Cooper craft - Cautionary notes for customers - Its fate and thoughts on an alternative

[Steamport Southport]

Maybe you assume too much, I have actually read the whole sad and sorry thread as I have already stated I am a big fan of the Coopercraft range and I wanted to see what is going on, I had inquired about what was happening with them late last year when I made a phone call to Holt Model Railways regarding an order I placed with them for some other items. Speaking of which what has happened to them as their website seems to be on the blink and I can't access their catalogue, or will they be the next vendor to have a vitriolic diatribe ascribed to them, mind you I got good service from them.

 

A slight difference in that Holt's website seems to have died and you can't place orders on it as you can't put things in a basket.

 

Quite a few websites have been having problems since the new Windows update. I would think that a website that is 13 years old needs binning and starting again anyway.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[chris p bacon]

Maybe you assume too much, I have actually read the whole sad and sorry thread as I have already stated I am a big fan of the Coopercraft range and I wanted to see what is going on, I had inquired about what was happening with them late last year when I made a phone call to Holt Model Railways regarding an order I placed with them for some other items. Speaking of which what has happened to them as their website seems to be on the blink and I can't access their catalogue, or will they be the next vendor to have a vitriolic diatribe ascribed to them, mind you I got good service from them.

 

If you've read the thread why point the blame at customers for not reading the CC home page.  You say you are a fan of CC so I'm interested to know what kits you've purchased from him recently ?

 

I would add that I'm always suspicious of posters that register and then comment on a long standing thread such as this CC one with comments that looks to inflame.

 

As for the bit in Bold, you are the one who has now questioned whether there is an issue. 

[BR(S)]

To all the bizarre Coopercraft apologists on this thread: I have manufactured all sorts of model railway products that I know are on your wants lists (honest guv).  I'll be setting up a website today, will send you the link later and you can send me the money through tonight.

 

Easier than selling Bitcoins to the bandwagoners this. 

Edited December 24, 2017 by BR(S)

[polybear]

Nope; it's panto season.

 

He's behind you!

 

Oh no he's not......

[jjb1970]

Imagine a scenario like this. Somebody orders something from a website. A day or two later they get a call or email to say sorry, there is an issue with the website, I can't deliver those goods so I've refunded the money. The person may ask questions but overall most people would be satisfied with things and wouldn't question the integrity of the vendor.

Now imagine an alternative scenario where a vendor blames their website but doesn't seem to do anything about it and then doesn't want to issue refunds or communicate with the people who have paid. Rather different scenario I think.

[Junctionmad]

I see no mitigation to what copercraft is doing on its website. there is no intention to supply nor refund the money , it's in essence simple fraud.

 

Any website can be " effectively " disabled by removing the DNS entries , a simple email or phone call by Dunn to the dns providers managing the dns registration name would have the site in essence disabled in 24 hours. Alternatively he could simply disable the credit card processing.

 

There is not and cannot be any justification for this type of activity

Edited December 24, 2017 by Junctionmad

[Captain Kernow]

I do wonder exactly why Paul Dunn isn't refunding the monies already paid up front for goods that won't be produced in the forseeable future.

 

Is it- 

 

i) He's an out and out crook and conman, who has set out from the very start to defraud folk?

 

or

 

ii) He started out as an honest, but perhaps slightly out-of-his-depth trader, who has since been sucked into the world of deliberately conning folk out of their money?

 

or

 

iii) He started out as an honest, but perhaps slightly out-of-his-depth trader, who is now even more out of his depth, but doesn't care about putting things right and is happy to continue taking money for no goods?

 

or

 

iv) He started out as an honest, but perhaps slightly out-of-his-depth trader, who is now even more out of his depth, doesn't know quite how to put things right, even though he is unhappy at the idea of taking money for goods that he can't deliver, and perhaps hasn't got the mental or emotional courage to acknowledge his problems and pay back the money owed?

 

or

 

v) As per (iv), but also hasn't currently got the funds to repay the money he owes, and perhaps his personal and business finances have become confused and are in a bit of a mess.

 

 

I certainly don't excuse criminal or fraudulent behaviour and I very much sympathise with those who are owed money and haven't received the goods they thought that they were going to get.

