Shenanigans at the SWPP

[Dave Routledge]

Hang on .....

The sets of images to any sane person are as near identical as you can get .... high brow excuses as to this was done in this or that order are just that excuses.

A reasonable person wouldn't dream of putting forward images as close to being duplicates as these are .... however the rules are being bent.

Also it does seem that there is one rule for some and a different set for everyone else .... how else can three images be entered in the same category by one person ?

And when published rules are being bent and broken to suit someones end game .... what else is it other than gaining an unfair advantage ? commonly known as cheating ?

Hi Simon

Whatever people think about the explanations offered, the accusation of cheating would probably not stand up in a court of law, and as such it is potentially libelous and should not be made in the first place.

Also the photographer in question holds more than one fellowship and produces winning images month after month; do people really think that that person has any need, or wish to deliberately cheat in a competition?

Where there are conflicts that need to be resolved then by all means resolve them, but why all this running people down and name calling? Lets look for the best in people, and move on to more uplifting things.

God bless
Dave

 

[spxxxx]

If he produces winning images month after month - why flout the rules .... or does one go in hand with the other ? and multiple entries and near duplicates - I'm sorry but what else do you label it ?

And I haven't said anything about his skill or craft - just a blatant rule breaking ? nothing libellous there as it is fact

And I'm sorry if you break rules and gain from breaking them - 99.9% of people would term it cheating ?

The big point is - WHY aren't published rules being enforced ? is it connections - or oversight

 

[MarkyP]

Hi Simon

Also the photographer in question holds more than one fellowship and produces winning images month after month; do people really think that that person has any need, or wish to deliberately cheat in a competition?

God bless
Dave

Then surely David, it is in the photographers own best interests to not only appear to be, but also in fact to be, 100% above reproach.

At face value, it appears as though the submission rules have not been adhered to. This needs to be clarified as leaving it unexplained will not only cause concerns to members who do follow the published guidelines, but could also, in extreme cases, call into question every other single submission the photographer has ever made to the competition and for every Gold award received and I for one agree wholeheatedly that this is wrong.

There has never been any question regarding the abilities of the photographer, none whatsoever, but this cloak and dagger approach to submission to the monthly comp isn't doing him any favours, nor the SWPP.

Members will automatically get suspicious when questions, questions that members are fully entitled to ask, go unanswered, or even worse a very poor excuse is given that just doesn't feel right.

Honesty, clarity and openess is THE only way to go.

 

[Dave Routledge]

If he produces winning images month after month - why flout the rules .... or does one go in hand with the other ? and multiple entries and near duplicates - I'm sorry but what else do you label it ?

And I haven't said anything about his skill or craft - just a blatant rule breaking ? nothing libellous there as it is fact

And I'm sorry if you break rules and gain from breaking them - 99.9% of people would term it cheating ?

The big point is - WHY aren't published rules being enforced ? is it connections - or oversight

Hi Simon,

Thank you for the pleasant nature of your tone when discussing this, I know forums can get a bit heated, and I would like to play my part in keeping things amicable.

As far as I am aware, no rule breaking has taken place, and to suggest that the photographer in question only wins each month because he breaks the rules, is just not right.

It has been stated that no blatant rule breaking has taken place, that has been accepted by the person raising the issue; now unless anyone is in possession of some facts that categorically PROVE otherwise then accusations of cheating should not be made. If there is evidence that images were altered (however small) in line with rules, then no rule has been broken.

Would any one of us like to called a cheat? This photographer is a superb example of what quality photography is all about, he should be appluaded and not publically denigrated, it is all so, so sad.

God bless
Dave

 

[Hacker]

Daryl, any more posts like that and you might find you have trouble logging into this site.

 

[Dave Routledge]

Then surely David, it is in the photographers own best interests to not only appear to be, but also in fact to be, 100% above reproach.

At face value, it appears as though the submission rules have not been adhered to. This needs to be clarified as leaving it unexplained will not only cause concerns to members who do follow the published guidelines, but could also, in extreme cases, call into question every other single submission the photographer has ever made to the competition and for every Gold award received and I for one agree wholeheatedly that this is wrong.

