Page 2 of 4
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:21 am
by Rich H
The homo-erotic leather-clad 'banter' and attempts at humour are dire, but uncovering the crooks is great.
As LLL says though, it's a shame when they lump together the foolish with the criminals. The aerial example was the most cynical, I thought. Conning that woman out of all that money after pouring drink in the socket, appalling.
They could do with a 'Rogue Traders Re-visited', following up on these guys - clearly criminal charges should be brought against some of them.
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:55 pm
by lutonlagerlout
seanandruby wrote:My brother has been a tree surgeon for years. He does'nt climb so much now. his job is to go round London logging all the trees and access what work needs doing to them, type of tree, height etc: Then he files it all on a computer for any work that needs doing.
i wonder what he thought of the rot in that sweet chesnut?
as a layman it looked pretty rotten to me ,but as with a lot of things if you ask 10 experts they will split 50/50
LLL
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:39 pm
by Dave_L
Agree, I hate the stupid 'humour' on Rogue Traders, not needed!
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:22 pm
by seanandruby
my wife reckons the portegues lad will/should have his own comedy show. i dont mind the comedy as we all take the p*** at work. its just the craic. 
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:34 am
by lutonlagerlout
yes but they are taking the p!ss out of lads trying to earn a living,albeit ignorant people (and some crooks )
for those who missed it ,here it is
rogue traders episode 3
the time stamp for the complete load of crap about block paving is 37.46
tbh i preferred roger cook's methods
block paving is "slightly" illegal!!! what does slightly mean? either its illegal or its not
if i had the money and the time i would demand a retraction on that little clip 
cheers LLL
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:18 pm
by Asbury
Using red bull to look like rusty water is very clever, only the crooks think of these things. if they would channel they clevererererness into proppa job, they might do ok.
The pressure washer man needed a hard punch in the gut I think, but what really gets me is, How on earth do these people get work of people when they act and talk like that to people, it really amazes me, how can people not click on that they are scum.
A camera team should just follow the tree dudes and film them cutting each others arms off for us to laugh at.
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:01 pm
by Tony McC
Complaint made to BBC......
As owner and administrator for pavingexpert.com, the world’s largest and busiest website dedicated to paving methods and materials in Britain and Ireland, I’m disturbed and disappointed by the inaccuracies regarding the legislation for front garden paving presented as fact in your program, Watchdog, shown on BBC1 on Monday, March 16th 2009.
The opening statement, that a non-permeable pavement “needs planning permission� is incorrect. It would only require planning permission if it was drained onto the public highway or into the existing house drains.
Next, how can anything be “slightly illegal�? It is either illegal, or it is not. There is no grey area.
Thirdly, the impermeable paving which Matt Allwright incorrectly labelled as “slightly illegal� is not, in fact, illegal, slightly or otherwise. It’s perfectly legal as long as it is correctly drained.
In the voiceover segment by Mr Allwright, he declares the new law states that front garden paving “must be permeable�, which is, at best, a partial explanation of the legislation. He does not qualify that statement to give the full picture, namely that a soakaway or rain garden can also be used.
The legislation which came into force last October does not outlaw any form of paving: it requires that non-permeable surfaces must deal with the surface water on-site, by means of a soakaway, a rain garden or similar arrangement. Where this is not possible and the only alternative is to drain onto the public highway or into the existing drainage system, planning permission will be required.
It’s disappointing that you chose to use the Enfield facility provided by one particular modular concrete manufacturer with a vested interest in selling more concrete block permeable paving (CBPP), and that your presenters failed to provide the viewing public with factually correct and accurate information. There was no mention of the many other forms of permeable paving, leaving the impression that only CBPP is legal.
This scaremongering has worried many of the contractors and homeowners using my website as they and their customers have now been told that perfectly legal and acceptable forms of paving are “illegal� thanks to the crass inaccuracy of this piece.
The correct information on the legislation is readily available on my website, and many others, and there have been extended discussions regarding the interpretation and implementation of the legislation on the site. A little research would have revealed this.
The paving trade is struggling right now, along with many other trades and industries. It is remiss of the BBC to broadcast misleading information that will cause further hardship for contractors by leading clients to believe their only option is to install a more expensive concrete block permeable paving system, and that any contractor telling them otherwise must be one of your “Rogue Traders�.
We are losing many of the skilled operatives from our trade in these trying times and poorly researched scaremongering masking as entertainment can only result in yet more experienced workers leaving the industry, depleting our skills and knowledge base.
Please broadcast an apology and a clarification at your earliest opportunity.
Yours sincerely,
Tony McCormack
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:24 pm
by lutonlagerlout
took the words right out of my mouth....
well said gaffer
LLL
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:32 pm
by williams
Nice one Tony, well worded
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:44 pm
by henpecked
Well worded and to the point, lets hope that sanctimonious tit Allwright is toast for the next series
HP
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:23 pm
by Tony McC
It's no good blaming the presenter: he's just the mouthpiece, blurting out words put there by the researchers and producers. Like him or not, Mr Allwright is not at fault, he's just been misled and, in turn, he's misled the British goggle-Box watching public.
No word back from the BBC yet depsite me specifically asking for an acknowledgement.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:10 am
by Suggers
I'm sure your mail/letter will be jumping round every desk in that production office - "Who's actually going to answer this?" - I can just hear it....
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:40 am
by Rich H
Hopefully the BBC has a procedure that requires processing of a formal complaint from industry leaders. If not, some harrassed graduate researcher who did their few hours on that episode many months ago and won't remember anything about it will be wondering whether they can get away with doing nothing with the letter at all.
Years ago I was on Tomorrow's World with a new technology. The producers didn't give a damn about what it did or how it worked, just wanted a good clip and soundbite. In the end what was broadcast missed the point of the thing completely, just showed the flashing lights rather than the really clever bits and was over and done with in under 15 seconds. A complete waste of two days in preparation and a day so-called 'filming'.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:33 pm
by lutonlagerlout
"tomorrow's world" that was an awesome 70's tv programme,i can remember them showing a car that ran on water and produced steam,they said by the millennium we would all be driving these,also robots that did the house cleaning
great tv though
LLL
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:50 pm
by Rich H
This was 1988! Still the same twaddle then, though. They liked nuclear toasters and jetpacks but not much from the world of science or engineering that actually meant something to people's lives.