 

I also lament the way that the previously good name of Cooper Craft, which I also remember from the early days as a marque of good quality kits, has now diminished so significantly.

 

I have, however, met Paul Dunn on a number of occasions, always at shows like RailEx in Aylesbury or RailWells, and someone less like a serious criminal/con man it would be hard to find (I base this judgement on stereotypes from the media, of course, as I don't personally know any master criminals or con men), but I can imagine him getting out of his depth in these matters and perhaps sliding into a position where he's in a 'rabbit-in-the-headlights' situation and doesn't know which way to turn.

 

If he has booked himself into a number of shows next year (having read that he has on this thread), then the risk of someone confronting him is surely quite high. Am I the only one having difficulty reconciling that with someone who is trying to hide from his 'public?'

 

There's got to be a reason for his lack of communication and non-refunding of people. It is certainly disappointing that he hasn't done so, but there must be one or more reasons for it.

 

If he needs assistance resolving this, then he really should seek it from someone he knows that can genuinely help him. Perhaps a start would be for someone to loan him the amount of money he owes, so that he can repay the customers and then pay off the loan in a controlled, structured way. Hopefully that person/organisation could then offer any business advice/assistance that he might need, as well.

 

I appreciate that there is a genuine sense of outrage and upset on the part of some folk who have posted on this thread, and I am not saying that they do not have the right to feel the way that they do. If I knew Paul Dunn to be a genuine 'nasty piece of work' that would be one thing, but I don't see him as that kind of person, rather someone who is seriously out of their depth and/or has taken a 'wrong turning' somewhere and isn't sure of the way back.

 

No offence intended to anyone who has posted on this thread so far, and to clarify, I haven't ordered anything from Cooper Craft myself either.

[bgman]

Quote -

 

"If he has booked himself into a number of shows next year (having read that he has on this thread), then the risk of someone confronting him is surely quite high. Am I the only one having difficulty reconciling that with someone who is trying to hide from his 'public?' "

 

I think his stand might be easy to find !

 

 

 

 

[Porcy Mane]

I do wonder exactly why Paul Dunn isn't refunding the monies already paid up front for goods that won't be produced in the forseeable future.

 

Snippy'd

 

What a sensible post. So much better than some of the uninformed and provocative twaddle I've read on here over the last few days/weeks.

 

Top hole old chep.

 

P

[TheTurfBurner]

Before I close down for the holidays and return to snoozing in front of the fire, there are some points I want to clarify which have become lost in the fog of the last 50 odd pages.

I can accept that Dunn may not have received some or all of my e-mails from 9 April 2015. I can also accept he may not have received my pro forma “Letter before a Small Claims Court claim” dated 9 April 2017. However, I find it difficult to accept he did not receive Notice of Claim sent to him by the Small Claims Court on 23 May 2017. The Court gave Dunn until 11 June to reply – he did not do so and accordingly Judgement was entered on 5 July 2017.

Believe it or not, I am a reasonable person(!) I wrote again to Dunn on 31 August 2017 giving him a final opportunity to pay the amount owed – plus legal costs to date – by 18 September. I specifically said I “have no desire to damage your business”, but made it clear I would proceed to enforcement if I did not hear from him by 18 September.

Dunn did not reply. Accordingly, a “Request for Warrant of Control” was issued on 2 October 2017 and Dunn was visited by the Bailiffs on two occasions during October. On both occasions, he refused the Bailiffs access to his premises. Also, as the Bailiff informed me in our telephone conversation on Friday last, Dunn “refused to pay” (the Bailiff’s words, not mine). Dunn did not say “I have no money and can’t pay”. He did not say “my machines are broken, but I’ll sort this as soon as I can”. He, in the words of the Bailiff “refused to pay”.

The matter is now with Trading Standards and Action Fraud. I doubt anything will happen soon, but you will be kept informed.

