UKTC Archive

RE: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture

Subject: RE: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture
From: A . j Clark
Date: Dec 17 2009 12:08:07






David, 

Erm.......    no, you haven't. What you did actually do, is purposefully 
miss-construe what was written.

Namely, the original question to which you refer was NOT an invitation to 
discuss the topic on another forum, it was one of 4 questions asked in order 
to ascertain the credibility and longevity of the trecareapproved scheme.

To re-iterate those 4 questions........

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 subsidiary 
"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?




Considering my previous allegation regarding your exhibition of "flaming" 
tactics, I would respectfully urge you to measure your response to these 
questions carefully. 


Best regards

Andy

Andy Clark






From: dl-j@xxxxxxxxx.com
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Subject: Re: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:32:27 +0000

Hi Andy

You said...

This forum or any other David.......    the sensible and business minded 
questions STILL remain.

Where would you prefer to answer them?


Please read my post again.

I have already answered that question.


Is this an invitation to establish a new thread on the public section of
your forum?

If so, I am willing to answer any sensible enquiries there for you.

David


Just let me know when the thread is open.

Thanks, David

--------------------------------------------------
From: "A.j Clark" <aj_clark2@xxxxxxxx.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:17 PM
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture

















David,

I fail to see how anything stated in my previous post constitutes any 
form 
of confirmation in relation to an agreement that you may have with the 
forum owner regarding concealment, nor do I see how anything I have 
written represents the standpoint or opinion of said forum owner.

As a former contractor and as a poster on the "A.N Other" thread that was 
left insulted (as previously mentioned) and aggrieved by yours and ABs 
diversionary and miss representative tactics within that thread, (I am 
referring to your final post on that thread that was directly made to 
me!) 
I have merely re-visited the forum in question and re-read the 
rule/guideline you previously quoted; re-phrasing your claimed standpoint 
on a more factual basis, subsequently removing the "Spin" used to 
miss-quote in your  "bleeding heart" attempt to discredit the 
aforementioned forum.

As an example, I have copied and pasted the relevant 'rule' below.......

Please note that for security reasons each action you use on this
website your IP address is recorded, such as posting, sending private
messages, chatting, etc. as is in any for the protection of the website
in the event you should be banned from this website or your ISP
contacted for illegal activity. This will only happen in the event of a
major violation of this agreement.

Again, I re-iterate that it is clear from the the paragraph that this 
highlights to users that an IP address will be recorded, and does NOT 
equate to a rule regarding your alleged right to claim a users IP 
address. 
If you and the forum owner have an agreement that goes beyond the realms 
of what any normally educated person can read factually from such a 
statement, then that is between you and the forum owner, and you should 
not miss-construe my comments in order to claim otherwise.

With regard to your 'quotes lifted direct from the DPA', perhaps you'd 
like to share them so that I may comment on their validity?


As for my standpoint regarding the "flaming" and the alleged 'attack' on 
AB - Again, this can be clearly read, and I again attach the relevant 
paragraph below.......

4. No attacks, insults, or flames** - be it on someone's person,
religious beliefs, race, national background, sexual orientation, or
whatever. This is VERY important. If you have a problem with somebody,
do not flame them on our website. Take it somewhere else. No flaming of
ANY kind is welcome here. The quickest way to get banned from our
website is to break this rule. This includes public posts, group posts,
private messages or contact methods supplied by the member of this site.


** On the Internet, flaming is giving someone a verbal lashing in
public. Often this is on a Usenet newsgroup but it could be on a Web
forum or perhaps even as e-mail with copies to a distribution list.
Unless in response to some rather obvious flamebait, flaming is poor
netiquette. Certain issues tend to provoke emphatically stated
responses, but flaming is often directed at a self-appointed expert
rather than at the issues or information itself and is sometimes
directed at unwitting but opinionated newbies who appear in a newsgroup.


What I will add to this, again, as a poster insulted and aggrieved by 
both 
your current and previous posting tactics, is to throw back to you an 
accusation and allegation that it is indeed you who are in fact guilty of 
said flaming tactics, by coming onto such web-forums and posting content 
so as to purposefully avoid direct questioning, and so as to 
intentionally 
miss-represent factual matters in an attempt to discredit and cause 
direct/personal insult.


If any of these web-forums were indeed "my" forums as you suggest, you 
would certainly be banned and removed forthwith, to the point that should 
you address me in such a manor again, on this or any other forum, I will 
be pursuant to lodging a formal complaint to Trustmark (2005) Ltd. After 
all, you claim that it is their best interests that you are acting on 
behalf of.


This forum or any other David.......    the sensible and business minded 
questions STILL remain.

Where would you prefer to answer them?


Best regards

Andy


Andy Clark






From: dl-j@xxxxxxxxx.com
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Subject: Re: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:53:33 +0000

Hi Andy

In spite of a written commitment suggesting otherwise, I thank you for
confirming that the owner of that forum has now decided to conceal the 
true
identity of the antagonistic poster.

As I have proved to the site owner with quotes lifted direct from the 
Data
Protection Act, there is nothing in that act to prevent him from 
providing
the persons identification.

I'm afraid that's all I have to say regards that.

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?

Is this an invitation to establish a new thread on the public section of
your forum?

If so, I am willing to answer any sensible enquiries there for you.

David



--------------------------------------------------
From: "A.j Clark" <aj_clark2@xxxxxxxx.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 8:01 PM
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: TreeCareApproved.Org TrustMark For Arboriculture






















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

01539X XXXXX (Office)
07734 XXXXXX (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/




-- 
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/

_________________________________________________________________
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@xxxxxx.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@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts
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/