Shenanigans at the SWPP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Had another thought. Send me some wildlife shots for accreditation to Stew's World of Professional Photography :D:D:D:D

Anyone feel they are worth a fellowship :D:D:D

stew
 
artona said:
you paid for the qualification Simon, use it unless they want to refund you. Its 30 years since I paid my driving instructor a bean but I still use my driving license. Of course the SWPP might take action against you. Decide then if you want to stop using them.

Stew
Click to expand...

If that happened I'd see them in court on a point of principle.
 
artona said:
Had another thought. Send me some wildlife shots for accreditation to Stew's World of Professional Photography :D:D:D:D

Anyone feel they are worth a fellowship :D:D:D

stew
Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer, Stew. However, I've recently started a new business for which I've bought a shiny .EU domain name. The company will be "Simon's Wildlife & Pet Portraits", which is just too wordy for a domain name, so I've abbreviated it a bit.

Simon
XLSINWP
 
Just be careful if you decide to do something that has purely coincidental initials as there is a law about "Passing off" as opposed to any other kind of off :)
 
you are likely to be ok if your own name is involved Ali :):)

But these initials after your name are a waste of time. I have a son who is working towards a masters degree in Nuclear Physics. He is about to have a paper he co-wrote read in Texas. Now the intitials after his name will be recognised world wide. If you are a photographer and studied for a degree other degree level scholars will recognise you have put in a lot of hard work and you are not an idiot.

However a qualification in one of these organisations is not worth the paper they are written on other than for impressing other photographers.

Just my view on it. :):) I have been awarded the initials many years ago, I have the certificates in the loft but I don't bother using them, I let my photography and my charming personality get me the work :):):)


stew
 
The latest interesting thing is that if you leave or are expelled/membership terminated they keep your details listed on their site - they say this gives an SEO advantage - to whom? If you have left, been pushed or kicked just check and see if your details are still there. Strange when you think about it, they did not want me as a member but they have retained my details.

Mike
 
Well as someone once sung " Breaking up is hard to do". Or is that " Never can say goodbye" ?

:'(
 
mike weeks said:
The latest interesting thing is that if you leave or are expelled/membership terminated they keep your details listed on their site -
Mike
Click to expand...

That will be an interesting conversation when I get the next canvassing phone call and I tell them that the SWPP COULD have provided them with out of date details. :D
 
This is the reply I got after asking for the details to be removed
Thank you for your enquiry regarding a past members page on our site.

We have spent many years developing our sites in order that they remain well
indexed by the various search engines and bring tens of thousands of
consumers who are looking to engage the service of a professional
photographer.

By removing pages of past members only leads to countless consumer enquires
and confusion to the general public who have previously found photographers
on our site. Consumers may wish to engage past members under the
misapprehension that they are supported by one of the worlds largest and
leading organisation who provides both membership and consumer support.

We are also continuously asked for information from consumers who have
previously booked a photographer on the strength that they were members and
who would otherwise have disappeared from our site.

The page contains nothing disparaging regarding the past members business,
skill levels or talent. Neither does the page contain a full address
listing.
Click to expand...
I will be taking legal advice if needed but I want my details removed after all who really wants to be associated with the SWPP? I only want the same association that they want with me - none.

Mike
 
you need to check the T&C of signing up Mike, you could have been sold down the river by signing up. Also, search engines will index the page again if details change, so dont let that stop you.
 
matty said:
you need to check the T&C of signing up Mike, you could have been sold down the river by signing up. Also, search engines will index the page again if details change, so dont let that stop you.
Click to expand...

There have been a number of court cases where people have been granted the right to have details removed from similar. Nothing in the T&Cs that I can see (http://www.swpp.co.uk/terms.htm) that would allow this. As I said they threw me out but want to retain my details - why? to me this is close to passing off.

Found another one http://www.swpp.co.uk/members/Pearson9295.htm
and another http://www.swpp.co.uk/members/Richards8678.htm who is the one that they have lied about not enough members for her masterclasses at the convention. Just search for this in Google
site:swpp.co.uk "Past member of the SWPP and BPPA"
Click to expand...
and you get 8560 results, thats a lot of ex members - I wonder why they all have left? Just think of all those pages building SEO.

