# Timberland



## jettdt (Aug 21, 2009)

I have no opinion either way on this company. I am concerned though that if this site is to have any credibility at all it has to allow both sides of the argument. I hope the other party has not been banned and is allowed to answer the allegations made against them.

Unless we see both sides we cannot make an informed opinion the owner of Timberland does sound sincere but that is very easy if others are being censored.

Can the mods confirm that Northernlad has been given the opportunity to reply? Obviously if he has and does not do so that speaks for itself.

I have absolutely no connection to either party but am increasingly wondering if this site is simply a propaganda tool for some companies to make themselves sound good.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

jettdt, I disagree. Northernlad10 had plenty to say in anonymity yesterday and we have just seen a reply from Kevin, identifying himself, to even things up. I don't like anonymous accusations.

For me that is sufficient. We do not want a war of words developing between two business on here, Alan.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

The posts by the member in question were the subject of several reports, and being possibly defamatory, were removed by the mods. 

We have no problems if he / she wishes to come on and submit posts that are not open to being interpreted as defamatory, and of course declare his / her interest in the matter. 


Mike

mods team


----------



## jettdt (Aug 21, 2009)

Thats what I was asking, is he free to post or has he been banned, if he is free to post then fine.

if he has been banned then we are only getting a one sided argument which then discredits it.

The post yesterday was closed pretty quickly therefore he did not necessarily have time to state his position, if he still can but chooses not to then there is no weight to what he was saying.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

jettdt said:


> Thats what I was asking, is he free to post or has he been banned, if he is free to post then fine.
> 
> if he has been banned then we are only getting a one sided argument which then discredits it.
> 
> The post yesterday was closed pretty quickly therefore he did not necessarily have time to state his position, if he still can but chooses not to then there is no weight to what he was saying.


Quite.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I dont think he/she should be allowed to post unless he discloses who he/she is first and why the posting was made.
Also if he is genuine, has he approached the new company to ask what they intend to do about his/her problem, before going onto this forum to say what he/she has said.

cabby


----------



## jettdt (Aug 21, 2009)

bognormike said:


> jettdt said:
> 
> 
> > Thats what I was asking, is he free to post or has he been banned, if he is free to post then fine.
> ...


Sorry I am not sure if that is a yes or no answer to my question.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Seems perfectly clear to me. 

BognorMike said "We have no problems if he / she wishes to come on and submit posts that are not open to being interpreted as defamatory, and of course declare his / her interest in the matter".

Alan.


----------



## jettdt (Aug 21, 2009)

But this is what a forum is for.. his initial post was a fact the company had gone into administration, any person about to buy a motorhome had a right to know that, when I was looking to buy I used this forum and hoped I was getting genuine impartial advice.

When planet generators went down no one had to post on their behalf they put the posting up themselves, that is someone I can respect. Timberaland only responded when someone else called them out am I really the only one that finds that fishy!!

Yes I agree that Northernlad may have an agenda but there just seems to be a lot of naivety about the impact people going into administration has on others... Or perhaps others have agendas too.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS (Jul 24, 2006)

Had northerlad not posted and Timberland responded we would have been non the wiser.
Timberland would have carried on with no undeserved publicity.
Customers would have been happy and confidence would have remained.
lets not forget the quality product that has been saved.
Its not gone to China or India like so many manufacturing jobs.
Small suppliers may not have been paid Sadly that is a risk in business. It happened to me 20 years ago with a large manufacturer.
I carried on business with the new owners, remember BL but on a pay for last months order before we deliver this months.

dave p


----------



## jettdt (Aug 21, 2009)

DTPCHEMICALS said:


> Had northerlad not posted and Timberland responded we would have been non the wiser.
> Timberland would have carried on with no undeserved publicity.
> Customers would have been happy and confidence would have remained.
> lets not forget the quality product that has been saved.
> ...


Yep its that attitude that makes me realise that this forum cannot be trusted for its company reports and I wasted my £10.00.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

jettdt said:


> if he has been banned then we are only getting a one sided argument which then discredits it


I never saw the original post, but having looked at Northernlad's profile, he's not a subscriber, and he's got 5 posts remaining. That means that his post has been deleted, but more importantly - for me - it means that he signed up simply to make an anonymous and apparently-critical post as a "supplier".

That's not what the forum is for, is it. We've had this lots of times before - it's generally called "trolling" - such as with the venom posted about Desert Detours. I've never seen any reasoned debate by such individuals - they simply sign up, abuse their five free posts, and disappear without trace.

