- This topic has 86 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Re: EEE safe email.
“Had email from them offering £80 call out including spares for repair jobs”
That’s for gas and dual fuel cookers only…….. 😉
Steve.
Re: EEE safe email.
EEESafe admin@eeesafe.com via mail59.wdc03.rsgsv.net is the email address.
Always has a picture of Robert Alexander with it. So I therefore assume he is the driving force behind this campaign as the EEEsafe Youtube videos have his picture all over them too.
At the bottom of the email is this:-
Copyright © 2013 EEE Safe Ltd, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you wished to be updated about relevant EEE Safe Activity.
Our mailing address is:
EEE Safe Ltd
Indycube 2nd Floor
220 High Street
Swansea, South Wales SA1 1NW
United Kingdom.Wish to be kept updated? Don’t remember ever doing that…..
Activity? Lots of proposals with a few buzzwords with a “join our club” message. If they are allied to DASA, then why is the WTA not involved? Or is is exclusively DASA’s baby?Mind you, it all makes entertaining reading – bit like the Checkatrade mantra that suggests that everyone not signed up is probably not worthy until they join.
That’s when my interest evaporates. Also AFAIK DASA don’t represent enough people to have any sort of mandate to regulate this industry.
Steve.Re: EEE safe email.
Thanks Steve, very informative. As far as the WTA is concerned only they can advise.
OT
Re: EEE safe email.
I am sorry that this is a long post but I hope that you will spare the time to read it all as I hope it will provide a better understanding of EEESafe and its aims.
Those that know me also know that I have been involved in the whitegoods sector for the best part of 40 years.
In that time there has been quite a lot of change but one thing that appears not to have changed is the general feeling of the grass roots guys feeling they have always got a raw deal and expect it to get worse and I am not just talking about WTA members it’s far more wide spread and entrenched than that.
There is and always has been a lot of doom and gloom when engineers meet up and in forum postings but little if any constructive ideas about how to change things. It’s almost as if there is perverse pleasure in feeling they are an underdog.
The comments like ‘has someone hacked the WTA data base for instance – NO they haven’t such information is ‘legally’ widely available on the internet as most people know – when you’re in business you don’t hide your contact details you display them wherever you can.
I know many won’t like to hear these sort of comment but sometimes the truth hurts.
For those viewing the sector from the outside I am sure it would appear that those in the sector prefer to see at best that their glass is half empty as opposed to half full. In some respects it may appear to be so but following the same old process of constant criticism, negativity and feeling that the world is against you doesn’t improve matters one jot. Looking back over the past 4 decades and beyond will show you that.
Following the same old route and expecting to arrive at another destination – simply doesn’t work. It doesn’t when you are trying to find a fault and it doesn’t when you are trying to change what will happen in the future.If we go back to the glass half full or half empty scenario a good engineer mind would come up with – ‘let’s just re-engineer the glass to result in a more positive outcome’.
Essentially that is what EEESafe is trying to do rather than follow the same old, same old it’s trying to design a system that brings together all of the various people now involved in appliance repair and re-use to design a strategy that is beneficial to everyone.With the above in mind I hope that the following will help put some more factual information to you that may assist WTA Members understand what is really being done.
For my part I’ve been working with Robert on developing a ‘competent person scheme’ for those already in the repair and re-use sectors with the aim of also developing a Training Centre Network for those who wish to enter into it.
It is not an easy task but we are making progress and engaging not only the Government but other organisations interested in running a Training Programme partnership. I can’t share specific details with you yet, just as WTA wouldn’t wish to make public information until projects are confirmed.
However, I can tell you that DEFRA and WRAP are engaged with EEESafe, so it’s not something that has ever been dismissed as suggested on this topic. DASA, myself and Robert have discussed Sector Specific matters and we are doing so to help establish a Competent Persons Scheme and a network of Centres of Reuse, working to Sector agreed standards, as well as developing a Qualification that will be specific to the Sector.
A Training Pilot is almost signed and ready to roll, and will include a Customer Service Module which should please WTA members as this was promoted at last years conference.
Our aim has always been to engage with everyone in the sector and have had stands and spoken openly at several WTA and DASA meeting over the years. We have also met up with and supported WTA members at several DEFRA and WRAP meetings.
However, it appears that it is DASA that has decided to actively contribute to developing the standards. The door has always been and still is open for others (especially the WTA) to get involved.
