Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[evm1024]

Back to the topic

And back to our topic.


I ordered a Rocna because of the advertised performance claims and because I thought that with 800 MPa Steel and RINA cert I would get a high quality anchor.

Sadly I ended up with a 420 that was exchanged to (one hopes and timing predicts) a 600 steel anchor.

I debate returning it one more time for a manson and go back and forth.

In any case I will not be buying a 40 KG Rocna. Anf I do have a large Fortress and Manson in my future.

 

[bob234]

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.

EXACTLY!!!

There seems a determination to make more of the Rina thing by reading more into what Grant told us than he actually said. Even he described it as 'oiling the wheels'.

Bob

 

[estarzinger]

.
Apparently, those other anchor companies bribed their way through as well, right?

No, just FYI, Manson at least has lloyds approval, not Rina.




corrupt business

We are getting away from sailing here, but honestly you are sounding pretty high and mighty. I might #1 point out the huge amount of corruption in the higher levels of wall street and the US government, with extensively obvious insider trading and mutual hand washing. and #2 note that you sound like you have not done much business in Asia or Russia or Africa. There is simply a different culture about "oiling the wheels". Its simply not viewed as corruption, rather a way to show respect and prioritize the queue.

I am not defending it in either case, but just pointing out that many people and places don't share your moral point of view and what you consider corruption is in fact normal day to day business practice in many places (and even on wall street).


Back to anchors . . . An interesting question is whether what Grant was told to do is illegal under NZ law? I am guessing not, since it was openly acknowledged in NZ court and is not now being prosicuted.

.....

 

[smackdaddy]

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

Obviously I did not make it clear enough.

Agreed.

We started here:

The basic overview is that Bambury complained to the police that I had stolen an amount of around 5k USD from him during my last trip to Shanghai.

He claimed in his evidence that this money was for me to make cash payments to Rina for expenses incurred in obtaining certification.

The facts , backed up by emails and other written informations, are that he instructed me to bribe certain officals at Rina and at another manufacturing facility with this cash amount in order to gain certification. Upon my return to NZ he praised me for a job well done and announced to the world that certification had been obtained.

The same point you're making now. But this original post left open the important questions of where exactly the money went, and what exactly Bambury was congratulating you for in light of the above quote.

Then we got to here, which shed some light on those questions:

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

Bambury told you to ask. Again, your point above. Okay, who did you ask? Who gave you this answer that you then took back to Bambury?

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.

From this point on, it's easy to see that Bambury would give you the directions he did - along with the money to pay those people just as you say. But you stated earlier that he had no clue of the process, so the information about who needed to be paid seems to have had to come from another source, through you, and you certainly imply above that RINA personnel were that source.

Then you cement that implication with this statement:

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.

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.

So, yes, what you have written thus far is pretty confusing. Bambury's role? Your role? RINA'S role? A lot of grey area here - yet people at RINA are being sacked and punished.

Look, I don't have anything at all to gain from going after RINA. Remember, you're the one that outed them here. And having been an actual participant in the illicit money shoveling, I'd say you're a pretty valuable witness in that respect.

But you need to understand, Grant, that what you've written and/or implied in the above posts are serious indictments of a 150-year-old, international standards organization. The fact that you were directly involved makes it even more serious.

It's a big deal.

 

[Reverend Ludd]

Is this a thread about anchors ?

 

[smackdaddy]

We are getting away from sailing here, but honestly you are sounding pretty high and mighty. I might #1 point out the huge amount of corruption in the higher levels of wall street and the US government, with extensively obvious insider trading and mutual hand washing. and #2 note that you sound like you have not done much business in Asia or Russia or Africa. There is simply a different culture about "oiling the wheels". Its simply not viewed as corruption, rather a way to show respect and prioritize the queue.

I am not defending it in either case, but just pointing out that many people and places don't share your moral point of view and what you consider corruption is in fact normal day to day business practice in many places (and even on wall street).

Back to anchors . . . An interesting question is whether what Grant was told to do is illegal under NZ law? I am guessing not, since it was openly acknowledged in NZ court and is not now being prosicuted.

Estar - I do tend to be a bit hyperbolic. Just in my nature. So not trying to be high and mighty, just taking a hard look at the implications of this.

We could get into long discussions about all the wheel oiling you mention above - and I understand your general point.

But, specifically, Grant, the only one that was there, used the term "bribe". He then went on to say that RINA personnel had been "removed and punished". So, respectfully, I don't think the semantic or cultural rules you point out above apply to this situation. And, based on the ramifications for those RINA employees, I don't appear to be the only high and mighty observer of what happened.

 

[evm1024]

Estar - I do tend to be a bit hyperbolic. Just in my nature. So not trying to be high and mighty, just taking a hard look at the implications of this.