As for Dunn attending shows in 2018, I am not going to drive for 5 hours to confront him, get nothing and then drive 5 hours home. I am also very aware, as Dunn clearly knows how to play the Court system, he could easily organise the appearance of a “confrontation” at a show which would probably have me ejected under police escort. Far better to leave these matters to the professionals. Should I become aware he is going to a show, I’ll contact the Somerset Bailiff and ask if his colleagues in the show’s area could call on Dunn’s stand. They know the law, have proper Court identification and are much better placed to effect a successful outcome.

[raymw]

The only provocative twaddle that I've seen, is those trying to make excuses for Dunn's behavior, or guessing at reasons for same. It is very simple. If you can't supply the goods, and money has been paid, then you refund the payment. However, in this sort of low priced wish-thinking market, folk live in hope that a miracle will happen, and the seller knows that most will not over exert themselves to claim back a few quid. By refunding a few customers, then if it gets really, really sticky for him, then he can apologize (unlikely to admit he's wrong), and say it was a mistake, missed the order/whatever.

 

With regard to the production side of things, he is not slightly out of his depth, he is completely out of his depth, and on purchasing the various lines, had absolutely no idea on the requirements of operating the machinery, or the environment required, and having the mindset of a certain type of Somerset rural folk means he would/will refuse any offer of help. And so it goes, for the last five or six years??? The photos on his website, showing the moulding  machinery, is not of his premises, He can easily alter much of his website, but obviously it does not pay him to do so. I persuaded him, years ago to put on a note wrt not being able to supply, and suggested he altered the prices to those individual items to £0.00 or £999.99. Obviously, he would lose out on the steady trickle of small payments if he did that properly.

 

Being the season of goodwill, I expect he will refund all the outstanding amounts...

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

Edited December 24, 2017 by raymw

[Captain Kernow]

 

Also, as the Bailiff informed me in our telephone conversation on Friday last, Dunn “refused to pay” (the Bailiff’s words, not mine). Dunn did not say “I have no money and can’t pay”. He did not say “my machines are broken, but I’ll sort this as soon as I can”. He, in the words of the Bailiff “refused to pay”.

 

I wonder, though, if this couldn't also be considered in the light of some 'notorious person' or other being chased by the media, who when confronted by an 'in-your-face' reporter, simply says 'no comment', rather than answer the question in circumstances that are probably not favourable for them at the time.

 

It's not good, to be sure, but by the same token, it doesn't necessarily mean that he won't pay up at some stage in due course (whilst accepting that he's had some time to do so already).

 

As for Dunn attending shows in 2018, I am not going to drive for 5 hours to confront him, get nothing and then drive 5 hours home.

That assumes, of course, that he isn't attending any shows close to where you live. He may end up going to a show that's a lot closer than 5 hours away.

 

I am also very aware, as Dunn clearly knows how to play the Court system, he could easily organise the appearance of a “confrontation” at a show which would probably have me ejected under police escort.

I would respectfully point out, as I have tried to allude to in my earlier post, that based on what I know of his character, I find this unlikely. I'd suggest that embarrassment and an attempt to evade such a confrontation is probably more likely.

 

Should I become aware he is going to a show, I’ll contact the Somerset Bailiff and ask if his colleagues in the show’s area could call on Dunn’s stand. They know the law, have proper Court identification and are much better placed to effect a successful outcome.

As indicated above, the show may not be in Somerset, so presumably that would be the Bailiff of the county that the show was actually located in?

 

Also, I feel sure that you would also do the courtesy of notifying the exhibition organisers, in advance, of your proposals, so that they would know what was going to take place in their own show.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Captain Kernow

[Captain Kernow]

The only provocative twaddle that I've seen, is those trying to make excuses for Dunn's behavior, or guessing at reasons for same.

Speculating on the reasons for human behaviour, good or bad, is not in itself a bad thing, though.

 

I am sure that you did not intend to infer that I was guilty of producing 'provocative twaddle', when I was earlier indulging in some of said speculation.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Captain Kernow

[JCL]

   

billbedford, on 23 Dec 2017 - 03:41, said:

 

 
He is not the only trader to have a zombie website that, allegedly, can't be updated. So the line that 'he is still taking money so it must be fraud' does not necessarily hold up.
 

