Seager Engineering Post - Deleted

So I presume that members should not post recommendations with details of good service. These should therefore be deleted if they occur as with details of poor service.

Do you agree, Paul?

Hi Richard,

Not really the place to drag Chairman, acting Treasurer, and web maestro into a dispute. Past webmasters would have deleted the thread without a murmer.

Please feel free to criticise me either on this forum or through PM. But I don't think Paul has a case to answer.

Peter Holland 

I was not intending to criticise Paul or anyone else. I don't see how my post could be seen as such.

I am simply trying to clarify the situation. I think it was the right thing to do to delete the 'Seager thread' in order to avoid legal problems. However it seems to me that members should be able to express their opinions and experiences of both good and bad service.

Richard makes a good point. In my opinion, the post that was deleted didnt breach the forum policy (ive just read it) 

This all begs the question as to how do members pass on good, bad, indifferent information about services/suppliers?

Maybe we need something like checkatrade for classic bike engineering.

I recently posted that the "Services" tab was due a make-over, not sure how much progress has been made so far, but I did suggest there could possibly some sort of Reviews options, or other rating system.

But I do agree we should all be mindful of the appropriateness of these, to protect both the Club and ourselves.

After all, this is not Facebook or Twitter/X. Whatever those are...

I come to this forum to be informed via empirical knowledge gained by fellow enthusiasts whether that knowledge is positive or negative regarding supplying of goods or services from any quarter.

We the public use this kind of knowledge to make informed decisions about where we spend our well-earned meagre pensions and bad service needs to flagged up whenever it rears its ugly head.

For that information to be censored arbitrarily without good reason or to show good reason is doing a disservice to its members and helps to perpetuate the rogues out there to carry on treating us with contempt.

I hope that the recent deleted post will be returned to the forum to show a degree of solidarity against bad service. If not for, what reasons was it removed?

This club is run by volunteers for whom I have a great respect but I need to understand the reasons for this misguided decision.

Surely, the club could have given the engineering firm the right of reply if they felt that he had been wrongly maligned, this way club members can come to their own conclusions.

A much more beneficial outcome all round. 

I trust that if any owner dares to post anything critical of Nortons here and fails to end the post "The controls fell readily to hand", it will be deleted. One can't be too careful.

As Paul pointed out above, wherever there is some very negative matter in a dispute raised on here by a Member, the relevant supplier should have the opportunity to respond.Nor should any inference be drawn from such offer being declined. Disputes of this nature are often very nuanced, and seldom easily defined as black or white.

Back in the 70's, my sales rep job took me round the various BL dealerships scattered around Northamptonshire. One dealer, who I shan't name but has long since disappeared along with all the other BL showrooms was "named and shamed" by dear old Esther Rantzen on the Beeb. A customer claimed on her TV show to have got a bad deal with his car, and that the dealer refused to do anything about it. I carefully mentioned the matter to the proprietor, Mr G, on my next visit. He wryly said, the chap forgot to mention that he came into my showroom waving a shotgun around....

... the "offending" posts were entirely factual. As others have said we should be able to pass on experiences good or bad.

I think that the complaint was fair but that's where it should of stopped - the chance to respond should have been withdrawn. It's nice to know who to be careful of but this is not the place for a slanging match