With regard to some thinking it is the ‘BIG Dixons group’ behind EEESafe the answer is that it most certainly is NOT and when the network grows, you may well find that it’s local to you. Ultimately it all depends on who registers, is compliant to deliver training and meets the EEESafe Criteria which will be illustrated after the Pilot project ends.
Robert has been involved on 3 recent Government consultations and WRAP are preparing to meet him and DASA soon to consult on the data he has supplied, some of which he has worked with at DASA meetings. WTA would have been more than welcome but as mentioned previously currently appear to have chosen not to partake.
The Statistics referred to in the emails he sends out are not made up they are gleaned from Govt Stats, Fire Services and The Electrical Safety Council, with whom he is also engaged and is seeking a common objective of understanding the difference between an Electrician and an Appliance Repairer.
The Ellen MaCarthur Foundation is indeed real and the report is online, publicly available and I understand he is involved in a current Tender, to help trial the model. WRAP has also encouraged him to get involved in the bid. He keeps me up to date as we both work hard to get the Sector recognised and develop the Training Network. He also has a Local Authority and Housing Associations engaged and very interested, and is setting up a Community Trust Fund that will build from shared revenues with EEESafe Centres to fund local projects, and perhaps offer bursaries to any Repairer who wants to get involved setting up Centres later on.
Robert has also engaged the Environment Agency and is able to direct/advise what options there are to the T11 requirements to anyone serious about running a Centre. The Centre and earning from new Appliances are entirely optional, and does not affect the Competent Persons Registration, EEESafe DAT (Domestic Appliance Technician).
With regard to the invitation to engage on your forums, he has an open door policy to work with the WTA and would welcome this as I believe Ken and other leading figures already know, but would prefer face to face meetings with those in charge of WTA.
It would make sense to find areas of common ground and work together, to get the recognition the Sector deserves and not air differences in a forum that would probably only set tongues wagging off line as well.
I hope that helps answer some of the questions and if anyone is genuinely interested, why not contact him directly contact details are on the EEESafe web site – http://www.eeesafe.com
GRe: EEE safe email.
I am aware Graham. 🙂
However, whilst I help out and advise, I am not involved with the actual running of the WTA so what they do and why they are not seemingly interested, you’d have to ask the WTA guys.
Consider me Switzerland as I have zero vested interest in any of this.
I also work fairly regularly with WRAP, DEFRA, OFT and so on as well as having a bit to do with Ellen MaCarthur’s circular economy idea among other things and, in all honesty, there’s perhaps some kudos from attaching the name to things like that but, ultimately, it often yields little actual result.
As a manufacturer (ISE hat on) what qualifications that the repairer holds is largely an irrelevance. Whether they do a good job or not and so on is far more relevant and I can only judge that by actions, not qualification. That may well be different for others or, they may want to use it as a marketing tool but, for me, not relevant really.
Unless there were to be a change in legislative requirement I doubt that position would alter. And, were legislation to be introduced that made such a requirement, I’d probably loose half or more of the agents within months.
The debate about the pros and cons of qualifications has raged on here for years, it flares up from time to time, fizzles and hibernates for a number of months then kicks off again.
I think though, for the benefit of the guys, they’d be wanting to know how much this costs and what hoops have to be jumped through and, why they should do that.
K.
Re: EEE safe email.
Beware of the sharp suited, slick talking messenger promising to fix something that isn’t broken.
Re: EEE safe email.
The above sounds quite promising….
So the prudent questions are:-How much will it cost me? How much time will I have to take out of my ‘glass half empty’ life to get these qualifications?
And if I get all the qualifications to fit the criteria that someone is trying to set, then do I get a guaranteed tidal wave of extra work that allows me to expand my business? If legislation is to work, then it will cost money. Is there enough money in appliance repairs to allow that extra burden on already struggling businesses? I would appear not.
I’m not against qualifications – I am just curious how a certificate on my wall will stop a Candy drum exploding because it is made badly.The waste generated is largely because machines today are cr@p. True reconditioning in the old way of stripping everything down, cleaning and rebuilding as good as new is just not viable or even possible anymore. Reconditioned machines today can only be at best ‘repaired secondhand’ as new machines are so cheap. The British Heart Foundation and similar charity shops seem to be able to fill the requirement for cheap secondhand machines and are not subject to the T11 regulations. They are therefore at an advantage to the small business doing recons. And a new Chinese machine is a mere £180….. where’s the profit and incentive margin in that? Businesses are run to make money to allow people to live; if there’s no money, there’s no business. Glass half full?