There has never been any question regarding the abilities of the photographer, none whatsoever, but this cloak and dagger approach to submission to the monthly comp isn't doing him any favours, nor the SWPP.

Members will automatically get suspicious when questions, questions that members are fully entitled to ask, go unanswered, or even worse a very poor excuse is given that just doesn't feel right.

Honesty, clarity and openess is THE only way to go.

Hi Mark, hope you are well

Perhaps so, but calling this person a cheat is not right.

God bless
Dave

 

[MarkyP]

Hi Simon,

Thank you for the pleasant nature of your tone when discussing this, I know forums can get a bit heated, and I would like to play my part in keeping things amicable.

As far as I am aware, no rule breaking has taken place, and to suggest that the photographer in question only wins each month because he breaks the rules, is just not right.

It has been stated that no blatant rule breaking has taken place, that has been accepted by the person raising the issue; now unless anyone is in possession of some facts that categorically PROVE otherwise then accusations of cheating should not be made. If there is evidence that images were altered (however small) in line with rules, then no rule has been broken.

Would any one of us like to called a cheat? This photographer is a superb example of what quality photography is all about, he should be appluaded and not publically denigrated, it is all so, so sad.

God bless
Dave

If no rules have been broken David, then the SWPP needs to clarify Rule 8 of the monthly comps and fast.

The rule is pretty clear from my prespective and as it is, it is only leading to accusations of cheating and favouritism. If Rule 8 does not apply then this should be made crystal clear so any accusations or allegations against the photographer can be stopped in their tracks.

 

[Wildsnaps]

Remember that this person has already received a public apology from the person who first raised the issue of rules being broken.

The photographer may have received an apology from the original poster on the SWPP forum and he did explain that, in his view, the second submission of each differed from the first through a change in post processing. That may have placated the original poster, but it does not explain why Rule 8 was not applicable. There has also been no explanation as to why this photographer was able to submit at least three images in one category in a single month.

The fact that this particular photographer is a multi-award winner is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. I care not what his track record is: in this instance the rules have been broken in an inexcusable manner.

That this photographer is one of the leading lights of the SWPP and seems to receive favourable treatment from the management is deplorable. Someone of his calibre should be beyond reproach. Unfortunately the photographer rather than own up to having made a mistake, decided to put forward a lame explanation that the images were different - ignoring the fact that rule 8 precluded him from resubmitting the images.

Simon

 

[Radiohead]

Different PP - especially when so insignificant - does not make it a new photo. It's the same image.

 

[coldpenguin]

Hang on .....

A reasonable person wouldn't dream of putting forward images as close to being duplicates as these are .... however the rules are being bent.

?

Sod post processing

The rule states the same subject.

To me, those 4 images appear to be of the same human undergoing the same phase of life.

Therefore, there have been 4 entries of the same subject

 

[Matt]

looks like the same image to me, and im as close to laymen as you can get.

 

[AliB]

The spooky thing is that none of them were submitted in the normal way by the competition deadline. Members keep a very close eye on the submissions.

I know it's another qustion that has been asked by at least one member but I can't honestly say I'm aware of any answer being forthcoming.

 

[MarkyP]

but I can't honestly say I'm aware of any answer being forthcoming.

Nothing like stating the obvious with a sense of discovery

You seem surprised that no answer is forthcoming

 

[AliB]

Well I went digging and after 12 pages of questions I did actually find an answer.

"The judges from one months competition are allowed to enter 2 images/category in the next months comp"

So they don't have to enter them online as the other members do. And it certainly does not explain what happens if the same judge is involved the following month.

The thread I have just read does not make happy reading with question after question from members and one poor beleaugered SWPP staff complaining that she had too much to do to be having to spend time there answering members questions.

Still, I look forward to my seminar in January.

 

[MarkyP]

and one poor beleaugered SWPP staff complaining that she had too much to do to be having to spend time there answering members questions.

This is used on a VERY regular basis. My reply is simple:

You ain't paid to do it, you are outside of your contracted working hours so go spend some time with your kids and Family. Turn your computer off!

Simplez!

 

[AliB]

Or employ enough staff to dedicate to the customers?


Cancel the monthly competition if it causes too much trouble. Overhaul the system, publish the rules and stick to them.

