Conference terri::cars_uk

    Sounds horrific !
    
    Do you mean General Motors (the parent Co) or it's UK sub Vauxhall ?
    
    
    Stevie.

Where did this information come from?

	Ian

    How reliable is this source?, only spotlighting one manufacturer sounds
    more like a spoiler from some other manufacturer!.
    
    Richard

Also, isn't the base note a little slanderous, if it can't be proved ?

Steven

>                               -< Slanderous ? >-


Libel, it's written.

    PLS CAN YOU SEND ME A PHOTO COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT AS MYSELF AND MY
    CONLLEAGUES HAS EXPRESSED SO CONCERN IN THIS AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOWN
    MORE ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU MAY HAVE ON
    OTHER ISSUES
    KARL DYDERSKI @UCG (CF3)
    

	The BUAV, however laudable their moral stance, is an extremist
	group. I believe in the past their activities have included
	fire-bombing cars belonging to vetinary surgeons. I would not
	accept anything they said about GM's testing practices as true
	unless GM publicly confirmed or refused to deny it. I'd say
	that accusing GM of these practices in here was not only
	libelous, but also totally unfair as GM don't have the
	opportunity to defend themselves. If this report is true, of
	course, then GM are to be utterly condemned for continuing
	such disgraceful practices.

	JJ.

    Can you put me straight. Who or what are the BUAV ?
    
    Roy

    Ooops!
    
    Thanks .13 for the pointer.
    
    Roy

    If I were moderator of this conference, I'd delete .0; it's well
    outside PP&P.
    
    Laurie.

As far as I am aware BUAV is a non-violent organisation. The Animal
Liberation Front has given the casue a bad name, but not all pressure
groups are bombers.

Anyway, I think this is straying from the point. This should be investagated
and if proven, should be banned. But how can we do this, other than consumer
pressure?


	Ian

I was aware of the Anti-Vivisection Movement being the extremists.

    I've set note .0 hidden as, however correct it turns out to be, by
    writting it in an internal notes conference you are placing Digital in
    the position of being sued for libel.
    
    Richard

    .18 was my moderator position, my personal position is I don't like
    what it says, at all, I too find it horrifying. However, I'm very
    dubious about it's authenticity, especially as it's just one
    manufacturer and so extreme.
                                   
    I accept that it may have been sent from who the poster says it was,
    but whether it's official internally to the organisation, or whether
    it's true I'm more dubious about.             
    
    Richard

It has also been proved many times in the past that groups like these get hold 
of old information and portray it as current behaviour.

GM *MAY* have used these methods in the past, indeed there are many companies, 
not least arms manufacturers, who have used animals for this reason; there is 
really nothing to prove that they *STILL* use animals for this purpose.


These animal rights groups get sympathy from sensationalism.  There is more 
often than not, only a very tiny percentage of "truth" in their statements 
surrounded by a whole heap of guesswork and speculation.


Those photographs of vivisected animals that are displayed in shopping 
centres...none of those are current and most are over 10 years old.  I'd give 
them more credibility if their "proof" was recent.

    However old their "proof" may be, the companies concerned could, if
    they wished, publicly state they no longer did these things. Until they
    do, I will view them with suspicion.
    
    JohnK
    
    p.s. Never liked Vauxhalls anyway (-:

    
>    p.s. Never liked Vauxhalls anyway (-:

must be a Ford driver...

:-)

    .21 assumes they've been given an opportunity to do just that. It also
    presumes that this is the first time these charges have been levelled.
    It's perfectly possible that they have refuted this stuff several
    times and now simply ignore it.
    
    Laurie.

How about the person who posted .0, sending a photocopy of the leaflet
to Vauxhall, and asking for their comments.

It would be really interesting to read the reply!

Mark.

       <<< Note 1945.25 by NEWOA::DALLISON "and its cocked and loaded" >>>

>    Just bear all this in mind the next time you jump into your Nova GSI. 
>    
>    Think how many animals died for it.
 
Yes. Very profound. What is this? A piss-poor attempt to induce guilt
feelings in Vauxhall drivers? 

Dougie

	I'll say again - just because the BUAV state that GM are guilty
	of these practices does not make it so. GM do not have the
	opportunity to defend themselves in here, and so unless there is
	legally binding *proof* that they abuse animals in this was they
	should not be accused of doing so in here.

	JJ.