We could get into long discussions about all the wheel oiling you mention above - and I understand your general point.

But, specifically, Grant, the only one that was there, used the term "bribe". He then went on to say that RINA personnel had been "removed and punished". So, respectfully, I don't think the semantic or cultural rules you point out above apply to this situation. And, based on the ramifications for those RINA employees, I don't appear to be the only high and mighty observer of what happened.

From my Yank viewpoint it appears that you are acting as a plant in an effort to muddy the waters and discredit Grant. It may be that you are just very keen on running this down and in that case I am quite sorry to have doubted your intentions.

On the other hand I would like the moderators to take a look at your IP address and see if it originates with one of the players....

Regards, Ethan

 

[estarzinger]

that RINA personnel had been "removed and punished".

I missed that in all the posts flying back and forth. But don't you think that is a credit to RINA? That they are working to try to enforce European morals, in China, somewhat against the local standards?

On anchors, I might note that Manson just as an example, in addition to using Lloyds rather than RINA, is also manufacturing in NZ where western professional standards would apply and would most probably never encounter this sort of difficulty.

and back to the thread . . . Grant told us he would be revealing/releasing new information after the trial was concluded . . . do we know yet what it is?

 

[Conachair]

From my Yank viewpoint it appears that you are acting as a plant in an effort to muddy the waters and discredit Grant. It may be that you are just very keen on running this down and in that case I am quite sorry to have doubted your intentions.

On the other hand I would like the moderators to take a look at your IP address and see if it originates with one of the players....

Regards, Ethan

It's easy to do some research yourself.. little hides from google in the online world.

I've read his posts on a few forums and for one welcome some devils advocate in what often can be highly polorised threads.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

and back to the thread . . . Grant told us he would be revealing/releasing new information after the trial was concluded . . . do we know yet what it is?

I wish I knew, but he hasn't let us down so far has he?
I imagine that it will continue to be on drip-feed rather than in one big rush.

The remarkable thing is that CMP have gone so quiet but they seem more than happy to keep Bumbury on board.

 

[Neeves]

The RINA/Rocna relationship has been high on the agenda now for some months. The CEO of RINA has been actively involved and they have equally been aware of the corruption allegations. They are embarassed to have been misled by Rocna with regard to Rocna not advising them that they were using cast flukes, but in the Type Approval process they were not required to make any checks that would have revealed the deception. RINA pointed out that they expect their clients to have integrity - and frankly it would be difficult for RINA, or any other CS, to have identified what has turned up. Grant has told us that the employees who might have been involved in the corruption have been dismissed which implies RINA acted swiftly and correctly (and long before any of this became public knowledge)..

With regard to cause and effect. Grant advises money was paid in March 2010, the certificate is dated May 2011. Looks to me that Mr Bambury chose the wrong person. Usually bribery results in action - seems very ineffective to me.

I researched the story over the RINA certification I am fairly sure the process was conducted correctly under IACS rules.

Current comment on RINA smacks of bigotry and or racism - and if RINA requested the thread to be pulled it would not surprise me one bit.

However what is constantly overlooked in this, current part of the, debate is that there would have been no story of corruption if Mr Bambury (as Grant names) had not made the money available. There would be no corruption if the opportunity had not arisen, and who provided the opportunity? The question that might be asked, given that some of you think RINA should have second sight, is why CMP employed Mr Bambury in the first place and why he is still on board now? Equally Mr Smith would have known of the RINA certification claims, when there was no certificate, and he too remains in the CMP camp. This story is of interest for the future because the people who perpetrated the frauds in the past are active in production for the future (and as we see on a variety of forum people are still buying Rocnas).

There's nowt so queer as folk

Jonathan

 

[evm1024]

It's easy to do some research yourself.. little hides from google in the online world.

I've read his posts on a few forums and for one welcome some devils advocate in what often can be highly polorised threads.

Very good point - I stand corrected. 8k posts elsewhere is impressive. I am humbled.

Regards, Ethan

 

[maxi77]

I missed that in all the posts flying back and forth. But don't you think that is a credit to RINA? That they are working to try to enforce European morals, in China, somewhat against the local standards?


QUOTE]

Or is it really a smokescreen, shuffle the desks and carry on as normal

 

[smackdaddy]

From my Yank viewpoint it appears that you are acting as a plant in an effort to muddy the waters and discredit Grant. It may be that you are just very keen on running this down and in that case I am quite sorry to have doubted your intentions.

On the other hand I would like the moderators to take a look at your IP address and see if it originates with one of the players....

