Has anyone seen this before?

[chris chris]

Martyn

Thankyou for your apology, it shows extreme integrity.

As the gauntlet was put to me to provide tangible evidence the other day, I did so by supplying this privately to Stuart and as you know also to yourself.

He then went on the fact proving mission arriving at what we have now.

Tony

The trading standards were already on the case before JC contacted them.

This I can prove, and I now believe Stuart has come to these findings also.

If your industry requires regulation, then there are amicable ways to do it that would benefit both provider and customer, I have to work to national standards and guidelines as an ML so I have some experience of this.

City and Giulds course that you require is:

The school of air and maritime engineering
Tel 023 92 54 3117

It is currently a military orientated module at present, as Martyn has said.

Chris :wave:

 

[Tantalus]

City and Giulds course that you require is:

The school of air and maritime engineering
Tel 023 92 54 3117

It is currently a military orientated module at present, as Martyn has said

Tant

 

[Tony]

Tony

The trading standards were already on the case before JC contacted them.

This I can prove, and I now believe Stuart has come to these findings also.

Chris :wave:

Hi Chris, yeah, I’ve heard the same. I was referring specifically to the fact that information was posted on here and then that same info was used by the person that provided it, to seemingly wind trading standards up. It seems like a bit of a set up to me?

 

[Martyn]

I dealt a lot with trading standards in a past life (I was in advertising for 7 years), and a couple of points...

If I make a complaint to TS about a company and can provide some grounds for the complaint, TS will likely investigate. I can then quite legitimately say "company XXX is under investigation by TS", but that is a world away from there actually being a problem with company XXX. Be careful not to draw inaccurate implications from these kinds of statements. Untill and unless a complaint is upheld, there is no issue with TS involvement. They are just doing what they do, invesyigating a complaint. Please bear in mind, many companies get complaints made against them for all sorts of reasons, some genuine grievancies, some not so genuine.

Given the above, I can quite reasonably understand why the TS officer wanted to distance his/herself from this debate. Again, there is not, nor should there be any implications of wrongdoing from that information alone. Any professional TS officer would immediately ask the same, regardless of circumstances.

I would forget all about TS, as thier involvement is utterly meaningless unless a complaint is upheld.

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.

...that's very peculiar indeed. If said officer had a problem with some content in this thread, the normal course of action would be to come direct to the site owner as verified by a domain "whois". Very unusual to make such requests through a third party.

Again, I would ignore any mention of TS involvement in this. No implications can be drawn from it and it has no substance whatsoever.

 

[Adi007]

...that's very peculiar indeed. If said officer had a problem with some content in this thread, the normal course of action would be to come direct to the site owner as verified by a domain "whois". Very unusual to make such requests through a third party.

Indeed, either the officer wasn't dealing with it, in which case he'd get in touch with the site owner if he was so inclined, or he was, in which case the post was stating the truth and given that TS officers and public servants they would have no reason to feel one way or another about the matter.

Very strange ...

 

[Martyn]

Site gone! association gone!

What was the reason again?

Nothing to do with Exeter trading standards warning them to remove it or they would take enforcement action against them to do so then.

The truth

This little trip breached several trading and advertisement regulations here in the UK and the fair trading standards office in Exeter got plenty of enquiries and complaints about it and they promptly dealt with it, good on them.

Chris

Can you prove this? Where did you get this information?

 

[Adi007]

This issue has been examined from pretty much all angles and all directions ... except one, so I'm going to come out straight and ask. Chris, what's your interest/involvment in all this?

 

[Paganwolf]

Flower arranging is very soothing Tant, im allowed to do it when my anger management therapist and my psychiatrist take my strait jacket off, must rest now as my nose is getting sore from all this typing T: :boot: :smashfrea :rolmao:

 

[chris chris]

Matryn

The proof was given to your bcuk moderator colleague Stuart several days ago, so confer with him if you will please. As this also mentioned individuals names it was done privately.

Adioo7

My interest in this was firstly as a member of the paying public who has been attending survival and bushcraft courses for nearly 30 years, including in the military and the school in question. I saw what I believed to be an attempt to pervert the publics chioce by what I also believed to be a pseudo standards body - as I have said, I have to work to national standards myself in the outdoor industry and what I loved about attending independant survival and Bushcraft courses was the absence of red tape and rules that allowed the courses to be individual and enjoyable.

Secondly, my latest intrest was my creditability was in question, so the challenge was set. Stuart and Martyns H's comments were red rags.