Mike
 
What does data protection say about holding onto ex members details Mike?

Found some interesting stuff, should help to at least stop details being passed on.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/toolkit.pdf

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/data_protection_for_organisations.aspx#f2642022B-8A14-4897-90ED-AD7019C0F812

And from this one:- http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/its_your_information_sharing_information_about_you001.pdf



Do I have to consent to information sharing?
Information sharing can often take place without your consent. In many cases where
you are not asked to consent the information sharing is reasonable and expected.
However, it should be clear why the sharing is taking place and who is involved in it.
If organisations want to share sensitive or confidential information, they are more
likely to need your consent. For example, if information about your health is to be
shared.
If you are asked to consent to information sharing, you should have a genuine free
choice. Consent shouldn’t be used as the basis for sharing information if, in reality,
you have little or no choice.
 
i dont see the logic of keeping names on file, especially if they are no longer happy members.. a potential minefield...
 
they've asked me to return my certificate of qualification. This strikes me as very strange indeed - it makes for an odd qualification.
Click to expand...

ALL the trade associations say the same in their terms.... and that once you leave you can no longer use the letters after your name. The SWPP is no different.

The same goes, I believe for most trade qualications outwith photography
 
snappingsam said:
ALL the trade associations say the same in their terms.... and that once you leave you can no longer use the letters after your name. The SWPP is no different.

The same goes, I believe for most trade qualications outwith photography
Click to expand...

I think that is the case David. The "L" , "A" or "F" prefix means you are a liecenciate/ assciate or fellow OF SWPP/MPA/RPS or which ever organisation you belong to, so if you are no longer a member of the SWPP you cannot be a Licentiate of the SWPP, therefore it makes perfrect sense to hand it back.

Personally I would like to see all qualifications be awarded by a separate independent body, then you could simply be a qualified L/A/F photographer, without having to belong to a specific body, and whilst I do like the quaintness of the exisiting system, it does mean should you leave a particular body then your qualfied status can go unrecognised.

God bless
Dave
 
AliB,

thanks for the links - it told me how to make an official complaint which looks like the way to go after reading this http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=club&t=1021326 which reads as
I joined the SWPP (and BPPA) a few years ago - as a professional photographer joining a few professional organisations is always a good thing.

After a couple of years and whilst I was not using the swpp website and/or the organisations benefits much I decided to cancel my membership.

As I never received any terms and conditions about my membership and (at the time) no information could be found on their website, I simply inform te SWPP that I would not renew my membership.

The SWPP used the oldest con-artist trick that I was supposed to give a few months notice and send a registered letter to the head office… therefore I was due to renew my membership… which I did… the next surprise arrived under the form of a Debt Collection firm's letter asking me to pay a fee under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 !
So far so good, I am defending this appaling request in Court very soon.

In May 2009 I realised when « Googling » my name (I never do that !!! just for reputation management purposes), that a Search Engine Result Page was appearing on top of Google page 1…and that was a SWPP page…
Not confused as why the SWPP would use past member's name (SEO tactics and obviously it works member's name being in the page title and url), I requested not once but twice and in writing that my name should be delete from the site and or to create a custom 404 page without any mention of my name

With no reply from the SWPP, I phone their office today (12 May) and spoke to Phil Jones (SWPP Chief executive) and I had the worst experience ever apart the numerous frustrating calls one may have with any bad, ugly and worst call centres !

When I reiterate my demand to Phil Jones, my arrogant interlocutor simply replied that « the page should stay as it is ».
When I replied that the SWPP could not use any individual's name to use as a promotional tool, it was then 'spat' into my face that : « there was nothing I could do against it » and that I « should not tell him what to do ».