If this wastage is to be tackled then the source of the problem has to be tackled. Stop the cheap cr@p machine being imported by the big boys and force the ‘producer responsibility’ proposed legislation forward. Stop the blatant profiteering on spare parts like £200 PCB’s. Stop sealed tubs and withholding of technical information by the manufacturers. Then and only then will machines be truly viable to repair and the EEEsafe circular economy would be the way to go.
But without the above mentioned problems being effectively solved and the manufacturers signing in blood they will not rescind on the deal, then the margins are tinkered but the problem remains.
The stats on fires caused by domestic appliances does not state if the fire was caused through cheap substandard parts fitted during manufacture. So the stats are not made up. Nobody said they were. It’s the context in which they are presented that is arguable. 2500 fires? Will training the engineers stop this? Probably not…but stopping the manufacturers making such rubbish might…
So if the engineers seem to be jaded, they have good reason to be. The manufacturers are trying to produce throw away products, the powers that be don’t seem to stop them or even care. Ridiculous parts prices and withheld tech information for no good reason are meaning more and more engineers are leaving the trade for more lucrative careers. Then you have the customers, now conditioned to expect a washing machine to cost £250 due to the continual cut throat price wars that have raged for 20 years. Higher quality pushes up prices that people aren’t prepared to pay…..the ‘race to the bottom’ is almost run. Is your glass half full or half empty at this point?
So along comes DASA with a solution to a question that cannot really be answered without a seismic shift in the way the industry is developing and the way the engineers are treated by the industry. The engineers are already struggling….how about going after and sorting out the causes of the problems in the manufacturers area rather than further burdening the engineers. The latter of course is the easier option.
DASA does not speak for me or most others in this trade. Training is good but it has to be coupled with better earnings and prospects for the current workforce and future recruits. With manufacturers going bust every month and large high street names failing; reports of retailers making £10 a box on appliances, where is the future? And more importantly, where is the evidence that EEEsafe will make it better?
I applaud people who try to do the right thing as it is always an uphill struggle. I’ve been in this trade for 30 years, seen the changes, not liked them; but the glass is more than half full for me as I am always busy and don’t need to sell machines or do recons. That said; this type of restructuring is 30 years overdue and I fear the horse has already bolted. Let’s just hope that this project will draw the trade together and not become the collective noose that chokes it.
Steve.
Re: EEE safe email.
Great response Martin and full of the very real facts that need to be tackled and far more constructive than the usual pointless one line negatives.
You are right there are a multitude of issues that affect the service and re-use sectors and that is why a more coordinated approach. The ‘us versus them attitude’ simply hasn’t worked and if this David wants beat goliath then he needs more than a simple sling shot, faith and a lucky hit.
Joining forces and proving that the sectors have ‘real credibility, knowledge and skills’ backed by a recognised Competent Person scheme or qualification (or whatever you want to call it) will first help ‘level the playing field’ between manufacturers and ourselves. The lack of any such recognition has been exploited for way too long. It’s one of excuses used to restrict technical information for one.
One point you made that needs clarification is that DASA did not start the process it joined it as many others are beginning to do.
If people really want to know more about EEESafe the best thing to do is visit the site. Yes there is lot on the site but the gist of it is mobilising those in the service and re-use/recycling sectors and their customers to fight the very points you make in you posting.
The concept is one of ‘pick and mix’ whereby those that join are free to decide which aspects they want and those they don’t. As you say you concentrate on repairs and do not venture into reconditioning but others may choose to otherwise – it’s all about free choice.
We can all moan as much as we like but let’s face who cares about individual businesses.
However, join together and add to that number the voices of all their customers (the social aspect) and you have voice that is very hard to ignore.
Essentially those with the real ability for change listen to those who have the most people behind them – it’s a numbers game to them so let’s give them numbers.
The social aspect is probably the strongest part of the EEESafe concept for although the way machines are manufactured adversely affects the service sector the impact on customers and the planet is far more contentious.
When the cheap unrepairable types of product are dispensed with the inability for them to be used in re-use/recycling system hits those on low income even harder. There are far more income restricted individuals than you think who cannot easily afford even a dirt cheap unrepairable import unless they enter into high interest credit agreement which effectively keeps them in the poverty trap.
