Statement from Totally Wicked

[oldsoldier]

Now you see why I posted that question.

I belonged to an automotive trade association for many-many years, and quite frankly consumer participation was never invited. They have free access to the records required by law, and that's it.
However the consumer reaped many benefits of that association. Without it they would be worrying about how to install air bags, emission controls, and the like if their freshly restored 1910 Runabout!

I'm in agreeance here. People just need to fully understand that trade and consumer organizations are two completely separate concepts that sometimes share common interests. They are apples and oranges you cannot directly compare them for just the reasons you have stated.

 

[Gluggler]

I think that ECITA do a bit more than you are giving them credit for, ableton.

I understand that they have commisioned hundreds of tests on e-liquid and vapour (mass spectrometry and gas chromatography) to show what is (and what is not) present and in what amounts.

Useful info to have because one on the main criticisms of e-cigs (often repeated in the UK) is that "We don't know what is in them" to scare people into using NRT. Well the answer to that is "oh yes we do know what is in them"

They also spend time lobbying the European Parliament. I am no expert and I don't know alot about them but I do know that there is alot more that goes on, not just publishing a 'code of conduct'

 

[pho]

TW has a section here on ECF, too.
And since, I am reckoning, the entire population of UKV is also on ECF, I would say to our administrators here; go ahead and take the measures they requested of UKV to heart, pre-emptively implementing them on ECF as well!

An ECF where TW or JC's name is never mentioned again is actually fine by me. If they want to stand alone, let them have it.

 

[Crossbow]

I think we also need to analyse Crossbow's response and use of words. He has not actually denied receiving any income from ECITA. There is much more to this than meets the eye.

I thought I had covered this quite well in my initial response, but evidently I hadn't
(Or you missed a couple of bits )

I don’t earn anything like £3k a month in total, and most of the money I do earn does not come from ECITA. A significant portion of my income is from Decadent Vapours, to whom I provide advice on technical matters, such as the recent upgrades to the DV facilities, and testing of products. I do not think that anyone could allege that DV have received favourable treatment on UKV.

So, no I didn't deny it, in fact I acknowledged it. I do indeed receive money from ECITA, not surprising, as I work for them.

I then went on to say:

When I first joined ECITA, I made the rest of the forum admins aware of this, and have always tried to separate my actions as a UKV mod from my involvement in ECITA.
I have from time to time been outspoken on the need for better legal compliance in the industry, which is what I assume this refers to, but I certainly haven’t prevented any vendors posting, or modified their posts, or in any way prevent their free access to the forum. There is a reason why UKV was the largest UK centric e-cig forum, and it was not an overly controlling or censorious moderation team.

The board of ECITA is comprised of the people who own some of the member companies (I don't see any reason to name names, as most of them would be unfamiliar, even if the brands are not), as you have noted, it is a matter of public record however.

I'm a little confused as to why a member of the community who then goes on to work for the trade association is an object for such suspicion . However I don't have anything to hide, and am more than willing to answer most questions (subject to over-riding prerogatives such as potential legal cases, and non disclosure of members affairs).

My involvement in ECITA is partly because e-cigs are something I believe in, and prior to the formation of ECCA, there wasn't any other real outlet in the UK. The fact that Katherine and I met at one of the UK vapemeets and became a couple also helped, of course

The ISE is a book supplied to all members - it sets out the applicable laws, translates them from legalese, and advises members how they can best comply with the law - the web page is only a very partial introduction to it. The ISE also includes some requirements that go beyond the basic legal compliance, including some relating to customer service. Members are audited against the standard set out in the ISE, and are required to have regular liquid testing, as well as having all product certification available.

Hope this helps

 

[Ian-C]

Trading Standards described the ISE as “…a Code any industry would be proud to have.”

The above quote is from the ECITA website and if that is the case then they are doing thing right at the start of this virgin industry. And the work they do in attending meetings with the European Regulators and the MHRA they get nothing for, like us they just want to keep this industry and vaping alive and not in the hands of pharma.

On the subject of UKV i see no reason to stop any review or comment about TW or any other vendor or their products as long as they adhere to the rules, fair and honest. If you don't like a product explain why you don't like a product, if a company gives bad service explain the circumstances. Saying a company or product is crap with no explanation is just a waste of your time and everyone who reads it.

A website that is providing information of this nature should be unbiased and if you exclude one vendor then it's biased toward the other vendors just by it's exclusion. If the moderators and members work together UKV can once again be one of the top sources of information for all new vapers and veterans. Members have as much responsibility as the moderation team, if you see a post you think is out of order use the report button and the mod team will look at it (it's hard for a small mod team to monitor every post on a large forum).