 

That's the point. No-one here knows the state of his finances, nor even that he is receiving monies from the website. People are just making wild guesses based on how aggrieved they feel.

billbedford, on 23 Dec 2017 - 03:46, said:

The represents about half his yearly bill for his website.

 

He's not likely to be retiring to the Caribbean anytime soon.

 

 

billbedford, on 22 Dec 2017 - 15:13, said:

You are making assumptions here. I do not know whether he is still taking money, or what his financial situation is, and neither do you and neither do any of the others who have been pontificating on this thread.

 

 

Bill

 

I don't normally get involved in this sort of thing on the internet, but let me help you out with a few facts. Some of these facts have already been posted on here, so thank you to the people that have already published them, but some of them are new, and it might help to have them all in one place.

 

Please note that, as a professional website designer, I am concentrating on my area of knowledge in this post, which is the website. I have an American keyboard that doesn't have a pound sign, but from my time working in the IT department for an investment bank we used GBP for pounds sterling, so I'll use that in my post.

 

"He is not the only trader to have a zombie website that, allegedly, can't be updated."

• Regardless of your quote above, this is not a zombie website. I'll explain why below this bulleted list.
• The Coopercraft website had its domain name (website name)  renewed last January, and the name was re-registered a week before the expiry date for another two years using 123-Reg Limited. That information is publicly available here: https://www.nominet....k#whois-results .
• The cost of the renewing the domain name, per the 123-reg website, is 20GBP + VAT for the two years. I had to pretend to register a domain with them to get the actual cost. Coopercraft may have paid this amount or less if there was a sale or some other discount.
• The owner of the domain name is registered as Anthony Brown - see the link above. As has been noted in previous pages, he is not the owner of the site, and Paul Dunn is. This means that Mr. Dunn is in violation of Nominet's terms and conditions and could, in theory, have his domain name suspended.
• The ultimate host of the site, i.e. the people that hold the files and database that allow the shop to function, is an American company called Rackspace - https://www.rackspace.com. Again, see the link above.
• As TheTurfBurner noted, on the footer of each page it says that it is designed and hosted by Sinclaire-Knight. Given that the actual host is Rackspace, Sinclaire-Knight are hosting space resellers. Unfortunately the link to their hosting information leads to a "404 page not found" error. They currently charge 1,795GBP to build an online shop.
• Now, a bit of digging into the website code. I've looked at the publicly readable source code for the login page of the Coopercraft's website and found that the online-shop uses free software called Open Source Commerce - https://www.oscommerce.com/ . If you want to know how I know this, it is indicated in this line of HTML (the web page coding language) link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/skcss/ oscomm.css", and is confirmed in a different file called stylesheet.css. The header of this second file contains the following text: osCommerce, Open Source E-Commerce Solutions, http://www.oscommerce.com Copyright © 2010 osCommerce Released under the GNU General Public License.
• Given the copyright date of 2010, and the fact that half a dozen support files, which I know have recent updates, have copyright dates of 2009 and 2010 on this system indicates that it's possible the shop software hasn't been updated in a few years. One thing of interest is that in August 2011, three vulnerabilities in version 2.2 of the OsCommerce system were exploited, allowing the addition of an iframe and JavaScript code to infect visitors to websites. I'm not saying that this has been exploited on the Coopercraft site, but this would indicate that the Coopercraft website has a six year old security hole in it at the moment.
• The wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia...wiki/OsCommerce states that the last update was  2.3.4 in 2014, this corresponds with the latest version available to download on their own website. There is a development version being tested called 2.4.0 . Although it hasn't had a fully released version for a while, they have a busy support forum at https://forums.oscommerce.com/
• osCommerce has been going for 17 years. Their home page says "osCommerce Online Merchant is a complete online store solution that contains both a shop frontend and an administration backend which can be easily configured and customized...".
• There are tutorials all over Youtube for osCommerce (https://www.youtube....uery=oscommerce )

Going back to the first bullet point - this is not a zombie website. I promised to explain why.

