East Dulwitch Hunt

[PaulK]

I have found the recent thread and the continuation of the DJKQ issue in the about this forum section very unsettling. I am sure Sue has her reasons for lambasting DJKQ but a public forum is not the place to do this and I find it very disturbing how quickly other forum users have rounded on and pilloried DJKQ. There are many issues in modern society crying out to be addressed on a forum such as this. Taking 6 hours to put a hinge on a door is not one of them.

[Alan Medic]

I suppose if you were paying for it it might be.

[Santerme]

?When your work speaks for itself, don't interrupt.?

Henry Kaiser.

I am guessing the damage is already done, fair play if you have paid for crapola.

[Salsaboy]

As neither Sue nor any other of the people posting in the various threads have actually named DJKQ, nor has DJKQ made any attempt to refute the allegations, I don't see any problems with what has been said, especially as it would seem to be not just Sue who has had problems with DJKQ.

However, I am mindful that Sue mentioned that it caused her a huge amount of stress at the time so perhaps it should be left alone as re-visiting the subject may cause further stress to Sue.

[alice]

stop this fake neutrality - not all history is written

[Alan Medic]

Salsaboy, you need to read more........if it hasn't been deleted already.

[giggirl]

PaulK Wrote:

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

> I have found the recent thread and the

> continuation of the DJKQ issue in the about this

> forum section very unsettling. I am sure Sue has

> her reasons for lambasting DJKQ but a public forum

> is not the place to do this and I find it very

> disturbing how quickly other forum users have

> rounded on and pilloried DJKQ. There are many

> issues in modern society crying out to be

> addressed on a forum such as this. Taking 6 hours

> to put a hinge on a door is not one of them.

How bizarre Paul K, if, as you say, you found the recent (locked) thread so unsettling, you should PROCEED TO START ANOTHER ONE which is picking up where the old one left off. What sort of freakish logic is that?

I will ask admin to lock THIS thread.

[northlondoner]

She's back and firing on all cylinders . DJKQ

had mounted a very robust defence elsewhere on this forum.

[Annette Curtain]

Seems our Paulie's rather keen on witch hunts himself.

:-S

[quote name=Top end of Friern Rd

Posted by: PaulK October 27' date=' 05:37PM

For the last couple of months or so there has been a scraggy long haired scruffy looking woman hanging around outside the houses just before the flats, Lordship Lane end. She appears to be loitering around and peering into the windows. Does anyone know who she is? She doesnt look right. My neighbours are going to call the police next time.]

[????]

Actually, I sort of agree with the OP

[giggirl]

Yes quids but why start a new thread on it which is opening the discussion again? It's a matter that should not be on the forum. So let's not start a new thread. Huh.

P

[????]

Sorry GG, not really looked at the history etc just felt a bit uncomfortable last week with all the 'stuff' agree on the irony of starting a new thread, guess I should read before posting (again :)))

[*Bob*]

The lesson is: the internet can be a perilous place.

But stay anonymous and never business with pleasure - and you can't go too far wrong.

[Jeremy]

I expect this thread will get deleted soon. But if I can ask a serious question - what is the best way of warning others about a bad tradesman, who also happens to be a regular forum user? I understand that the original thread got out of hand (and rather personal), but in fact the trades-person in question got off rather lightly, as her real/trading name was never mentioned.

[red devil]

Good post *Bob*.

I like my anonymity on here.

Not knowing any of the posters in the 'real world' means I can post without prejudice...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_v7o_2dnoHIQ/TQyxQfwPHpI/AAAAAAAAB-M/6JUv6yEqVdo/s400/tumblr_lda8g9RIdS1qdwxnxo1_400.jpg

[TillieTrotter]

Hmm, does seem rather inconsistent!

[Huguenot]

Legally it's a complete mess.

In fairness to Mark - his comment was from 2006 and most of the very small crowd that contributed to the site back then had very idealistic visions of how the forum could support the community.

It took several legal cases before the forum managed to find an uneasy balane between serving the community and staying out of court.

[TillieTrotter]

Fairy nuff.

[red devil]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I expect this thread will get deleted soon. But if

> I can ask a serious question - what is the best

> way of warning others about a bad tradesman, who

> also happens to be a regular forum user? I

> understand that the original thread got out of

> hand (and rather personal), but in fact the

> trades-person in question got off rather lightly,

> as her real/trading name was never mentioned.

What constitutes a 'bad tradesman' is very subjective Jeremy.

Your opinion of a poor level of competence/workmanship will probably differ from mine.

Personally I don't think anyone should take any recommendation or trashing of a tradesperson on this site at face value...instead they should do their own homework on the tradesperson. Ask for references and go and see their work in person. Speak to their 'satisfied clients'.

For small works get a formal written quote on a business headed letter, which stipulates what the work involves, how much it costs, and how long it takes...insist on a detailed breakdown so it's easier to add/omit items of work, pro rata.

For larger works a formal building contract should be used which goes into greater detail, and might require a suitably qualified professional to draw it up and oversee the works.

None of this is a guarantee that a 'cowboy' won't slip through the net, afterall a tradesperson is only as good as their next job. But by doing this you are at least minimising the risk, and have a better legal recourse should things go belly-up.

It should also be noted that you get incompetent clients as well as incompetent tradesmen...

[MrBen]

Huguenot is about spot on there I think.

There is still no clear cut legal mechanism by which either companies or private individuals can protect their reputation online in the same manner provided for traditional media. Throw in global reach, multiple jurisdictions and it gets messier still. So, If I were running a community forum on a low budget, neutrality and taking personal disputes off line would also be my policy of choice.

[Jeremy]

red devil Wrote:

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

> What constitutes a 'bad tradesman' is very subjective Jeremy.

One person's opinion may be subjective, but when many people provide feedback, it becomes very useful. It would be a shame if users were discouraged from sharing negative experiences.

I guess if there is an ongoing legal dispute, then it shouldn't be posted on here. And it has to be factual, not personal.

[red devil]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> One person's opinion may be subjective, but when

> many people provide feedback, it becomes very

> useful. It would be a shame if users were

> discouraged from sharing negative experiences.

The problem with the internet Jeremy is that you don't know who is providing the feedback, and what their relationship is with the tradesperson in question.

[Huguenot]

Hmm, I wonder whether therein lies the answer.

If the forum owner could demonstrate they had taken all reasonable measures to check the accuracy of statements, and the correspondent takes personal responsibility for their opinions and absolved the forum from blame... then would that solve it?

It looks like any contentious material would then require the correspondent to sign a witnessed contract with the forum and pay 100 quid costs?

Not exactly practical, mind ;-)

[binary_star]

Either you have to allow it or not, you can't have one rule for regulars who may or may not know their accusers personally and one rule for everyone else. Well you can but it looks a bit like "protecting your own" then doesn't it? What does it say about the forum that you can only expect to come here to air and read views on local tradesmen, unless what? Well you know, unless they're regulars or we know them personally. I understand why admin has to do it, but there are plenty of threads on here about rogue traders and cowboy builders that have been left to remain. Shouldn't they be deleted too? Or does it take the threat of legal action for them to go?

[Huguenot]

I think the point binary_star was that every situation is different, not that regulars get favours.

I think it's pretty insulting to admin and the mods to suggest they indulge in that sort of thing.

It's not possible to have a blanket rule that either bans or endorses negative posts. There'd be no court in the land that would attempt that either.

It's a judgement call, and taking down a post doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's impractical to resolve.