Followed a quick and not so pleasant conversation ending with Phil Jones threatening to sue me for defamation if I was to denigrate the SWPP… Well, would I ever do that ? of course no… but I can surely recommend to fellow photographers not to join the SWPP but join instead the following reputable photographers organisations :

http://www.thempa.com/
http://www.thebppa.com/
http://www.wpja.com/
Click to expand...

Well just another example of Phil of Rhyl trying to throw his weight around but here is the judgement

I just won my case (defendant) against the SWPP who decided to bring me to court for refusing to pay the late payment of commercial debts. District judge Asworth sitting at County Court, Southend on Sea, ordered that:

SWPP claim dismissed
SWPP shall pay the defendant 's witness expenses

The reasons (Shortened) for the judgement are as follow:

Rules and Code of Conduct are not the same as Terms and Conditions of a contract and are not legally binding in the same way. No copy of Terms and Conditions were produced by SWPP.

As a result the defendant was not required to give three month notice in writing to the SWPP, of his intention to terminate subscritpion and was entitled to treat it as lapsed at the end of September 2007..

SWPP is not entitled to rely on the provisions of the Late Payment of Commercial debts Act 1998. The Act only applies to contracts and the claim des not appear to be based on breach of contract but breach of code of conduct. (...)
Click to expand...

So if you have been conned by this maybe it is time to go and fight it.

Mike
 
candlestick said:
This is my favourite thread of the month, even though I know nowt about wedding photography!! :D

I'm probably getting a slightly skewed view, but the whole style of the company/organisation in question reeks of those internet 'degree certificates' you can buy to enhance your qualifications, in order to gain employment. I may be completely wrong, but thats how the 10 pages come across to an outsider! :)
Click to expand...

Hi Candlestick (sorry I don't know your name)

I like the SWPP, and for £99 per year it is good value for money. It seems that most comments here are by ex members who may well have left for perfrectly valid reasons, and I am not going to dispute their claims, but I speak as a satisfied customer, who has benefitted hugely from membership and I continue to enjoy meeting some great people through it and advancing my knowledge.

The forthcoming convention is fantastic event and well worth checking out. If you really want to find out what the SWPP is like, you are unlikely to get a balanced view on here as many of the comments are from people who dislike it. Some of the comments are a bit misleading, for example companies who wish to gain acess to members details do not buy it from the SWPP, they simple visit the site for free like anyone else can (as can potential bride's) Aslo the point I made earlier about not transferring qulaifications, is a general practice and not unique to SWPP.

To anyone thinking of joining I would say do not make up your mind on the basis of neagative comments alone. There IS another side to it and I have no hesitation in recommending it.


God bless
Dave
 
"Aslo the point I made earlier about not transferring qulaifications, is a general practice and not unique to SWPP. "


Sorry I should have said it was a point that David made, to which I responded.


God bless
Dave
 
Hi Mike and anyone else who may be interested in where they stand on getting there information removed from the SWPP website.

I help administrate a military website and forum and last year we had to ban someone from the website and forum.

This person then bombarded us with emails and phone calls demanding that we remove all information about them from the website and forum, they claimed that we had to under the data protection act and that if we did not do so they would take us to court.

We already knew where we stood on this matter but procedure dictated that we seek clarification on this from the Information Commissioners Office - Bellow is the email we received from them with regards to this:

Information Commissioners Office said:
Thank you for your email dated 15th September 2008 regarding the removal of personal information from a website. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to you, our office is currently dealing with large volumes of work. This has meant that we have been unable to deal with incoming correspondence as promptly as we would like.

The Data Protection Act 1998 does not actually give individuals a general legal right to ask an organisation to cease processing their personal information altogether unless to processing is likely to cause them substantial damage and distress.

To elaborate further section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 gives individuals a right to write to an organisation to ask that they cease processing his personal data on the basis that the processing will cause him substantial damage and distress. They must specify their reasons for their belief that the processing will cause them substantial damage and distress. This is called a data subject notice. Upon receipt of such a formal request you would have a period of up to 21 days to respond to the request. Whether or not you decide to comply with the request is a matter for your own organisation to decide upon but regardless of your decision you must inform the individual of the extent to which you intend to comply within the 21 day time frame. Providing you do respond you are likely to have met the requirements of this section of the Data Protection Act 1998 regardless of whether or not you decide to remove the information requested.

