[Wide Dave]

I've picked out the highlights but put very simply;

It's not about telling the company's version of the truth anymore, it needs to be the whole truth or at least enough of it that the average consumer can make an informed decision. So if you tell someone that they will possibly qualify quickly and that they can pay back the loan out of their first years earnings when it is probable that their will be no first years earnings then that would probably be illegal. If you tell someone that they can earn £30K that's fine. But you would probably also have to tell them that most instructors don't because that might be a key reason why they would want to sign and might cause them not to sign if they knew the truth.

RHPS, you seem to think I'm talking about advertising - I'm talking about the point where the contract is signed, the sales meeting.


Misleading actions
5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).
(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—
(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and
(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Misleading omissions
6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,
(c)the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d)the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, I do wish you'd stop just repeating things without considering their place in the real picture

The reason I "think" you are talking about advertising is because you "are" talking about advertising. You can't avoid it if you are going to pursue this rule.

Every company advertising every product is in breach of this rule IF you conclude that Red is!

Red has been investigated at least two times that I am aware of and has been vindicated both times.

The worst thing likely to happen is that a disclaimer will have to appear in smallprint. Like when they do those radio ads for telephones or talk plans and you get that disclaimer sentence at the end read out quietly and very quickly to get it all in ("Applies to certain talk plans only. Subject to status. Terms & Conditions apply"). Or like health foods ("can aid weight loss only as part of a calorie-controlled diet"). Or tobacco ("smoking can damage your health"). And so on. In fact, those multi-gym things and plenty of others are not restricted even in this way.

I suspect the authorities - who aren't grinding an axe or forcing a personal opinion - are fully aware of the floodgates they'd open if they found against Red (or anyone else in a similar position with disgruntled punters), which is why they are treading very carefully.

You, on the other hand, would like Red to be hung, drawn, and quartered for other reasons - and that is not objective

I know exactly what is in that document, Dave, so there's no need to keep pasting it. The reason I'm not having the same number of kittens over it as you are is that I see it differently as part of the big picture, whereas you are only looking at Red.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

And from the man who recently kept saying "I weant to love Red. I really do"!

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Hey, there's been an image change over at Krazy Land.

One of the admins has changed her Facebook name from "Barbara" to "Barbie"

It's the little things that matter

[Wide Dave]

RHPS,

Well I'm stunned. Shocked and stunned.

No, more than that, I'm shocked stunned and dismayed!

My entire belief system has been shaken to the the core and all those things I once believed to be constant are shattered and gone. I used to believe in Magna Carta, The Monarchy and that MP's were bent but now I'm having to re-align my world.

The reason for all this mental trauma? Your last torrent of posts!

I used to think of you as the voice of reason. I used to believe that your word was your bond and that everything you said was fair and just but now there is a nagging doubt, one that will just not go away.

As I went through your posts I thought back to the time when, as a relative innocent I gave the view that the law should not matter when people dealt with large companies and that trust and decency should prevail. I was told in no uncertain terms by yourself that it doesn't quite work like that and so, if any deals done were within the law then they were right and proper. You seemed so certain that since nothing illegal was done then everything was alright. As an innocent I was carried along on your tide of certainty and still believed in you. How wrong could I have been?

When I thought to myself about what you had said I stopped for a moment and thought, -but what if there is a law that no one has heard of that means he could be wrong? So I looked for one and found one. I felt sure that as the voice of reason and a firm believer in the rule of law you would accept and embrace this law, suddenly transforming your view in a blinding flash of revelation. Again, how wrong could I have been?

You gnashed your teeth, you ranted and raved before you spat out your reply; "I see it differently as part of the big picture" was what you said.

So my point is, You say everything is fine because Red were doing nothing illegal. Then when a law, not speculation or an opinion but a LAW is put in front of you that says otherwise you dismiss it as too small a part of the big picture.

You want proof? Not my job and not my problem. But if you think about it for a second, half a dozen people walk into a room to find out about the wonderful world of driving instruction. They go home £3.5K lighter. What happened in that room to make them sign the form? Were they told in that room about the qualification rates, the timescale required and the realistic earnings achievable or were they fed a load of dreams which would be unrealistic for the AVERAGE consumer.

You are starting to sound like the chap on the roof of the Iraqi information ministry during the Gulf war, telling the world's press that the Americans would be slaughtered in their thousands as the cameras rolled and caught sight of the US tanks rolling into town. Wasn't he called Comical Ali?

And while I'm at it, I may as well deal with your comments that I am in some way against Red. I went on the AADS website last night and took their little test which is supposed to tell you whether you could become an ADI. GOOD NEWS! They said yes, I can be an instructor! That was despite me purposely giving answers which should have ruled me out. Try the test, it's hilarious. Their earnings figures are no more accurate than Red's and I have heard from a mate that they are worried about their pass rate for their ADI courses . I haven't looked at BSM yet but suspect they are about the same. So no, I don't think Red are any better or worse than anyone else, but they do take a full course fee even if you don't get past part one, workbook one. That isn't fair if the customer is led to believe it's the only option going.