As far as I'm concerned Martyn H has displayed excellant professionalism through this affair and as you say,there are no more angles to take, I believe the bottom has been found. I also believe Martin H deserves an apology by some of the more offensive remarks on here.

Thanks

Chris

 

[Martyn]

Matryn

The proof was given to your bcuk moderator colleague Stuart several days ago, so confer with him if you will please. As this also mentioned individuals names it was done privately.

Chris, you made a strong public statement, if you cant or wont back it up with public proof, you should refrain from making such "statements of fact" in public.

Trading standards dont "warn them to remove it or they would take enforcement action against them to do so" it's not what they're about. I doubt they have the authority to act in such a way, and definitely dont have the inclination. They advise people of the standards that have been set. If people persistently ignore thier advice, then there are steps that can be taken, but they dont simply "shut something down". Thier brief is to advise people of the standards they must meet, so they can successfully develop thier business in a legal way. It may be that after recieveing advice from TS, Mr Crocket decided that the whole thing was more trouble than it was worth and decided himself to take it offline, but that is very different from being told or ordered to do it - which I'm certain didn't happen. Seven years working with TS gives me the knowledge that they simply dont operate like that.

 

[boaty]

Errr, are we actually gaining anything from this thread?

I've made up my mind about the various participants on this thread, I'm sure most of you have too

The truth isn't out there... and even if it were, there's far more interesting things to be looking for (like thorns to stand on )

 

[chris chris]

Maryn

I can see your frustration about this and that you are not convinced with recent alterations made by your own moderators.

It is simple.

I made a formal complaint to TS around the sameday I posted this thread, an individual other than the one that was mentioned and recently deleted was dealing with it. A conclusion was met, and the thumbs were not up. In the meantime a damage limitation exercise was initiated by someone from the school or association contacting TS, after what I can only assume by being tipped off by my original posting off this thread - silly me.

Martyn, think back on the facts, in your mind was a company setting up a trade standards association, advertising they are proud members and that membership reassures the public of a greater standard of safety etc, than if they went to non- members, making a membership list up of people who do not know they were members - in your advertising business experience does this not breach several trading and advertisement regulations?

The thing is it's been sorted and when the time comes for your industry to set something up then this may well be used as an example of how not to do it.

Chris :wave:

 

[Martyn]

Chris, I'm wholly against the concept of this pseudo organisation and have said so many times in this thread. I'm delighted it's gone. But in fairness, it isnt appropriate to allude to any kind of Trading Standards involvement. Even as the complainant, you wont be privvy to the conversations between TS and Mr Crocket - it would be unprofessional for TS to divulge the contents of such converstations to you or anyone else. I would advise that you refrain from making public statements like

"...Nothing to do with Exeter trading standards warning them to remove it or they would take enforcement action against them to do so then."

...if you are unable or unwilling to provide concrete public evidence that this is in fact the case. As you have found out, you dig a hole for yourself - people will question it!

Anyway, as the organisation has gone the way of the dodo, this is all a little moot.

 

[chris chris]

This is going round in circles.

Martyn, and I prefered talking to you about crusader cups, measurements and cook pots.

I thought I had provided the evidence and the fact that posts by Survivability have been changed, I thought backed that up.

TS do have an enforcement concordat agreement with local authorities.

I will repeat what I said to Tone And Stuart - If you feel I have done something wrong then rectify it - you are the moderator with the ability to change posts, even without the "edited" labelling coming up at the bottom as the last post you did has been edited without this appearing.

Now, I'm going for a long walk - ON THORNS.

Chris :wave:

 

[Martyn]

This is going round in circles.

Agreed.

THREAD CLOSED.

If one of the other mods or admins feels the need to reopen it, to re-address some issue, then of course, they will do as they see fit.

 

[Adi007]

Spot on Martyn!

Chris, your complaint or enquiry to the TS officers is a point worth noting but beyond that nothing can be inferred from it. The site vanished and that's all we know for sure. If a TS case went as far as court and action was taken, that's one thing but complaints, enquiries and the like are not relavant and any speculation as to what happened next arising from them is just that - speculation.

You took whatever action you felt you had to at the time and that's fine but whether that action had anything to do with what happened next is based on guesswork and is irrelavant and has no place here.

I agree Martyn, with the association gone and ISWBA now once again only representing a women's bowling association, this is now all moot.

I think that this icon sums up how I feel :dedhorse: