A frugal life is an easy life!

Which? conversation's "Fixed means fixed" campaign is, we are told, supported by over 20,000 people.
It comes about on the back of their most popular "conversation" regarding complaints about Three mobile raising prices by less than the retail price index (RPI) mid contract.

As I posted earlier, Which? conversation are hiding posts/comments, that do not support their campaign.
http://www.frugalways.co.uk/life.php/consumers-association-which-manipulating-their-conversations-campaigns
This post can be seen only by my account, when visiting the Which? conversation website as a visitor (ie, not logged in) the post is hidden from view.
When logged into an account other than mine, the post is hidden from view.
This post has not been deleted, no explanation given from Which?
Which? conversation think it is acceptable to hide posts from view that do not agree with their view.

UPDATE:
After a week long wait and postings to twitter highlighting this, the comment below has finally been published.
Of course, it was just an oversight as the comment was in a "moderation queue" and was not picked up on.
It is now not the latest comment, instead it can be seen before several other comments made over the past week.
Let's see how long it will take to get some answers to the points raised....

Here's the comment.

"Which? has some serious questions to answer about this campaign, their official complaint to OFCOM and their conduct on this issue before they get my support on this.
 
“Fixed means fixed” campaign alongside the official complaint to OFCOM has INCREASED the detriment of consumers, both in time and money.
 OFCOM’s review was due to be completed in late July 2012.
 Which? after negotiations with OFCOM and Three, submitted a formal complaint instead of “a super complaint”
 As a result of the actions of Which? there will now be no review findings or action until January 2013 – conveniently fitting in nicely with OFCOM’s 2013 general aims.
 
Had Which? not made an official complaint to OFCOM, then there would have been a response from OFCOM in July 2012
 Had Which? used its powers and issued a “super complaint” then OFCOM would have had to respond to it within 90 days. An OFCOM response would have come by late October 2012, at the latest.
 Now that Which? have lodged an official complaint, as a direct result of, there will now be no response/resolution until at the earliest, January 2013.
 OFCOM have extended their review by a further 6 months.
 (source: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/competition-bulletins/open-cases/all-open-cases/cw_01082/)
 
In light of Which? being in discussions with both Three and OFCOM prior to their complaint it is difficult to see any other reason why Which? have acted in this way, other than to assist Three and OFCOM to manage this issue. This is not the way I would expect an “independant” consumer watchdog to operate!
 
There was no mention of OFCOM’s own review (started in January 2012) by any Which? staff on the posts concerning price rises until the same day Which? submitted the formal complaint, in a this is money article dated July 16th, that Which? responded to.
 This includes the T-Mobile price rises thread in March 2012 and both Three price rises threads (from May 2012) and in their responses to consumer’s posts.
 The first time Which? have mentioned OFCOM’s review on their own conversation boards, was the 18th July in response to being asked why they hadn’t mentioned it at all.
 This wasn’t on the Three price rises posts, it was on this thread “fixed means fixed”
 
21st and 22nd June 2012, Which? staff were still posting the official OFCOM line that it was down to individual cases on Three conversations.
 22nd June, poster “Simon” posted his official reply from OFCOM which highlighted the January 2012 review.
 Despite this change of response from OFCOM it wasn’t until 18th July that Which? staff mentioned the review at all, almost a month later and after the formal complaint was submitted.
 
This all makes a mockery of Which?’s reply to why a super complaint wasn’t submitted,
 “…it can take a long time for us to put a super complaint together given the duty on regulators to respond. In the case of Fixed Means Fixed, there was clearly a huge call for us to act quickly, which is why we have promptly submitted a formal complaint on this occasion”
 
When did Three’s RPI price rises come into effect?
 16th July, the exact same day as the notification period of price rises ran out for Three customers, the same day as Which? submitted their official complaint to OFCOM!
 