    
    Re.last
    
    I haven't seen many Nigel Mansells defending themselves in this
    conference recently ....

	To be pedantic, it doesn't matter to PP+P's whether you can substantiate
	it or not, it states you cannot transmit devaluing statements.

	I have clarified this with personnel before, and all they allow is
	xxx not recommended, you shouldn't say why, whatever proof you have.

	Heather

    
    re. .27
    I thought it was the BUAV who were doing the accusing? 
    Surely, we are just reading their accusations - I think we are capable of 
    making our own minds up about who the guilty parties are (and it's not
    the rabbits and pigs is it?)
    
    You seem very edgy on this issue Herr Quick - you don't drive a
    Vauxhall by any chance? :^)

>	I have clarified this with personnel before, and all they allow is
>	xxx not recommended, you shouldn't say why, whatever proof you have

I would not rely on Personnel for a legal opinion! I checked with the DEC legal
dept. some years ago now and they advised that phrases such as "not recommended"
were preferable to emotive statements however they said there is nothing wrong
with stating provable facts.

I am sure Digital would have no problem with statements such as "Acme Cars uses
animals for crash testing" if it were true.

If we examine .0 we will see it was received through the post source unknown.
Only subsequent replies have established it's source. We can also see from the
replies that neither the author of .0 or anyone else has contacted anyone of
authority on this matter to establish if it is fact. I got caught out once by
a well known environmental pressure group sending me false information, because
I acted on it and wrote the named companies letters, without first checking
their information.

The biggest danger for Digital would be if someone in the U.S. were to extract
the note and send it to the company named. You could say goodbye to this
conference for a start.

I recommend the topic is deleted until the facts have been verified.

Dave.

    .0
    >    Also, the manufacturers cars hold the top 
    >    4 positions for the 'most dangerous vehicles' (source: Insurance 
    >    Institute for Highway Safety Status Report, April 13, 1991).
    
    Strange, I seem to recall Vauxhall coming out rather well in safety
    statistics, with Italian and Eastern European manufacturers doing
    badly.
    
    Dave

    .33
    
    Maybe it's because the farmyard animals driving the Vauxhalls are
    better at avoiding collisions than the dummies in the Italian and
    Japanese rivals.

re.33:

That's because .0 is refering to another company in another country.

Dave.

       <<< Note 1945.32 by NEWOA::DALLISON "and its cocked and loaded" >>>

>    
>    .26
>    
>    Nisbet,
>    
>    I wouldn't say it was a 'piss poor' ...

I would. In fact, I did.

Dougie

From todays Telegraph, reprinted without permission
(opposite the picture of a brain with the Digital logo)

Animal Welfare charities, even respected ones, still get it wrong
sometimes.
---

"Fur charity in survival plea"

The anti-fur trade charity Lynx [ ... ] launched a #50,000 appeal yesterday
to stave off bankruptcy.

The charity said it had been crippled by a High Court ruling last week
ordering it to pay #40,000 damages and #250,000 costs in a libel action
brought by a fur farmer in Halifax."

-------

As far as the "GM must be guilty" thing goes...

Let's take a hypothetical case.   I have decided that I don't like you, X, for 
some reason or another, I have made and distributed posters with a picture of a
6 year old child, with your name in big letters and some statement such as "X
abused this child, sign up here to get X prosecuted". 

You, X, can do two possible things here:

    You, as X ignore this as rediculous, because you know you are innocent.

    You, as X deny this because you know you are innocent.


In both cases, this is taken as proof that you must be guilty.   You end up 
being prosecuted for child-abuse because of the emotive campaign, lots of 
either real evidence from another case entirely, or just simply manufactured 
evidence.


This exactly the method used by these anti-vivisectionist groups to see if 
enough mud will stick to companies, so that their campaign funds 
swell...because that is really what it is all about...you get enough people 
getting emotional about these photographs, and a not insignificant number will 
send money to the group to fund their activities.

    .33 > That's because .0 is refering to another company in another country.
    
    The name referred to in .0 is "Vauxhall".
    
    Dave

Well, if Digital had had those Lynx people in their marketing department,
Digital would have been Number 1 for the last 5 years !!! 

I'm just loving this I'll say something and if they don't reply
 or try and sue me they must be guilty stuff....

The onus is not for a company to prove it's innocence, it's for you to
 PROVE their guilt.

