[AntiRed]

[Wide Dave]

See why I don't want to get involved?

Seriously though RHPS I think you need to examine why people react to you in this way.

If I were a first time visitor to this site and reading through it with a view to finding something out about Red's antics and why there is so much of a negative vibe around them one of the first things that would strike me is the sheer volume and type of your posts. I might be tempted to view your posts as rabid corporate propaganda bordering on the maniacal with the added belief that there can be one true way to think and that no other can possibly be right.

Rabid because even when faced with an argument a way will be found to subvert, bypass, ridicule or simply deny that argument without answering the basic question underlying the argument itself. In your early posts there were many good attempts at arguing your case. That has changed over the course of the thread to the point where your replies are now standard and predictable both in content and format.

Corporate in the sense that although I don't personally believe you work for Red you seem to write as though you have some link to them or even that you have been granted a franchise to speak on their behalf. I can well understand why people believe that you do work for Red even though if Red were your employer they would probably seek to distance themselves from your posts at all costs.

Propaganda. I would use the term propaganda because people would ordinarily view your posts as a 'brick wall' of slanted opinions. Everyone who speaks against Red seems to be wrong in your view and everyone who speaks for Red is a good old boy whose posts will pass without question or comment unless that comment can be made positively. A propagandist would say that everyone against Red must be for instance a 'moron', 'misguided', 'biased' or prejudiced' almost without fail. Their status in your eyes seems to be based on their degree of opposition to Red or it's practices. Some of your generalisations regarding groups of people are without credible grounds. If I were a new viewer of this post I would tend to back away from you based solely on your stated opinions of your fellow citizens.

Maniacal is a term I would use carefully but in this case I feel justified in it's use. I don't even need to argue that point, just read through your previous posts and tell me that the person behind them is logical, open to argument and prepared to take on board a valid opinion from wherever it may come. Especially in your later posts you seem to be scared of giving way on any point at all. In some cases your position seems to be, 'I am right and that is all there is to say'. There seems to be little feeling for people in any of your posts even though some of the people who have come into contact with Red and come off badly are in dire straits. If someone falls through the ice on a frozen lake and drowns I could not find it in me to call them an idiot even though they were stupid to go out onto the ice. I get the feeling you could.

If you post simply because you enjoy posting that's great but if you view it as some sort of 'role' that you need to perform then you need to have a think about it. You are currently locking yourself into circular arguments in which you have a fixed viewpoint and no way out. Intellectually you are not being stretched and often you are repeating the same point over and over again with the consequent same responses from other posters. I've noticed myself posting the same arguments in a slightly different way on many occasions and I'm honestly wondering what the point is.

Like tennis.

So what's the point? If it's all to have a dig at the 'antireds' you aren't going to change their views or stop them. In fact it could be said that you are boosting their morale and helping to keep them going. If it's to support Red in some way then your posts probably do them more harm than good by keeping these threads alive. Without your input this one would have died a death long ago and Red themselves must want this site to vanish from the face of the Earth.

This isn't a personal attack, just an honest view.

Regards,

Dave.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, AntiRed reacts to me in this way because she is an immature and ignorant little chav who wants her own way! Unlike you (who has only snapped once but pulled yourself together ) she is incapable of handling alternative opinions which she cannot remove (in Krazy Land she can delete them (and has), she failed with that on Gumtree - though she tried).

Frankly, I am amazed that you can even think of suggesting someone who only has the wit to spout foul-mouthed, poorly-spelled Anglo-saxon is my fault

Don't try and weaken my argument to strengthen your own just because I upset that foul-mouthed little chav (which I have been doing since Page 1, if you remember). That's dirty tricks, and I'm getting increasingly ready for them from you each time you post

That said, I can see that, having had a day off, you are now coming back into this with a newly formulated attempt to prove ME wrong and YOU right.

The reality, Dave, is that anyone reading this - if they have got their heads screwed on - will see the logic in my arguments, and the lack of logic in the others. Of course, if they haven't got their heads screwed on they can believe what they want because thats what they would have done anyway.