If a dispute remains after that time the individual has a right to pursue the matter through the court system on his own behalf.

Therefore, if this individual has made a request like this you would need to follow the advice given above, however, if it is just a request to stop processing his information without any reference to the above there is no general legal right in terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 for him to make such a request.

Obviously if this person wishes to pursue the matter through the courts he is able to do so on his own behalf.

I hope this information is of some assistance to you and once again apologise for the delay in responding to you.

Yours sincerely

Louise MacDonald
Case Officer.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mike,

From what I have read in this thread I have a funny feeling you may well have to take them to court.

Of course going to court costs money with no guarantee that you will be awarded judgement against the SWPP.

The first step would be to send them a data subject notice and see what they have to say to that.

Wishing you all the best.

Take care, Keith
 
Well, for me, I am taking the "If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander" approach.

I am currently building a page on our website that will basically say the same as what it does on teh SWPP website - I am not a member.

I like to think I know a thing or two about SEO (42 search terms of ours appear Page 1 of Google) so this page will be SEO'd to hell on the search terms SWPP.

If they are allowed to use my information, nothing stopping me in Law from writing a dedicated page saying I am not a member, as per their website, and the reasons for that.

So, they wanna use my details, then thats just fine, two can play the SEO game.

And in the interests of fairness, if anybody else would like a copy of the page after launch so you can swap my details to yours then it will, of course, be available free of charge :)
 
chuckle..... 8000+ photographers all with details on the SWPP website ....... a little bit of emailing and communication with them all ............... then 8000+ requests for Data subject Notice all at the same time.

Oh boy that is one big stack of paperwork to get through :lol:
 
MarkyP said:
chuckle..... 8000+ photographers all with details on the SWPP website ....... a little bit of emailing and communication with them all ............... then 8000+ requests for Data subject Notice all at the same time.

Oh boy that is one big stack of paperwork to get through :lol:
Click to expand...

and there is this page helpfully provided by the SWPP http://www.swpp.co.uk/members/pastmembers.htm that lets you know where they all are. Strangely the MPA and BIPP do not have a past members page - this is nothing more than a dirty marketing trick. Now all we need is somebody that is happy with the SWPP to run and tell them all about this - God Bless the volunteer :wave:.

Mike
 
mike weeks said:
and there is this page helpfully provided by the SWPP http://www.swpp.co.uk/members/pastmembers.htm that lets you know where they all are. Strangely the MPA and BIPP do not have a past members page - this is nothing more than a dirty marketing trick. Now all we need is somebody that is happy with the SWPP to run and tell them all about this - God Bless the volunteer :wave:.

Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike

I know that forums are not the best place to make judgements about people, but I think you have misunderstood my motives for commenting here. I wish you well Mike and hope that you find the resolutuion you are looking for in this matter, I hope that it will be peaceful and court free, and that you are not burdened with it all.

God bless you too Mike

Dave
 
snappingsam said:
ALL the trade associations say the same in their terms.... and that once you leave you can no longer use the letters after your name. The SWPP is no different.

The same goes, I believe for most trade qualications outwith photography
Click to expand...

Just because something is in the terms laid out does not make them legally enforcable. EG if a professional photographer had something in his/her terms saying that they could not be held responsible for getting photographs in focus what court would uphold that.

In this case the organisation has taken money whilst photographers are gaining supposed qualifications. The organisation has then made it impossible for the photographer to remain a member. If I was the photographer I would carry on using the initials if I felt they helped me get business. I would rely on a court to act fairly if The SWPP decided to take action.