If the Mods have pulled this one, I have absolutely no difficulty with it.

Dougie.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

jettdt said:


> bognormike said:
> 
> 
> > jettdt said:
> ...


not sure what the question was? if it was "Is he free to post?" Yes, if he subscribes, because he has used up his 5 "free" posts.

my comment "quite" refers to your last paragraph.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

jettdt said:


> DTPCHEMICALS said:
> 
> 
> > Had northerlad not posted and Timberland responded we would have been non the wiser.
> ...


again, I'm not sure what you mean? DTP was apparently pointing out some of the none too good facts of business life. Why is that a comment on the Company Reports on MHF?


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

asprn said:


> jettdt said:
> 
> 
> > if he has been banned then we are only getting a one sided argument which then discredits it
> ...


Dougie 
Northernlad10 has used up all his 5 free posts - are you looking at somebody else?


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

bognormike said:


> Northernlad10 has used up all his 5 free posts - are you looking at somebody else?


I was looking at Northernlad - sorry. Are they two different accounts, or an attempt to carry on after running out?

Dougie.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

jettdt said, "Yep its that attitude that makes me realise that this forum cannot be trusted for its company reports and I wasted my £10.00."

I suppose that if you only had a single reason for joining, slating Timberland, you may have wasted your money. 

If, on the other hand you are interested in Motorhoming you will find it the best tenner you ever spent.

Since you have paid up why not tell us which it is? Alan.


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

erneboy said:


> I suppose that if you only had a single reason for joining, slating Timberland, you may have wasted your money.


Alan,

I think to be fair that as he joined just under a year ago & has posted 58 times, he's not just joined for one purpose.

Dougie.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

jettdt, sorry, I should have checked. Why not tell us what your interest is? 

Thanks Dougie, Alan.


----------



## jettdt (Aug 21, 2009)

Not sure what you mean? I have no interest beyond the reply I put on the other post. I will take back the £10.00 comment I have got my monies worth from this forum. Maybe after another 10 years in the hobby I will acquire the rose coloured specs a lot of you guys have been wearing. I repeat I have no agenda I live on the south coast I have a newly acquired Swift from a dealer who I am very happy with and have said so, it has has its problems and they have sorted them.

I was simply trying to put some balance into this situation and point out there is more to it, I apologise if it seemed aggressive.


----------



## JohnsCrossMotorHomes (Jul 21, 2007)

The original post was informative in that it did eventually make clear excactly what the position was as regards that business.

It then became a general discussion as to the way directors can evade their companies debts and then just spring up five minutes later with a so called clean sheet leaving suppliers and employess high and dry without a paddle being unsecured.

Of course the dear old Revenue make sure they dont loose out as being preferential creditors.

Its strange to me that with 'Phoenix companies' the same Directors can then buy the assets at a no doubt knock down price and if they are using their own money why didn't they be honourable and put the cash back in the business in the first place to pay suppliers and keep the business going in an honourable way.

I think it is totally wrong that people who have made a pigs ear of running a business are just allowed to start up again. Those business's should be put on the open market for ANYONE interested to be able to bid for them and not just done behind closed doors.

These comments are my own personal view and in no way are comments on the business in receivership but a comment in general.

Peter


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

jettdt said:


> Not sure what you mean? I have no interest beyond the reply I put on the other post. I will take back the £10.00 comment I have got my monies worth from this forum. Maybe after another 10 years in the hobby I will acquire the rose coloured specs a lot of you guys have been wearing. I repeat I have no agenda I live on the south coast I have a newly acquired Swift from a dealer who I am very happy with and have said so, it has has its problems and they have sorted them.
> 
> I was simply trying to put some balance into this situation and point out there is more to it, I apologise if it seemed aggressive.


thanks jettdt for your explanation, we do try to let all sides have their say on here 8) :wink:

Mike
Mods team


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Peter says, "Its strange to me that with 'Phoenix companies' the same Directors can then buy the assets at a no doubt knock down price and if they are using their own money why didn't they be honourable and put the cash back in the business in the first place to pay suppliers and keep the business going in an honourable way. "

Because the two sums of money would be vastly different. Rescuing the company would cost much more because eventually all due debts would have to be attended to. Taking over the company from receivership would cost very much less, a fraction as much, and of course leave many creditors in the lurch, Alan.


----------