Hasn't it gotten into your head yet that I can "subvert, bypass, ridicule or simply deny that argument" easily and without even trying with logical comments, all of which are right on the front line of the topic? Primary explanations, based on facts. The only replies then forthcoming are weak secondary or tertiary rambles based on "what ifs" and wishful thinking. I don't need to answer those. If a vivid imagination can dream up a bizarre what if scenario, logic doesn't obligate me to dream up a bizarre reply.

Look at that and see if you can pick out maybe another reason for why I can do it so easily - other than because you think I'm wrong

Getting warmer yet? Maybe I can do it so easily because I'm... right?

AntiRed isn't going to get her own way on here, Dave, as long as she is using lies. I'm shocked you should attempt to accuse me of some crime simply because you already presuppose guilt in Red and therefore don't like what I am saying in their defence, but sympathise with AntiRed and her lies.

And finally: it is fun being able to wind up the weak-minded so easily and see them resort to foul-mouthed chaviness at the drop of a hat - thus making themselves look even more foolish. It's even more fun when they then try and accuse YOU of being angry or upset.

And its becoming fun seeing people trying to defend those chavs...

[Wide Dave]

RHPS,

Have a little think about the number of people who have come on to this forum and the other one and reacted to you angrily. Quite a few?

We had one young man by the name of John Frederick. All he was trying to do was start a bit of debate because things were getting stale - that circular argument thing. What did you do? Once you had weighed him up you went at him like a starving rottweiler, accusing him of posturing and so on. I knew exactly what you were going to do well in advance of it happening. It was like groundhog day because I'd seen it all before.

Anyone reading this thread would tend to think that you go over the top in your defence of Red because when your posts are looked at there isn't any significant balance in your arguments. That has changed from the early days of this thread. I could have written your early posts and in fact you would probably have been accused of being me and vice versa based on those posts. Now you paint yourself into a corner and although it can be fun to read sometimes I think your edge has gone because of the increasing credibility gap.

Just very, very briefly I've seen you mention that there may be a 'moral issue' regarding Red or that there could be issues about training provision but that point I made about seeing your posts as a brick wall of slanted opinions holds true. If someone says that Red is wrong you say they are not illegal, if someone then says that Red is illegal you say yes but they've not been convicted. If someone then says that it is common knowledge that they act in an illegal way and give reasonable grounds for that view you then demand an impossible standard of proof. The thing is that we can all see it coming and so in my opinion would an impartial observer. That's why I think Red would want you off the scene.

You now accuse me of defending AntiRed, presupposing guilt in Red etc,.

Possibly that is because of the bit where I said you make sweeping generalisations and that you don't have any feeling for the individuals caught up in this. More likely because those points are valid and you seek to rubbish them by claiming prejudice or bias. It's what you do, as I mentioned in that last post and it is as predictable as Christmas.

Newly formulated attempt? I just got bored talking about the possibility of Red going pop. There comes a point when it's all been said.

We need an honest man to act as umpire don't we?

Regards,

Dave.

[Wide Dave]

By the way,

What dirty tricks have I played and when precisely did I snap?

Dave.

[AntiRed]

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

You see, Dave. AntiRed has said it far more clearly than I ever could - her pointless and unfounded argument, put across in a chav-like manner says it all.

If I hadn't had become involved, AntiRed would have had it all her own way... it would have been yet another forum of whingers and whiners just whingeing and whining and agreeing with each other, without any substance at all. In fact, that's all AntiRed wants, because it enables her to hide her own inadequacies.

Now we come to the others who have poked their heads in, who you NOW appear to be defending.

1. Not one of them has had a legitimate argument. To a man (or woman) it has been the most pathetic of "get out of jail free" attempts in every case.

One or two of them have tried to sneak in through the back door, but it becomes clear rather quickly what they are trying to do because they all resort to making idiotic statements about Red without any proof at all. Why? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF JAIL FREE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Indeed, if we talk of sneaking through the back door, your own change of heart on this over the pages skims through my mind with a small question mark alongside it But that is an aside.