Terms and conditions have to be seen to be fair for both parties. In employment law eg some companies put into their contracts that if an employee leaves they are not allowed to set up a competing business within the same county. This is not lawful as it is not fair to the employee and you can put it into terms and condition as as many times as you want but you will only find out whether it is worth the paper it is written on if you decide to take court action.

stew
 
Dave Routledge said:
Hi Candlestick (sorry I don't know your name)

I like the SWPP, and for £99 per year it is good value for money. It seems that most comments here are by ex members who may well have left for perfrectly valid reasons, and I am not going to dispute their claims, but I speak as a satisfied customer, who has benefitted hugely from membership and I continue to enjoy meeting some great people through it and advancing my knowledge.

The forthcoming convention is fantastic event and well worth checking out. If you really want to find out what the SWPP is like, you are unlikely to get a balanced view on here as many of the comments are from people who dislike it. Some of the comments are a bit misleading, for example companies who wish to gain acess to members details do not buy it from the SWPP, they simple visit the site for free like anyone else can (as can potential bride's) Aslo the point I made earlier about not transferring qulaifications, is a general practice and not unique to SWPP.

To anyone thinking of joining I would say do not make up your mind on the basis of neagative comments alone. There IS another side to it and I have no hesitation in recommending it.


God bless
Dave
Click to expand...

I think its already been established Dave that people are happy with the SWPP until they have any sort of disagreement with the Jones family, especially the head one Phil. If my memory serves me well Ali used to love them and gave them much support on this forum. She has now disagreed with something and she is out. Ali has been putting a lot of work and effort into becoming a good photographer and I know the SWPP featured highly in her plans.

Fortunately Ali is a resourceful person and leaving the SWPP will not effect her development. However I think its disgraceful that if you disagree with anything the Jones Clan say you are out. Think about it Dave. As long as you agree and do as you are told you will be ok. Do you really want to live under that threat? Do you really want to work hard to gain qualifications to be chucked out on a whim and have them stripped from you?

Has anyone ever been chucked out of the BIPP or the MPA because they disagreed with the management?

And you would have thought that by now Phil Jones would have joined this forum and started to defend his company. I know I would have.....

stew
 
Dave Routledge said:
I think that is the case David. The "L" , "A" or "F" prefix means you are a liecenciate/ assciate or fellow OF SWPP/MPA/RPS or which ever organisation you belong to, so if you are no longer a member of the SWPP you cannot be a Licentiate of the SWPP, therefore it makes perfrect sense to hand it back.
Click to expand...

Then it is not a qualification. As I see it, I have achieved a level of 'qualification' and I have a right to say so, should I wish. To say otherwise is an attempt to change history.

I am really glad to hear that you are a satisfied customer of old Swampy - I truly am. However, in my view they are dictatorial, corrupt and bullying. Just look at the latest revelation that the gentleman that runs their Mentor Me on Steroids has been using the same images in competition several times. It appears that if he is unsatisfied with being awarded a "bronze" or a "silver" in the monthly competition, he just waits a while and resubmits in order to be awarded his "gold."

This is cheating whichever way you look at it.


Simon

Oh, and by the way Dave, it is "perfect", not "perfrect" as you've used repeatedly on this thread ;)
 
Wildsnaps said:
Then it is not a qualification. As I see it, I have achieved a level of 'qualification' and I have a right to say so, should I wish. To say otherwise is an attempt to change history.

I am really glad to hear that you are a satisfied customer of old Swampy - I truly am. However, in my view they are dictatorial, corrupt and bullying. Just look at the latest revelation that the gentleman that runs their Mentor Me on Steroids has been using the same images in competition several times. It appears that if he is unsatisfied with being awarded a "bronze" or a "silver" in the monthly competition, he just waits a while and resubmits in order to be awarded his "gold."

This is cheating whichever way you look at it.


Simon

Oh, and by the way Dave, it is "perfect", not "perfrect" as you've used repeatedly on this thread ;)
Click to expand...

Hi

It is a qualfication Simon, just one that is only awarded and recognised by ONE body. I agree with you, it should stay with you which is why I think qualifications should be awarded indepedently, but as it stands it makes no sense to say you are, for example an AMPA if you are no longer a member of the MPA.