They were misled. The law says so.

[Wide Dave]

P.S,

I've just taken on a trainee plumber.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

I'll be damned if I can work out what you are saying in that one Looks like you were trying for some sort of literary award.

[Wide Dave]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, if you buy a multigym and if - six months down the line - it hasn't turned you into Arnold Schwarzenegger, are you entitled to a refund?

No.

Are people aware that the multigym isn't the only product on the market at the moment they rush to order having seen it on Teleshopping?

If the answer is 'no' for your question, it is 'no' for this one.

Why not? Because that's how marketing and advertising is designed to work: it exploits parts of human nature in some people.

Convince me that every vendor out there should be forced to tell people their product is crap compared to better products, and I'll agree Red should also do it.

[Wide Dave]

The reason why AADS and BSM are in that post is simple. people have heard of them and they are comparable to Red in terms of instructor training. I could have included Bloggs Instructor training but what's the point of that.

I am not anti franchise either. How could I be when it has worked so well for me in the past? It does actually work as does instructor training for some people. I find it very difficult to discourage anyone from this line of work because if you are the right sort of character it is a terrific way to earn a living. Question is, why are we taking large amounts of money from people just to hand it over to the TV companies and leaving many of those people with a large debt and a bitter taste in their mouth? They were never going to make it and wouldn't have gone for it if they had known the truth so why do it to them?

Leaving someone who can't get past part one with a potential debt of £7K and no way to pay it back was his own decision. But if he had known just a tiny bit more about how things worked he may well have acted differently. I would be as happy for someone to sign up with Red as with any other company if they would just offer the option of modular payment or pay as you go.

I didn't realise that it had been 33 pages, I think you might have miscounted. And I also didn't realise that I sounded like AntiRed. I see myself as being somewhere in the middle. A sort of beacon for truth and justice.

Your little war with AntiRed is between the two of you, it's none of my business but I do like it when she sends you off on one. I wish I could wind you up the same way. I am puzzled as to why you think I am completely against Red. Perhaps you are only reading the bits you want to and disregarding the rest. Imagine if someone did that in a Red sales meeting.

And if I agree with you all the time, how crap would this forum be?

[Wide Dave]

Nope, hasn't been 33 pages. i only joined on 28th April. Whatever page that was.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

In the contexct you've been arguing against Red, The AA and BSM are nothing like them.

Both AA and BSM allow PAYG, and it is paying up front which is your main beef. I thought you only brought them into it to try and show you weren't just against Red.

AntiRed has never "sent me off on one". No one on here has. How can they, when I am right?

I think the issue is that being consistent and straight and unwavering tends to send others "off on one"

[Wide Dave]

If we assume an adult population of around 30 million, and about 20 million of them are glued to the telly that leaves around 10 million people who might possibly be capable of forming their own opinion. Out of that 10 million there must be around 1 million Yorkshiremen who will always (since birth) have had the same opinion and don't want to change so they can be discounted. Out of the other 9 million about 3 million will think one thing, 3 million will think another thing and 3 million will be thinking the right thing somewhere in the middle with me. That means that at least 6 million people think differently to you and I am one of them.

So how can you possibly be right?

It's too hot to argue. go and have a drink.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Yes, it IS hot - and with that last babble-a-thon I think it has gotten to you

What people think and what is true are not the same thing, Dave

The Krazy Gang think they are right, but we know this is definitely not the case 99.9% of the time.

Being right AND unwavering is a burden I have to bear

[AntiRed]

keep posting Dave , we love you

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

And we know what qualities you admire, AntiRed

[Wide Dave]

I'm having a day off.

I do hope you two will behave.

FPMI, I'll be in your neck of the woods again.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Another one! Some Klown called Roger says:

[Wide Dave]

Go on then, I challenge you to show me exactly where in any post I have ever made that I have said Red was at fault regarding this chap's problem.

You cannot do it because until you posted it here I had never even seen it

I think perhaps you see all this as a problem of everyone being on different sides. That may be true of some posters but you can count me out.

I actually agree with a lot of the stuff you've posted. There are a lot of valid points made and I can understand why it is that you take the stance you do but there needs to be some balance. If you say that everyone who ever says anything against Red must then despise and loathe Red and everything it does then you are wrong.

We are all free to criticize as we choose and in my case I choose to criticize the way that courses are sold and the fact that Red are probably less than candid with some of their customers. That doesn't mean that I would support someone who is on a course and wants out simply because they are lazy and can't be bothered to open the books or can't be bothered to put in the private practice that is needed to qualify.