Make them quarterly if they are getting too many entries or keep it monthly and have regional ones with judges from outwith the region...........

Personally I would not wish to run them!

But if you are being paid to do it..............

 

[MarkyP]

Or employ enough staff to dedicate to the customers?

There isn't enuff people in Wales with the surname Jones to employ them in the Family business and still have enuff staff to deal with all the current questions from the Members.

From my perspective it is rather simple: Answer the questions.

It's not rocket science really.

If a mistake has been made, then put your hands up and admit it. People will think better of the Management for a simple bit of good old fashioned honesty. Avoiding answering the paying members questions only makes them look like they have something to hide, even if they haven't.

Mr Jones needs to realise that avoidance is often mistaken for guilt in all walks of life!

 

[Wildsnaps]

From my perspective it is rather simple: Answer the questions.

Whilst I agree that the simple answer is for the SWPP management to answer the questions that are being raised by their customers, I fear that they are unlikely so to do. They refuse to supply any answers to meaningful questions posted in the forum for fear that such answers would provoke further debate.

Instead, they adopt a divide and conquer approach by ignoring forum questions and persuading the customers to contact them in private via email.

Simon

 

[AliB]

and when they do they receive an email that says "I'll answer your question as I see fit!"

That means not at all.............oh dear.

Oh well, I'll still wish all at SWPP and members both past and present a very Happy Christmas, apparently there will be a discsussion on the monthly competition and it will be overhauled if they feel it is necessary. It would be rather good if they could start 2010 on a new footing, we can but hope.

It won't be any of my concern next year

 

[TTC]

Just resigned, giving the £99 to charity instead.

 

[mmcp42]

AliB
thanks for this thread
I have been a sitter on the sidelines of SWPP for a while and was about to consider joining
looks like another venue would be a lot better place to be

what I've read here keeps putting me in mind of the TV program about Scientology - dunno why that is? :shrug:

 

[David Kilpatrick]

I have registered here simply to post one comment: SWPP is not a society. It is not an Association, and it does not have 'members' (that is, the 'members' are not part of it corporately and it does not belong to them, nor do they carry any liability). It is a private subscription service with profits accruing to its owners, and has a value as a saleable business.

In this respect it differs from genuine associations like BIPP or MPA, which have (or had) assets and funds belonging to the membership. I've been accused in the past of being 'anti SWPP' as editor of the MPA's magazine, former editor of the BIPP's magazine, a voted Fellow of BIPP and Hon Fellow of MPA (in terms of real qualifications, I remain a humble LBIPP and rather old vintage AMPA - I doubt I'd get an A these days, it's all got much too difficult).

I'm not anti-SWPP, but I am opposed to the invention of 'societies' which are not Associations Limited by Guarantee or any other type of non-profit body; which offer a bewildering and meaningless gamut of 'letters after your name' and thus confuse the public - maybe even mislead them; and which try to conceal their true nature.

As an example of how to offer a service honourably, I would cite the Bureau of Freelance Photographers. Never any claim to be a society, always clearly a private business service, never inventing qualifications and very cautious with such things as membership cards (not fake press cards or fake professional status cards).

All SWPP has to do to be the biggest force in the industry is to register as a genuine membership association, scrap all the silly extra societies, get its membership to rejoin accepting corporate membership status, hold elections for a pilot council, revise its articles of association and create a new constitution, appoint its present owners as salaried staff (like RPS, MPA or BIPP), seek some external validation for a range of qualifications or distinctions - and catch up on reputation loss.

Phil and Juliet would then sprout wings (this is NOT a reference to pigs and flying, it's a reference to the angels they would become - horns and pitchforks traded in).

David

 

[MarkyP]

I have registered here simply to post one comment: SWPP is not a society. It is not an Association, and it does not have 'members' (that is, the 'members' are not part of it corporately and it does not belong to them, nor do they carry any liability). It is a private subscription service with profits accruing to its owners, and has a value as a saleable business.