 

[Toby]

Ok there are 6 points. You say you know some are not true. Please tell us which are not true.

Highlighted in blue: I know, in the best of my knowledge, are not true -

1. Admin on UKVapers=Tom Pruen (Crossbow) He moderates and virtually runs the forum.
2. He draws nearly £3k a month from ECITA
3. He does not nor do most members know his conflict of interest. IE He subtly, sometimes not so hassles vendors who do not pay up so to speak.. By joining his GF and his organisation.
4. Certain members of the community..The In Club are not moderated and allowed to post more than destructive comments about none club member companies.
5. ECITA run by Devlin and Pruen, have been frightening flavour houses making them decide not to sell to other ecig vendors other than the company she is a director of with her Brother IE decadent vapours.
6. ECITA Lies about Tw and because we do not need or would ever want to join their club.. Creates bad press with organisations like the NMO against TW. Only thing is once they visit us they recognise we are soooo far removed from Devlins picture we get told exactly what was said.

Number 6, I suspect to not be true as well, and probably others as well; but I would go by Crossbow's answers, as I certainly do not consider him to be a liar.

 

[ableton]

I think that ECITA do a bit more than you are giving them credit for, ableton.

I understand that they have commisioned hundreds of tests on e-liquid and vapour (mass spectrometry and gas chromatography) to show what is (and what is not) present and in what amounts.

Useful info to have because one on the main criticisms of e-cigs (often repeated in the UK) is that "We don't know what is in them" to scare people into using NRT. Well the answer to that is "oh yes we do know what is in them"

They also spend time lobbying the European Parliament. I am no expert and I don't know alot about them but I do know that there is alot more that goes on, not just publishing a 'code of conduct'

I would have a lot more confidence in ECITA if they instigated their own area of research

ECITA Quarterly Update Issue 1, Section 5 | ECITA Blog

Much of this is based on existing evidence. If ECITA carried out 100 test I would need to know who carried out the tests, under what conditions, what samples? qualitative and quantative data, triangulation of research findings and a concrete set of conclusions.

It's good but not good enough in my opinion.

Peace

 

[oldsoldier]

Crossbow, I applaud you for coming in to make things clear. I think folks are a bit uneducated about ECITA and how it operates, which is not unexpected since ECITA is a trade organization.

They often confuse trade and consumer organizations which muddies the waters. They also expect more transparency. I'm all for transparency, but I also understand that TO's are not public - and that the level of transparency is determined by the subject at hand. Some things are open for the consumers where others are "trade only".

 

[Toby]

IVapour. Do you pay ECITA £600 a month? If not why not?

No; although I think ECITA are doing some great work, I wasn't sure that payment could be justified or reasonably afforded (also I was only aware it cost £600 a month to be a member within the last week).

Please also bear in mind that iVapour is a very small company.

 

[ableton]

<And the work they do in attending meetings with the European Regulators and the MHRA they get nothing for, like us they just want to keep this industry and vaping alive and not in the hands of pharma.>

Off course they get paid for it.

 

[Ian-C]

ECITA don't get paid to attend the meetings and i think you will find the people that actually attend only get expenses but no one pays ECITA to do the campaigning work, they are not backed by pharma.

 

[oldsoldier]

<And the work they do in attending meetings with the European Regulators and the MHRA they get nothing for, like us they just want to keep this industry and vaping alive and not in the hands of pharma.>

Off course they get paid for it.

That is what TOs and lobbying organizations do. So here is the question for you: "Are you actually here to be constructive and find out more about the big picture, or are you merely being disruptive?" Inquiring Mods want to know.

 

[lordbarby]

In my opinion this proves that Mr Cropper does not and never had a case. I agree with Old Soldier at 165

 

[tj99959]

In my opinion this proves that Mr Cropper does not and never had a case. I agree with Old Soldier at 165

Think maybe someone might have informed him that he was biting off his nose to spite his face?

I would point out tho' that very rare on this planet is the person that hasn't over reacted and stuck their foot in their mouth at some point in their life.

 

[fuzzione]

I think it's deplorable the way Jason and TW have handled the situation.

Instead of meeting the criticisms of his company head-on in the forums, presenting his side of the story and countering perceived unfounded criticism with reasonable argument, he resorts to ('what may be reasonably interpreted as') bully tactics with his legal team. Classic case of the big guy muscling the little guy because he doesn't like what he hears. Readers are free to assess all commentary, positive and negative, fair or unfair, on the subject of a vendor's products and services and decide for themselves as to what information should be given weight.