Three’s RPI price rises do not affect customers that signed their contracts AFTER 8th March 2012
 Why would Which? omit this information from their two “Three price rises” conversation posts and not mention it in their “fixed means fixed” campaign?
 Why have Which? staff not posted this in their responses to worried consumers posting on their boards, instead advising people to “keep paying monthly under protest”?
 (Source: http://www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/the-marketing-of-mobile-phone-fixed-term-offers-which-complaint-290997.pdf – see section 17)
 
Why have Which? omitted to include a link to the details of their formal complaint to OFCOM from their “Fixed means fixed” campaign for people to see?
 You can read the full official complaint here – http://www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/the-marketing-of-mobile-phone-fixed-term-offers-which-complaint-290997.pdf
 With over 19,000 sign ups to the campaign as I post, I am surprised nobody has asked where they can find the details of the complaint… or perhaps people are too trusting of a consumer watchdog?
 
The official complaint states “Which? and Three have entered into a dialogue on this issue. These documents may be disclosed to Ofcom in confidence”
 Why are documents listing dialogue between Three and Which? to remain confidential?
 If consumers are not being managed by Which? Three and OFCOM, why are these not made available for us to see?
 Open and transparent, independant, etc, are words bandied about, but when it might benefit the public they are kept confidential?
 I can’t see how any dialogue between Three and Which? could be “commercially sensitive” – it’s a simple case of Three haven’t pointed out the RPI clause at the point of sale, preventing customers from making an informed buying decision, so they are within their rights to terminate their contracts without penalty.
 
Which? are advocating that it is acceptable for customers to pay early termination fees where a mobile phone company has done nothing wrong, in their offical complaint to OFCOM
 In response to my questioning of this on which? conversation boards, Which? replied,
 
“If the company has stuck to the terms then yes, an early termination fee is acceptable.
 Why? Well, most contracts these days come with a free phone, so to allow people to cancel with no penalty one month in would have us all walking around with free phones or (more likely) no opportunity for a company to offer this sort of contract to those who want it.
 Also, most early termination charges will relate to revenues foregone from a mutually agreed contract, rather than an actual ‘penalty.’”
 
* Handsets – If the contract is sold with “a free handset” or the handset price is presented as “no charge” then there can be no instance of that handset ever becoming chargeable to the customer in any case where early termination fees are sought.
 “…so to allow people to cancel with no penalty one month in would have us all walking around with free phones or (more likely) no opportunity for a company to offer this sort of contract to those who want it.” – completely irrelevant business spin in the case of early termination fees.
 If a handset is given away “free” with a contract, then it cannot be charged for at a later date.
 To charge in any way for the “free” handset would be a penalty charge as it does not recover “actual loss” and as such is unenforceable under common law in England and Wales.
 Over 100 years of legal precedent exists to back up my point.
 
Also, most early termination charges will relate to revenues foregone from a mutually agreed contract, rather than an actual ‘penalty.’
 * Furture revenues of the contract – The case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 79 at 86., it was noted by the judge, that a clause is penal if it provides for “a payment of money stipulated as in terrorem of the offending party”, (i.e. a payment of a sum of money intended to frighten or intimidate the offending party).
 
By definition, a “deterrent” is a way of intimidating someone from performing an action.
 Early termination fees in a mobile phone contract act as a “deterrent” to the other party, to prevent them cancelling mid term to obtain a better deal elsewhere or to stop paying their contract should their financial circumstances worsen, for example.
 This view is further supported under OFCOM’s own General condition 9, which states, “contract termination conditions and procedures for termination must not act as a disincentive to end-users from switching their providers”
 If Which? can think of a bigger “disincentive” to an end user from switching their service provider, than imposing early termination fees which often run to more than £100, then I’m sure we would all like to hear it!
 
There are too many coincidences and unanswered questions for me to support this campaign and the official complaint with OFCOM."

It's ironic, that Which? conversation's campaign "Fixed means fixed" is about businesses misleading customers, how is hiding legitimate questions from supporters and website visitors (without providing any answers) not misleading?
How many more posts/comments with questions are you hiding Which?