2. Don't take this next part lightly: it isn't just designed to wind AntiRed up.

AntiRed has almost certainly been guilty of using multiple log-ins and pretending to be more than one person to try and damage Red further. Your attitude is assuming those false identities are real people.

Even if it wasn't AntiRed, it was someone from Krazy Land, and since AntiRed effectively runs it it doesn't take a genius to work out the missing pieces. Does it, now?

3. If you can make up what I consider to be absolutely ridiculous 'what if' questions to support your view, can I not be allowed the same luxury with my "sweeping generalisations"?

Mind you, I'd like you to identify one of these "sweeping generalistions". Everything I've said has been backed up by facts as far as I can tell: moron makes comment along the lines of "Red are scammers", I come back with "just another whinger". Can't see any generalistion there, my friend. Looks rather specific to me

If it helps, not one person posting on Krazy Land has made a valid point.

That's about as "sweeping" as you can get, but it isn't a "generalistion" in any way, shape or form. It is a fact, based on the evidence.

4. Knowing my stance on this, I am surprised you are giving yourself such a huge pat on the back for knowing what position I am going to take on a new idiotic comment from any loser who hasn't read the other forums or even this thread. I mean, come on

If anyone has a legitimate argument I will leave them alone. Not one person has. Fact.

It is all about AntiRed chavving it up to get an army of losers behind her. Have you perhaps not considered what she might do with this army once she has her franchise/fleet of cars set up...

Or am I too cynical?

[Wide Dave]

RHPS,

Read this;

Cathy said...
Hi everyone,
Thank goodness for you!!
I am a single mum with a 2 and a half year old son. I am currently struggling on benifit and desperate to get out of the benifits trap! At the moment after paying my household bills excluding food and car cost I end up with £80 a week to manage on for myself and my son, as you can imagine it is very difficult to survive and provide well for my child on that money. I long to go back to work and be self sufficiant again. That is why when I saw the RED DRIVING SCHOOL advert on TV I was very keen to attend the introductory session. When I went to the session I was sutibly impressed! I suffer with deyslexia (as you can probably tell! haha) but apart from that I would say I am a fairly bright aware person! I was totally sucked in!
The apparent flexible hours (I have no family nearby so I have to work during nursery hours)and good income, basically ment that even including paying Red for the car each week I would still only be required to work 20-25 hours in order to cover all my costs and finally be able to have my self respect back and provide a more generous lifestyle for my son!

I can not express to you the releif I have after doing this reserch (at the advice of my father)and reading all your messages that I have not signed up to anything!!
I was all but ready to do so, the only thing that concerned me was having to pay the course fees but after a disscussion with my parents they said they would help to cover the weekly cost of £29 whilst I was training that I would then take over once I completed the training that i was assured would not take more than 6 months! Had I gone ahead with this as I planned prior to reading your posts, not only would I have ripped off my poor kind parents who are both on low incomes but I probably would have lost my home.

THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE YOU HAVE JUST HELPED ENSURE THAT MY SON KEEPS HIS WARM, SAFE HOME TO GROW UP IN! I COULD NOT BE MORE GREATFUL!!

I gues I will just have to keep looking for a part time job to help us get to a point of independence in the future. I am bitterly dissapointed about this though, I really thought I had a chance to actually get off benifits whilst doing something of worth.

These "schools" are unbelivable! Praying on the good intentions of honest, hardworking people who want to have a rewarding career whilst doing something good!

They are MERCENARYS and COWARDS!

How can they live with what they are doing to countless familys!
It is the worst aspect of human nature to put your income over the well being of another person and their children. My heart goes out to all of you that have fallen victim to these vampires!

I hope God gives them all a horrible piece of his mind in times ahead!!!!!!!!

Best of luck to all those commited to this "course" I hope you prove us all wrong and have a great experiance and life as instructors.

It is a real shame because I think I would actually ahve been a very compitent instructor and enjoyed the job enourmously.

