Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Chippins

Just seen this regarding some sites refusal to allow Swat VTGs

This thread is over three months old. Please be sure that your post is appropriate as it will revive this otherwise old (and probably forgotten) topic.

Recommended Posts

Ok so I just saw this post from the guy who runs the Swat VTG company on facebook, quite an interesting read.

 

"subject to admin approval, and respect to you all if deleted


This is our official statement which is based on fact supported by data
provided within the files we hold for communicating our basis of claim.

Now in my opinion and based on personal experience with the managing
director I was bemused with the tactics employed and the lack of respect
towards myself and staff at the since closed area51 is shotton Deeside.

History and backdrop.
Let’s call them beans on toast for the
sake of argument, or we could call them b.o.t. for the love of
anachronisms and however we all know who this is ?
b.o.t. senior
staff attended a game at this venue some 6 months of us opening, little
politics at first and then the insult of an impromptus meeting with the
current directors at that time circa 2011.
The meeting which was
during lunch and was to advise, that they had attempted to obtain raf
sealand which is about 1 miles from our venue, as we understood they had
more chance of winning the lottery it did not offer any concern, but
again the attempt was made, which in turn speaks volumes of the
character of the man.
In the same meeting we were advised that they
were to open the armoury in Wrexham, despite the fact s.w.a.t. had
examined this venue some two years previous and conducted an
environmental survey revealed massive amounts of cadmium and other nasty
chemicals within the soil, the apparent dead wild life supported this,
so this was rejected on the grounds that it was not and could not offer
any healthy gaming options and our concerns were of long term exposure
could result in liver damage and other ailments from this exposure.

With this information which we were advised, we were also approached to
become and b.o.t. venue and that b.o.t. were to provide clients and
take a cut, this was rejected immediately on the grounds that s.w.a.t.
has always been an independent provider of games for more than 28 years
and was not about to subscribe to the netto ethos for trading.
Since
this meeting very little communication came from the b.o.t. camp and
I’m sure the staff were advised not to stir up the mire which proceeds
within the facebook genre and other media that the internet offers, so
good little boys they have been other than offering the same
disinformation to their own customers and players.
s.w.a.t. training devices limited

From day one of our inception into manufacturing publicly for the
airsoft market and paintball markets globally kicked off in October of
2012.
Initially it was a rocky road for at that time in my life was
suffering from stress, which basically was caused by thinking my body
was still 21 years old and I could live on mars bars, coffee and
cigarettes.
After a short hiatus I was back in the realms of running our various businesses within the s.w.a.t. group of companies.

So, the initial launch was a success on the onset and thus created a
product which mirrors the debunked dynatex devices offering players a
true hybrid replica alternative for a much loved product which was no
longer made. This was developed alongside our bfgx range even though
compatible with all dynatex our devices were designed not to be 1-1
replicas for obvious reasons.
Shortly after our sales increased
towards the UK market we started to receive complaints from our
customers that b.o.t. had banned all our devices and on the grounds
that they were not covered by insurance that they held.
Although
from day one of our launch we attained our own product liability this
was not accepted by b.o.t. and they then purported to say that the
instructions were different from the dynatex devices, and that meant in
principle they would have to conduct two safety talks to satisfy their
health and safety brief.
Now the point I make here as very simple
1. Application, the device operates exactly the same as a dynatex
2. Deployment, the same
3. Compatibility , the same

4. Instructions at the time although different said the same thing
other than advisory that the use of p.p.e. should be employed as a
advisory to the user, in short this should be advised in any safety
briefing regardless of any whatever device or pyro is used.
With the
inevitable flaw in our launch we then constructed required
documentation to approach the main underwriters of airsoft and paintball
insurance, these documents were created to enable the main underwriters
to understand the inherent risks involved in such blank firing devices.
1. Instructions
2. Product registration system
3. Data sheets backed with noise reading and physical data
4. A copy of our own policy
5. An official letter from the ukasgb showing their evaluation and comments
6. An official letter from the ukpsf showing their evaluation and comments
7. Health and safety policy statements
8. Classification for customs and excise

Now with this long arsenal of compiled data we approached all providers
main stream of insurance not only for UK markets both airsoft and
paintball but Europe and the rest of the world.
Back to the points
again, with the approval from all the uk insurance companies and
underwriters it was concluded that our devices were accepted and added
to all uk policies, such as the same with dynatex.
Prompted by the
managing director as a resolve the differences in our instructions to
that of dynatex, we employed the use of the dynatex instructions, this
was a low key approach to resolve the concerns of the managing director,
and then we waited, and waited, and waited.
In the end the only
thing that came back at this point was a legal action case projected at
us from dynatex for copyright infringement, funny how that happened
despite the fact this was only communicated to once source, and even
though I can only speculate this, I left it there.
Subsequently we
developed our own instructions which resulted again, in consultation
with legal experts and offers players the benefit of our massive
investment in the devices and legal requirements and protection as far
as good honest advice, in the form of pictures and bespoke instructions.

Communications continued with the underwriter and insurance provider
who at this juncture are providing cover for b.o.t. the resource data I
am to provide is to offer the clarification from the s.w.a.t. camp to
the many customers based in the UK
Now as a businessman our ethos is
customer is king and we at s.w.a.t. training devices offer what has
been quoted as the best service bar none. Hence the time we take to try
and resolve problems such as this issue, which keeps rearing its head.