One poster proves nothing.

Please refer me to material (NOT SUN or NEWS of the WORLD stuff) so that 
 this can be cross checked. 

       <<< Note 1945.40 by NEWOA::DALLISON "and its cocked and loaded" >>>

>    We're not talking about some piddly little company that can't be
>    bothered to deny these allegations. We're talking about a major
>    international company that could get lawyers to bury an organisation
>    such as the BUAV without thinking twice.

Perhaps they have decided it is a damage limitation exercise.

At the moment, they are being targetted by an emotive campaign by BUAV
which may or may not be true. The target audience of BUAV's campaign will
probably plateu, and we will have a situation where xx% of people boycott
Vauxhall, write to their MPs, or participate in some other anti-Vauxhall
activity.

If Vauxhall decide to take BUAV to court, it doesn't matter whether or not
they are guilty of the allegations. This kind of publicity won't do them
any good, and the press will search for any skeletons in the cupboard, or
minor cases of bad practice, and sensationalize them. Some of the mud will
stick, even if it's completely different mud from the stuff which brought
the case to court in the first place, and yy% of people will have a revised
opinion of Vauxhall.

It reminds me of the Elton John Vs the Sun case. Elton had a cast iron
case, and the Sun were ready to lose a vast amount of money. (This is
beyond the 1million they paid out). But EJ was aware that it would be a
long court case, and he would have to go into lots of unsavoury details of
his personal life in court if he wanted to skin the Sun. He decided it
wasn't worth it. He didn't need the money.

It isn't a brilliant comparison because obviously one case is an
individual, and the other is a big multi. What I'm saying is that Vauxhall
possibly think it will damage them less to let this current BUAV campaign
run its course, than sue BUAV for damages. 

Dougie

    There is also the view that if, as a result of all these dead animals,
    a single child or OAP survives being hit by an Astra/Calibra/Cavalier
    surely it's worth it ?
    
    M: (Heading for cover under the table).
    

    
    Re .47
    
    No it doesn't.
    
    Mark

	Re .47

	Tony, .0 contained assertions, NOT facts. Just to put it into
	perspective, if a potential Dec customer said to you "we would
	buy your kit but someone told us you chew live frogs while you're
	working" you'd be pretty upset, non? And if they said "this is a
	fact because the BUAV said it was" you'd be even more irate. You
	cannot condemn a manufacturer on nothing more than *hearsay*.

	JJ (who doesn't drive a Vauxhall).

    Re .47
    
    You seem to be having trouble reading your own note.
    
    Dave

Did anyone see the TV prog last night about VW and the early days ?

The use of slave labor , polish and Russian during the second world war .    

They deny it all happened now .


                KR

    I don't see that this is worth the discussion (not that that's ever
    made any difference).
    
    Laurie.

>>	I have clarified this with personnel before, and all they allow is
>>	xxx not recommended, you shouldn't say why, whatever proof you have
>
>I would not rely on Personnel for a legal opinion! 


	I didn't check with them for a legal position, I checked with them 
	for a PP+P position, which as an employee, and moderator, I am bound by.

	Heather

    Vauxhall cars are not recommended.
    
    JK
    
    p.s. This company is getting seriously BORING.

    
    I recommend Vauxhall cars...but mine's got a dead cat
    
    Can I say dead cat in this note? :^)
    
    Mark

    Only if you say it as you would "dead Maxwell"
    
    John (-:

    
    	I'm usually not to interested in the goings on of such
    organisations,I do however drive a vauxhall,and with the amount of EMS
    problems your Calibras seem to have and now this *accusation*,i'm
    certainly not going to buy another.Those of you that regularly read the 
    notes will know that i'm constantly arguing about the quality of Fords
    against Vauxhalls,but now with the trouble i've had and other
    things,Vauxhalls are off my menu.
    
    		A disillutioned
    			Andy..

>>                    -< I'll probably go for Ford Options! >-
    
>>    problems your Calibras seem to have and now this *accusation*,i'm
    
    I wonder what Ford are alleged to do that would disgust us?
    
    Mark (Who would not consider any Ford - except, perhaps, a Cossie).
    

>>    I wonder what Ford are alleged to do that would disgust us?
    
    Make Escorts ? ;-)
    
    Terry

    
    Allegedly! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    I am disappointed that the moderators have allowed this note to
    continue and have set the base note readable again without bothering to
    try to get the other side's view - so I phoned Vauxhall in Luton and
    spoke to their Press Office (0582-21122) about these allegations.
    