 

Searching Google, there are no references at all to zombie sites, apart from sites about Zombies The closest thing I found was a group of fraudulent websites that were used in an ad scamming scheme. Given your other posts, and while others would undoubtedly take the opposing view, many with first-hand experience, I'm willing to guess you personally aren't calling Coopercraft a fraudulent website. Please let me know if I'm incorrect in this. As 'zombie website' as a concept doesn't appear to exist, I'm going to have to create a working definition. This may not be your definition, as you haven't given one, but it is the only one I can think of that makes any kind of sense.

 

"A zombie website is a website that is live on the internet that the owner has no access to, and no way of killing."

 

That said, "The owner of a website, zombie or not, is responsible for the contents of that website." The concept of safe harbour is meant for social media, not online stores.

 

That's it - it can be nothing else.

• If the website is a dead website, then it isn't a zombie, it's a corpse.
• If the owner has access to it, then it's a regular website.
• If the owner can kill the website, then it's a regular website.

Given my extensive experience, all of the following would have to be true for a zombie website as defined above to exist:

• The website is fully paid up for hosting and with a domain name registered and paid up.
• The website is running.
• For one reason or another, the website owner no longer has the ID and password that enables them to gain access to any one of these:
  • the domain name registrar - the domain name owner logged in and renewed in January, so unless they lost their password since then, it's not a zombie website.
  • the website administration dashboard - does the owner have to log into the website to access the orders? If so, it's not a zombie website.
  • the hosting company
• The owner does not have a working relationship of any kind with the designer and the designer no longer has their own administration account with which they can access the site in case the client has problems. This is pretty standard for a web design company, though not universal.

Now, this is important: Being incompetent or not having the knowledge and/or inclination to update or delete the pages of a website to accurately indicate which items are available and which aren't does not make a site a zombie website, and does not absolve the owner of the responsibility to keep their website up to date. It makes it a valid website that is not maintained.

 

Let me remind you of your statement "He is not the only trader to have a zombie website that, allegedly, can't be updated." Given the above, it is patently untrue that this is a "zombie website", allegedly or not. If you know of other traders with zombie websites, feel free to give them the handy checklist above. The only reason I can see for using the phrase 'zombie website' is to absolve the Mr Dunn of responsibility for what is on that website and for the website continuing to take money from people.

 

To complete your quote, "So the line that 'he is still taking money so it must be fraud' does not necessarily hold up." Given that he doesn't own a zombie website, then this second half of your quote does not necessarily hold up. Using the word allegedly, you are defining an outcome based on an assumption. Something you are dismissing others for.

 

Talking about assumptions, you have called people out for making assumptions, so I'm interested to hear whether the your statement that £927.50p "... represents about half his yearly bill for his website." is an assumption, made up, or a fact.

 

If I take you at your word, and you are not making an assumption, you say that the owner is actually spending around 1,800GBP per year on the website that is not getting any maintenance. All I can say is that he is paying far too much for the service that he's getting! Actually, it's interesting that you say he is spending around 1,800GBP p.a. on his website as Sinclaire-Knight could rebuild his website for 1,795GBP. Are you/is he confusing the initial cost of building the website for ongoing hosting? As a website designer, on-going costs for a site like this should not be anywhere near 1,800GBP. That said, the creation of an online store for 1,795GBP could be a bit of a bargain.

 

"No-one here knows the state of his finances, nor even that he is receiving monies from the website."

• the state of his finances has nothing to do with taking money on his website. If he is insolvent then he shouldn't be taking money, if he isn't insolvent then he should be sending the goods or repaying the customers the money they owe,
• if he's losing money on the website, then as a businessman he should consider changing the website into something he can handle, or closing the website down,
• if he isn't receiving money from the payment processor, using the website that a) he's paying for, b) has contributed to the ruination of his reputation, he should make sure he is getting that money, changing the payment processor, or if this is impossible and he isn't able to edit the website, consider closing the site down down. 
• whether or not he is 'receiving monies' from his website is also irrelevant. If he is the owner of it, then he is responsible for the website that taking people's money. People are telling you that they have lost money on the site. You can dismiss them with any excuse you like, but taking money on the website and not providing the goods is the responsibility of the owner of the site, not the buyer.