Regards, Ethan

No worries Ethan. I'm no plant - I'm the same "smackdaddy" as on all the other forums. As you say, I'm just keen on running this down. Nothing more than that. It has definitely piqued my bulldogish interest.

As cona points out above, I have a notorious knack for playing devil's advocate...especially if I see something that looks a bit off. I'm not the best diplomat in the world. But I don't mean any harm. It's just this whole thing looks a bit off...across the board.

I missed that in all the posts flying back and forth. But don't you think that is a credit to RINA? That they are working to try to enforce European morals, in China, somewhat against the local standards?

If that's what's going on - then yes, that would be a credit to them. No doubt. But, we have no idea if that's what really happened...we just have heresay.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

From my Yank viewpoint it appears that you are acting as a plant in an effort to muddy the waters and discredit Grant.

Grant has already done that by confessing to being actively involved in bribery. That doesnt alter the apparent facts about the steel used in the shanks but it does make it easier to understand the falling out that has clearly motivated these revelations,

On the other hand I would like the moderators to take a look at your IP address and see if it originates with one of the players....

Regards, Ethan

And your IP address?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The RINA/Rocna relationship has been high on the agenda now for some months. The CEO of RINA has been actively involved and they have equally been aware of the corruption allegations.

Jon, can you point me to some information on this? I can't find anything online?

If the information isn't in the public domain, where did you get it from?

Have you spoken to the CEO of Rina? We're told these employees were fired? Were they? If they were does the CEO think they did take the cash?

And Grant, can you point to some info online about the attempt to prosecute you for stealing the $5000? Did it make the local papers, or the trade press?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Jon, can you point me to some information on this? I can't find anything online?

If the information isn't in the public domain, where did you get it from?

There's a clue in his profile. He lists his occupation as a freelance marine journalist and he's already said that he's been researching this story.

He's doing his job.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Grant has already done that by confessing to being actively involved in bribery.

I agree. Anyone wanting to discredit Grant would just use his assault conviction or the fact he's admitted paying a bribe.

Grant as a person is easy to discredit, it wouldn't need subtle tricks. None the less, on this subject, Grant has (as far as I know) told the truth and I'm inclined to think that when the facts come out he'll be shown to be right.

So we'll just have to wait for some verifiable facts.

The attempt to convict Grant for the 5k must be in the public domain somewhere.

I wasn't really interested in the first Rocna story but I find the Rina story fascinating and I'm really grateful to Grant for blowing the whistle on it. So thanks Grant.

 

[smackdaddy]

Just saw this. Thanks Neeves.

Are you currently working on a story?

The RINA/Rocna relationship has been high on the agenda now for some months. The CEO of RINA has been actively involved and they have equally been aware of the corruption allegations. They are embarassed to have been misled by Rocna with regard to Rocna not advising them that they were using cast flukes, but in the Type Approval process they were not required to make any checks that would have revealed the deception. RINA pointed out that they expect their clients to have integrity - and frankly it would be difficult for RINA, or any other CS, to have identified what has turned up. Grant has told us that the employees who might have been involved in the corruption have been dismissed which implies RINA acted swiftly and correctly (and long before any of this became public knowledge)..

With regard to cause and effect. Grant advises money was paid in March 2010, the certificate is dated May 2011. Looks to me that Mr Bambury chose the wrong person. Usually bribery results in action - seems very ineffective to me.

I researched the story over the RINA certification I am fairly sure the process was conducted correctly under IACS rules.

Current comment on RINA smacks of bigotry and or racism - and if RINA requested the thread to be pulled it would not surprise me one bit.

I think you have to be careful with this one...

However what is constantly overlooked in this, current part of the, debate is that there would have been no story of corruption if Mr Bambury (as Grant names) had not made the money available. There would be no corruption if the opportunity had not arisen, and who provided the opportunity? The question that might be asked, given that some of you think RINA should have second sight, is why CMP employed Mr Bambury in the first place and why he is still on board now? Equally Mr Smith would have known of the RINA certification claims, when there was no certificate, and he too remains in the CMP camp. This story is of interest for the future because the people who perpetrated the frauds in the past are active in production for the future (and as we see on a variety of forum people are still buying Rocnas).

If, as Grant has said, Bambury was told by the RINA people that bribery was what it would take, laying it all on Bambury is inaccurate and unfair. There also would have been no story had the RINA people not asked for money to begin with.

Your statement above is a bit like saying if the John hadn't given the money to the prostitute she wouldn't be a prostitute. There's equal blame in this whole affair in my view.

If you are doing a story, it sounds like your way too focused solely on Rocna.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

If, as Grant has said, Bambury was told by the RINA people that bribery was what it would take, laying it all on Bambury is inaccurate and unfair. There also would have been no story had the RINA people not asked for money to begin with.

+1