    They say that at one stage General Motors used animals in crash testing
    but that it was discontinued years ago.  Of course, since Vauxhall is
    part of the GM group, the BUAV have decided to pick on them.  Vauxhall
    have NEVER used animals for testing and they are somewhat upset by the
    actions of the BUAV to say the least.
    
    I have asked Vauxhall to send me their comments and I will post them to
    this conference as soon as they arrive. 
    
    Gerry.
    
    P.S I fully believe in the testing of chemicals, drugs, shampoos, hair
    sprays and everything else on furry cuddly little animals if it helps
    to releive some aspect of human suffering or furthers research into
    human ailments.  Just so you know where I'm coming from.
    
    

    So we will have the position where the BUAV have stated their opinion,
    Vauxhalls obvious forthcoming denial.
    
    Neither of which are proveable without further evidence.
    
    I would not be put off of Vauxhall *if* they can prove that this
    practice has been ceased... (it's their waiting time that hacks me
    off).
    
    This conference has perhaps not been the best media to use to highlight
    the allegations, though there is evidence to suggest that certain parts
    of the car industry has used this sort of testing in the past.
    
    I can only applaude those in this conference who have stated an
    intention not to purchase from a particular munufacturer on principle. 
    I cannot however agree which those in this conference who point blank
    refuse to beleive that this practice continues... Until proven
    otherwise (as with so many of the LAWS in this country) you are guilty
    by implecation.
    
    So enough of the high & mighty positioning.
    
    If there is a case to answer for animal cruelty, then it should be
    pursued through the courts (I relise that even those proved guilty end
    up with a slap on the wrist, but hopefully the publicity and loss of
    revenue would be enough), and if the practice has been stopped then
    dates would be a useful measurement!
    
    Bob 

RE:  .62

If the author of this is not serious of the PS then i apologise.

> P.S I fully believe in the testing of chemicals, drugs, shampoos, hair
>    sprays and everything else on furry cuddly little animals if it helps
>    to releive some aspect of human suffering or furthers research into
>    human ailments.  Just so you know where I'm coming from.
   

Well, when the animal population becomes the higher and more intelligent species
(won't be long now! ;-)) i hope you don't mind them experimenting on you to find 
out if it's hurts when they pour chemicals down every orifice on your body etc...

If they're going to do that, why don't they get closer to the point and try it
out on humans? Oh yea, sorry i forgot... humans can complain.

Nauseating. Just so you know where i'm coming from...

	re .62, I don't understand how you can believe one set of
	people without evidence and not believe another.  The proof
	criteria should the be same in both cases, otherwise you
	are being biased.  Not having seen the base note I can only
	suspect what is claimed to have been going on, but unneccessary
	use of animals for testing is not what I believe in.  However,
	I do believe in certain medical testing.  This is, of course,
	skating on thin ground, the drawing of the moral line is tricky.

	re .63 eh?  It is going to take a seriously long time for another
	intelligent species (just how do you define "intelligent"?) to
	evolve and start using us for hair spray testing.  There again,
	do dolphins use hair spray?

	Dave

    How anyone could decide not to buy Vauxhall on the strength of this
    topic is beyond me entirely.
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. I believe the moderators were VERY ill-advised to open .0 again.

    
    The comment about Vauxhall's delay in denying this story sounds a
    little odd.
    
    I've ONLY encountered this story in this note and, vital though CARS_UK
    is (:^)), I doubt whether word of it has got out to GM HQ yet. Has
    anyone seen this story reported in the press, on TV, or (other than 
    the original noter) been given the leaflet in question?
    
    Sadly, it seems that making mud stick is very easy, but cleaning it off
    if it unjustly hit you, seems virtually impossible.
    
    The person who said that GM are guilty by implication must, presumably, 
    also believe that all Irish passport holders in the UK are terrorist 
    suspects?
    
    Mark
    
    PS My position is, I abhor animal testing, but I've seen the
    semi-truths and distortions trooped out by many groups in the aid of
    their cause (Just witness a political broadcast!) too many times to
    believe, that just because a group says something is true, it is.

    RE .63... DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND ME...
    
    Being guilty until proven innocent is a fact of law in this country.
    
