Like everything in life, no matter how much anyone knows about a topic there is always someone who has an extra snippet to add.
Please bear in mind all I was citing that case for in this particular instance was to show the proof that Yacht Brokers have undoubtedly borrowed from their so called clients account.
I realize that you do not agree that has any significance , we both realize the significance was not tested in that case as BA Peters stopped it just before they went bust, if we ever manage to meet up I will attempt to explain how I feel the significance is similar to other cases where it has been tested ( not yacht brokers) and what has happened in similar industries as a consequence.
As you say this is far divorced from a thread on VAT fraud.
The only connection being that the convicted criminal was a Yacht Broker whom may well of had access to £500 000 of clients cash as he stole the £210 000 VAT.
If you really cant see that some punters were at risk then we will have to agree to differ again.
Last edited by DAKA; 26-04-12 at 10:33.
"Punters" as you term them are ALWAYS at risk - just as I shall be at risk when I go to Tescos in a few minutes - do you know we had a pack of Felix last week that was 3 pouches short. Returned it and got a £5 voucher as well as a replacement. Will be running the same risk again today.
Risk is about the probablility of something happening (that is negative) and the consequences.
Think it has been demonstrated that the probability of a broker running off with your money is very low - so low that you really can't quantify it. This is perhaps because the consequences can be severe so measures are in place to ensure the risk stays low to non-existent. In addition it is easy to adopt a strategy to remove this particular (almost non -existent) risk entirely. So difficult to see why you keep on about it.
Plenty of other more real risks to worry about.
I agree its all about risk perception and yours and mine are very different.
I would run another poll but in the past when the question of http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299972 was asked , it was apparent I wasnt alone with my concerns and I really cant see that a Yacht Broker being convicted of stealing £210 000 VAT will have helped the situation.
I would be VERY interested to find out, may I respectfully request you run your own poll with unbiased questions and lets see.
As you have just said in another context, Polls on here attract so few votes that they are meangingless, even if you can construct simple questions that get unambiguous answers. A lifetime of doing research including constructing questionnaires on a wide range of topics has left me a sceptic. So I tend to concentrate on factual evidence, particularly when it is obtained from observing what is going on, rather than looking from evidence to support a pre-conceived theory. Used to be my essay topic after about lecture 3 on doing research in a social environment. Always got some interesting ideas from people confronted for the first time with figuring out different ways of approaching a subject, and what constitutes "good" evidence.
DAKA these have become very lighthearted and fun threads
....but I do have to say at this point. The risk of anything happening to clients money is very very low, especially since Peters.... (which in many ways seems to have had as much to do with the bank as the broker- although I will add the caveat I do not know the full facts)
A written in trust account that most brokers now have specifically excludes the bank from setting off overdrafts.
If a broker goes bust and the money is in a correctly set up client account. It is safe, no problem. It cant be set off by the administrator and it cant be used by the bank against the business's loans or overdrafts. Now I am talking about brokers here not traders or dealers, as they have different ways of dealing with stage payments etc.
Every business/industry will have a small minority who will abuse the trust they have been given.
With Yacht broking it is thankfully very low, indeed compared to other professions it's very very low.
Your threads whilst highlighting one or two incidences over a 5 year period make it seem that nearly every broker is at it, And that is simply not true.
There lots of checks and balances in place as well, so keeping on saying its unregulated is also distorting the reality.
So far we have Peters going bust, a bloke flashing his willy, a non payment of vat and a boat with osmosis that ehm, wasn't surveyed.
Its hardly the wild west the tone of your posts would have the casual observer to these threads believe was the every day occurrence.
But perhaps you just like winding us all up
I feel in absolute honesty that I start off with a post which is reasonably balanced and not out of perspective, being a short warning of a potential issue.
I then feel that Tranona and yourself unintentionally but most likely egged on by the rest of the forum start to question my brief forum warning , in order to justify my mini warning I have to expand and you and Tranona keep digging and demanding more and more dirt .
Eventually we have a thread which is very comprehensive and technically accurate but agreed the truth is unfairly damaging to good honest yacht Brokers like your goodself.
In my opinion Tranona and yourself have to accept some of the responsibility for the prolonged and repeated exposure of the issues.
If I may just copy paste my original post on this thread that set Tranona off on one
If the judge was 100% accurate in his summing up then we need to be more concerned about the actions of Yacht Brokers, you got another snippet of proof regarding widespread dodgy dealings
Accepted the word 'widespread' was perhaps unfair but I described this VAT scam as just a snippet so did that passage as an expression of my opinion really deserve the attention you both gave it ?