IPC time to Stand and be Counted

[oceanfroggie]

I have read with interest the Ocean Deep saga. I have found Gludy's posts to be measured, factual, and reasonable. He has the patients of a saint, and from a legal point of view seems to have adopted the approach of lets try and get them to fix it. I would have exploded by now and headed for court. It is unfortunate that some trigger happy posters have pilled in over the top and hence Keith has had to protect ybw. Assuming the related facts of this case are fair and true, then it is a scandal of epic proportions and needs to be exposed.

IPC, it may be getting closer to the time to take a stand, and get off the fence on this one. You were great to take up the red diesel cause, here is another just and righteous cause worthy of being covered publicly in the magazines. IPC may appear to be caught between a rock and a hard place, as it earns its revenue from both the marine industry and the loyal consumers who buy the mags and read the adverts. So who can you support in such a conflict, the readership or the advertisers?

You risk loosing an advertiser, who can't afford to stop marketing anyway, or you could win the admiration and continued support of many readers (customers), as they see the mags take a stand in favour of the consumer’s just rights. Gludy may prefer to allow more time for this to be resolved to his reasonable satisfaction, but if it ends up in tears I for one will be very disappointed if the saga is not covered in full in the magazines. It would be great to know mags such as MBM are on our side. I can see BBC programmes like "Watch Dog" being keen to investigate the merits of covering such a saga, and another programme I will not mention because of the unfortunate pun in its name.

Sensible responses only please without "inappropriate comments".

Gludy you should have considered a career in conflict resolution with the diplomatic core. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif I wish you well in your quest to eventually own and operate a sound and well appointed quality boat.

 

[andyball]

well, I agree that proper coverage of these problems would be nice. There certainly seems to be no shortage of interest here.

In fairness to Keith and ipc, they have left several threads intact which contain criticism of Tr*@ers

1


2

3

4

 

[andyball]

and this

 

[Gludy]

Thank you for those point OceanFroggie.

I have no choice but to be measured and fair because when it goes to Court I will have been seen to be open and fair. I am playing this to win.

I can tell you that over the last 11 months it has put a strain on me and those around me. I really had to get to grips with it. The publicity has managed to move Trader a bit. Whilst there is a fair way to go I have no illusions about agreeing on commercial matters such as loss of use, all my direct expenses etc. If we can reduce the list at issue then it makes that legal process simpler.

I repeat that i did not set out to hurt Trader. I guessed that they did not need any help in doing that as they seem to have managed to inflict untold damage on themselves even after it went public.

On thing that has come out of it is the idea of using the set of forums to post owners opinions on their own boats so there is now a resource to post the problems and the good points about any model of boat. Someone searching for a make/model can then go and look up current owners opinions and contact them with questions. If i would have had that available I think I would have chosen a different make of boat.

So its not that I am some sort of saint - Andy Ball will tell you that I am not - its just that I have learnt to swallow and concentrate on one thing - winning.

When this is all over, I will be throwing a forum party as a thank you - that is after I have screamed from the tops of the local mountain to let it all out!!!!

In the meantime I shall post comments on this forum so that anyone who wants to can follow the detail on the Ocean Deep forum.

 

[sarabande]

I wonder if the advertising manager of IPC has a "risk list" of companies who have potential extensive commercial liabilities, and who yet continue to place expensive advertising ?

 

[andyball]

ooh!, like Pumpkin Marine - the mail order chandlers who didn't have a web-site? ( now out of business )

They used to spend a lot in the mags.

 

[duncan]

Re: IPC there will be a time to Stand and be Counted

not yet herbie - not yet
but the time will come

 

[SteveE]

My view FWIW is that the forum does a lot for a number of boat builders, and is a good advertisement for them; however like a Blog a forum is the view of the members and not of IPC. To have a forum is to run the risk of good and bad.

If I was Trader I would come here and be counted as their reputation is being tinted by the ludy posts, but all he is doing is telling the truth and that is not libellous. The post's of others are views of his treatment again not libellous, but I an see how Keith and IPC are in a tricky position, however when Gludy has parted with so much "Hard Earned" then I believe this is the form to try and assist a fellow forum member, and for IPC to show that magazines can promote Good and assist with helping Bad.

MTPW

 

[peterg]

So Paul, with the first anniversary coming up what is the situation concerning the guarantee?

I assume you get a 1 year guarantee with the boat and consequently on all the many and various items fitted to it but are 'they' just trying to last out until the year is out and then say "sorry mate it's out of the warranty period, nothing we can do... like certain car manufacturers"

I realise all the faults were present long before ths time (and in fact most were there even before delivery) but just wondered if your position changes after the 1 year is up so to speak.

I have to say I had always admired these boats and watched your build with interest but could not contemplate buying one myself now as the whole image is tainted forever. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

All very noble, OceanFroggie, but whats actually in it for IPC? They potentially stand to lose thousands of pounds of advertising revenue and incur the wrath of other advertisers lest they're exposed in the same way. In return, they get a bit of kudos and just maybe an extra subscriber or two. Thats the reality of a specialist mag. If you owned the business, what would you do?
IMHO, IPC have let this story continue to run probably against their better judgement and we should be thankful for that

 

[Gludy]

Petrg
The guarantee is 3 years on this and five years on that - but it is meaningless really - what matters is the law and in this case I can demonstrate that the boat has never been free of faults etc.

If goods like say an engine or hull should last say 10 years or 20 years - the law will allow for their natural life and whilst setting a maximum of 6 years will protect consumer rights up to that 6 years maximum. If other things should only last say 2 years then the law will protect to 2 years.

