Thought for the day.. (2nd)..u/d 4th

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.THOUGHT FOR THE DAY. (4th)

When I started my blog on the 19th Nov 2007, this is what I wrote!
==============================
MY MISSION.
To get the Premium Rate (090) regulators to eradicate tipping adverts that mislead, trick, dupe, seduce and sell (£150 mnth) to honest folk, information that is manufactured in such a way that its purpose is to trick and deceive. ie. Winner only adverts. As in a market trader selling a barrel full of rotten apples by only showing a few good ones on the top. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. That is the purpose of this blog!===========================
I think we are making progress

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY (2nd)

ASA guideline 2.2... Key points for media
ad departments Publishers should check that marketers have “proofed” forecasts with anindependent third party before marketing that they have tipped particular winners or achieved a certain level of profit

For a long time (probably years) one of Derek Thompson’s 090 advert, carried very tiny wordage....With the aid of a magnifying glass it said....”Proofed to the Trinity Mirror Group”.....I believe that TMG allows Derek Thompson and other 090 tipping services to place their adverts in The Racing Post for free. It is a cozy relationship whereby the tipster places his advert and the newspaper proof the advert...The newspaper then take their cut of the tipsters 090 revenue. Hardly an independent Party!.....After I brought that point to light in my much viewed blog relating to scam racing tipsters, the wordage “proofed by The Mirror Trinity group” disappeared. I wonder why.

I would ask, has not the client the right to see for himself the proofed forecast. Has not the client the right to see the tipsters betting bank. After all it is the client whose money is at risk not the independent proofing party. What reason can possibly be offered for the client to be denied seeing the tipsters past results. The client SHOULD have access to the tipsters losers as well as having the tipsters winners rammed down his throat by trick misleading 'winner only' adverts. I would ask. Why is there not one single tipster who is prepared to show his losses. Why not? The answer to that question alone explains why the guideline's are heavily biased against the client and favour the deceiver

It is so so unfair!