    The bit about "Beleive all Irish passport holders support the IRA..."
    is total garbage. It is this sort of nonsence that clouds issues.
    
    There is one simple way to settle this - BAUV produce their evidence,
    GM produce theirs, and let a jury decide. (Not a LAW LORD... nor a
    panal of Blood sport enthusistic judges!)
    
    Bob
    (I am anti vivisection, especially since it is no longer needed for
    well over 90% of tests carried out.) 

    Mr Quick...
    
    Please check with your local Law Enforcers... 
    
    There are a number of "Offences" where the onus is on the accused to
    prove innocense....
    
    Point of FACT: A friend had a breakdown in the middle of town in the
    niddle of the night, was walking to the nearest garage... about 3/4
    mile, was stopped by the police, searched, found a pocket knife in his
    pocket, was charged and brought to court on the charge of possesion of
    an offencive weapeon. (sp)  When he asked to prove innocense or
    mitigating circumstances, he was told that the onus was upon him to
    prove!
    
    Or in other words Guilty until proven innocent.
    
    Bob

    I'll echo .69
    
    If this gets out, this conference will close down, and half the others
    on the net will get caught in the backlash.
    
    Laurie.

    I have no problem with wiping out this particular note.
    
    At least it will put some sanity back in here.  Although I have a
    feeling that there is going to be a backlash anway.
    
    Bob

    > Being guilty until proven innocent is a fact of law in this country.
    > 
    > The bit about "Beleive all Irish passport holders support the IRA..."
    > is total garbage. It is this sort of nonsence that clouds issues.
    
    I'm glad I did misunderstand you, but guilty until proved innocent is
    NOT a fact of any English law I'm aware of. If GM choose to sue BUAV,
    the weight of evidence is on them to prove the allegations false, but 
    the fact that they (so far) have not done so, does not make them guilty
    of anything.
    
    Taking the Irishmen comment, if someone told you this was true, you'd
    (presumably) think them an idiot, but there seems nothing beyond a
    second hand allegation to suggest that GM do (or have any more than any
    other company - I suspect at some point most of them did) carry out 
    testing on animals.
    
    Mark

	Re .70 - No, you're wrong. Your friend *was* carrying an offensive
	weapon, there was no doubt of that from what you've said. He was
	guilty of that offense, but might have been able to provide
	mitigating circumstances, but, also from what you've said, he
	couldn't. The law under all circumstances is that you're innocent
	until proven guilty, and in the case you've quoted the police had
	evidence to prove your friend's guilt (no matter how unreasonable
	the charge may have been in the first place).

	Any law graduates out there care to comment?

	JJ.

    Re. .69 & .71
    
    I'm currently trying to contact Richard (::RDAVIES) to discuss
    this note.
    
    I don't know why .0 was set readable again. I think there is nothing
    wrong with continuing this discussion but no external company names
    should be discussed.
    
    The course of action I would suggest is that all replies mentioning
    the company in question should be set hidden.
    
    Roy (mod)

    I suggest that the author of .0 sends a copy of the literature he
    received to the company in question and asks for their comments.
    
    Dave

    I accept you're point but I am still correct!  If at anytime, the onus
    is upon you to prove your innocence (as with GM if we are to belive
    evrything in the note), you are presumed to be guilty.  The LAW may not
    state this in writing, but in essense this is the case.
    
    RE: the base note,
    
    I believe the base note was well intentioned, if ill-advised.  Yes, we
    do need to here about this sort of accusation, but we need to here from
    another source.
    
    Bob

    re:        <<< Note 1945.62 by BOUTYE::MULLAN "My God! Its full of stars" >>>

    
>>    I am disappointed that the moderators have allowed this note to
>>    continue and have set the base note readable again without bothering to
>>    try to get the other side's view - so I phoned Vauxhall in Luton and
>>    spoke to their Press Office (0582-21122) about these allegations.
    
    I strongly refute that! I set it hidden, neither Roy Shelley nor I have
    set it readable again. Either Brendan did (I can't see why) or else
    some one with techie knowledge is fiddling with the note.
    
    I had RE SET IT HIDDEN PLEASE DO NOT SET IT READABLE AGAIN.
    
    Richard 

    Only those with moderator privileges, or the poster of the note in
    person can change the status of a note. It is possible to hack *some*
    conferences and gain temporary moderatorship, but this should be
    traceable. I would be willing to test this one if the mods will
    guarantee that I'm immune from prosecution on hacking charges!
    