In this respect it differs from genuine associations like BIPP or MPA, which have (or had) assets and funds belonging to the membership. I've been accused in the past of being 'anti SWPP' as editor of the MPA's magazine, former editor of the BIPP's magazine, a voted Fellow of BIPP and Hon Fellow of MPA (in terms of real qualifications, I remain a humble LBIPP and rather old vintage AMPA - I doubt I'd get an A these days, it's all got much too difficult).

I'm not anti-SWPP, but I am opposed to the invention of 'societies' which are not Associations Limited by Guarantee or any other type of non-profit body; which offer a bewildering and meaningless gamut of 'letters after your name' and thus confuse the public - maybe even mislead them; and which try to conceal their true nature.

As an example of how to offer a service honourably, I would cite the Bureau of Freelance Photographers. Never any claim to be a society, always clearly a private business service, never inventing qualifications and very cautious with such things as membership cards (not fake press cards or fake professional status cards).

All SWPP has to do to be the biggest force in the industry is to register as a genuine membership association, scrap all the silly extra societies, get its membership to rejoin accepting corporate membership status, hold elections for a pilot council, revise its articles of association and create a new constitution, appoint its present owners as salaried staff (like RPS, MPA or BIPP), seek some external validation for a range of qualifications or distinctions - and catch up on reputation loss.

Phil and Juliet would then sprout wings (this is NOT a reference to pigs and flying, it's a reference to the angels they would become - horns and pitchforks traded in).

David

And the words "You got more chance of platting snot" spring to mind

 

[Dave Routledge]

AliB
thanks for this thread
I have been a sitter on the sidelines of SWPP for a while and was about to consider joining
looks like another venue would be a lot better place to be

what I've read here keeps putting me in mind of the TV program about Scientology - dunno why that is? :shrug:

Hi mmcp

Join. There are many benefits available and people whose testimony this year is that their photography has improved and their network has widened. I really like it, and would happlily recommend it to anyone. The comments you are reading on this thread are posted mainly by people who dislike it, and whilst I am not disputing the validity of peoples experiences, it is not a fully balanced view.

If you take full advantage of what is on offer, then I am sure you will have a good return for your £99.

God bless
Dave

 

[willbaroo]

Hi mmcp

Join. There are many benefits available and people whose testimony this year is that their photography has improved and their network has widened. I really like it, and would happlily recommend it to anyone. The comments you are reading on this thread are posted mainly by people who dislike it, and whilst I am not disputing the validity of peoples experiences, it is not a fully balanced view.

If you take full advantage of what is on offer, then I am sure you will have a good return for your £99.

God bless
Dave

Not being funny Dave but I and many other users get that from here...and this **** hot stuff is free!

Infact I might just donate, making this **** hot stuff amazing value for money!

 

[Radiohead]

All SWPP has to do to be the biggest force in the industry is to register as a genuine membership association, scrap all the silly extra societies, get its membership to rejoin accepting corporate membership status, hold elections for a pilot council, revise its articles of association and create a new constitution, appoint its present owners as salaried staff (like RPS, MPA or BIPP), seek some external validation for a range of qualifications or distinctions - and catch up on reputation loss.

+1

 

[Wildsnaps]

Hi mmcp

Join. There are many benefits available and people whose testimony this year is that their photography has improved and their network has widened. I really like it, and would happlily recommend it to anyone. The comments you are reading on this thread are posted mainly by people who dislike it, and whilst I am not disputing the validity of peoples experiences, it is not a fully balanced view.

"There's none so blind as those that will not see" or to put this into words that perhaps Dave Routledge will understand:

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

Simon

 

[Byker28i]

I think I prefer Proverbs 29:18
"Where there is no vision, the people perish"

 

[MarkyP]

I think I prefer Proverbs 29:18
"Where there is no vision, the people perish"

I think I prefer:

MarkyP 1:19

"And thou shalt not quote bible passages as the SWPP shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentance as the Bible and it bores the crap outta me"

 

[Simmotino]

I think I prefer:

MarkyP 1:19

"And thou shalt not quote bible passages as the SWPP shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentance as the Bible and it bores the crap outta me"

Can I come to your church?

