Naming and shaming of Volvo Traders (moved)

[andy_d]

a Question or some...

Is it within the ability of the members of the VOC to instigate a Vote on matters relating to the VOC/forums and advertising carried by publications of the VOC ?

if it is, then perhaps a members motion to raise the issue of a vote on the continuance of accepting paid for advertising from retailers who have behaved in the manner of those in question, and for the VOC members to vote to have said person + buisness barred from placing adverts with anything relating to the VOC ?.


Added at edit ,

personal view point here,
a forum that carries advertising that is paid for and approved for display is seen to be endorsing / recommending the service offered by the advertisement.
that is how it is viewed fro m the people seeing said forum and or publication,

when a forum contains adverts for a company, then hosts threads which are blatant "look at us" adverts , it is seen to be "supporting/approving/endorsing" the services of the company advertising , be that in the banner advert a forum post or a whole sub forum.

The fact that there IS a large and not pleasant history of instances of work being done , not to the required standards, issues relating to what ,being charitable , could best be called "interesting" methods of dealing with customers (and not being charitable , down right Rip off) , and there Is STILL advertising for the company, in the form of threads And banner adverts sends the message “its ok to do that as long as you pay for advertisements” , i feel sure this is not the intended message the “VOC” wish to send to there members and there prospective members.
Yes paid for advertising can not instantly stop, without a just and good reason, but said advertising does not have to be offered or accepted for renewal past the expiry date of the current agreement.
Threads promoting the business of said company are another matter, as is the use of the forum by the company.

[the alarming man]

Originally Posted by s60ben

Erm, for the sake of balance...

The Greg -v- RT case did indeed "Go to Court"...

For an out of court settlement to have been reached, at the stage it was at, it would have had to have been approved by the court, and a suitable Tomlin order approved which dealt with the settlement and details (at which point the thouroughly disgusting attempt to silence any mention of the details will have been added).

Furthermore, I do believe that there was a person called a JUDGE - who made orders/directions for the parties to attempt mediation (which was solidly refused by Russ) and also ordered that the parties discuss a settlement taking place.

Out of court settlements are not reached for fun, but normally as the other party knows fine well that:

a) it will cost too much to defend (but it was defended via Russ's Insurer's bottemless pit - with a HUGE firm of solicitors)

b) it'll be cheaper to settle, even at such a late stage, with less than a week to a hearing, rather than take to a full hearing.

As for not being "Proven" - maybe you can draw your own conclusions of that. Maybe in fact, I need to post a few more things up that I have.



Maybe James's comments have been led, by the same person that seems to think him and Greg are "best buddies".....

i have never had the need to use R.T but if the need did arises i would not hesistate as i have had some useful info from russ and i would say this is the sort of guy i would want to look after my car....just saying as i find so all the flamers can jump on the band wagon but i would say to all the flamers condidering getting involved...get a hobby

[nm1985]

Originally Posted by the alarming man

i have never had the need to use R.T but if the need did arises i would not hesistate as i have had some useful info from russ and i would say this is the sort of guy i would want to look after my car....just saying as i find so all the flamers can jump on the band wagon but i would say to all the flamers condidering getting involved...get a hobby

thats your opinion and youre welcome to it. Lets hope though that you are never hit by a car that has been proven to be bodged by a fantasy mechanic.

[foggyjames]

Just quickly regarding Driver mag...it was with the printers before news of the settlement broke, so the ads were going to appear regardless of any discussion on that subject after the event.

cheers

James

[s60ben]

Originally Posted by foggyjames

Just quickly regarding Driver mag...it was with the printers before news of the settlement broke, so the ads were going to appear regardless of any discussion on that subject after the event.

cheers

James

Thanks James

I assume the advertising will now be dealt with appropriately - I'm sure it's been clarified by now



<Oh, and it must be so upsetting to those who expect flaming - that it doesn't happen >

[s60ben]

Oh and I note Turbo-Tuner , aka Adam Weber of Rica UK, Rica Engineering UK, or www.turbo-tuner.co.uk hasn't posted since the last thread has been closed, yet has been very active on the forum (Probably in the background doing some PM flogging again)...

I wonder how long it will be before he decides to use or register yet another username, or duplicate username, or try out some other shyster tactics as his Turbo Tuner account has shown him up to have not changed and that he still slithers round not answering questions or trying to wriggle out of any situation he finds himself in. Or maybe it's the fact I've shown him up to have been involved with flogging RICA for considerably longer than he claims.... Maybe he's scared Hamish will invoke the non-competition clause that meant he couldn't work for RICA for 3 years....

Maybe he finds that the critisism he has received won't go down to well with people searching for Turbo Tuner on Google.....

I note he still hasn't managed to find time to even apologise to Chris Greenfield..... after his tuning destroyed Chris's engine, then again, I suppose the 6k from that job went down well in the pub, that they didn't have to pay back.

The leopard's never change their spots.