    Laurie.

I wonder what Tony would have done if the BUAV had sent him a similar leaflet
accusing Digital of animal testing.

Regarding, the note becoming readable, I set the same entry hidden in
UK_Digital, Tony then set it readable again, I then deleted it.

Dave.

    If the letter was addressed to previous tenants isn't the author of
    note .0 committing an offence by opening mail addressed to someone
    else!

    RE: .81
    
    I don't blame you Dave. It was irresponsibility taken to an art form.
    
    Laurie.

    Oh well, this topic hasn't yet managed 100 replies.
    
    Not very good response for a seasoned EF92 stirrer, eh ?
    
    J.R.

    Yup,
    
    I set the note nohidden for two reasons :-
    
    1) I was initially expecting/looking forward to a factual discussion on
       these allegations. Perhaps I was daft enough to think that one might
       actually develop.
    
    2) I did not agree with the reasons for setting the note hidden.
    
    Note has now been deleted, lets go back to slagging off Mansell and
    Ford drivers shall we. Seems to be the intellectual capacity of this
    conference.

    re :
>>       <<< Note 1945.85 by NEWOA::DALLISON "and its cocked and loaded" >>>

>>    Yup,
    
>>    I set the note nohidden for two reasons :-
    
>>    1) I was initially expecting/looking forward to a factual discussion on
>>       these allegations. Perhaps I was daft enough to think that one might
>>       actually develop.
    
>>    2) I did not agree with the reasons for setting the note hidden.
    
>>    Note has now been deleted, lets go back to slagging off Mansell and
>>    Ford drivers shall we. Seems to be the intellectual capacity of this
>>    conference.

    Fine, so you think your opinion is worth loosing the conference and the
    company being taken to court!
    
    DON'T DO THIS. THE REASON IT WAS SET HIDDEN WAS VALID (SLIGHTING
    ANOTHER COMPANY AND NOT I REPEAT NOT PROVABLE). YOU SHOULD AT LEAST
    DISCUSS THIS WITH THE MODERATORS FIRST BEFORE TAKING A CONTRARY ACTION.
    
    IF YOU ARE IN ANY DOUBT PLEASE REFER TO 1.19 IN THIS CONFERENCE!
    
    RICHARD DAVIES MODERATOR
    

    
    Richard,
    
    In repsonce to .86 and to the mail you sent me;
    
    Had people discussed the allegations themselves in an objective manner, and 
    not bleeted on about if it should or shouldn't here we would have 
    displayed an objective point to anyone observing and therefore wouldn't be 
    seen to slagging anyone off.
    
    Not my fault that some people are more interested than standing on a
    soapbox and strut their stuff rather than discuss an important issue.
    
    -Tony

    Tony,
    
    The manner and type of discussion of the topic makes no difference to
    the fact that it was contrary to PP&P to post it. It also makes no
    difference to the danger that it would have been yet another nail in
    the coffin of non-work-related noting. The note should not have been
    posted in the first place, and by doing so you risked closure of this
    and every other employee interest conference on the net. In ignorance,
    that was excusable. Given the comments and the moderator's action in
    hiding it, your unhiding it was irresponsible and selfish. In short,
    inexcusable.
    
    I find your posturing in your own defence distasteful.
    
    Laurie.

	I agree with you Tony that it's an important issue, but it's still
	the case that an allegation was made against a company that had
	no opportunity to defend itself as it doesn't have access to Dec's
	network. How would you feel if it was *you* that were being
	libelled in a notes conference somewhere, maybe as a result being
	prevented from getting work within a particular organisation, and
	with no chance to defend yourself? A lot of people read these
	conferences which makes them quite a powerful media, and many of
	them are posted on Internet or whatever which is a public service
	(dunno about cars_uk though).

	JJ.

Just as an aside...


since when did GM = Vauxhall = GM ??????

Vauxhall is just a small part of GM.

    So,
    
    As somebody else mentioned - does this mean we are no longer allowed to
    say 'XXX cars are crap' or 'XXX is crap driver' ?
    
    These are, after all, personal opinions but as we are obviously
    representing Digital with our thoughts, can we really aford to say
    anything about anybody or anything in such a high profile yet sensative
    public media ?
    
