Tommo.. code violations? 15th feb

.
CAP CODE 5.1 DECENCY..Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Please take a look at Derek Thompsons tipping ability as shown in his tipping results below. Is it not indecent to act as though he knows what he is talking about when the reality confirms that he is clueless. His appalling results in my list confirm that observation 100%. I shall shortly be adding Oct-Nov-Dec 2008. They are appalling. Absolutely appalling! He conceals his losers from the caller and boasts only 100% winners. The caller is seduced and pays the fee blind of Thompson's appalling losses. I believe sir that is beneath the standards of decent or proper behaviour. Do the callers complain? No. Why? It was only a few quid and it ‘aint worth bothering about. The offence goes unnoticed and Thompson says “next please!”
I would ask sir, is Channel 4 Racing's Derek Thompson a fit person to sell 090 'winner only' racing tips to the public, bearing in mind the volume he sells. Given that he can afford to pay £11,500 for a full page one day advert, he must have quite a few callers at £1 a minute. Would the public call if they were allowed to see his results below? Hence Thompsons winner only adverts. Show the winners, hide the losers

In 3 months of 2006......Thompson's tips...LOST..£6000.........£50 stk
In 1 month of 2001........Thompson's tips...LOST..£1921.........£50 stk
Mar 2008 (olbg)............Thompson's tips...LOST...£838..........£50 stk
Apr 2008 (olbg).............Thompson's tips...LOST...£400..........£50 stk
May 2008 (olbg)............Thompson's tips...LOST...£500..........£50 stk
Jun 2008 (olbg).............Thompson's tips...LOST...£1125........£50 stk
Jul 2008 (olbg)..............Thompson's tips...LOST...£1260........£50 stk
Aug 2008 (olbg).............Thompson's tips..LOST....£526.........£50 stk
Sep 2008 (olbg).............Thompson's tips..LOST....£260.........£50 stk
Oct 2008 (olbg).............Thompson's tips...LOST...£200..........£50 stk
Nov 2008 (olbg).............Thompson's tips...LOST...£840..........£50 stk
Oct 2008 (Buzz line)......Thompson's tips...LOST...£1400........£50 stk
Dec 2008 (RP 090)............Updating results in the next few days
Nov 2008 (RP 090)............Updating results in the next few days
Oct 2008 (RP 090)............Updating results in the next few days
Se23Fe7.08(talk sport)...Thompson's tips...LOST...£2290.......£50 stk
Au15-31.08(RP 090)......Thompson's tips...LOST...£1460........£50 stk

OFFENSIVE

Widespread offence is caused to tens of thousands of callers who respond to full page colour adverts that cost £11,500 inc vat believing the 090 tipster must be good. They are duped and conned by never being allowed to see the tipsters losers. As the inevitable losses mount up they realise they have been mislead by the full page £11,500 advert. They bail out. A few days later they read the Racing Post and what do they see? A full page £11,500 advert promoting 090 tipping services. Tens of thousands of trusting people over the last 20 years are well within their rights to feel “offended.” 090 tipping adverts that conceal losers with the intent to trick and deceive are “offensive” The Racing post carries a daily abundance of "offensive" 090 tipping adverts .

CAP Code 6.1: HONESTY. Marketers should not exploit the credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers

MISLEADING....The naive tipster client screams “lack of knowledge!” Why else would he call an 090 tipping line? He calls the tipping line because he has no knowledge or experience. If he had the slightest of either, he would know the perils within. He is innocent of Thompson’s astronomical losses. He is impressed with the full page £11,500 advert and its glowing content. He then succumbs to temptation and phones Channel 4 Racings Derek Thompson. Within a week or two he will realise that his lack of knowledge and experience has resulted in him being exploited, mislead, and deceived by Derek Thompson’s manufactured 090 full page £11,500 advert.

CAP code: 7.1 …TRUTHFULNESS …..No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise

MISLEADING BY OMISSION....A tipping advert that boasts winners and nothing but winners is a misleading advert. The content within only tells half truths. Question. Why don't tipsters show their losers? Answer. If they did, every single one of them would go out of business overnight. (Derek Thompson would be gone within the hour!) And that is a fact! Why? Because every single one of them makes huge losses. If they were successful they would shout their monthly profits in their adverts. Such positive indication of success would bring more clients. I have yet to see and never will see an 090 tipsters doing that. 090 tipsters whose adverts conceal and hide their losers have licence to print money. It is so lucrative that Derek Thompson can afford to pay £11,500 for a one single day advert to exploit those without knowledge and experience. He drives the proverbial coach and horses through the code of conduct loopholes. If you look at Thompson's huge RP losses, how on earth can he justify bragging and boasting in his Racing Post advert that he is so successful at giving winners? Answer. He is allowed to mislead and deceive by concealing his losers and losses. Misleading by omission.

