macd
Active member
If he has independent verification of it, of course he does.
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
If he has independent verification of it, of course he does.
Conachair
Guest
Neeves
Well-known member
No, I'm not trusting (at all). However I have information from the Shanghai Factory, emails from Holdfast, emails to Holdfast all of which are completely independent of Grant, before he was employed, late 2008 early 2009. We, and I stress the we, have been provided with steel analysis from 2 anchors purchased (early 2011) by Manson (its on their website). There is a bit more. In sum total this information suggests a fairly widespread usage of 420 prior to Grant's employment, usage of 420 in the early days of Grant's employment and then my information (that is completely independent of Grant ceases - there is a small window of overlap). Then Grant's information comes into play (mid 2009 to mid 2010) - which looks like more of the same, but could be a fabrication based on the early practice. We then have the worrying sampling by Manson early 2011. There are other indications, only indications (but Holdfast, S Bambury, derived) 'supporting' Manson's 2011 results.
So ignoring Grant's information, we have intentional Holdfast replacement with 420 of the shanks from late 2008 and upto early 2nd quarter 2009 (based on information independent of Grant). Grant's claims - which are basically continuation of this practice till stocks of 420 ran out mid 2010 (and Grant ceased employment - early June 2010), though Holdfast/WM and now Arthur's have gone into print admitting shipments of out of spec product early in 2010 (WM) and Arthur's June 2010 and CMP extended this to worldwide, and then Manson turning up 2 samples that are to a spec lower than 620 in early 2011.
So you can join the dots from late 2008 till second quarter 2009 - stop. Start dots from early 2010 to June 2010 - stop and wonder what to do about 2011. Or you can join all the dots from late 2008 till early 2011. Obviously the latter dot game looks neater - but that does not make it correct, but currently it looks neat.
Personally I really do not care about the people who caused all of this, I'm not interested in their motivations, their backgrounds. I'm equally not interested in whether purchasers get their money back - would be nice but I would not like it to be at the expense of an honest chandler's business (but these are problems of modern life). I am interested that if the dots start at the back end of 2008 and run through till early 2011 someone gets to the bottom of it and owners are placed in a position where they can make a decsions based on fact - not inneundo.
So, I'm not trusting, at all. At this stage I would take the cautious view and draw the dots from 2008 to 2011. But its not my yacht, or my crew - its not my decision but I would not say the Grant's information might not be correct and for a £500 anchor, to me, it simply does not merit the risk.
Jonathan
So ignoring Grant's information, we have intentional Holdfast replacement with 420 of the shanks from late 2008 and upto early 2nd quarter 2009 (based on information independent of Grant). Grant's claims - which are basically continuation of this practice till stocks of 420 ran out mid 2010 (and Grant ceased employment - early June 2010), though Holdfast/WM and now Arthur's have gone into print admitting shipments of out of spec product early in 2010 (WM) and Arthur's June 2010 and CMP extended this to worldwide, and then Manson turning up 2 samples that are to a spec lower than 620 in early 2011.
So you can join the dots from late 2008 till second quarter 2009 - stop. Start dots from early 2010 to June 2010 - stop and wonder what to do about 2011. Or you can join all the dots from late 2008 till early 2011. Obviously the latter dot game looks neater - but that does not make it correct, but currently it looks neat.
Personally I really do not care about the people who caused all of this, I'm not interested in their motivations, their backgrounds. I'm equally not interested in whether purchasers get their money back - would be nice but I would not like it to be at the expense of an honest chandler's business (but these are problems of modern life). I am interested that if the dots start at the back end of 2008 and run through till early 2011 someone gets to the bottom of it and owners are placed in a position where they can make a decsions based on fact - not inneundo.
So, I'm not trusting, at all. At this stage I would take the cautious view and draw the dots from 2008 to 2011. But its not my yacht, or my crew - its not my decision but I would not say the Grant's information might not be correct and for a £500 anchor, to me, it simply does not merit the risk.
Jonathan
Letterman
N/A
Greetings, I am Steve Taylor, the latest commercial fraud victim of Grant Norman King, who was featured in the Herald on Sunday last wekend.
I have been conducting a private investigation on GNK for about three weeks now. While I am aware of a grand total now of 59 people (and counting)that have been ripped off by GNK for a total of $2.15 million (and counting) in the past 20 plus years, the focus for this thread appears to be the industrial sabotage conducted by GNK whilst an employee of Rocna anchors, a firm from which he was summarily fired from for theft as a servant, and gross misconduct.