You see Bill, having read the thread, we know for sure that the owner:

• has access to this thread if he wants to read it - he doesn't even need an RMWeb ID to access it,
• has had the bailiffs around,
• cannot say this isn't serious,
• who has renewed the website name within the last 12 months,
• who is currently paying for website hosting to keep the website going,
• who has access to, or has someone who can access the website, 
• who knows that people are spending money on his site,
• who's website is taking that money from people,
• who isn't sending out the goods, 
• who isn't refunding people,
• who isn't contacting people,
• who hasn't sorted out or killed his website (which he alone is responsible for),
• who is responsible for this,
• who isn't putting this right,
• who in your opinion appears to be the victim in all of this.

 

Well, those are the facts - ok, maybe not that last bullet point, but surely I don't need to provide any quotes for you to back this one up, just read back your posts on the last few pages of this thread. 

 

There are good people on here who have given first-hand experience of loss because of this trader, yet you dismiss them out of hand and paint them as the aggressors, while you see Coopercraft as the victim. Feel free to pick and choose the bits from this email that you feel you can dismiss, and ignore the bits you can't explain away.

 

I hope My Dunn reads Andy's email and does the right thing, though I won't be betting my business on it.

[Clearwater]

@jcl - excellent and informative post. One of the things That’s what great about the Rmweb community is when competent professional people share the benefit of their expertise for others

 

David

[Enterprisingwestern]

Apart the previous erudite post from JCL above, the thread reminds me of this;

 

 

As others have said, could we cool our heels and have a happy christmas?

 

Mike.

[David Stannard]

If you've read the thread why point the blame at customers for not reading the CC home page. You say you are a fan of CC so I'm interested to know what kits you've purchased from him recently ?

 

I would add that I'm always suspicious of posters that register and then comment on a long standing thread such as this CC one with comments that looks to inflame.

 

As for the bit in Bold, you are the one who has now questioned whether there is an issue.

 

Luckily enough I have not purchased or attempted to purchase any kits from Coopercraft directly these days, I had purchased quite a number of Coopercraft kits from a local model rail shop between 20 to 30 years ago, I only got back into the OO Scale part of the hobby 18 months ago after spending about 10 years following a different path and scale. When I got back into this arm of the hobby I went scouring a number of stores online for a whole host of items including some of the Coopercraft range, sadly I found that they were no longer available and after speaking to someone at Holt Model Railways I got some more insight into the issue, they mentioned that there had been some issues with production but did not elaborate on anything else.

 

I can certainly count myself lucky in that I have not attempted to purchase anything from Coopercraft directly as I would be joining the ranks of disgruntled punters here, that said this thread has provided a precautionary tale on the pitfalls of online shopping. I think Captain Kernow response with post #1334 of this thread has summed it up as best as it could be, if the current owner was purely out to rip people off why would he go to the expense of going to shows and setting up a trade stall and be at risk of running into his victims. I do agree that it is pretty poor form that he has not refunded the would be customers of their payments, if he had been proactive enough then the vast bulk of the issues of this sordid tale would have been solved and we wouldn't be arguing about it on a 50+ page rant, I basicaly see it as a situation of where someone being out of their depth and not knowing what to do in a "Deer in the headlights" kind of scenario.

Edited December 24, 2017 by David Stannard

[chris p bacon]

 I basicaly see it as a situation of where someone being out of their depth and not knowing what to do in a "Deer in the headlights" kind of scenario.

 

I don't.

 

I see it as someone who realises that even though he's never been able to manufacture anything has got used to an income (of sorts) from an active website.  As for shows if you read back through the thread you'll note that even though people have seen him they have not challenged him which is human nature.

 

I have no time for someone who takes money and doesn't deliver, if he can't cope then he shuts the website,  It couldn't be simpler. It doesn't stop him doing shows with actual stock but it stops the fraud. 

[locoholic]

Gosh - is this thread the RMWeb equivalent of the Eastenders Christmas Special?!

[Colin_McLeod]

If the bailiffs can't get the money there is always a creditor requested winding up and liquidation. That may or may not result in a small percentage payment but it will certainly stop him taking more money.

[Siberian Snooper]

I don't.

 

I see it as someone who realises that even though he's never been able to manufacture anything has got used to an income (of sorts) from an active website.  As for shows if you read back through the thread you'll note that even though people have seen him they have not challenged him which is human nature.

