Chris_Robb
Well-known member
I had better let them know!
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
I had better let them know!
Chris_Robb
Well-known member
Jonathan - that's the state of the problem in a nutshell. Of all the people who bought these things only probably 2% are aware of the problem, but could become aware of the problem in a most alarming way in the middle of a gale.
By the way, I made a complaint to the editor of PBO for its article last month, and they are publishing their findings having spoken to YM, in the March edition, published on 5th February. We will see what they say.
Tradewinds
Well-known member
All boats have anchors - how many have used them other than as a lunch hook - not many.
It's mostly marina to marina nowadays for the majority
.
maxi77
Active member
All boats have anchors - how many have used them other than as a lunch hook - not many.
It's mostly marina to marina nowadays for the majority
Yes but how many of the lunch hook variety paid top dollar for a Rocna rather than a flashy stainless Bruce or whatever. Rocna was pushed very hard at serious anchorers.
smackdaddy
New member
I really prefer to stay out of this current quibbling. But fishy, please, get your facts straight. Grant said what he said. How you want to read it is your business. But that doesn't change his claim.
toad_oftoadhall
New member
...and such a dumb lie because it's quick and easy to prove it to be such:
On that note, I'll take the cowards way out and give in to the lies and ad hom attacks and go back to leaving these threads unread. (It was only the Rina/Rocna allegation that attracted me to it in the first place.)
For ages there has been an assumption of 4000 anchors floating around which Rocna never admitted to and that Rocna actually bribed Rina.
Now it's looking like the 700 is spot on & the bribery claim has been debunked (or as debunked as it ever can be).
Apparently West Marine say Rocna warranty returns are almost non-existant, and say they get less returns from Rocna than the other anchor firms.
Maybe something else will turn up in the marine press but I doubt it. In the meantime I can't imagine anyone taking the negative gossip on forums seriously. Nobody is going to be convinced by an entire post featuring the words "Toot Toot ha haaarrrrrr Reminds me of that wonderful cartoon".
This story was all over months ago. It really was.
FishyInverness
New member
Oh...my....god! Er, at which point does Grant say he bribed certain officials in that quote? He doesn't...you are very selective about what you believe and what you read into things.
That statement by Grant says that he was instructed to bribe certain officials to gain certification - Then on his return was praised for a job well done - at NO POINT did he say in that quote that he actually bribed those officials in order to get the certification, or WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID - but you choose to believe that RINA was bribed, despite everyone having read all the facts pointing this out to you end over end over end over end... You also forget that Grant has also stated that later on Bambury found out the certification was not gained and was particularly angry...money was paid to someone so that nothing happened? Geez, I wish people gave ME the kind of bribes you think happened here!
That, as proof of RINA as an organisation being bribed, is about as shaky as justifying an RBS Chief's bonus!
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall
New member
FishyInverness said:
Try this on for size:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3276856&postcount=128
GrantKing said:
Last edited:
FishyInverness
New member
Yep, thanks, read it about 6 times in this saga so far and that post very clearly discounts your theory of RINA taking a bribe to produce the certification desired by Bambury.
In fact that completely verifies what I just told you - I really can't see how you can read it any other way, you confuse me...
No matter how many quotes you want to put up - The facts presented by Grant are that:
1) Bambury instructed Grant to ask what it would take to certify and uncertifiable anchor.
2) Grant was told that it would take $$$ paid to INDIVIDUALS to stop paperwork stalling.
3) Bambury instructed Grant to make those payments to those individuals
4) Grant made those payments to those individuals.
5) Those individuals were investigated by RINA and "dealt with".
What is not clear and what Grant doesn't specifically mention, is the timing of :
6) Rina issue a certificate for Holdfast/Rocna AS PER THEIR ORIGINAL TYPE APPROVAL, which they had from RINA anyway - so the payment of these individuals got Holdfast nowhere.
But it is plain that this is not a bribe in the true sense of the word, RINA didn't do what Bambury wanted for the money paid other than what they were going to do anyway, and that's not what Bambury wanted...so it's an attempted bribe - so the party in the wrong are Holdfast.
There is no RINA story...please, if you can prove to me that any of the above is wrong in facts presented so far, I will spin on a dime and agree with you that RINA are rotten to the core.
Last edited:
Storyline
New member
It may be over for you (hopefully), but not for at least 700 people, some of whom may have no idea their anchor could bend and release in a building gale.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
toad_oftoadhall
New member
FishyInverness
New member
For that I do have to apologise Toady!
My reaction was to your post yesterday saying that "For ages there was an assumption that Rocna bribed Rina" which did feel like an accusation to the Rocna posters and my response was that the assumption wasn't by the Rocna thread posters, it was you that ran with that assumption.
So I am sorry. I did end up drifting into the original argument of "were they /weren't they" with you and shouldn't have done.
I do agree that CMP/Rocna have done all they're going to do about this though, and in that respect, it's all over....
It still rankles me that they stand by a lesser spec, non-certified anchor that is not as originally advertised to the great majority of buyers of that product, keep it at the same price which is more expensive than the "to specification" anchors of their competitors and say it's the world's best as if none of this ever happened!
My reaction was to your post yesterday saying that "For ages there was an assumption that Rocna bribed Rina" which did feel like an accusation to the Rocna posters and my response was that the assumption wasn't by the Rocna thread posters, it was you that ran with that assumption.
So I am sorry. I did end up drifting into the original argument of "were they /weren't they" with you and shouldn't have done.
I do agree that CMP/Rocna have done all they're going to do about this though, and in that respect, it's all over....
It still rankles me that they stand by a lesser spec, non-certified anchor that is not as originally advertised to the great majority of buyers of that product, keep it at the same price which is more expensive than the "to specification" anchors of their competitors and say it's the world's best as if none of this ever happened!
evm1024
New member
Well put.
I look at as there are at least 700 hand grenades out there being used as paperweights. sooner or later one will fall off the desk.....
sparkles
New member
Three more posts from you since then - come on Toad, admit you can't leave this alone, it's addictive, admit it, you want to read the thread, you want to post, go on, you know you do
smackdaddy
New member
Fish, you're using some very pretzelled logic here - which just doesn't hold up. The red stuff above is not theory - they are statements of "fact" (though paraphrased) made by Grant via many posts on the matter (as you point out in your numbered list). The blue stuff IS "theory" in that it's hearsay and/or conclusions that have no bearing on the alleged bribery action.
Grant has made it clear in the many posts that have been re-quoted here and in the RINA thread (along with his email to Peter: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3251583&postcount=904) that he did in fact bribe RINA personnel to move the process (i.e. - "paperwork") along.
The "why of" those bribes, and the "what he got for" those bribes doesn't matter. And the reason for this is very clear: The Bribery Act of 2010 that RINA operates under and enforces, and it's role in overseeing/enforcing ISO SA8000. I've laid this out quite clearly in the RINA thread:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295136&page=12
(Starting with post 112)
You seem to have a need to disregard all this, or at least be overly selective about what of it you want to believe. And I said earlier, you're perfectly free to believe what you'd like - but that doesn't change the facts.
Again, I personally don't know what exactly happened at this point. But if bribes were demanded by and/or remitted to RINA personnel, there is a story. Period.
FishyInverness
New member
A well reasoned response, can I just ask you then to clarify: You say my point 5) is theory.
It was based on Grant's assertion which appears in the thread you linked, I quote directly:
"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."
I was basing it on what Grant stated, not a theory.
I do disagree with your concept of a bribe - A bribe is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as : "to act in one’s favour by a gift of money or other inducement" - they also go on to use the example : "[with object and infinitive]: they had bribed an official to sell them a certificate" which I found ticklingly ironic!
Please, please, please, tell me - given the available facts, how did Rina act in the favour of Holdfast following money given to them by Grant?
"Speeding things up" is surely not a bribe - I can pay a company extra money to get me a part I want for my car a bit quicker - by Express, or what they call in the trade the Velvet Road - it doesn't mean i've bribed them...?
It was based on Grant's assertion which appears in the thread you linked, I quote directly:
"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."
I was basing it on what Grant stated, not a theory.
I do disagree with your concept of a bribe - A bribe is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as : "to act in one’s favour by a gift of money or other inducement" - they also go on to use the example : "[with object and infinitive]: they had bribed an official to sell them a certificate" which I found ticklingly ironic!
Please, please, please, tell me - given the available facts, how did Rina act in the favour of Holdfast following money given to them by Grant?
"Speeding things up" is surely not a bribe - I can pay a company extra money to get me a part I want for my car a bit quicker - by Express, or what they call in the trade the Velvet Road - it doesn't mean i've bribed them...?
Last edited:
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Smackdaddy,
I suspect you are one of the very few around here who gives a toss about what went on with RINA and alleged bribery.
All that most of us care about is that:
a) RINA approval wasn't issued to Rocna, yet Rocna claimed it was
b) Rocna insisted that its hooks were made from Bisplate 80. They weren't
c) At least 700 dodgy anchors are out there, but there's no sign of a recall.
I suspect you are one of the very few around here who gives a toss about what went on with RINA and alleged bribery.
All that most of us care about is that:
a) RINA approval wasn't issued to Rocna, yet Rocna claimed it was
b) Rocna insisted that its hooks were made from Bisplate 80. They weren't
c) At least 700 dodgy anchors are out there, but there's no sign of a recall.
smackdaddy
New member
Grant did say it, yes, but he heard it second hand. It's hearsay. What's the credibility of that source?
That's why the Sanquerin letter, and his subsequent transfer to Turkey from Shanghai was so interesting. But the bottom line is, we have no idea if any steps were actually taken by RINA - nor if there was even any admission of wrong-doing at all.
smackdaddy
New member
You may be right. I've got no problem with that.