[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Any suggestions as to why this person would have tried to weasel out of the agreement (another Krazy Kritter from Krazy Land):

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Another Krazy Land expert speaks (rumour has it he might also be able to walk and chew gum at the same time)

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

* spoken

(Note to self: when picking up other people on grammar, check your own post for typos )

[Wide Dave]

I missed a bit, just when was it that you were appointed administrator and when did you change the rules so that we couldn't speculate.

If we aren't allowed to speculate then when are you going to close down ITN and the BBC. Is there any particular newspaper that would escape your wrath and what about the internet, shouldn't it all be banned since much of it is hearsay, rumour and speculation?

You criticize your friends on Facebook for attempting to limit free speech to themselves alone and then come straight on here and do the same thing by trying to tell us what we can and cannot say.

I shall write precisely what I like.

[Wide Dave]

And if Red were to go bust, as other instructor training companies have in the past, would that make me a prophet?

[Wide Dave]

And while I'm running around with my new T-shirt that says 'I told you so' across the front, what would happen to all those people who had lodged their money with Red/Barclays.

If they had chosen pay as you go with some other training provider their loss would be limited and they could just soak up the inconvenience/go elsewhere. By paying for a full course up front they are taking a chance on the future solvency of their trainer.

I don't think Red should have '666' across their logo but I do see obvious shortcomings in the way they do business and those shortcomings tend to mean that the punter could lose out in a big way.

The AA and BSM etc, all offer the option to pay for a full course and it is highly unlikely that they will tell you the truth about your suitability to train but they also offer the option to pay on a modular basis and that is the big difference. Why take risks with your money that you don't have to and why lodge your money with any instructor training company when they may not be around to complete your training?

I have the greatest respect for those people who go through their training with Red and do well or otherwise. If you try hard then you are a hero in my book whether you succeed or not. What I don't want is for people who haven't thought it through properly to be taking ill advised risks. Driving instructor training then becomes known as a racket (if it isn't already) and that can't do any of us any good.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

[Wide Dave]

[Wide Dave]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

But that's exactly what I've been saying: what you describe as what you'd like them to do, I describe as what you wish would happen. There's hardly any difference!!!

So, it seems to me you'd be happy if Barclays pulled the plug on 0% loans from your attitude to the unfounded speculation that they already have.

Dave, if we know the banks are going to lower interest rates (e.g. by 0.5% typically), or that the oil companies are going to put the prices of fuel up, then speculating about how much it will go up by (e.g. by 1p typically), what it will mean, and if it will go up again is reasonable speculation.

In the case of fuel, trying to speculate on a 50p increase over the next 6 weeks (for example) is absolutely stupid and - if you're a member of the press or media - blatant scaremongering which causes panic and even drives prices up.

The speculation you're involved in is closer to that second kind than the first at this stage.

I notice that the blog world is filling up with "Michael Jackson faked his own death" and "Jordy Chandler admits lies" posts. Yesterday's press included "Where did Jacko hide his millions"...

...relevance also has a hand in this. What does that kind of unfounded speculation have in the important details of someone's still-recent death?

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Here e go - a Krazy Land post:

[Wide Dave]

Speculation, relevance?

The purpose of speculation in this case is that it prompts a question which is relevant to someone about to purchase a training course. Jard's post prompted the question 'what would happen if this hit their business' which in turn prompted the question 'Whay would happen to those people who had lodged their money with Red if they went bust'.

These questions may not be relevant to you or I but they are relevant questions for someone about to pay £3.5K to a company which might hit the skids at some point in the future. These questions could affect their decision to pay for a full course or choose a pay as you go or modular option.

And then your question would be, why don't we just deal in facts. Dead easy.

Because the relevance or otherwise of a fact depends on your point of view. You might say it is a fact that you can earn £30K or that you can qualify in 6 months or indeed any of the other perfectly reasonable claims that driving instructor training companies make. If you were an ex trainee of any DIT you could equally say it is a fact that you probably won't earn £30K and it is a fact that you probably won't qualify in 6 months.

Both points of view are factual. Both points of view are the truth. Both points of view are relevant to someone considering a new career. I would argue that the 'probably won't' set of facts are of much more relevance to someone with £3.5K to spare and who can talk and drive at the same time. They are more relevant (in my view) because the chances of failure are around 96%.

Ask yourself a simple question. If it were my money and I was about to sign up, would I want to know both sets of facts or just the nice ones?

[Wide Dave]

Your speculation about my attitude to the loan thing is probably correct.

Your speculation prompted me to think about those people who are likely to take the loan option and I've come to the conclusion that if they can't afford the course in the first place then how are they going to survive in their early days as an ADI, should they qualify.

I've also thought about how they would pay off the loan if they did not qualify within the 12 month period. It is possible for instance that they might try really hard but just can't seem to get past the HPT test within a reasonable time and so end up with a debt of around £7K and with no way to pay it.

So perhaps it's better if they find it more difficult to get that loan.

Thank you RHPS for your speculation. You were great. You might say it was a deduction and I would say it was speculation but it all depends on your viewpoint doesn't it?

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

You're dead right, Dave. As I've said all along - more than once, if you remember - they shouldn't have gone anywhere near anyone offering ADI training.

The only crime Red could be said to be guilty of is making it easier for morons to hurt themselves.

But as I've also pointed out several times, there are a lot of people who succeed by taking this route. What about them? Are you going to deny these and their kind the opportunity just because of your own feelings (whether it is based on prejudice towards Red, deep humanitarian concern for the lesser intellects in society, the desire to protect your own career and deter newcomers, or a mixture of all of these)?

I'm sorry, Dave, but your comments about a whether a company will hit the skids is flawed in many places. First of all, both points of view you mention are NOT factual. They are based on opinion, guesswork, and - in your case - desire. So they are biased and depend on who came up with them.