Being in business it would be prudent for b.o.t. to clarify to its
customers the reasons behind their decision on a blanket ban of our
products. Rather than the following
1. Non-specific data within
their website which in turn legally could be actionable, so to speculate
they don’t actually name our brand as banned is why? Legal minds now
ponder this lack of detail !
2. Ill advice to b.o.t. customers who
have purchased from us, visit the site under the influence of b.o.t.
then enforce a ban to unsuspecting customers.
3. Get their minions
to create disinformation with conflicting reasons to offer players,
which in all cases have ranged from 1, insurance cover, 2 lack of coshh
data, 3, the health and safety post-accident comments.
The fact that
coshh does not even come into a genre of blank firing devices eludes me
to thinks, who is running this company, the tail or the dog!!
So to
conclude, although past debates have raged within the internet medium
and were duly deleted by admins, which in turn is understandable, based
in the apparent side taking and subsequent flame wars between players,
this is our legitimate attempt to give b.o.t. the opportunity to come
out publicly and give a correct professional reason for this banning, we
as a company still don’t know why despite the hoops we have jumped
through to resolve this matter.
So speculate again
1. They don’t like s.w.a.t.
2. They cannot be bothered adding it into their policy despite being approved to be included
3. It will effect pyro sales
4. They have a vested interest in old dynatex and are secretly selling them on the web for massive profits, I think not!
5. They cannot be bothered to amend their health and safety policy statement and subsequent safety brief,

6. They live on the proviso that our devices are too much military
despite the military do use our devices as they do the dynatex under the
same model application.
So Mr managing director please address the
issue posed here for your many customers, apathy and non-responses don’t
cut it with airsoft players, they need facts and respect, after all
once bitten twice shy would apply and the only outcome is the
competition getting your clients, or are you happy being the middle man
for a booking agency for stag and kids parties, immature I know, but I
have been called a dick head, so that last comment is just for you and I
enforce the slur that sometime I wear to suite the ripping, despite
being a nice guy overall ? (subject to my own opinion)
Any players
requiring the data package which gives the level of communication with
the aforementioned and all other aspects please email me directly at
[email protected]
Sincere respect - me!!
"

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see why they shouldn't be allowed, they're pretty much the same as the dynatec ones as stated. Had I spent the money on one and was told I couldn't use it at b.o.t. sites (I think most of us know who they are but I'll keep up the acronyms) I'd be pretty annoyed seeing as it's basically the same product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, from what I could gather from the comments, B.O.T apparently claimed they were hazardous because under some sort of policy which bans the use of certain chemical mixes and compounds, none of which are a part of the grenade, or the blanks you could use in it.

I think B.O.T are just being massive cock ends about it if I'm completely honest. If their insurance will let people throw Dynatec BFGs around, but not SWAT ones, when they're the same, then it looks like they ought to revisit their insurance policy and amend it so that it actually makes sense, not piss off a lot of their current and potential customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's call him "we all need knowledge" or, anachronistically[sic], w.a.n.k. (Euphemism? Perhaps :lol: but acronym is the word.).

 

I think that if w.a.n.k. is prepared to spend the money on product development and safety documentation, then he ought not to put that investment at risk by trying to be his own director of communications, since he clearly does not have the requisite skillset. I'd got well past the 3rd paragraph before I could honestly say I understood what w.a.n.k. is on about. If it hadn't been for the fact that George posted it, so I judged that there must be something worth reading in there somewhere, I would have given up when the paragraph subtitled "History and backdrop" failed miserably to live up to said title.

 

Also I cannot stand it when people try to hedge their bets by not naming whomever they are talking about, but then give enough info that people who already are familiar with the dispute know at whom the diatribe (and it almost always is) is aimed. What, scared of being sued for libel? Well take scrupulous care that whatever you say is the unvarnished truth then. Simples! More importantly, something that a skilled business communicator would have told w.a.n.k. is that if your statement does make it obvious to whom you are referring, just leaving their name out will not save you from libel action. So all it really does is make you look a... well, wanker.

 

To whom is w.a.n.k. referring, btw? Sounds like they are prosecuting what they imagine to be a straightforward business dispute, which may well be petty, pathetic, stupid, and ultimately counter-productive, but it's not illegal. Naturally, lying about their reasons for their actions, or lack thereof, will make them look, as Ed says, like bell ends, but if they are sufficiently large, like Fcuk & Off for eg they will probably get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed they are ;)

Yeah, well I'm not surprised. I've heard quite a few stories of F&O being complete arses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am finding this quite hard to follow and have no idea who is being talked about can some one put it into english for me i assune we are talking about the s.w.a.t blank firing grenades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F&O sites do not allow the use of SWAT blank firing grenades, their apparent official stance is that their insurance policy doesn't explicitly cover the use of SWAT brand BFGs but it does cover the use of Dynatex brand BFGs.

 

Essentially SWAT and F&O had a falling out and now both sides are being dicks about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads up that F&O are now allowing the grenades to be in use at all their sites.

"Just to advise uk based customers who have purchased s.w.a.t. training devices:

First & only airsoft network of sites have now decided to allow all
our devices to be used at their venues, this includes the oshiboom
impact device."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inter company airsoft banter! Gentleman instead of bitching, settle that sh*t on the field!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I think you were a little too cryptic with your anagram!

 

As for the "missive" (well, miss certainly) in the first post, what a load of old codswallop!

 

I'm afraid airing your dirty linen in public like this is likely to achieve only one thing, make you look like a complete and utter tit. Especially when your grasp of the English language (especially those parts of it that relate to formal communication of ideas) seems to be limited at best.

 

I'm sure their products are great, and I know that F & O management have been known to be massive cocks at times, but the little piece a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I think you were a little too cryptic with your anagram!

You mean my anachrogram?

I'm sure their products are great, and I know that F & O management have been known to be massive cocks at times, but the little piece a

"but the little piece a..." shite stuck to the bum hair of the problem is that whinging about it in a passive aggressive way whilst trying to sound clever loses you any sympathy you may have gotten...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...