Let me be very clear in what I have found out, so that there is no grey area here: Whilst the Production Manager for Rocna Anchors (and whilst running a company called Juicy Consultants), GNK independently, and without the knowledge of Rocna Management, authorised the use of lower grade steel to be used in the production of the Rocna anchor, whilst on a business and quality control trip in China on behalf of Rocna.
GNK also embezzled $14,000 from the Rocna credit card, in order to pay for equine resources for his then 19 year old girlfriend Hayley Morgan of Tiger Equine. In addition, he conned $28,000 out of Rocna for the start up of NZ Sleepouts, collectively costing the organisation around $1,000,000 in corporate value and theft.
Please don't be scared off by GNK bleating about what "action" he is taking - he is all mouth and trousers. He has never actually "taken" any action in his life (except perhaps, pre-pubescent).
Of course, GNK has the absolute choice to challenge me in a legal sense with regard to everything I am saying - so c'mon Grant - come out and play with me.
You have obfuscation and untruth - but I have evidence.
I have been conducting a private investigation on GNK for about three weeks now. While I am aware of a grand total now of 59 people (and counting)that have been ripped off by GNK for a total of $2.15 million (and counting) in the past 20 plus years, the focus for this thread appears to be the industrial sabotage conducted by GNK whilst an employee of Rocna anchors, a firm from which he was summarily fired from for theft as a servant, and gross misconduct.
Let me be very clear in what I have found out, so that there is no grey area here: Whilst the Production Manager for Rocna Anchors (and whilst running a company called Juicy Consultants), GNK independently, and without the knowledge of Rocna Management, authorised the use of lower grade steel to be used in the production of the Rocna anchor, whilst on a business and quality control trip in China on behalf of Rocna.
GNK also embezzled $14,000 from the Rocna credit card, in order to pay for equine resources for his then 19 year old girlfriend Hayley Morgan of Tiger Equine. In addition, he conned $28,000 out of Rocna for the start up of NZ Sleepouts, collectively costing the organisation around $1,000,000 in corporate value and theft.
Please don't be scared off by GNK bleating about what "action" he is taking - he is all mouth and trousers. He has never actually "taken" any action in his life (except perhaps, pre-pubescent).
Of course, GNK has the absolute choice to challenge me in a legal sense with regard to everything I am saying - so c'mon Grant - come out and play with me.
You have obfuscation and untruth - but I have evidence.
aitchem
Member
I 've ordered a Spade
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
but I wanted a Rocna...........SAD innit
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
but I wanted a Rocna...........SAD innit
Conachair
Guest
Fair enough.
Storyline
New member
Yes - a real conundrum. On the face of it, this information on GK's 'previous' would appear to make him very much less credible. So why has he not been discredited by either the Smiths, bunbury or CMP before now? I take the view that it actually lends more credence to GK's assertions. If the allegations of the use of 420 steel from the first days in China had been just been made up by Grant then I am sure he would have been shot down in flames before now.
Neeves
Well-known member
Conachair, and others of his ilk
I sincerely regret not being more forthcoming. If it was all set in concrete and incontrovertably checked and double checked I would tell you. To me it all looks totally convincing but I'm human, have weaknesses and bias, and when it becomes public it will stand upto public scrutiny.
But question probe, cast doubts - because it raises questions and doubts not previously thought about, its one of the strengths of the forum - it pits one against and with ones peers. And advantageously it pits one against, or with, people who are better.
I must admit Grant's background is one reason why his information does not gain a higher profile (if you check no-one has really used it). But that does not make it wrong (or right).
Jonathan
I sincerely regret not being more forthcoming. If it was all set in concrete and incontrovertably checked and double checked I would tell you. To me it all looks totally convincing but I'm human, have weaknesses and bias, and when it becomes public it will stand upto public scrutiny.
But question probe, cast doubts - because it raises questions and doubts not previously thought about, its one of the strengths of the forum - it pits one against and with ones peers. And advantageously it pits one against, or with, people who are better.
I must admit Grant's background is one reason why his information does not gain a higher profile (if you check no-one has really used it). But that does not make it wrong (or right).
Jonathan
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Based on my limited experience so far with a Spade, you won't regret it.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Holdfast/Bumberry had a go at him, but then that thread got pulled, probably for that reason.
Neeves
Well-known member
Within a few posts of Letterman, aka Steve Taylor (Grant's most recent 'commercial fraud victim' - see the newspaper link) joining the Cruisers Forum the thread was closed.
