Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Bosun Higgs]

One thing puzzles me Grant. As I read this it is not possible to have a SHHP anchor weighing less than 25kg. So presumably even Manson anchors for many small yachts are not certified SHHP. Am I right?

 

[RichardS]

Oiling the Wheels

I have worked in Nigeria and Russia and, in both those countries, it is necessary to "oil the wheels" on occasion. Usually a few cases of Company product will do the trick but, if your company produces anchors, you presumably have fewer options available?

Richard

 

[maxi77]

Nowt as queer as folks, manager at the store where my daughter is also a manager put his job on the line, and lost it, for a £10 gift voucher!

Indeed but the professional probably either takes more care or more money, or possibly both.

 

[maxi77]

I have worked in Nigeria and Russia and, in both those countries, it is necessary to "oil the wheels" on occasion. Usually a few cases of Company product will do the trick but, if your company produces anchors, you presumably have fewer options available?

Richard

I once had an agent in one country who also imported Scotch His main business was big engines and heavy machinery and electronics. He regularly handed out mixed boxes of Scotch and selected local wines which I understand were usually well received.

 

[smackdaddy]

After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.

The answer in early 2010 was that $$$$$$$$$$ needed to be paid to individuals , not the organisation and those individuals would then stamp their part of the process and nobody would be the wiser.

This is what was done in March 2010 under very specific orders from Bambury.

My view is that there should not, nor need to be, a witch hunt against Rina as an organisation, as they were not in control or had any knowledge of the actions of a few of their employees.

That may be your view, but I've personally never liked corruption being swept under the rug with a nod and a wink - especially with international organizations whose task it is to certify safety.

If an organization is not in control of its corrupt employess - something is fundamentally wrong with that organization, and it needs some scrutiny, either within or without or, preferably, both.

If bribery is what you were told by RINA was required for RINA certification, how can any of us trust RINA certification of any of the other anchors (or any other product/service/process it's involved with in the maritime industry)? Apparently, those other anchor companies bribed their way through as well, right? That's just how it's done?

See where this is going?

It has already been reported back to me that those employees have already been removed and punished for their actions, just what that entails I would not like to think about.

Since you seem to be wearing the white hat here, did you/have you personally reported this bribery to the RINA organization executives? If not, an informal "report back" to you, a person complicit in all this, about these few individuals is not nearly good enough to consider this issue resolved.

You were handing out that money, Grant. I hope you now consider issues of safety to outweigh corrupt business as usual. Otherwise this all just seems to be more vendetta than justice.

So, some of you can dissect my words or terminology further and try to find another meaning if you like but facts are facts and I have revealed them, thus exposing myself to retaliation and consequenses as a result.

I cant be much clearer than that.

Actually, there's a lot of detail you've left out that's important. For example, your statement:

After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.

Who at Rina were you talking to for so long that finally informed you of the need for the bribes? I would assume they were higher up in the organization? Did this person get money too? Or just direct you to pay the one person that had the stuff on his desk? Or, as you say, was it "individuals" plural that needed to be paid? How many of them? And who?

There's a lot more clarity that's needed...and a lot of facts that are missing in your posts. Whether this is intentional or not, it leaves a lot of questions in need of answers...without any need for dissection.

I think it would do Yachting Monthly very well to follow up on this story. It's got legs.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Grant,

You've been frank about the Rina situation but it is clear that one or two hereabouts want to make a mountain out of the bribery molehill. No matter what you say, they'll just want to carry on dissecting it in ever decreasing circles which will simply divert attention from the real issue which is, of course, Rocna.

You've explained your version of the story and, if I were you, I would ignore the requests for more and more detail so that the Rocna question does not get buried.

Just my thoughts. No doubt there will be howls of protest from one or two.

 

[evm1024]

Grant,

You've been frank about the Rina situation but it is clear that one or two hereabouts want to make a mountain out of the bribery molehill. No matter what you say, they'll just want to carry on dissecting it in ever decreasing circles which will simply divert attention from the real issue which is, of course, Rocna.

You've explained your version of the story and, if I were you, I would ignore the requests for more and more detail so that the Rocna question does not get buried.

