simonclark123@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Sorry, second site should have read www.reestitmutton.co.uk
>

Yes - I can (and should, under the circumstances) confirm that the .com
version of my domain that Simon accidentally quoted is a domain name
squatter (called Jonathan Vowles) who uses a white label site purchased
from Darren Ithell to leverage my reputation and undermine my business
for his own personal gain. This is both parasitical and lazy - nothing
more than obtaining a free buck at someone else's expense, if you ask me.

The fact that Simon misquoted my site is testament to the volume of
traffic that could inadvertently end up in Darren's clutches. I
sometimes feel like I am working, against my own will, for Darren's
operation.

Darren Ithell has not only refused to facilitate communications between
this guy and myself beyond pretending to ask him nicely to talk to me
but he has also cynically washed his hands of me, despite public
assurances on this forum (purely for the camera) to the contrary.

For the record, Jonathan Vowles has, to date, failed to respond to any
of my email communications reasonably requesting the opening of
negotiations to pass the domain on to me for an agreeable sum of money.
However, he has always been quick to respond to sales enquiries via the
same email address so I know he's listening at the other end.

It is in Darren Ithell's interest to keep Jonathan Vowles' affiliation
going as he drives a lot of business Darren's way through a number of
other competitor sites' unregistered TLDs that he is currently squatting
upon. I am by no means Jonathan's only victim in this regard - I would
wager that his entire business model is predicated upon stealing other
people's traffic.

By refusing to provide an open channel of communications with this guy
beyond simply automatically redirecting all my complaints through to the
same email address that I already use he is, in effect, shielding this
affiliate from any consequences and thus he is complicit in his
affiliate's action. Unsurprising when you realise that Darren keeps a
significant portion of all sales commissions that this guy earns for
himself.

It should be said that Darren Ithell has refused to impose any form of
sanction on the affiliate to make him talk. He has also defended
Jonathan Vowles' squatting by pointing out that he registered the domain
"fair and square". When pushed to state his position on the subject, he
has also sought to legitimise squatting by citing well known historic
examples, as if the fact that it happens at all makes it legitimate
(unjust war exists, but I wouldn't seek to legitimise that on the basis
of prior example).

In short, if you dislike spam and you wish to make a stand against the
practice of domain name squatting I would strongly urge that you boycott
anything to do with Darren Ithell until such a time as he is seen to
take a verifiable stand to police the actions of his affiliate army and
impose verifiable sanctions where his affiliates overstep the mark.

In fact, it may interest you to know that he does not currently require
any of his white label affiliates to sign any form of contract or agree
to any set of minimum standards of behaviour. I think this would be a
necessary first step in the right direction if Darren wishes to
demonstrate his honest intentions in this area.

FOOTNOTE: In the interests of full disclosure, Despite my stated
distaste for domain name squatting, I currently hold a couple of .eu
domains related to Darren's empire for ransom myself. It's not something
I'm proud of but Darren left me no other choice. Assuming I can
negotiate an amicable release of my unregistered .com I would have no
hesitation in giving up the domains in question as (unlike Jonathan
Vowles) I have no intention to profit from other people's efforts.

Reestit Mutton
--
http://www.reestitmutton.co.uk
(the genuine article)