Yours absolutly gutted but even more relieved,
Cathy S
xx

This is someone who would have become one of the 'morons' you write about. It may be that you view Cathy and people like her as some lower form of life. I do not. Her post (on the UKADI site) strikes me as being from someone trying to improve her life and that of her family by getting off benefits and working for a living. Who could not applaud that.

Her contact with Red has led her to believe that she will be qualified in 6 months when you and I know that is unlikely. She obviously doesn't have the financial clout to responsibly commit to the course when the odds against qualification are so high and the likely timescale given by Red's salespeople is so unrealistic.

She would in all probability be left with a part completed course and no foreseeable income to compensate for the debts brought about by signing with Red. The'good income' talked about doesn't necessarily happen for part time instructors because franchise fees still have to be paid so should she be sold the course? She should be given realistic probable outcomes and figures by the vendor rather than a unilateral, sales orientated view of the Red proposition. I believe any decent person would think so.

Most of Red's ex-customers are not members of any group and look to have taken it on the chin. It stands to reason that some of them may have been left up to their necks in it by the Red experience. If Red do seek to take on absolutely anyone and wish to be unfettered by morality in this then they can hardly complain when some of them seek to bite back.

Regards,

Dave.

[Wide Dave]

By the way,

I take back what I said about this being like tennis, I'm starting to enjoy it again.

Regards,

Dave.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, before you try and fudge and befuddle the situation any further, let's just take a trip down Bring-it-back-to-basics Lane for a moment.

Company offers the opportunity to train as a driving instructor. Company sells the deal by focusing on the positives (e.g. earn up to 30k, do it in as little as 6 months). Company provides the facility to finance the course via a loan, which is interest free for 1 year and 30% APR after that.

Now, that company could be anyone, and the job involved (in this case, ADI) could be anything.

By the way, I note how you never congratulated Matt, who passed (1st time I think he said) with Red.

I'm sure you are with me so far. Company never lied, it just focused on the positives. The only suggestion that it DID lie comes from the unlucky punter who is looking to get out of a legally binding contract.

All it then needs is a philanthropist and all-round do-gooder to only believe what the Punter is saying and stir things up, and the jigsaw is complete

-------------------------

The story you have posted is a typical sob story. The information about having a son, being on benefit, having £80 a week, "won't someone PLEASE think of my child", dyslexia (conveniently misspelt at that point), getting back her self respect, and so on is just utter treacle.

The most important part in it is - assuming it is true - that her father told her not to be so bloody stupid and not to sign up. Why?

Because someone on benefits is NEVER going to be able to pay back a £3.5k loan inside 1 year no matter what job they do. They are even less likely to be able to pay back the interest version in less than 5 years even with a good job. ALL LOANS ARE LIKE THAT: YOU CAN'T BORROW WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE AND THEN PAY IT BACK AND STILL BEHAVE AS IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE LOAN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Someone on benefits would be a complete idiot going into debt for anyone or anything. It isn't what Red said which is the issue, but that this person apparently contemplated doing something which - in her position - would have been the stupidest thing possible.

Someone with a kid (and believe me: I know damned well how unreliable pupils with kids at school/nursery or of school/nursery age are - if they can't turn up for their own driving lessons, they're not going to be able to turn up to other peoples either) is never going to earn enough money as an ADI. Pocket money maybe (if they can support themselves legally some other way), but not to live.

For God's sake, even I need to work 20 hours a week average just to pay my basic household bills (i.e. no personal income until I exceed that). This woman has got a kid on top. She'll not build a reputation (except a negative one for being unreliable) and there'll be unreliable work during nursery times (which is all she can do).

Someone who cannot work out these simple basics themselves doesn't get any sympathy from me. At the moment, this includes you! I can't believe you are falling for this nonsense.

That post you have copied is complete tripe, I'm afraid. It is another sob story (which may not even be true). If it IS true the fact that society unfortunately has people like this is no excuse for other members of society to be denied a free choice. After all, if someone "chooses" to end up a single parent and ends up on benefits (I know a lot who become single parents and don't, by the way), society doesn't owe them anything more - and especially not by screwing up free choice for the more sensible people who you forget exist.