Just my thoughts. No doubt there will be howls of protest from one or two.

+1 (and them some)

 

[maxi77]

Grant,

You've been frank about the Rina situation but it is clear that one or two hereabouts want to make a mountain out of the bribery molehill. No matter what you say, they'll just want to carry on dissecting it in ever decreasing circles which will simply divert attention from the real issue which is, of course, Rocna.

You've explained your version of the story and, if I were you, I would ignore the requests for more and more detail so that the Rocna question does not get buried.

Just my thoughts. No doubt there will be howls of protest from one or two.

Agreed, some people do not have to live in the real world.

 

[smackdaddy]

Grant,

You've been frank about the Rina situation but it is clear that one or two hereabouts want to make a mountain out of the bribery molehill. No matter what you say, they'll just want to carry on dissecting it in ever decreasing circles which will simply divert attention from the real issue which is, of course, Rocna.

You've explained your version of the story and, if I were you, I would ignore the requests for more and more detail so that the Rocna question does not get buried.

Just my thoughts. No doubt there will be howls of protest from one or two.

I might be one of those you're referring to. Prepare for the howl....

For me the issue is this: I've never really cared much about the Rocna debacle. I've got thousands of posts across virtually all the sailing forums under the same name - and very few of those posts have been in the anchor war threads. The times I have gotten involved were to try to keep things as objective as possible when people, especially competing vendors, were banging away - purely because there was so little in the way of facts at the time, and plenty of questionable claiming to go around.

Now, you could make the argument here that there are few facts surrounding this RINA issue as well, and you'd be right. But, according to Grant's above posts, it is a fact that he was directed by RINA officials to pay bribes to RINA officials to move certification along...."with no one being the wiser".

So, in this regard, I think you're wrong. If Grant is to be believed, Rocna is not the real issue at all. RINA is. You could even potentially excuse Bambury to some degree because Grant, vis-a-vis RINA, told him that's just what it takes to play the game. And then he was "burned" by RINA on the certification after paying the bribes he was instructed to pay? That somehow absolves RINA?

What does this all mean for RINA certification on other anchors? Is it to be trusted?

Look at it this way...do you trust the off-shore CE rating of your production boat (if you have one)? What if you knew that European Commission personnel were on the take to move along or enhance this rating for a "crooked" manufacturer - your manufacturer? Would you still trust it offshore? Would you give the EC a pass?

Or how about the IMO taking money under the table to push questionable SOLAS ratings on safety equipment? Or to reverse MARPOL because it's too expensive?

Would this be a non-issue for you?

My point is, if you are, as all these anchor threads have been, focused on all the alleged wrong-doing, squandering of trust, miscommunication, lying, corruption, antagonism, moral outrage, etc. on the part of an anchor manufacturer, yet you're willing to give a pass to an allegedly corrupt governing organization to which the manufacturers point us buyers to ensure trust in the quality and safety of a product...you might be focusing too much on the molehill.

(PS - As for the "real world" argument, I actually don't care about the bribes to Chinese manufacturers/business - and understand the reality of that. As has been shown in this case, the market will take care of sub-standard product that might arise out of these practices, But, for all the reasons I've listed above, RINA, due to its international role in safety issues across the maritime industry, is a completely different kettle of sushi.)

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

During the certification process there were many hurdles, endless meetings and discussions, rewriting of the papers and specs and resubmission of materials etc for testing.

After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.

The answer in early 2010 was that $$$$$$$$$$ needed to be paid to individuals , not the organisation and those individuals would then stamp their part of the process and nobody would be the wiser.

This is what was done in March 2010 under very specific orders from Bambury.

It has already been reported back to me that those employees have already been removed and punished for their actions, just what that entails I would not like to think about.

Many thanks Grant. I've got no way of knowing if this is true, but I AFAIK you've told the truth to date.

Hopefully the press will pick up on this, but even if they don't anyone trying to decide how much value Rina certification adds to a product will be able to google Rina, see this [1] and hopefully do a bit of their own research.

I've re-posted here:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295136

[1] Google loves YBW.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I might be one of those you're referring to. .)

You are. Number one.