As you have made reference to an on going issue within SWPP. I think I should inform you that a public apology has been made to the judge in question from the person who raised the issue of that judge entering the same image into the competition. The judge you refer to is an excellent photographer, who has won numerous awards outside of the SWPP.

To accuse that judge of cheating is not only inaccurate it is potentially libelous, and another example of misleading comments that are being made here.

Accusing someone of cheating is a serious charge.

I would urge the moderators here to ask members not to make such statements, I am sure it must be against the rules for somone to make an allegation like that without proven evidence, remember this is someone's reputaion we are talikng about

Sorry about the spelling Simon, I guess I am not prefect!

God bless
Dave
 
As this post keeps being resurrected it only illustrates how vindictive and small minded some ex members are.
If you were unhappy and you've left . . . You've made your point, now get over it!

I'm also surprised the TP mods are allowing ongoing critisism to the point of libel to continue on a public forum.
If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts.
To continually harass, bully and libel any another professional organisation on any forum is totally unprofessional.
 
mercedes said:
As this post keeps being resurrected it only illustrates how vindictive and small minded some ex members are.
If you were unhappy and you've left . . . You've made your point, now get over it!

I'm also surprised the TP mods are allowing ongoing critisism to the point of libel to continue on a public forum.
If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts.
To continually harass, bully and libel any another professional organisation on any forum is totally unprofessional.
Click to expand...

On the other hand maybe they are not vindictive or small minded.

Maybe they put a lot of work into the SWPP.

Maybe they made a lot of friends and enjoyed interacting with them via the forum and the meets.

Maybe they were spoken to in such a way they will never forgive the Jones.

Maybe it would never be seen as libel as there would be enough individuals reporting the same treatment a court would accept the comments as being factual
 
mercedes said:
As this post keeps being resurrected it only illustrates how vindictive and small minded some ex members are.
If you were unhappy and you've left . . . You've made your point, now get over it!

I'm also surprised the TP mods are allowing ongoing critisism to the point of libel to continue on a public forum.
If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts.
To continually harass, bully and libel any another professional organisation on any forum is totally unprofessional.
Click to expand...

Criticism to the point of libel?

You might want to look into that particular issue - and specifically the defences of fair comment and truth. Simply throwing that word around doesn't make it true I'm afraid.

Guy (LLb Hons)
 
mercedes said:
As this post keeps being resurrected it only illustrates how vindictive and small minded some ex members are.
If you were unhappy and you've left . . . You've made your point, now get over it!

I'm also surprised the TP mods are allowing ongoing critisism to the point of libel to continue on a public forum.
If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts.
To continually harass, bully and libel any another professional organisation on any forum is totally unprofessional.
Click to expand...


I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

Firstly, from where I am sat, I have not seen anything that may be deemed as harrassment, bullying or libelous - only statements of opionion and fact.

The ability to discuss, debate, have free speech and be able to voice an opinion is one of the benefits of living in the free world and is the basis of Forums which allow the sharing, publically, of information.

Indeed, if it were not for the fact that you have free speech, you wouldn't have been able to make your reply and voice your opinion.

You made the statement "If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts."

Well, I'm sorry but this professional photographer actually gives a damn about the industry I work in. I actually care that those just entering the industry are given a fair bite of the cherry, are not misled and receive the correct information, from both sides of the fence, as to which, if any, trade organisation they join.

Democracy is a wonderful thing when embraced! :)
 
Dave Routledge said:
Hi

It is a qualfication Simon, just one that is only awarded and recognised by ONE body. I agree with you, it should stay with you which is why I think qualifications should be awarded indepedently, but as it stands it makes no sense to say you are, for example an AMPA if you are no longer a member of the MPA.

As you have made reference to an on going issue within SWPP. I think I should inform you that a public apology has been made to the judge in question from the person who raised the issue of that judge entering the same image into the competition. The judge you refer to is an excellent photographer, who has won numerous awards outside of the SWPP.

To accuse that judge of cheating is not only inaccurate it is potentially libelous, and another example of misleading comments that are being made here.