    Laurie, had someone I respected wrote your note then I would have given
    it a great deal of consideration, but seeing as its you, and having
    been at the business end of many of your personal attacks, I couldn't 
    give a four X.
    
    -Tony

    Suit yourself ::DALLISON, your peers have judged and will continue to
    judge. That, at least, should bother you.
    
    Laurie.

>       <<< Note 1945.85 by NEWOA::DALLISON "and its cocked and loaded" >>>
>
>    Yup,
>    
>    I set the note nohidden for two reasons :-
>    
>    1) I was initially expecting/looking forward to a factual discussion on
>       these allegations. Perhaps I was daft enough to think that one might
>       actually develop.
>    
>    2) I did not agree with the reasons for setting the note hidden.

I am astonished. No 2) especially, is in my opinion, a very unprofessional
and reckless way to behave. I am also concerned that you appear to be a
moderator in other conference(s).

Dougie

    As a moderator, I am concerned that the author of a hidden note can 
    change it to unhidden.
    
    Obviously this is intended behaviour of the NOTES s/w.
    
    Roy

re: .95

We know a rathole about that, don't we?

    
    .94
    
    Why should the fact that I have six years of Vax notes and moderation
    experience bother you ?

I understand the strength of feeling behind the posting of the note. If Tony had
been willing to chat about it, I'd would have been willing to help him further
the cause. Going behind my back left me with one alternative - deletion.

Dave.

because we would have thought you'd get it right after all that time ?

    
    .100 (congratulations)
    
    Fair enough comment Dave, but I think I would have been very willing to
    chat about it, even on a personal 'lets have a coffee sometime' level,
    however, the EF92 rabble found their way in and chose to ignore the
    issue (allegations) I was trying to portray, and instead chose to 
    concentrate on whether it was right to put this here - I feel this issue 
    would be better discussed in a Moderator related note as it killed any 
    further debate.
    
    Top that off with a healthy does of pedantic-ism (if there is such a
    word, I'm sure the seasoned EF92ers here will correct me) and whola - you 
    have a pi$$ed of Tony.
    
    -Tony 

    
>>   <<< Note 1945.101 by SBPUS4::Mark "Life ? Don't talk to me about life." >>>
>>
>>   because we would have thought you'd get it right after all that time ?
    
    
    Perfect example of what I mentioned in .102

      <<< Note 1945.102 by NEWOA::DALLISON "and its cocked and loaded" >>>

>    however, the EF92 rabble found their way in and chose to ignore the
>    issue (allegations) I was trying to portray, and instead chose to 
>    concentrate on whether it was right to put this here

We (well not me) have a vested interest in whether it should be here, since
this sort of dynamite can threaten employee interest noting, and the issue
itself would be academic, if there were no employee interest notesfiles to
discuss them in.

Interestingly enough, I would imagine that a significant proportion of the
'EF92 Rabble' sympathise with the cause (as I do), but do not care for the
way it has been presented.

Dougie

    
    .104
    
    I don't feel that the original base note was at all biased. I entered
    the facts that I recieved. I had no facts from the company mentioned
    so I could not enter them. 
    
    Maybe I should have entered the note without giving the identity of said 
    company away but I would then have to reply to x thousand mails from 
    people enquiring as to their identity.
    
    Maybe I shouldn't have entered this information at all. But then, maybe
    somebody reading this did at least feel it was interesting enough for
    them to consider that it *might* be true, and for them to investigate
    for themselves before purchasing their next vehicle. In all honesty its
    *not* an atempt to put people off of Vauxhall. Just to state the facts
    as I understood them.
    
    -Tony

    
    I've been reading this with interest, firstly on the original note, the
    fact that someone entered in here information presented to him by a
    third party would not lead anyone open to a court case case of libel, 
    after all the fact that the TV news and other newspapers reported the 
    case of Jason Donovan sueing the SUN or MIRROR (cant remember which) for 
    calling him a homosexual did not leave them open to litigation. The
    issue is between those that wrote the original and the accused, whoever 
    they may be. 
    
    As for the rest of the drivel written here by some, its obviously
    written to provoke the original noter, why not take it to EFblah where
    you can play all day as most of you do.  
       
    Oh, and just a few miles from here there's a small town where testing
    for the benifit of airline pilots was undertaken about 50 years ago,
    they didn't use animals though they used human's. One persons idea of
    a lower life form could be you. just so you know where I'm coming from.
    