I suggest that you start another thread if you want to get into a long debate about the intricacies of the bribery issue which, frankly, isn't of much interest to me. Personally I would prefer to see this thread stay on topic.

Of course, I can't make you...but I can express my view.


Edited. I see that Mr. Toad has obliged! http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295136

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

If Grant is to be believed, Rocna is not the real issue at all.

I agree. Rocnagate only direct effects people who bought one of a specific set of anchors at a specific time. Important if you bought one an can't get a replacement to spec, but to the rest of us pretty unimportant. EDIT: And of course, as Jordan say's, important to people considering buying a Rocna in future.

In contrast if, as we're lead to beleive, in the "real world" standards approval is handed out in China on the basis of brown paper bags full of cash then that is a big story. It won't be just Rocna, it won't just be the Anchor Manufacturers, it will be all kinds of kit. So much kit is made in China and most people assume that if they buy (say) a genuine CE standard helmet visor not one that's been approved after 5 grand was handed over.

If true, I think this *should* end up in a National Paper, never mind the marine press. Maybe it won't, but as long as it can be easiliy found on google that's pretty helpful, and we have Grant to thank for that.

 

[jordanbasset]

I agree. Rocnagate only direct effects people who bought one of a specific set of anchors at a specific time. Important if you bought one an can't get a replacement to spec, but to the rest of us pretty unimportant.

In contrast if, as we're lead to beleive, in the "real world" standards approval is handed out on the basis of brown paper bags full of cash then that is a big story. It won't be just Rocna, it won't just be the Anchor Manufacturers, it will be all kinds of kit.

If true, I think this *should* end up in a National Paper, never mind the marine press. Maybe it won't, but as long as it can be easiliy found on google that's pretty helpful, and we have Grant to thank for that.

I can see where your coming from with the Rina Certification issue, however cannot agree with your statement "Rocnagate only direct effects people who bought one of a specific set of anchors at a specific time. Important if you bought one an can't get a replacement to spec, but to the rest of us pretty unimportant."

My understanding is the people at the top of Rocna when the alleged misrepresentation took place are still there, so any one thinking of buying a Rocna in the future needs to be aware of the alleged antics of these people in the past. The allegations are not just a simple mistake on the part of the Rocna management team but a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. I appreciate much is still to be bottomed out in the 'Rocnagate' affair, but the silence from Rocna is becoming deafening.

 

[GrantKing]

I might be one of those you're referring to. Prepare for the howl....

For me the issue is this: I've never really cared much about the Rocna debacle. I've got thousands of posts across virtually all the sailing forums under the same name - and very few of those posts have been in the anchor war threads. The times I have gotten involved were to try to keep things as objective as possible when people, especially competing vendors, were banging away - purely because there was so little in the way of facts at the time, and plenty of questionable claiming to go around.

Now, you could make the argument here that there are few facts surrounding this RINA issue as well, and you'd be right. But, according to Grant's above posts, it is a fact that he was directed by RINA officials to pay bribes to RINA officials to move certification along...."with no one being the wiser".

So, in this regard, I think you're wrong. If Grant is to be believed, Rocna is not the real issue at all. RINA is. You could even potentially excuse Bambury to some degree because Grant, vis-a-vis RINA, told him that's just what it takes to play the game. And then he was "burned" by RINA on the certification after paying the bribes he was instructed to pay? That somehow absolves RINA?

What does this all mean for RINA certification on other anchors? Is it to be trusted?

Look at it this way...do you trust the off-shore CE rating of your production boat (if you have one)? What if you knew that European Commission personnel were on the take to move along or enhance this rating for a "crooked" manufacturer - your manufacturer? Would you still trust it offshore? Would you give the EC a pass?

Or how about the IMO taking money under the table to push questionable SOLAS ratings on safety equipment? Or to reverse MARPOL because it's too expensive?

Would this be a non-issue for you?

My point is, if you are, as all these anchor threads have been, focused on all the alleged wrong-doing, squandering of trust, miscommunication, lying, corruption, antagonism, moral outrage, etc. on the part of an anchor manufacturer, yet you're willing to give a pass to an allegedly corrupt governing organization to which the manufacturers point us buyers to ensure trust in the quality and safety of a product...you might be focusing too much on the molehill.