MISLEADING BY EXAGGERATION....Thompson boasted a banner headline relating to a horse he tipped as a "RECORD BREAKER" " Highest price recorded: Kinnaird 70-1, yes 70-1!" Most impressive to those without knowledge and experience. It would have been the first and last horse ever recorded at that price. Truly a record breaker. Thompson's knowledge of horse racing appears so poor that he did not realise that there is no such starting price. I checked Kinnaird out recently and found its starting price was 33-1. MISLEADING BY OVER EXAGGERATION AND UNTRUTHFUL

MISLEADING BY EXAGGERATION I also checked out when Kinnaird last ran. I was rather surprised to find that Thompson was still gloating about Kinnaird's success 3 years and three months after he tipped it at 33-1. Misleading by unbelievable stretching of a 39 month advert boast. MISLEADING BY EXCESSIVE STRETCHING

MISLEADING....I also noticed in Thompson's website how an 090 £1.50 per minute telephone was placed intimately and enticingly close to a yellow box full of flashy winners. It appeared at first sight that the winners were related to his £1.50 tipping service. Many many thousands of people over many many years would have thought the same as I did and proceeded to ring that most conveniently placed 090 number. And I sir, lack neither "knowledge or experience" as most of Thompson's premium rate 090 callers do. But never the less, it did fool me for a while. After studying the advert closely, I found the telephone and the flashy yellow box winners were two completely different services. I doubt that most 090 callers to this day, do not know that the 090 £1.50 per minute telephone and the yellow box of winners were un-related. Such callers were without "knowledge or experience" as to the dubious ways of premium rate tipping services. A few days after I pointed out my findings in my blog, all Thompson's website telephone numbers have since been removed. I anticipated such a reaction by Thompson and took the precaution of taking a photocopy before and after of his website change. The evidence. MISLEADING BY VISUAL SUGGESTION

MISLEADING & UNTRUTHFUL .... On the 4th of January 2009, Channel 4's Derek Thompson placed an advert in the Racing Post that said. ...."A great finish to the year with December winners including 12-1, 6-1, 5-1, 5-1, 4-1, 4-1, 4-1, 3-1 Plus many many more! Don’t miss out in 2009".......His losses for the the last 3 weeks of dec were (£1464 to a £50 stk. 6th-31st)(He had a 12-1 winner on the 2nd Dec and promoted his 'successful service' on the strength of it until the 4th Jan. And all the time, he was ratcheting up heavy losses)..... I suppose it could be said that he did have "great finish to the year" because on the 31st Dec he had one of his rare winning days of £87.50 (£50 stk) MISLEADING AND UNTRUTHFUL

-----------------------------------------------------

MISLEADING? & UNTRUTHFUL? The evidence contained within this particular code violation is probably the most important of all because I believe that Thompson has breached his own rules, and as he states quite clearly, his subscription clients are entitled to a refund. ..... In Thompson's website,"Lays and tips, Maximum lays" Thompson claims "So far in 2008, my private clients have enjoyed a 100% success rate on these!"

On the 11th of Feb, I wrote in my blog "I have no way of proving this as the results are a closely guarded secret. But I have yet to see a tipping service that has had "100% success throughout the year. I do not believe him"

Today as I right this post (15th Feb) Thompson has removed his 100% success gloat. By doing so would indicate I am right....Thompson Maximum bet rules say "Where a service has been changed that significantly affects (to the detriment) the service a member originally signed up for, those members shall be entitled to cancel their subscription and receive a refund for outstanding months" remaining waiting for their money back

Channel 4 Racing's Tommo's "maximum bet" service promotional material has been changed "detrimentally". The advert that Thompson's clients responded to was untruthful and misleading. The advert was and is part of his "maximum bet" promotional service. Therefore by removing it the service no longer has the credibility of the initial service the client responded to. I trust that Thompson will be notifying his maximum bet clients as to their good fortune. BIG TIME SERIOUS DECEPTION BY TV CHANNEL 4 RACING'S DEREK THOMPSON

----------------------------------------------------

MISLEADING & STRETCHING....If you scroll further down the same page, you will see a blue block of Thompson's winners. Proof that he tips winners winners and nothing but winners. For NOVEMBER 2006!! 26 months ago! And not a starting price in sight. Yet another exaggerated gloat. Winners winners winners. What a month! 63 winners and not one single loser! Most eye catching. Most offensive. Most obscene! According to that page full of winners, Channel 4 Racings Derek Thompson had another 100% winning success rate in November 2006. Most impressive to those without knowledge and experience! This time I will call him a liar. MISLEADING. UNTRUTHFUL & EXAGGERATED SUCCESS

MISLEADING BY 'CHERRY PICKING.' ... On the 31st of January, Thompson had 4 winners 'imported' into one of his ailing 090 services to promote it. I believe the tips he boasted in his 090 advert were not related to the same 090 service. I believe they were taken from his 'members' service. There is no way of me finding out as such information is almost an impossibility too obtain. AS ALWAYS! But the evidence I have, clearly indicates that I am right.

I could go on forever, but feel I have said enough to prove my point.

I believe that: IMMORAL - SCAM - FRAUD - FRAUDULENT ADVERTISING - INDECENT - SWINDLE - UNETHICAL - OBSCENE and CONFIDENCE TRICK can be added to the above group of code violations.

What chance have people without knowledge and experience got against the likes of Channel 4 Racing's Derek Thompson and his fellow 090 tricksters. "Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly." And those without knowledge and experience do just that! Obscene!

And finally. If Derek Thompson did not pay £30,000 for those misleading full page adverts, which is quite possible, then who did? I believe it may be The Racing Post themselves. Its called an 'advertorial.' A proofing tag had been attached to the yellow flash in Thompson's website for years that stated his tips were "proofed to the Trinity Mirror group".... Thompson scribes his advert, The Racing Post may not charge him to publish it, and the Mirror Group who own the Racing Post proof it. (instead of condemning it for the con that it is!) I mentioned this cosy relationship of bedfellows in my blog a few weeks ago. Suddenly and after umpteen years the tag promptly disappeared. If others have taken profit by sponsoring adverts that deceive and trick, are they not themselves as guilty for the same code violations as Thompson himself? Whoever did pay for those adverts that were designed to trick and deceive those without knowledge and experience, are surely as guilty as Thompson is as to the above code violations.