Accusing someone of cheating is a serious charge.

I would urge the moderators here to ask members not to make such statements, I am sure it must be against the rules for somone to make an allegation like that without proven evidence, remember this is someone's reputaion we are talikng about

Sorry about the spelling Simon, I guess I am not prefect!

God bless
Dave
Click to expand...

It would be still quite legal to say you were awarded an LNSWPP (or whatever) in june 2007, wether or not your still a memeber doesn't alter history. It doesn't claim your still a member.
 
swanseamale47 said:
It would be still quite legal to say you were awarded an LNSWPP (or whatever) in june 2007, wether or not your still a memeber doesn't alter history. It doesn't claim your still a member.
Click to expand...

Exactly, its not like they remove you from the website is it... What's good for the goose....
 
mercedes said:
As this post keeps being resurrected it only illustrates how vindictive and small minded some ex members are.
If you were unhappy and you've left . . . You've made your point, now get over it!

I'm also surprised the TP mods are allowing ongoing critisism to the point of libel to continue on a public forum.
If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts.
To continually harass, bully and libel any another professional organisation on any forum is totally unprofessional.
Click to expand...

...but you are still reading it? :thinking:


The thread is being allowed to run, you will notice, with input from both sides of the fence, which is the whole basis of a forum discussion. Members of the Jones family and anyone else related to the SWPP are free to join and defend their position. They are not unaware that this discussion is taking place, not just here by all accounts, but on messge boards and blogs in sorts of corners of the internet, but they have chosen so far, not to take that option. That is fair enough, but that does not mean others cannot discuss and express an opinion or state their experience of the organisation.


As you were chaps. ;)
 
mercedes said:
As this post keeps being resurrected it only illustrates how vindictive and small minded some ex members are.
If you were unhappy and you've left . . . You've made your point, now get over it!

I'm also surprised the TP mods are allowing ongoing critisism to the point of libel to continue on a public forum.
If you're a professional photographer incidents like the SWWP membership, or any other organisation's rules, are swings and roundabouts.
To continually harass, bully and libel any another professional organisation on any forum is totally unprofessional.
Click to expand...

So it is OK for Phil Jones to ring members at night and threaten them? Not a libelous statement but pure fact - you only have to read the threads here, there and everywhere.

It is OK for them to bully and harrass people into paying for continued membership with contracts that do not stand up in court. Not libelous, fact - read the threads here, there and everywhere.

If I am expected to act as a professional so why are they (the taffia) not governed by the same rules, e.g.
4. Every member shall at all times present himself/herself, his/her photography services, in such a manner as will uphold and dignify his professional status and the reputation of the ‘SOCIETY’
Click to expand...

This is a rule that many members woul state that Phil Jones and other members of the management are in constant breach.

Members of ‘SOCIETIES’ are governed by the code of conduct of the Society. The clauses given below indicate the general standard of conduct to which members must adhere in carrying out there professional duties. The ‘SOCIETY’ has power at its absolute discretion to expel or to suspend from membership any member guilty of dishonourable conduct prejudicially affecting his professional status or the reputation of the ‘SOCIETY’ or for his failure to adhere to the code of conduct published by the ‘SOCIETY’.
Click to expand...

Of course they will not suspend themselves, they own it. If this were the BIPP or MPA there is an elected council who deal with such matters - you are judged by your peers - and the council members are not exempt from this. That is how a real society is run.

The SWPP makes its money from attracting new photographers and retaining them - many have fallen foul of the illegal 3 month rule. This forum is the sort of place where many come into photography and hence are the target market for the marketing department of the SWPP - I feel that all potential victims should be warned about what they might be letting themselves in for.

On a personal note I am not small minded and vindictive - I am howevr man enough to use my real name here and not hide behind anything. That which I say is what I hold true to and believe. Think of me as a White Knight doing my utmost to protect the weak and innocent from Dark Forces at work in Rhyl. Now perhaps you will let us know who you are and why you so vehemently defend the SWPP.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top