In effect a supplier supplying defective product is in breach of contract and that entitles me to remedy and reimbursement of all my reasonable costs caused by that breach of contract. So today my trip to the boat and back can be claimed as a direct expense - my time cannot be claimed back at all but the time of someone I have to employ ie. a surveyor can be.

A week ago I wrote an email to Tony Chappell following up on some of these commercial points but I do not have a reply as yet - in fact its just gone past a week. Historically such letters are ignored. However these points are relatively easy to claim back via legal action. For example they have accepted the need for a rudder rebuild supervised by my surveyor. It was the survey report that exposed that and so they are responsible for the survey costs.

I spent 6 months travelling down to Emsworth doing thousands of miles just to manage the fault findingand fault list supervision so all those travel costs will be calimed back.

In addition I have lost the use of the use of the boat and so that is another part of the claim.

If you read my last emails of last monday to tony Chappell you will see the exact issues that I am waiting for a response on.

The best thing they could do for themselves is pull all stops out and get all the faults fixed. I hope the two fast responses today are part of a new chapter. Thier problem is that in accepting this or that they are also having to comne face to face with some real costs - these are the costs I have had to incur for which I consider them liable. I hvae had to pay for them and so wish to claim them back.

 

[Gludy]

Deleted User
I actually think that IPC are not too worried about a single advertiser who basically has to advertise anyway. They have to avoid legal actions etc ... all understood.
I still do not know why these threads have been pulled though.

 

[petem]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was Trader I would come here and be counted as their reputation is being tinted by the Gludy posts

[/ QUOTE ]
Be careful here. Do you mean Trader or Tarquin? FWIW I think that (rightly or wrongly) Gludy has stirred up enough bad feeling towards Tarquin that there is very little chance that they would get a fair hearing. I've seen others (who appeared on the face of it to be far less guilty) receive what is akin to lynch mob treatment when they have dared to post defenses here.

Pete

 

[Gludy]

I strongly disagree with that Pete.

I have exposed the facts and what has really done the damage is the reaction of Trader (Tarquin Boat Company).

On my forum their unedited words and mine are all published so that anyone can judge. In that sense I have stirred up nothing - in fact I have always tried to be moderate. I have even edit out a comment I considered libel on my site.

I very much want a fair hearing for Trader - they have the platform to do it on within the Ocean Deep forum.

I really dislike and resent anyone telling me that I am trying to lead a lynch mob - I am not - I am simply exposing the facts and that allows everyone out there to judge.

Trader have had ample opportunity and yet today are taking answering some point with absurd counter arguments and quibbling over bills that i have been forced to pay because of oil in the water, high metal oil readings and a lack of anodes - these points and counter points are there to see.

Name one thing that I have in anyway done that has been unfair to Trader?

The facts are that before public exposure I had not received any answers in 5 months to my fault list.

So please - tell me how you come up with this point about it being a lynch party and that somehow they are excluded from a fair hearing?

 

[fireball]

Paul, you know there is always two sides to a story and due to the deafening silence from Trader/Tarquin we are only getting your side to the story. I'm not suggesting that you're telling us a huge porky pie, but it is dangerous for us to make a judgment based on evidence from just one side - they might have perfectly good reasons for their actions (can't think what they might be though!).

I do suspect that if someone was to post as though they were from the company they would get a very heavy grilling at best and probably "attacked" from many posters (it has happened before).

 

[Lakesailor]

IPC let us use this medium for nix and in return we shouldn't involve them in any consequential expense.
The way the law is they could get nailed into defending themselves, even if innocent, in a court case that involved the antagonistic parties. Forum providers have been shown in law to be responsible for opinions expressed in threads displayed on their forums. That's not a expression of support or not for the case in point.
I think it's reasonable for them to protect themselves.

 

[Gludy]

I really do not understand your point.

There is no deafening silence from Trade/Tarquin - their full correpondence is being published, without a word changed on the Ocean Deep web site. Can you please explain what you mean by ‘a deafening silence’? I am truly confused.

There are two sides to very story and both side are shown on the Ocean Deep forum - if anyone reads the emails from both side they can make up their own minds.

Trader know that every email they send is posted there without editing.

Its up to you if you make a judgement - that is totally your own call. What is not the case though is that only one side has been presented.

Further anyone is allowed to post on the Ocean Deep forum and there is no lynching of Trader going on there.


The two main issues being discussed are:-
1. Fault list - fully published from both sides.
2. Commercial matters fully published from both sides.

Have you read this correspondence?

I am genuinely puzzled by your remarks.

 

[Gludy]

"Forum providers have been shown in law to be responsible for opinions expressed in threads displayed on their forums."

Only if they fail to remove the offending material when it is brought to their notice. I have totally supported IPC on this matter. It is just that today I have no idea who said what that caused the offence. I am not sure if there was anything that could be siad to be libel on my thread said by anyone. I also was told that Trader asked for Tom;s thread to be pulled because it published images without their permission - that is not to do with libel or anything else for that matter.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
" It is just that today I have no idea who said what that caused the offence. I am not sure if there was anything that could be siad to be libel on my thread said by anyone. I also was told that Trader asked for Tom;s thread to be pulled because it published images without their permission - that is not to do with libel or anything else for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained why it was removed here Nothing to do with anything you said, but think my post explains it.

 

[Gludy]

OK Keith.
I think just pulling the post rather than the thread is the solution for everyone. In fact in many hundreds of posts the possibly libel ones have been small, so a thread going upsets everyone just because of one post.