Scam watch: stung by fake shoe ad

@gmartin, George, well I’m suggesting that with such a huge price difference between the “offer” and normal price for R&B shoes the prospective “sensible” purchaser would think twice about how genuine the offer was – perhaps too good to be true? I’d suggest they are victims of impulse without due consideration. I do want to see people educated, but we have had many years of online shopping and many warnings of fake and fraudulent offers. R&B themselves warned of fake websites 18 months ago. So my personal view is that giving money back (our money, of course) when people act in response to such an extreme offer without due thought does not encourage a future responsible approach. I realise that card companies have a responsibility to repay under many circumstances.

We hear regularly of people who have lost money due to a scam when they have responded to an offer that was too good to be true. I’m afraid I can’t tread on eggshells and say “oh dear” when I believe they have been irresponsible.

@gmartin, well George, I see a Convo as a place to make an honest (personal) response to an issue, hopeful politely, courteously and inoffensively. I suggested here that, in view of the huge price disparity, a bit of checking before paying would be best – education. I have made known in other places my own views on automatic compensation, what I see as personal responsibility in regard to fraud, overdrafts, scams and so on. I expect that not all will share those views but I express points of view that I hope will generate a debate, rather than simply sympathise with every predicament that is put up for discussion. I don’t see that as a way to make acceptable progress.

However, you are in charge of the Convo and if you feel presenting a particular point of view is out of place you can remove it.

Sorry George, but I agree with malcolm here and John who says:
I do not accept, as a generalisation, that people who buy goods on line are not internet savvy.

Had this been about one pair of nameless shoes, more sympathy might have been forthcoming, but it was 3 pairs of named and what are normally very expensive shoes that are only sold directly by R&B so the buyer had to have some idea that something was not right and decided to take advantage of it.

The worrying aspect is that with the expectation of reimbursements when things go wrong, people knowingly take a chance on dodgy transactions.

Isn’t this website looked at by the general public Jon ?
This sounds like a policy decision just to promote a conversation rather than teaching the public by giving information so that a more informative public can reason for themselves a given situation and so come to a reasoned conclusion .
Has Which ? now reached the stage of us becoming “information bots ” so long as that information complies with a set political/economic policy and is so restricted that they are constantly referred to joining Which ? as a paid member to obtain any more detail .
Helping the public IMO is making them achieve a more judgemental position ,or is that restricted to— see Which ? -x-y-z ?
If so it brings into question the raison etre of the whole website (Which Conversations ).
I perfectly understand Which making money —I am for it ,and yes I believe in capitalism with a small “c” but to what end is this website ?
It should attract young people yet they are constantly put off by being criticised for grammatical errors for one .

Thank you for your reply Jon but I am struggling to find what I said is “off topic ” when I directly indicate Facebook the details above obtainable from a US government service website / US tech. websites where US citizens are freely given information directly relating to any wrong done to them .

I then take it that only basic information is given to the public in the UK rather than criticise/blame a giant US conglomerate ,in other words moan about it and don’t act or advise the general public to contact a NGO etc who many posters in the past have criticised as being ineffective —strange ?

If Which ? advertises a convo relating to a subject close to the public’s heart a flood of posts are received in that convo but putting replies into the Lobby is not going to get much interest in relation to the main convo on that subject as most of the public will not go there but (naturally ) look for a reasoned reply in the main convo.