None of what you assumed is "obvious". As I said, it is another sob story - probably from someone whose only friends are on the web - looking to trash Red. Being part of that gang makes some people feel good, I guess.

Yes, again you state the obvious. If she had signed up... etc., etc., etc. So should all DIT schools be prevented from advertising?

Maybe a lot of failures have taken it on the chin. All you appear to be suggesting is that they should kick up a stink... just so your proposals can be given strength. It doesn't occur to you that they haven't kicked up a stink because they weren't misled, and that you are wrong

So, no. It doesn't twang my heart strings at all. Perhaps you can accept that this is a valid opinion, and not wrong.

[Wide Dave]

Hi RHPS,

I can accept that yours is a valid opinion. Whether or not it is wrong depends on where you are in life.

From my position up here on the moral high ground I can see so much more clearly than most people, including yourself.

I can see that any company which sells a dream has a responsibility to either deliver that dream or at least to offer a reasonable possibility that the dream can be made real. What would you call a reasonable possibility? 80 per cent, 50 per cent or even just 30 per cent?

How about less than 10 per cent?

Cathy wrote; 'It is the worst aspect of human nature to put your income over the wellbeing of another person and their children'

She didn't write 'It is the worst aspect of human nature to put your income over the income of another person and their children'

To put your own income over the income of another person is fine, that is how the world works. But to sell someone a training course which is not only obviously unsuitable for them but could so easily cause such enormous harm to them is irresponsible, cruel and immoral.

These salespeople do this on a regular basis. They don't do it for Red. They do it for themselves to make a wage and they do it under a system set up by Red.

Are tobacco and alcohol sales controlled? Are firearms sales controlled? Are the sales of financial products controlled? They are all controlled in some way because they can do serious harm to individuals but you would have us believe that a company which seeks to sell their courses to people who could come to hardship through these sales are not in any way to blame for these customers eventual downfall should they sign.

I have said it before but it still holds true, Red are the FIRST point of contact with our industry for these people and they are misled by Red's salespeople to believe that qualification is easy and quick, that work is plentiful and continuous even for new instructors and that they can qualify because they can talk and drive at the same time.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Yes, the problem with being on high moral ground is that you tend to be so far away from the action you don't see the fine detail. Or to put it another way, the reality.

So those with high moral opinions try to change the world - indeed, generation after generation, they try - but none of them ever realises that they cannot. The world looks after itself.

The possibiliy of passing the ADI tests is down to whom, Dave?

Sounds to me like you're suggesting it is down to Red, but even with the low pass rate, isn't it fair and correct to say that success is down to the individual? Just like with any exam? I mean, do we advise our children not to go to University because it is hard? Of course, some do advise that way... but not sensible people.

Cathy wrote, Cathy wrote. You sound like Dear Deirdre! Even the name 'Cathy' is designed to sound sickly-sweet. I hardly think someone who - whilst on benefits as a single mother - was seriously considering a £3.5k loan until she was stopped by her father should be hailed as a philosophical visionary

I also note that you don't consider someone who brings a child into the world on her own (and all that that could imply), and who can't afford to look after it well, and who is looking to go back to work while the kid is still pre-school (and I mean pre-school) is in any way morally deficient, and so escapes your moral net. The sickly-sweet cover story hides all the potential background there, doesn't it? (Remember 'Cathy' is just an example - you're holding her up as an example of many people, and that's how I am referring to her as well )

I have already said that if the law changes then I would expect Red to comply with it. Alcohol and tobacco didn't used to be regulated, but they are now. Before regulation, anything went - just take a look at how smoking made you attractive to the opposite sex, if posters from the mid-20th Century are to be believed. And even current smokers still often seem to believe that children should be forced to smoke in order to prevent the namby-pamby no-smoking brigade winning!

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

That first senstence below the quote: if you can do it it isn't hard.