Add to this the negative impact on green issues and you have a very powerful tool for change with hundreds of thousands of people supporting it.
I also think that additional leverage can be put forward in the form of not just pointing out the above issues but linking them to the balance of trade figures. Let’s face it just about every single appliance is an import which with the volume imported leads to a very negative figure indeed. At all parties realise that anything that adversely affects these figures is well worth a look.
With regard to the use of appliance failure/recall figures no one was implying or otherwise that the lack of a qualification or one individual was to blame. As I say it is numbers and the way they are used that others take notice of and for the first time the service sector need to use them to our advantage.
It’s the bigger picture that some of us realise is the best opportunity we have ever had to effect positive change.
The alternative is to keep moaning hoping someone in authority will listen and act (which they won’t) and hope that you can scratch a living before it inevitably goes ***’s up as the doom and gloom guy think it will.
Personally I don’t like giving up without a fight.
GRe: EEE safe email.
Can you answer the 3 questions at the start of Aqualectrics post as this is, in my opinion, what will be at the forefront of the engineers’ minds?
Re: EEE safe email.
Hi Graham,
I’m just looking at this from the outside in if you like and, please don’t take this the wrong way but there’s some fundamental questions that I think need answered. I have to say that Robert didn’t really address these when he was at the WTA meeting in September last year.
The reason that we use open forums and, the guys like them, is that many can read it and it doesn’t look as if its a bunch of good old boys shuffling into darkened room to draw up plans of domination. We’ve had that or, at least the notion of it in the past so, it’s best avoided IMO.
Also best avoided is not answering the questions as that only leads to more speculation and suspicion over what this is or is about. I get where you’re coming from on it even if I don’t quite understand the mechanics or entirely share the methodology but, others may well not get it.
Keep in mind that, if you have kept up with the forums of late, the past year there have been a plethora of get-rich-quick merchants trying to flog membership to this, that and everything in between so, presently, the guys are on high alert for anything that even sniffs a bit off.
Whilst I applaud the notion of thousands of people wanting to change the world and the throw-away culture that we find ourselves in I have to tell you that, as I have lectured to students, what people say and importantly, what people do and how that they behave in respect to “green” issues are very often worlds apart. The ideology may well be sound and the feedback may say that people will follow the lead but it falls flat upon execution due to this gulf between ideal and action.
I gotta tell you, I’m way ahead of you there as it sounds you’re where I was five or more years ago and I think that you may well be barking up the wrong tree there.
The questions that probably answered, although not an exhaustive list, are:
Does EEESafe have a mandate from government or any official body and if so who, where can that information be found by us and the public?
What is EEESafe officially, is it a charity, an not-for-profit or an actual business venture? From the website it’s very confusing and not clear on what the organisation actually is in a legal sense.
Who owns this organisation and the rights to the EESafe logos, standards etc?
How much will EEESafe cost? I can see that it’s ben mooted at £300 a year for a DAR but I cannot find any other costings.
What are the requirements to be an EESafe DAT or DAR? Do the requirements lead to further costs?
What benefit does EEESafe deliver to an appliance repairer?
How and where is EESafe promoted?
K.
Re: EEE safe email.
Thanks for the detailed posting Ken and no I don’t take exception to the way you voice your opinion as it’s the only way to get things out in the open.
As result I have tried to respond to the various issues and questions you raised without too wordy a response so I hope that you also don’t take issue with the detail and phrasing.
You wrote-
I’m just looking at this from the outside in if you like and, please don’t take this the wrong way but there’s some fundamental questions that I think need answered. I have to say that Robert didn’t really address these when he was at the WTA meeting in September last year.
Response – I think Robert would agree that he didn’t present himself all that well on the day and tried to explain everything in almost one breath, but put that down to experience and I don’t want to make the mistake again here. As a result I will try to keep things as brief as possible knowing once we establish confidentiality between the two organisations a lot more detail can be provided.
The reason that we use open forums and, the guys like them, is that many can read it and it doesn’t look as if its a bunch of good old boys shuffling into darkened room to draw up plans of domination. We’ve had that or, at least the notion of it in the past so, it’s best avoided IMO.
Response – I think the interesting phrase in your comment is “doesn’t look as if” as I sure that some in UKW and other such forums do have vested interest agendas which is a fact we all should acknowledge. Of course the guys like the UKW forum, because they feel/ believe they are in a friendly environment, when in reality they may not be.