I hope the moderators are watching this one, thread, with particular attention
Jonathan
I hope the moderators are watching this one, thread, with particular attention
Jonathan
Danny Jo
Active member
Quoting this post, GK replied:
I wasn't sure what to make of this. Was he suggesting that I might not have a Q620-shanked anchor, or just criticising me and others for being prepared to accept the Q620 spec?
The doubt generated by GK caused me to spend a couple of days messing about with a 1kg hammer, a centre punch and a camera.
maxi77
Active member
One may even ask why with his history Bambury employed him.
FishyInverness
New member
Neeves
Well-known member
Danny,
You did right to check. Its your anchor, its your decision. It does not impact any of us directly. You have produced an answer and a decision that you can live with. All that has happened is - you were prompted to check and think, better now than when the wind gets up and someone raises the question.
I have no records of the 2010 shipments to the UK, so cannot comment, but the 'Piplers' comment in PBO was unexpected, because the timing is outside anything Grant has ever mentioned. Grant told me Boyds received, with 420 shanks, 18 units of 15kg anchors in October 2009 (September shipment) and a whole stack, 50 units, in early 2009 (these are not Grant's figures, independent). There had to be a question as to what you had, I'm glad you checked, I'm glad you are comfortable.
Good sailing!
Jonathan
You did right to check. Its your anchor, its your decision. It does not impact any of us directly. You have produced an answer and a decision that you can live with. All that has happened is - you were prompted to check and think, better now than when the wind gets up and someone raises the question.
I have no records of the 2010 shipments to the UK, so cannot comment, but the 'Piplers' comment in PBO was unexpected, because the timing is outside anything Grant has ever mentioned. Grant told me Boyds received, with 420 shanks, 18 units of 15kg anchors in October 2009 (September shipment) and a whole stack, 50 units, in early 2009 (these are not Grant's figures, independent). There had to be a question as to what you had, I'm glad you checked, I'm glad you are comfortable.
Good sailing!
Jonathan
Last edited:
FishyInverness
New member
Just to nudge you there Jonathan, it was Pipler's that were quoted in PBO.
Neeves
Well-known member
Sorry,
Those of us living in the nether regions will not get the current issue of PBO (or anything else from the UK, for another 6 weeks, and I was relying on reading something somewhere - I should have checked, I'll edit!
Thanks
Those of us living in the nether regions will not get the current issue of PBO (or anything else from the UK, for another 6 weeks, and I was relying on reading something somewhere - I should have checked, I'll edit!
Thanks
Conachair
Guest
But question probe, cast doubts - because it raises questions and doubts not previously thought about,/QUOTE]
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My big beef with the whole affair on here was that it quickly turned into a witch hunt, anyone questioning in a way which seemed to be siding with rocna was shot down by many. The same many snuggled up to Grant as he was seen as an innocent victam coming up with what they wanted to hear. Not quite so innocent perhaps
Dig deep, always. It's a grey world, not black and white.
FishyInverness
New member
Very true,
Certainly opened my eyes!
Now the sailing public have a lot of different people directly involved, who have been proved to be highly dishonest in some way or another, all saying "Believe my side of the story, the other guy is a liar!" Bit like the prophetic gatekeeper that always lies and the one that always tells the truth and both are telling you that the other one's gate leads to certain death!
Meanwhile an anchor which was universally accepted as Rock Solid, is now produced as Rock Solid to a given quantity of Rock which the designer says is "ok" being sold at the same premium price and those that bought it under an advertised set of parameters (when it wasn't, as proved by independant consumers and other manufacturer's own testing who we haven't found out as liars...yet!) have no recourse other than to exercise their consumer rights, to the detriment of smaller retailers...
Sheesh, Can I please buy the rights to this thread? I will immediately sell them to the writers of Eastenders!
Certainly opened my eyes!
Now the sailing public have a lot of different people directly involved, who have been proved to be highly dishonest in some way or another, all saying "Believe my side of the story, the other guy is a liar!" Bit like the prophetic gatekeeper that always lies and the one that always tells the truth and both are telling you that the other one's gate leads to certain death!
Meanwhile an anchor which was universally accepted as Rock Solid, is now produced as Rock Solid to a given quantity of Rock which the designer says is "ok" being sold at the same premium price and those that bought it under an advertised set of parameters (when it wasn't, as proved by independant consumers and other manufacturer's own testing who we haven't found out as liars...yet!) have no recourse other than to exercise their consumer rights, to the detriment of smaller retailers...
Sheesh, Can I please buy the rights to this thread? I will immediately sell them to the writers of Eastenders!
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Sheesh, Can I please buy the rights to this thread? I will immediately sell them to the writers of Eastenders!
Which would then, presumably, be renamed Eastbenders.