Note that the 'you' is NOT highlighted. I just noticed how that read. It doesn't mean you. Just people generally

[AntiRed]

If it helps, not one person posting on Krazy Land has made a valid point.




more bollox

[AntiRed]

good thingis if we've helped one person, thats all we required, but we got more, Bonus...

whilst we have been stopping people signing up, your argument hasn't persuaded one person to sign up....LMFAO

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Well, I said we were due an idiotic post from you and there it is:

[AntiRed]

[montyzuma]

come on guys

you have to keep ahead of the univisas post

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Don't worry. When Saint Dave returns from his visit with The Big Man, it'll all kick off again

[Wide Dave]

Saint Dave. I like that one. Thanks RHPS.

But if you call me Saint Dave then doesn't that put you on the naughty step? So how does it feel to be at the wrong end of the righteousness spectrum?

We are back to this circular argument thing again aren't we? I say Red shouldn't be doing it that way and then you say why not. Alright then I'll go along with it a bit longer.

Passing ADI tests. It's obviously down to the person taking the test. No trainer can do a damn thing with a PDI who doesn't put the work in. I see perfectly the sense of that statement made by your mate Matt on the other side about people who fail questioning whether they themselves put the effort in. But you have to question the wisdom of taking absolutely anyone on board for a course that IT IS KNOWN very few people will complete successfully. If the purpose of taking them on is to give them a realistic opportunity to change their career path /life then I could just about take that seriously but that would be an unrealistic aim because of the low pass rate. The purpose is solely to take their money. Nothing else.

Why do it to them? Because Red can?

Cathy. A case of someone trying to get out of the benefits system is turned by you into an evil, morally deficient, child neglecting scumbag who has no right to even make an attempt at any sort of better life.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, quite simply, being an ADI isn't a Divine Calling. Becoming an ADI doesn't involve being tempted by Satan and resisting that temptation. We teach people how to drive, and that's all.

There is a product on the market called 'becoming an ADI'. Red just happens to be one of the retailers of this product.

Will you shut up about bloody 'Cathy' I'm convinced she is a composite of various sob story-vendors. If she is for real, then there are a lot of things in life she should be kept well away from for her own good (and Social Services should keep an eye on that baby, for all you know). Indeed, there are a lot of people in this world who should be kept away from a lot of things for their own good, too.

But does that mean that you, or me, or other people who have some sense should also be kept away from things because of the lowest common denominators in society? I don't know about you, but I resent not being able to buy a kitchen knife because of the prats who buy them as weapons. I resent not being able to buy powerful solvents and adhesives that I have need of because of the losers who decide to inhale them. I resent not being able to get a decent Chinese takeaway because some pillock has decided salt is bad for you (and it isn't) and the takeaways now make takeaways which taste like shit.

And here's you advocating the removal of a company's ability to advertise a bog standard product because morons might hurt themselves if they try to buy it

The Law has NOT changed - not the way you are implying. If it had, Red WOULD be doing things differently. When it changes properly, Red WILL do things differently. They want to stay in business. At the moment Red is not breaking any law. Period.

So far you have NOT had a valid point. You insist on dealing with What Ifs instead of What Already Is, and such arguments are easily shot down. Try fighting on the front instead of back in HQ and you might get somewhere

Where did this business about Hitler come from? Let's leave Hitler out of it, eh? That's going a bit too far

[Wide Dave]

Hi RHPS,

Why is that going too far. It is a simple case of one man who was convinced he was right. I could have picked others but that's the easy one that everyone knows. It is not a comparison of yourselves as people but an example of someone who could not bring himself to accept any opinion but his.

That is how you are going. You have painted yourself into a corner and are incapable of accepting any other viewpoint. Red are right and everyone else is wrong in your world.

You can go to Parliament and see our MP's at work. They are all convinced they are right even though their opinions are so varied. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. You don't have a 'middle ground'.

