A Facebook post reads,
"Used St James's Place In The Last 10 Years? You Could Be Paying For Services You're Not Receiving.
✅ Quickly Find Out If You Can Claim
✅ Efficient And Friendly Service
✅ AMK Legal Are Rated As Excellent"
That's it! Was this offensive? Breaching Facebook guidelines?
😲🔍 Shocked but not surprised to see that 98% of following comments are singing praises for St James's Place.
Let's peel back the layers here, folks.
Comparing their performance to a bank or building society savings account rather than the investment markets?
As long as SJP's returns are a smidgen better than the banks, everyone's over the moon. 🌙
But, are we really setting the bar that low? 🤔
Are clients genuinely that... let's say, 'unenlightened'? 🙈
– well, I say, time to start reading between the lines, folks! 📖✨
#OpenEyes #FinancialAwareness
Facebook has within an hour of posting, censored the article! It was simply a solicitor advert. I managed to copy the comments before it was removed, here they are summarised:
Here's a summary of the comments on the article:
1. **Robert Phillips**: Happy with 10% growth this year.
2. **Gwilym Ballinger**: Dismisses AMK Legal as nonsense.
3. **Jeremy Graves**: Warns that AMK are scammers.
4. **Sylvia Varley**: Praises St. James Place (SJP) for excellent service and plans to continue with them.
5. **Jeff Rundle**: Complains about comments being deleted, especially those calling out or being positive.
6. **Freddie Lauritzen**: Shares a positive experience with SJP, noting a consistent 10% increase in fund value annually and criticizes what he perceives as an American blame culture.
7. **Janet Warrander**: Disputes negative claims, praising SJP for excellent service.
8. **Phil Reilly**: Happy with SJP since 2016, criticizes solicitors he views as parasites.
9. **Jenny Law**: Compliments SJP's service, skeptical about lawyers.
10. **David Buchan**: Echoes similar sentiments as Jenny Law, praising SJP and wary of lawyers.
11. **Elaine Banks**: Lauds SJP as the best company with low fees.
12. **David Kirk**: Made a successful claim against SJP, dissatisfied with their recent service.
13. **Matt Ryder**: Skeptical about the process of claims, implying it's dubious.
14. **Ben Thompson**: Asserts the accusations are false, happy with SJP.
15. **Jackie Bevis**: Never had issues with SJP, finds them reputable.
16. **Michael Smedley**: Dismisses the claims as nonsense.
17. **Chris Lewis & Ian Lewis**: No specific comments provided.
The overall sentiment is mixed, with several commenters expressing strong satisfaction with SJP's services and others critical of AMK Legal or skeptical about the claims made against SJP. Some express concerns about solicitors or the validity of the claims process.
Are these real SJP clients? Or do SJP clients love SJP?
Interesting debate!
Here are website links to the claims checkers:
It's amazing the power top financial institutions have to censor our social media. Facebook prohibited me sharing the article with the Lamplighters Facebook group. This is the best I can do.