TW's approach is effectively censorship enforced by larger resources, pure and simple. Why even bother to defend your company against negative commentary by counter-argument, when your stick is bigger and you can simply silence the critics?

Yes, like oldsoldier said, every website is open to similar legal challenge for their content, however in most cases such actions are seldom taken. More often, a sensible approach is adopted to resolve conflicts and differences of opinion. In Jason's case he decides because he 'can' and has the money, he'll do it the easier way even though it's not a fair fight.

Note the words in the lawyers' letter about 'reasonable' measures and what may be 'reasonably considered' as, in essence, 'bad.' What is reasonable? Who decides? You can potentially have 100 posters in a thread agreeing that a given
product is total garbage but because one vendor decides all of the posters are unreasonable, ...just send a lawyer's letter! 'We have the money.' Potentially, ANY criticism can be labelled unreasonable and legally acted upon. The point is, rarely is this ever done. That TW chooses to do so because Jason suddenly decides he's fed up and can afford lawyers when his opponents can't, says a lot about them as a company. I don't believe TW have acted reasonably

Now it seems TW is not stopping at merely forcing UKV to eliminate reference to his company alone but the letter also refers to 'other vendors.' What is this? Is he now trying to set himself up as some sort of crusader for 'all sellers' that have endured the indignities of negative commentary? Why is he making it his business to now include 'other vendors' in his legal demands? This is his attempt to salvage some of the damage done?

One thing seems clear to me, he now appears to recognize all this has gotten out of hand and may ultimately prove bad for him and his company. Hence the start of some back-pedalling. Enjoy the ride TW.

 

[ableton]

ECITA don't get paid to attend the meetings and i think you will find the people that actually attend only get expenses but no one pays ECITA to do the campaigning work, they are not backed by pharma.

Sorry I thought that key staff got paid. Now I am confused.

 

[ableton]

That is what TOs and lobbying organizations do. So here is the question for you: "Are you actually here to be constructive and find out more about the big picture, or are you merely being disruptive?" Inquiring Mods want to know.

I'm being constructive and want to find out more about the big picture. Why would you think I'm being disruptive. Now the inquiring mods know

 

[b3ast1e]

The above quote is from the ECITA website and if that is the case then they are doing thing right at the start of this virgin industry. And the work they do in attending meetings with the European Regulators and the MHRA they get nothing for, like us they just want to keep this industry and vaping alive and not in the hands of pharma.

On the subject of UKV i see no reason to stop any review or comment about TW or any other vendor or their products as long as they adhere to the rules, fair and honest. If you don't like a product explain why you don't like a product, if a company gives bad service explain the circumstances. Saying a company or product is crap with no explanation is just a waste of your time and everyone who reads it.

A website that is providing information of this nature should be unbiased and if you exclude one vendor then it's biased toward the other vendors just by it's exclusion. If the moderators and members work together UKV can once again be one of the top sources of information for all new vapers and veterans. Members have as much responsibility as the moderation team, if you see a post you think is out of order use the report button and the mod team will look at it (it's hard for a small mod team to monitor every post on a large forum).

I agree with you. Actually, in my experience of using UKV that's precisely what happened the vast majority of the time I spent there. In my view, moderation of the site was set a level that reflected the high level of positive and constructive discourse and fostered an open and inclusive atmosphere and a correspondingly high level of self-moderation, and that actually is why official moderation was often unwarranted. A successful community is after all, only as good as it's members make it, and no amount of official moderation can magic that out of thin air.

As to whether the UKV mods should have stepped in earlier in this whole affair - not for me to say. Since something very similar occurred here on the ECF only the other day, perhaps it isn't always as easy to judge as we think it is, even with the benefit of hindsight? I don't know.

All I know for sure is, one of the very best communities this scene has to offer is not currently with us, it's future is uncertain, and in my view that's a damned shame.

 

[lordbarby]

Hi, I just posted on TW forum that the letter proves they did not have a case, I added a smiley (supplied by TW). Now my post has been removed!!!! I have asked them why.

UPDATE I got my answer, I have been banned, so much for free speech, you must agree with TW or be Banned!!

 

[oldsoldier]

I'm being constructive and want to find out more about the big picture. Why would you think I'm being disruptive. Now the inquiring mods know

Sometimes it is difficult to gauge someones intent when the posts are short. The post I quoted from you seemed a bit snarky ( in my opinion ), but if you are seriously here to learn more then carry on. This thread won't be closed as long as folks stay civil and the thread serves a purpose.