And there you go talking about advertising again. Who cares about advertising? I am talking about the deception which goes on at those sales meetings. People are convinced by a salesperson that they can qualify easily, quickly and be up and running in time to pay their loan back. That is why they sign. That is dishonest and wrong. You seem to think that's OK. That is why you are wrong.

Lowest common denominators? Is that how you view your fellow man?
Perhaps your superiority complex goes with the assumption that you are always right. 'A composite of sob story vendors'? Who would bother? Do you really think these forums matter that much?

The law HAS changed. How can a law change but not change properly? Now you really have lost it. Red have obviously weighed up the income from sales of courses and set that against the likely penalty from any court cases and thought to themselves that it is worth carrying on with the hard sell. That is why they won't change.

If you use your mobile while you drive you are breaking the law. If you don't get caught you are STILL breaking the law. Period. If you go on telling half the truth when the law says you must tell the whole truth you are STILL breaking the law even if you aren't brought to book yet. Period.

Regards,

Saint Dave.

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, I haven't "painted myself into a corner" - you've just got into the habit of making these unsubstantiated claims to try and gain a foothold.

It isn't a case of not accepting another viewpoint - it's a case of not agreeing with any of those so far put forward. All of this hinges on whingers and whiners who are trying to back out of a legally binding agreement having soiled the product they bought as part of that agreement.

Our business is not above the law, nor does it submit to higher law than anything else - either in a legal sense, or a moral one. You are behaving as if it is/does/should. We teach people to drive.

If the law has changed then Red will be brought to task and it will have to change. As I said (many times): when that happens (and if), then I will agree with it.

It is woth pointing out that my stance on this has remained consistent and unchanged since the start. Yours has changed (possibly for reasons involving subterfuge) significantly, even though nothing new has occurred to warrant it.

I will continue to refer to advertising and marketing, since Red is simply advertising and marketing a product. It is not telling lies. And it does not answer to a special law which it would appear you would like to see apply only to it

[Wide Dave]

Hi RHPS,

If your view hasn't changed at all and mine has, then which one of us is doing the thinking here?

[RotHeissPfefferStreber]

Dave, one of the biggest problems a pupil can have when learning to drive is over-thinking things. Some things don't require 'new ways' - you want to go right, you turn the wheel to the right. It's an absolute.

But when a pupil starts trying to work it out, before it becomes instinctive, their brain can come up with the wrong answer. Very easily. See where this is headed?

I'll leave aside the strong suspicion I have that you have not actually changed your opinion at all since you came in on this, just what you are saying (I mentioned subterfuge previously) After all, you never came in as a Red supporter, did you?

I like the way you assume that changing your declared opinion means you are thinking, whereas not changing an opinion means you aren't. Again, you obviously aren't thinking deeply enough: if the facts are there, a person's opinion doesn't need to change, and the person who does change is perhaps not thinking as clearly as they'd like to believe

What do you mean I'm doing Red harm? All I am doing is saying that someone who takes out a £3.5k loan whilst on benefits (and we appear to have two of them if the one on Krazy Land is not 'Cathy'), or who signs up and changes their mind on the way home, is a moron. Red only comes into it because of the likes of AntiRed - the political wing of those lower primates who simply weren't good enough to be ADIs in the first place, but wouldn't accept it.

Red is marketing this product AS ARE OTHER SCHOOLS.

It is YOU who is making it a Red issue. Well, you and AntiRed - both stirring up people who should simply get on with their lives because they tried something and failed. Life's like that.

I will not accept any of the views so far because I know they are wrong. They have no substance or factual backup. They are weakly argued and involve 'what ifs' and losers who think they're winners.

If I am wrong I will readily admit it it. But I am not, so once again you try to pursue another pointless 'what if'

Everything I have said is NOT provably wrong, is it Dave? All you have is 'making people angry', 'not changing your mind', 'not seeing the moral issue', 'Red must be financially insecure because it is advertising' (I love that one)... shall I continue? Notice how these arguments and 'facts' are in different streets. In different towns. In different countries

What I have is facts. Red is not lying, and it delivers the product it supplies. Not a lot of clutter in there, is there?