(PS - As for the "real world" argument, I actually don't care about the bribes to Chinese manufacturers/business - and understand the reality of that. As has been shown in this case, the market will take care of sub-standard product that might arise out of these practices, But, for all the reasons I've listed above, RINA, due to its international role in safety issues across the maritime industry, is a completely different kettle of sushi.)

I was directed who to pay by Bambury , not by Rina.

Obviously I did not make it clear enough.

 

[bob234]

Ok Guys let me say this once and as clearly as possible:

This is not supposed to be an indictment of Rina as an organisation.
The so called "oiling of the wheels" is and has always been a critical part of doing business in China..............

.........After just over a full year of visits and communication with Rina staff I was told to ask what it would take to conclude certain aspects of the certification that seemed to be stalling at one employees desk.

The answer in early 2010 was that $$$$$$$$$$ needed to be paid to individuals , not the organisation and those individuals would then stamp their part of the process and nobody would be the wiser.

This is what was done in March 2010 under very specific orders from Bambury.

My view is that there should not, nor need to be, a witch hunt against Rina as an organisation, as they were not in control or had any knowledge of the actions of a few of their employees.............

.........So, some of you can dissect my words or terminology further and try to find another meaning if you like but facts are facts and I have revealed them, thus exposing myself to retaliation and consequenses as a result.

I cant be much clearer than that.

Clear as a bell Grant. Thank you. My point has been that we should not assume a bribe was paid until you explicitly tell us it was (as opposed to implying it). This is indeed now explicit!

As the process was stalling at someones desk and the 'wheel oiling' was to unblock something that shouldn't have been blocked (presumably) it is rather different to paying someone to approve something they shouldn't have done.

In that case I certainly agree with those (incl Grant) who have said Rina is not the issue - Rocna is.

I await the next instalment with interest and hope your boldness is suitably rewarded.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

however cannot agree with your statement "Rocnagate only direct effects people who bought one of a specific set of anchors at a specific time. Important if you bought one an can't get a replacement to spec, but to the rest of us pretty unimportant."

Yes, you're right, sorry, I've corrected my post.

None the less, the Rina story, if true, affects us all. The Rocna story affects a specific group of people.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

As the process was stalling at someones desk and the 'wheel oiling' was to unblock something that shouldn't have been blocked (presumably) it is rather different to paying someone to approve something they shouldn't have done.

Perlease, can you imagine the conversation:

Grant: I'm prepared to bribe you but only to speed things up, Rocna is a respectable organization so we dont want any other form of benefit from our bribes.

Rina Man: Good because we feel the same way, here at Rina we only accept bribes for specific benefits.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

My point has been that we should not assume a bribe was paid until you explicitly tell us it was (as opposed to implying it). This is indeed now explicit!

As you know I thought it already was pretty explicit, but I did take your point. We have to be sure of facts before drawing conclusions. Glad Grant's cleared it up.

 

[bob234]

Perlease, can you imagine the conversation:

Grant: I'm prepared to bribe you but only to speed things up, Rocna is a respectable organization so we dont want any other form of benefit from our bribes.

Rina Man: Good because we feel the same way, here at Rina we only accept bribes for specific benefits.

Erm... yes I can. The man at Rina feels he has the 'power' to obstruct or proceed. Nothing holding the process up at all except this man who just doesn't 'get around' to processing his bit. After the oiling of the wheel the matter moves to the top of his pile. That is the business culture in some parts of the world and Grant has said it is so in China.

'Bribes' are often paid to get things moving - not necessarily to get someone to do something he shouldn't.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[evm1024]

The RINA employee was so overworked that they did not have time to get the the paperwork. Oiling the wheels moved the paperwork forward in the (real or otherwise) stack and to the top.

In fact it appears that US companies are allowed to make such payments to Non-US Government employees. To quote:


The one exception is if the payment to a foreign official is to expedite or secure the performance of a routine governmental action.

In this the US is pragmatic in the way most of the world operates.....

Not a bribe at all (no decision was changed just the time table)