 

[AliB]

Goes off singing "Church of the poisoned mind"

 

[MarkyP]

Goes off singing "Church of the poisoned mind"

lol, I've no issues with religion, and respect those that "believe" but this thread isn't about that, it's a discussion and debate about the SWPP and they have nothing to do with "believing"

 

[Wildsnaps]

lol, I've no issues with religion, and respect those that "believe" but this thread isn't about that, it's a discussion and debate about the SWPP and they have nothing to do with "believing"

I believe you are right

Simon

 

[POAH]

I think I prefer:

MarkyP 1:19

"And thou shalt not quote bible passages as the SWPP shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentance as the Bible and it bores the crap outta me"

both are a load of rubbish TBF lol

 

[MarkyP]

ok, time to get back on topic.

It would appear that the SWPP are sending out letters to members of other trade organisations saying that the member has been accepted into SWPP membership without it being requested.

I quote:

"Some members have notified us that they have received letters from SWPP stating that they have been accepted into SWPP membership, without their knowledge. Should you receive one, we suggest that you return the letter to SWPP and ask to be removed from their database/website, etc., unless of course you wish to become an SWPP member."

Now if this is happening, and members of other trade organisations are being signed up without their knowledge or consent, one can only assume that membership is being given free of charge to boost the numbers of SWPP members.

If this is the case, and if I was a member of the SWPP I would be fuming, WHY is the £99 membership fee being waived for some and not for others.

Why are some people who WANT to join being charged, when others who have not expressed an interest to join are being offered it free to entice them in.

Surely this is not only bad for the paying members, but also totally dilutes the quality of those entering as now not only can ANYONE join to begin with, but now it looks like you can get in for free.

Maybe time for some SWPP members to ask some searching questions.

 

[jolsterj]

ok, time to get back on topic.

It would appear that the SWPP are sending out letters to members of other trade organisations saying that the member has been accepted into SWPP membership without it being requested.

I quote:

"Some members have notified us that they have received letters from SWPP stating that they have been accepted into SWPP membership, without their knowledge. Should you receive one, we suggest that you return the letter to SWPP and ask to be removed from their database/website, etc., unless of course you wish to become an SWPP member."

Now if this is happening, and members of other trade organisations are being signed up without their knowledge or consent, one can only assume that membership is being given free of charge to boost the numbers of SWPP members.

If this is the case, and if I was a member of the SWPP I would be fuming, WHY is the £99 membership fee being waived for some and not for others.

Why are some people who WANT to join being charged, when others who have not expressed an interest to join are being offered it free to entice them in.

Surely this is not only bad for the paying members, but also totally dilutes the quality of those entering as now not only can ANYONE join to begin with, but now it looks like you can get in for free.

Maybe time for some SWPP members to ask some searching questions.

It is the old ''new customers only'' theme.

It is not against the law to do this. [banks do it all the time with interest rates]

I cannot believe this thread is still going.


WHY

 

[MarkyP]

It is the old ''new customers only'' theme.

It is not against the law to do this. [banks do it all the time with interest rates]

I cannot believe this thread is still going.


WHY

Nope, nothing wrong with it whatsoever, a clever marketing scheme employed by many businesses.

The point I was trying to get across is that people can be signed up without their knowledge or consent and one assumes their details put onto the SWPP website.

Some may see this, their details appearing on the SWPP website, if indeed this is happening, as a negative instead of a positive. Not everyone wants to be associated with the SWPP.

 

[swanseamale47]

I suspect it is an offence to sign someone up to a paid for service by a private company without their consent, rermember theirs a "membership" fee while joining them up may be free (and we don't know for certain) the renewal fee won't be wavied I'm fairly sure.

 

[Wildsnaps]

I suspect it is an offence to sign someone up to a paid for service by a private company without their consent, rermember theirs a "membership" fee while joining them up may be free (and we don't know for certain) the renewal fee won't be wavied I'm fairly sure.

I find it difficult to believe that even the SWPP management would be stupid enough to try and make someone who'd been enrolled without consent, pay a renewal fee. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court.

Simon

 

[swanseamale47]

I find it difficult to believe that even the SWPP management would be stupid enough to try and make someone who'd been enrolled without consent, pay a renewal fee. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it went to court.

Simon

Then why would anyone pay the fee, we could all just wait to be enroled for nothing.