 

I have no time for someone who takes money and doesn't deliver, if he can't cope then he shuts the website,  It couldn't be simpler. It doesn't stop him doing shows with actual stock but it stops the fraud. 

 

In one of the previous threads , (now locked0 I mentioned that at RailWells a few years ago that there was a "very heated" discussion between a disgruntled punter and Mr Dunn and I believe that this was repeated at several other exhibitions at this time.

 

I believe that he was missing from this years RailWells and I know that he was missing from Scaleforum and the Taunton show this year, so I wonder if he has withdrawn from shows now.

[cctransuk]

..... I basicaly see it as a situation of where someone being out of their depth and not knowing what to do in a "Deer in the headlights" kind of scenario.

 

It staggers me that anyone can read the foregoing 54 pages of postings, and STILL play the sympathy card.

 

Goodwill to all men be b******d; this con-man knows exactly what he is doing; how to continue doing it; and what to do if the law catches up with him.

 

It's the b******g hearts of the world who these people rely on to keep them in (nefarious) business.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee!

 

...... and a Merry Christmas to all our readers !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Captain Kernow]

It staggers me that anyone can read the foregoing 54 pages of postings, and STILL play the sympathy card.

 

Goodwill to all men be b******d; this con-man knows exactly what he is doing; how to continue doing it; and what to do if the law catches up with him.

 

It's the b******g hearts of the world who these people rely on to keep them in (nefarious) business.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee!

 

...... and a Merry Christmas to all our readers !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

John,

 

If you've met the man in person, and have thus been able to add that crucial face-to-face dimension to your assessment of his character, then fine. I have met him face-to-face, several times (always at shows, as I mentioned before) and whilst I may not be the best judge of character, I personally remain of the view that he is very much out of his depth and possibly a bit complacent, but I don't see him as someone who set out at the beginning to deliberately defraud people.

 

I do not have sympathy for cynical criminals and con men, and I do have sympathy for those who have paid over money and not yet received their goods, but I not 'playing the sympathy card' with my remarks here, and I am equally no 'ble*ding heart' either.

 

I simply think that the situation here is possibly more complex than some would like to think it is.

[4630]

 

I simply think that the situation here is possibly more complex than some would like to think it is.

CK, I like to see the good in people; Give people the benefit of doubt when the circumstances so dictate.

 

In this particular case though I don’t believe it’s complex.

 

In this particular case the silence and inaction, that has dragged on for months, speaks volumes and tells everyone all they need to know.

[cctransuk]

John,

 

If you've met the man in person, and have thus been able to add that crucial face-to-face dimension to your assessment of his character, then fine. I have met him face-to-face, several times (always at shows, as I mentioned before) and whilst I may not be the best judge of character, I personally remain of the view that he is very much out of his depth and possibly a bit complacent, but I don't see him as someone who set out at the beginning to deliberately defraud people.

 

I do not have sympathy for cynical criminals and con men, and I do have sympathy for those who have paid over money and not yet received their goods, but I not 'playing the sympathy card' with my remarks here, and I am equally no 'ble*ding heart' either.

 

I simply think that the situation here is possibly more complex than some would like to think it is.

 

I am perfectly prepared to believe that, AT THE OUTSET, there was no nefarious intent.

 

I am also prepared to believe that Dunn is financially naive.

 

I might even believe that he initially accepted payments in the honest belief that he would, before too long, be able to supply the goods.

 

I strongly suspect that, in financial difficulties, he spent the payments on the essentials of life, thus leaving him in debt.

 

I can well believe that any payments made to his bank account are immediately swallowed up in a debt to his bank.

 

What I cannot and will not accept is that he continues to accept payments, still in the belief that he will be able to supply the goods before too long.

 

He MUST by now realise that he is accepting payments with no hope of fulfilling the orders within the foreseeable future.

 

I cannot be convinced that he cannot stop the payments being made over to his bank account.

 

The only way we can help him get out of this mire is by doing all in our power to ensure that no payments are made to him, and that his on-line business is suspended.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited December 24, 2017 by cctransuk