Also best avoided is not answering the questions as that only leads to more speculation and suspicion over what this is or is about. I get where you’re coming from on it even if I don’t quite understand the mechanics or entirely share the methodology but, others may well not get it.
Response – Fully agree with this statement hence my trying to put forward honest down to earth answers.
Keep in mind that, if you have kept up with the forums of late, the past year there have been a plethora of get-rich-quick merchants trying to flog membership to this, that and everything in between so, presently, the guys are on high alert for anything that even sniffs a bit off.
Response – I’m not aware, but not surprised either, however, the guys should also understand that not everything new is bad –it’s that negative attitude thing again.
Whilst I applaud the notion of thousands of people wanting to change the world and the throw-away culture that we find ourselves in I have to tell you that, as I have lectured to students, what people say and importantly, what people do and how that they behave in respect to “green” issues are very often worlds apart. The ideology may well be sound and the feedback may say that people will follow the lead but it falls flat upon execution due to this gulf between ideal and action.
Response – You know my negative stance on the EU in general I make no bones about it but even I realise that something needs to be done to elicit change which results in sometimes having swallowing your pride for the common good. That is why EEESafe engages with European Reuse Sectors and is deeply aware of European Policy as well as those of the various UK Government Depts. Words also come easy when posting on forums but I don’t think Robert sees UKW’s engagement and evidence, much in the same way as UKW doesn’t see EEESafe’s. I think you and others will find that there are instances on the forums of mis-information based on supposition.
I gotta tell you, I’m way ahead of you there as it sounds you’re where I was five or more years ago and I think that you may well be barking up the wrong tree there.
Response – I can’t agree with you on this one, although I accept that you have experience of your sector. This however, as you regularly state is a relatively small element of a dwindling Sector, which you even cited in the OFT Report some years ago. Robert has and continues to attempt to engage UKW/WTA but to date such advances have been relatively ignored when in reality it is clear that there is a much bigger picture to be taken into account.
Putting old disputes to one side may be it is time to ask why there are two Trade Associations with different structures, one which has ‘shareholders’ and one that doesn’t. Would that be a topic for forums? With questions like “Who are the Advisory Council” – “Do the members have any conflicts of interest etc.”
The questions that probably answered, although not an exhaustive list, are:
Q. Does EEESafe have a mandate from government or any official body and if so who, where can that information be found by us and the public?
Answer – Just as UKW and the WTA did not have or require a government mandate or support from an official body to set themselves up neither did EEESafe. However, there are now government and official bodies willing to fund trials in Training, Running Centres and are applauding the efforts to regulate the sector.
I believe Robert has this as factual evidence in writing, but I’m not currently able to provide further details until they come to the table and agree to discuss in confidence and sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. However, here are already NDA’s with some sizeable organisations including funders and commercial organisations.Q. What is EEESafe officially, is it a charity, an not-for-profit or an actual business venture? From the website it’s very confusing and not clear on what the organisation actually is in a legal sense.
Answer – It’s not a Charity, it’s a Social Enterprise. I am sure that you, Ian and Lawrence already know that the Government has officially stated they are not funding the sector. So the only real options were to stand back and watch it die, or take action. This led to the idea of EEESafe which is very much how Gas Safe started. EEESafe doesn’t sell Spares or are held by Manufacturer Agreements. The concept is to be free from such restraints. By avoiding these potential pitfalls EEESafe does not need to “follow the money” as you put it as it does not have to satisfy shareholders.
Q. Who owns this organisation and the rights to the EESafe logos, standards etc?
Answer – EEESafe does and is committed to its outputs and outcomes on Social and Environmental grounds and if EEESafe (with no shareholders and only a Steering Group and eventually a Board, which you are welcome to join in and influence (but not to simply benefit your ISE Organisation or UKW’s Shareholders)
Q. How much will EEESafe cost? I can see that it’s been mooted at £300 a year for a DAR but I cannot find any other costings.
Answer – A DAR is £45 annually. A Centre is £300 annually (which must have a DAR) but for that a centre also gets their own Website, a commercial shop, contributes to evidence of Waste Prevention, has access to the back end evidence system, is able to earn revenue working with Retail Partners, has an annual audit, maintains and grows an online customer database and as a result can get more repair business.