The only factual information would be if Red DID go bust. Or if there was some information confirming their accounts are not stable. Etc.

Not being able to offer a 0% interest loan via Barclays - should such speculation and its associated schadenfreude ever turn out to be true - is not going to bring them down. First of all, Career Development Loans still exist. Other banks still exist. To suggest Red will collapse is based on desire not logic. If people want to try to become ADIs they can get the finance from somewhere - but the chances of success remain the same.

And of course there is still the fact - yes, at the moment it IS still a fact, I think - that the suggestion that the loan arrangement Red offer has gone is not verified.

Someone about to pay £3.5k is always going to be concerned about the company they are paying it to. WHOEVER that compnay is. Or they should be (we know that this is, in fact, not a priority to most of these morons we're listening to - they just sign without having a clue what they are doing).

Past history shows that when a driving school collapses it is quickly bought out by someone else. Past history also shows LVG has led the field in this area, and it is highly unlikely that Red, TIC, or any LVG company is so shaky that something like this will destroy them. They are just too profitable and too well-funded. I guess you either didn't consider this, or deliberately ignored it to try and make your speculation seem more creditable than it is?

Look at any advertising and marketing, Dave. Ask yourself if it is honest. Tobacco? Alcohol? Meat products? Most pre-packed sandwiches and fast food?

Get real, man

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

[Wide Dave]

Hurt themselves?

Are they not misled? The advertising may be above board but then I've never said much else have I?

They are signing a contract based on the information or lack of it supplied to them by the vendor at the meeting where they are encouraged to sign.

If that information is only one side of the story then this is contrary to the 'Misleading commercial practices and unfair trading regulations 2008'. I gave you a link to this piece of legislation earlier on this thread. Prove to me that it doesn't apply.

They are encouraged to sign there and then because if they are allowed to go away and think about it they might well find something out which will cause them not to sign. If they are not given the facts about qualification timescales and the chances of passing then Red is in the wrong.

They are misled.

Funny thing is that prior to 2008 they wouldn't have been. Strange.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, if the system decides Red's advertising is misleading - and therefore illegal - I will agree with it fully.

Why can't you accept the opposite - that Red's advertising is not illegal and has, several times, been passed by the authorities in spite of complaints like yours?

They are misled only in the same way as those at whom any form of advertising concerning any product is misleading.

You buy a pair of Levis and you get what you pay for. You buy a cheap pair of knock-offs at a quarter of the price (or even less) from a market or major store and no one says "these are crap compared to Levis, which is why they're cheap". Are you saying they should all do that?

You're not Australian, are you?

Prove to you that it doesn't apply? The fact that it currently doesn't apply - otherwise Red would have been told to stop - is proof enough All you're doing is disagreeing with the law because you don't like the outcome.

Maybe one day you'll be right (i.e. if the law changes). At the moment. though, you're not.

[Wide Dave]

Actually I am right and you are wrong on at least two counts.

1) If you had actually READ what was in my last post you would see that in the first four lines I am not criticizing the advertising one bit. I actually use the words 'the advertising may be above board'. Did you read that bit? What I am criticizing are Red's tactics at their sales meetings/group interviews.

2) The particular legislation I refer to is perfectly applicable. Red haven't stopped selling their product in the way they do either because they are ignorant of the new law or because the relevant cases haven't yet gone through the courts and that is only because the legislation is new. What was perfectly OK 2 years ago because the principle of 'buyer beware' took precedence is now no longer legal. A company can of course go on saying whatever it wants to in it's sales meetings but they now run the risk of being brought to book by customers who take what they say at face value. If they cause someone to sign a contract by either making outrageous claims or not telling the whole truth then that is illegal. What you think doesn't matter, that is the law.

Australian, how dare you!

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, the part where your 'rightness' turns into 'wrongness' is where you flawlessly move from the black & white of the law to the grey area of 'tactics' without apparently being aware you've crossed the line.

The only issue is that you don't like Red's tactics and are trying to prove they are somehow wrong, even though they are legal and approved (several times).

I don't have an issue with Red's tactics, so where does that put us? Neither of us is right and neither is wrong as far as out opinions go, but as soon as one of us starts trying to prove our opinion we stray into danger territory.

Fact: Red doesn't lie in its advertising.

Fact: Red's claims are not 'outrageous'. They are factual - you just disagree, so it's your opinion creeping in again to try and sway the matter.

Fact: Some people are so stupid they only hear the key points they want to hear.

That is the crux of the matter.

Have you seen this? Iron Gym

Or this? Boot Camp

As long as this sort of thing is legal, Red has nothing to worry about.

I was tempted to say you should stay away from The Law and focus on your job (most ADIs have this weird idea they are experts in everything, when they aren't), but didn't you say you were involved in the legal profession way back when?

[Wide Dave]

Actually I do have Australian relatives. They are the nicest people imaginable but they do have an irritating habit of sending me an email on Christmas Eve telling me they are on their way to the beach.

B******s!

[Wide Dave]

There you go again.

Red's tactics at those group meetings are wrong because they are illegal.

They are illegal because they tell people at the point where they sign the contract all the good stuff and not the bad stuff. This causes them to sign a contract which they would not sign if they knew the whole truth.

This used to be legal. Now it isn't. It hasn't been legal to do it that way since 2008 when the relevant legislation was enacted.

The only problem is proving it.

That isn't my job and it isn't my problem. Red haven't taken any money from me and they haven't misled me in any way. I am simply pointing out the rules. If you choose not to accept the law of the land then that is up to you but please don't try to tell me that the law doesn't exist. If in doubt, look it up.

[Wide Dave]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_2#pt2-l1g6

There, I've done it for you.