I would support people who have put the effort in whether they have passed or failed and in the case of those who have failed I feel sorry for them. They were ill advised or misguided when they signed with a company which gives no other option than to pay for a full course and they can easily end up in serious financial trouble as a result.

The other thing that you could think about is that when you use examples like the one you have posted are you not then guilty of using extreme examples to try to prove a general case?

Regards,

Dave.

[Wide Dave]

While I'm here though, why not have a think about the chap you've posted up here. He said he signed up last year and he's only had 3 lessons and wants out. Great.

I'll take him at face value and make an assumption that he's only had 3 lessons because he couldn't be bothered putting the work in (I don't know the full story so my assumption might be wrong).

If someone like that had been given the full facts about how long it takes to qualify and how difficult it can be, would he have signed?

Possibly not, I think.

So should people be told the truth?

Regards,

Dave.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

What do you mean by "the truth", Dave. A diatribe of never-said-before-in-an-advertising-context self-destruction material?

Of course he would have signed!

Like all of them. He wanted £30k by next week, even though he probably isn't qualified to breathe and blink at the same time.

And you ARE blaming Red for this character's stupidity - you want to take away Red's right to provide its product the way it currently does (and, as you've virtually admitted, see it come to harm). All because itdiots can't work out if something works for themselves.

[AntiRed]

you definately work for Red


lets look at the facts

you continually post on here, have you no fecking life??

you answer posts underneath your own when no one has posted

no matter what is said against red, we are all idiots, and don't have aclue or a right to speak out

you never ever defend other driving schools

if you do work for Red and i am pretty 100% sure you do, you call people that sign up idiots, now that is the biggest clue of all, because thats what red think of people that sign up before they do the training, hell we must be....eh?

you jump on anyone, no matterwhat the situation or post, they are wrong


wrong for what?, signing up for a course that they was hoodwinked into.

you RHPS whatever your ricking name is, i'm not that bothered to be honest, but i know for certain anyone coming on this forum can see your a rude arrogant and self centered wanker, who believes because he posts in here is totally 100% right when clearly you have no regard forany other post or situation but your own.

hopefully people coming in here for help will see all of what i have posted and believe what i say is right, no doubt you'll be back with some clever reply trying to make people believe your right, but no matter what you post people can see straight through the lies Red Driving staff useto get people to sign up

end of rant, good day and goodbye

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Another post of deep meaning and extreme substance, AntiRed? NOT

I can log on through my PDA, laptop, and home computer. Big difference: I do it as one person and one person only. No multiple log-ins or attempts to win an argument based on deceit ("Honest, guv. All 20 people from sifferent parts of the country just happened to be in the same building and used the same laptop without me knowing" - waha-haaaaaa!). Know what I mean - nudge, nudge, wink, wink

Yes, you are all idiots over in Krazy Land. I thought we'd all agreed on that without you having to say it again

Your Krew weren't hoodwinked into anything. They were too stupid to realise they had picked up a loaded gun and were trying to fire it whilst holding it back to front.

There is no "situation" on your side worthy of support. It is just loser after loser who just signed up willingly thinking they would be earning £30k this time next week without any effort. Not one person has provided a coherent argument, and the latest loser is absolutely and completely typical of your kind: I signed, I realise I can't do it, I don't want to admit it, so I'll blame Red - and I want OUT!

And such people have foul-mouthed losers like you on their side.......

Good luck to them., They need it

[Wide Dave]

RHPS, if someone is absolutely bone idle, wants £30K and an easy life then what will he do when he sees the TV ad that says he can have just that and more?

He will get on the 'phone ASAP.

That part is absolutely fine with me. I'm happy with the idea of Red's advertising since at that point no-one is being asked to sign their life away. The purpose of the advertising is to drag people in and as advertising can't be designed to discriminate to the fine limits necessary to pull in just those people who would probably make good ADI's I don't personally see a problem with it.

What happens next is that he will be invited along to a group sales session where one of two things could happen.

1) His greed and idle nature could be pandered to. He could be convinced that qualification will be quick and easy and that life as an ADI is sweet, working the hours he wants to and having to turn down work because there is just so much of it around.

Result. He will sign.

2) He could be told the truth. He could be told that £30k is do-able but only for people who work extremely hard, doing long and antisocial hours but also that a reasonable living is achievable for successful ADI's. He could be told that business will initially be slow to build up but that self marketing and putting the work in will see his diary build over time. He could be told that qualification is difficult but has been achieved by 44,000 instructors already on the register. A realistic timescale for qualification could be outlined and he could be told that the pass rate is low with only those people prepared to study and practice in their own time getting through.

Result. He will sign if he's made of the right stuff. I did and I was told all of this beforehand.

If he's not made of the right stuff or is idle or only interested in the £30K then he will give up on the idea PDQ and go off to become a plumber. Would you have wanted him in the job?

That's how I see it. Same question, should people be told the truth?

Regards,

Dave.