetings with them, people who worked behind the scenes to make this possible. They not only don’t get a mention, some of them were banned for no reason whatsoever.

23 Comments

  1. revenge says:

    Yes you could well be right IP, Sharon’s work no doubt.

    They got our message loud and clear and they did not like what they saw so in true LB style they made sure that we could not comment again on anything that JS posts up.

    I really do not see Nick Spooner getting involved and wonder why.

    Also the picture for this thread the girl in the middle reminds me of Shazza’s picture on her profile unless she has changed it.

  2. Interested Party says:

    Nick Spooner cannot get involved, there’s nothing being said that’s not true.

    ******waving****** hello to those of you who are watching.

  3. Flaming Parrot says:

    Good to see a page dedicated to no credit where it was due. While on that subject, I notice this OP has picked up a response to a letter before action from somewhere on the forum, and Sharon tells them the letter is absolutely fine: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?76963-Lowell-Solicitors-Lowell-Portfolio-Lloyds-Letter-of-Claim&p=619770#post619770 Of course it was, that text was originally written by ME after the helpful annexes A and B were removed from the pre-action conduct in anticipation to a debt pre-action protocol that has yet to see the light of day.

    The letter is not a template as such since it needs changing depending on the circumstances but it was tried and tested a number of times, both on and off the forum. A letter written along those lines was used by various individuals to respond to solicitors’ letters of claim and most of them didn’t get a claim, even when the debt was for a mobile contract where you could not argue non-compliance with a CCA request. When challenged to produce the documents they’d be relying on in court, a lot of them just climbed down and went back to their databases looking for an easier target.

    As with everyone else who did something for the good of the forum and its users, I was also rewarded in the same manner: with a ban!

  4. Interested Party says:

    Sharon and Co couldn’t give anyone a thank you or a credit, it’s not in their DNA to be nice to anyone, two faced the lot of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *