David,
I had intended to write a full and comprehensive rebuttal to your post,
however out of respect to the UKTC admin I shall refrain. I'm sure that those
that were party to the thread will certainly be able to address their own
recollections as to how things actually panned out, thus also concluding
their own opinions regarding the actions of the members of
treecareapproved.org.
What I will do firstly though if i may, is just seek to set the record
straight regarding a few of your comments......
Regarding your claim and criticisms as to the resultant actions of the
forum owner, it would appear that you have misunderstood the standpoint
of the posting guideline that you quote - namely, my understanding is
that this is a "guide" to users, that the forum "reserves the
right" to issue personal details. It is not intend, nor is it worded,
to indicate a "rule" that any aggrieved users hold a right to claim details of
other forum users.
Such actions would ultimately come under the
jurisdiction of the Data Protection Act and those pursuant of personal
data would surely have to follow that legal precedence?
I'd
also correct you regarding your claim of a 'quiet removal' of the
thread - I can confirm that the formal statement and explanation
issued by the forum owner still remains for all to see, and is
contained under the heading "Trustmark threads" in the members only
area.
The statement clearly reads 'Due to a formal complaint pertaining to rule
no.4 in the forum guidelines, the Trustmark threads have been removed from
the site'.
Surely then, following any such complaint, is this not the positive and
correct action that any responsible forum owner should and would be
expected to take?
You mention a formal apology to "Trustmark". Can you clarify who you mean?
Namely, was the applogy to Trustmark (2005) Ltd, or did treecareapproved.org
recieve the apology?
You mention that Andy was 'attacked' by an individual posing under an alleged
pseudonym, which led to the withdrawal of treecareapproved.org from the
forum. Whilst I admire your solidarity, do you not think it somewhat
insignificant and possibly detrimental to the standpoint of Trustmark (2005)
Ltd and the success of treecareapproved.org, to withdraw based on an alleged
personal conflict between 2 individuals?
Secondly, I would like to continue to address a few of the sensible and
business minded questions that went previously unanswered......
1) As has already been asked in this thread, can you confirm and
transparently explain both your and AB's credentials and previous experience
at running such an accreditation scheme as this?
2) Although it is not a pre-requisite of a Trustmark (2005) Ltd scheme
operator to hold ISO:9001 certification from the offset, it is pre-ordained
that a scheme operator will acheive ISO:9001 certification within the allowed
18 month time-frame, lest face removal of the Trustmark (2005) Ltd status.
I understand that neither BASE UK Ltd nor its trading subsiduary
"treecareapproved.org" currently hold this certification, and as this
ultimately determines the possible longevity of treecareaapproved.org
"shelf-life" to act as a scheme operator, can you fully explain what of this
18 month time-frame remains, and how BASE UK Ltd t/a treecareapproved.org aim
to achieve ISO:9001 within that remaining and corresponding portion of the
time-frame?
3) As has been mentioned previously, a scheme such as this will
undoubtedly require the support and recognition of the industry as a whole,
if it is indeed to gain the volume of membership that will be required to
achieve success and positive recognition both within the industry and by "Joe
Public".
Considering that the AA is currently engaged in updating its own contractor
accreditation scheme and that the ISA Uk & I Chapter already imparts the
internationaly recognised "Certified Arborist" scheme, can you fully and
transparently explain what steps are under way to glean that recognition and
support, and how treecareapproved.org aims to unite the current industry
organisations and "other" accreditation schemes (such as CHAS,
Constructionline, ISO:9001 etc) under the Trustmark (2005) Ltd banner?
4) As treecareapproved.org has already addressed the Trustmark (2005) Ltd
acreditaton scheme on "A.N. Other" forum, a forum which you have now claimed
the members of treecareapproved.org are in dispute with, can you clearly
explain your intentions to positively re-address the approx 4500 members of
said forum, in order to gain their undoubtedly needed support for the success
of the scheme?
I hope you find these questions such as would be asked by any sensible person
looking to invest long-term finances into membership of your scheme, and I
look forward to your answers in due course.
Regards
Andy
Andy Clark
Hi Andy
I do remember you from that forum.
I have to respond to something you said below.... "finishing ultimately with
them fleeing the forum in the face of insurmountable criticism".
Sorry, this comment is highly misleading to everybody on this forum.
In case you aren't aware, (and in saying that, it strikes me that the quiet
removal of that thread by the owner may well have left all with the
impression that you relate here), I have to inform you that the reason we
left was specifically because Andy was attacked by somebody posting under
what emerged to be an assumed name.
Now that would not have been a problem if the administrator/owner of the
site had been prepared to follow his own published protocols and inform
anybody who has been abused (I think the term is "flamed") of the identity
(or identifying IP address for example), so that we could know who was
attacking, perhaps understand why therefore and have means of better
addressing their attack.
So, as the protagonist was effectively protected (for whatever reasons), we
had absolutely no choice but to quietly step back.
While TrustMark received a comprehensive apology from the owner, they also
gave a committment to reveal the poster's name after a certain elapsed time.
Sadly however, we have heard no more.
I am sure that you and everybody here will appreciate that, given a forum
where a poster can be attacked by somebody working from a position from
where they feel they can say what they like without fear of recourse because
their identity is concealed for them, we were at such a disadvantage as to
make any dialogue a waste of time.
I think I said in a post that "healthy skepticism is just good due
diligence" or words amounting to.
As we are on a forum with clearly defined rules and ethics, I am happy to
discuss anything about the TrustMark for Arboriculture here. After all, some
of the 300 posts were highly illuminating and directly influenced us.
As to your assertion that we insulted any contractors, please elaborate as I
have no knowledge of what you have construed as an insult.
David Lloyd-Jones
--------------------------------------------------
From: "A.j Clark" <aj_clark2@xxxxxxxxx.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 7:17 PM
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture
Luke,
For a scheme like this to succeed, it indeed needs industry support......
Currently though, the bigger picture issue where contractors are
concerned, is that treecareapproved.org and those involved have previousy
touted their wares on "A.N. Other" Arb focussed web-forum...... without
much success!
The resulting thread ran for some 300+ posts; with the
treecareapproved.org camp exhibiting a significant lack of transparency,
and a distinct inability to provide forum members with simple answers to
straight forward questions...... finishing ultimately with them fleeing
the forum in the face of insurmountable criticism, and to calls of
insulting the very contractors that the organisation has alegedly been put
in place to represent.
Early days? Well, someone has previously mentioned 'spin'.......
Personally, I would just advise anyone taking this seriously to thoroughly
seek the full and transparent treecareapproved.org story, before signing
on any dotted lines or parting with any hard eaned cash.
Regards
Andy
Andy Clark
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: luketreescapes@xxxxxxxxxxxx.com
To: uktc@xxxxxxx.tree-care.info
Subject: RE: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:54:20 +0000
Dear David,
On the face of it I think that the Trustmark may be a positive step,
certainly for contractors. Of course, for consultants, we already have
membership organisations that regulate their entrance requirements and
complaints procedures. If these are rigorous enough that should provide
the
confidence potential clients require. I understand that CAS is one such
organisation but I'm also thinking of the AA and ICF.
Ideally, if the Trustmark scheme is going to accept consultants, I would
like to see all these organisations supporting it with links to and from
their websites. I would also like to see the Trustmark's website detail
their respective membership categories and complaints procedures. I also
suggest that arboricultural qualifications should be explained. The AA
leaflet does this very well and a link would be adequate. Would it also
be
appropriate to list other registers such as those of CAS, the AA and ICF.
This may help potential clients get a feel for the whole profession rather
than just a snapshot of a small part.
Earlier today I spent some time searching the Trustmark site for
consultants
who work in Edinburgh, Cumbria, Leeds, Birmingham and London. Most of the
searches found none while others produced only one name. Early days!
Good
luck with the venture.
Regards
Luke Steer BSc.(Hons). Dip.Arb.(RFS). F.Arbor.A. MICFor.
Chartered Arboriculturist
Treescapes Consultancy Ltd.
Melbourne
17 Millans Park
Ambleside
Cumbria
LA22 9AG
015394 34698 (Office)
07734 113964 (Mobile)
luke.steer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
_________________________________________________________________
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
_________________________________________________________________
Add your Gmail and Yahoo! Mail email accounts into Hotmail - it's easy
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
