I hear ya Lurch :roll:
Martyn, you really seem to be caught up in the middle of something not of your making, I hope that the experience is not to horrendous.
Ive had a few conversations with numerous people about this issue and it seems to me that the buck is being passed at a rapid rate. I had thought that the issues with the association etc had been laid to rest, or, maybe I just hoped they had. Anyway, the saga continues.
For the rest of the readers:
As far as Im aware Martyn posted the name of the person at the trading standards office on the forum in the context given because that was how it was given to him by Mr Cockett, thus he thought the information contained in it was reliable, which is an understandable assumption. However, now it would seem that the information passed on to Martyn was inaccurate. It would seem (I could be wrong) that Mr Crockett made a mistake about what was said to him by the person from trading standards, and in passing this information on to Martyn, who then passed it on to those of the public interested in the subject; it has managed to mislead many people.
A request was made for the post (129) to be removed in its entirety, the reasons stated were that the name of the Trading standards officer was quoted and the information in the post was inaccurate. Rather than remove the post it was edited. The trading standards officer was notified by Mr Crockett that his name had been placed on the forum, after being thus notified he requested (indirectly) it was removed. Thus bcuk was contacted by Mr Crockett saying that he had been contacted by the trading standards officer, asking for his name to be removed from the post, and that the information he was quoted as supplying about the association was incorrect.
All this seems a bit weird to me as the information supplied to us, was from the horses mouth so to speak, yet the same horse that supplied Martyn with answers to questions intended for public consumption, contacted trading standards and pointed out the inaccurate information supplied in its own answers to questions posed on the forum. Im interested in how this should be interpreted? Any suggestions welcome.
I have to say that the trading standards are there to offer advice and would not have closed the association down themselves. I am of the opinion that they are not really involved in this at all and I am also of the opinion that Martyn has constantly acted in good faith, that he has been a fine example of honesty and he has gone out of his way to keep the public informed to the best of his ability. I applaud him for his efforts, especially considering the information hes been working with.
If I have made any mistakes in this post I would appreciate the party concerned contacting me, or posting on the forum what it is I have mistaken or quoted inaccurately. I will rectify my post accordingly.
As it stands these are the happenings of the saga today. Ive posted this because I dont like bcuk being set up by people supplying inaccurate information, who then stir trouble based on the information that they provided. Unethical actions such as this are deplorable.
) if you can learn fire by friction without ever seeing it done. And generally it takes a course to do that, and the hundred and one other specialist bushcraft skills that need demonstration. There will never be a substitute for hands on experience.
): Tant