Q. What are the requirements to be an EESafe DAT or DAR? Do the requirements lead to further costs?
Answer – A list of criteria set by the Steering Group (currently – Dixon Training, DASA & EEESafe – a place is still open to the WTA see below). Initially passing an assessment of Ohms Law and commitment to retention of repairable appliances in the local community by donating old appliances to the local centre. There are no further costs currently but if the Steering Group agree there needs to be, then that will come from them, and those employed in the sector whom they represent. WTA has a place waiting for them if they agree to NDA’s and work with the decisions of the Steering Group.
Q. What benefit does EEESafe deliver to an appliance repairer?
Answer – More business and become part of a standard we hope to convince government to adopt. Remember Gas Safe and where it came from. Consumer confidence and accountability to a standards organisation that they can promote to customers.
Q. How and where is EEESafe promoted?
Answer – Due to limited resources through our Website, EEESafe Centres and Shops, Emailings, Social Media, attending conferences, meeting Local Authorities, communications to Housing, BIS, DEFRA, WRAP, Reuse Organisations, Housing Associations, Charities and shortly to consumer networks when our Pilots begin in England and Wales. We intend to create demand for EEESafe Registered Repairers.
G
Re: EEE safe email.
Hi Graham
Originally I wasn’t going to get involved in this topic however seeing as you have referenced me and the WTA I think for transparency I need to ,with regards to your UKW questions that is not my bagTechi wrote:
Robert has and continues to attempt to engage UKW/WTA but to date such advances have been relatively ignored when in reality it is clear that there is a much bigger picture to be taken into account.Robert came and spoke to people at the Sept meeting approx a year ago
He presented the concept of EEEsafe and was presented with questions that he answered
you have then both attended WTA conferences at which we have seen each other,last year EESafe had a stand
You will recall we also met each other at the Defra Meeting in York where I did a presentation on how a washing machine can be different things to different people depending on their agenda,You,Ian ,Robert and myself all sat on the same table ,if I recall Robert spoke to me about PAS141 and it’s relevance /or not to our industry ,he and I also had a conversation about the need for a waste carriers licence.A thought – Perhaps Robert should create an account on UKW and then he can have face to face (as it were ) contact with engineers .
Techi wrote:
Putting old disputes to one side may be it is time to ask why there are two Trade Associations with different structures, one which has ‘shareholders’ and one that doesn’t. Would that be a topic for forums? With questions like “Who are the Advisory Council” – “Do the members have any conflicts of interest etc.” GThat’s easy ,the advisory Commitee are Sean Delaney,John Mackenzie and Alex Read
The WTA Management team are
Lawrence Carey
Barrie Munro
Bryan Williams
Steven Withers
George LaugherneCo opted for specific tasks
Ken Watt
Ian Dales
Tracey RodgerWith regards to shareholders The WTA has none ,I can only assume the other trade Association you refer to is DASA
In the interests of transparency perhaps you could reciprocate with the details of the Share holders that you mention
Techi wrote:
It’s not a Charity, it’s a Social Enterprise. I am sure that you, Ian and Lawrence already know that the Government has officially stated they are not funding the sector. So the only real options were to stand back and watch it die, or take action. This led to the idea of EEESafe which is very much how Gas Safe started. EEESafe doesn’t sell Spares or are held by Manufacturer Agreements. The concept is to be free from such restraints. By avoiding these potential pitfalls EEESafe does not need to “follow the money” as you put it as it does not have to satisfy shareholders.GSadly you are correct about funding ,however there may be more than one way to go about obtaining a better,simpler,clearer future for our industry.
Techi wrote:
A list of criteria set by the Steering Group (currently – Dixon Training, DASA & EEESafe – a place is still open to the WTA see below). Initially passing an assessment of Ohms Law and commitment to retention of repairable appliances in the local community by donating old appliances to the local centre. There are no further costs currently but if the Steering Group agree there needs to be, then that will come from them, and those employed in the sector whom they represent. WTA has a place waiting for them if they agree to NDA’s and work with the decisions of the Steering Group.
GOnce again thank you for the offer but at this time the space will have to remain empty .
With regards to DASA we are committed to working on some areas of mutual benefit for example I understand that Ian had spoken to Dave Coombes and they had agreed to attend a Wrap meeting together,but following subsequent events this did not happen however there has been further dialogue between Ian and someone else from with in DASA regarding this .
Regards
Lawrence
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.