    

    .100> however, the EF92 rabble found their way in and chose to ignore the
        > issue (allegations) I was trying to portray, and instead chose to 
        > concentrate on whether it was right to put this here 
    
    From a quick scan through a sample of the previous replies, I would say
    that the majority of them do not concentrate on that. There does seem
    to be a large dose of skepticism about the accuracy of the information.
    
    Perhaps that is what is really pi$$ing you off.
    
    Dave
    
    
    
     

    Mr Moderator:
    
    Can we DELETE (not SET HIDDEN) this whole string, please?
    
    The last 50-odd replies have nothing to do with CARS, whether _UK or
    not. There are other conferences for this kind of discussion.
    
    D.

    
    .107
    
    You may be right, but I think the chap in .106 may be closer to the
    truth.

	Whatever it is the author of .106 is close to, it sure isn't the
	truth...

	JJ.

	P.s. I'd second deleting the entire topic.

    Ah..... The return of the continuity director. Now I really DO feel at
    home! 
    
    Dougie
    

    
    Who said ya cant teach an old dog new tricks ..............
    
    
    

    As regular reader of this notesfile I found the base note interesting.

    And it seems that at least in the pass the referred car maker used
    animals for crash testing. Probably other car makers did the same. I
    thing this is the most important message to retain from .0. 

    I disagree that the note was hidden, deleted or whatever. The
    arguments presented here to justify it are not convincing, at least to
    me. I think the readers have the right to judge by themselves on the
    actions of cars makers. 

    I also suggest that the mods discussion take place by mail. I am much
    more interested on the subject of .0 than on offended moderators trying
    to justify themselves. 

    RUI

    Well, This is the next time I got to read this after my note in
    ( .80ish?). There's obviously a lot of feeling about this subject
    
    1	about the legitimacy of the original note
    2	about the actions of the poster
    3	about moderators skills and judgement.
    
    Tony, I address you directly, I agree there is concern on the content
    expressed in your original note. Where it oversteps the mark is in
    attributing without substantiation OR the right of reply to a specific
    manufacturer.
    
    As a long standing moderator you should have realised this, but I feel
    your emotions over the content outweighed this. I have write locked
    this note to close discussions of this issue in relation to a specific
    manufacturer and discussions of your actions.
    
    If you wish to re-raise the issue then please do so at a later date
    having obtained more corroberating evidence. (So far I've NOT seen
    anything of this anywhere else in news or from other groups.)
    
    To re raise it now is counter-productive as 
    a	to many people know who you are referring to, and
    b	to many people doubt the authenticity of the content.
    
    Richard

    I received the following mail, from someone who has followed up with 
    GM/Vauxhall on the issue raised. I don't comment either way, and for 
    now I'd like to keep it that way, so the topic will remain write 
    locked.
    
    Richard
    

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     20-Nov-1992 08:48 GMT
                                        From:     MULLAN
                                                  MULLAN@BOUTYE@ROCKS@MRGATE@ROCKS@REO
                                        Dept:      
                                        Tel No:    

TO:  RDAVIES@A1


Subject: Topis 1945 - The other side of the story

    
    The following is the reply I received from Vauxhall when I queried the 
    BUAV claims about animal testing.  Vauxhall are extremely concerned as 
    they had had several queries on the subject so obviously the author of 
    .0 wasn't the only one to be taken in by the claims of BUAV.  
    
    And you will note that GM/Vauxhall were instrumental in the design and 
    development of the present anthropomorphic crash dummies.  I leave you 
    to draw your own conclusions now that you have both sides of the 
    argument.
    
    Vauxhall Motors Ltd
    Griffin House
    Osborne Road
    Luton LU1 3YT
    Tel. 0582 21122
    
    Dear Mr Mullan
    
    Thank you for your recent telephone enquiry, and I hope the following 
    will help to allay your concerns.
    
    Animals are not used in research by Vauxhall, or associated European 
    operations.  For this reason, we are not able to provide detailed 
    comment on newspaper and other reports, but have obtained the following 
    information from General Motors in the United States which puts the 
    issue into perspective from their standpoint.
    
    "General Motors in the USA are now virtually out of animal research 
    except for some toxicological studies.
    
    Research carried out as long ago as 17 years (which did not involve 
    vehicle crash tests) was vital to the development of anthropomorphic 
    dummies and computer models, which were pioneered by GM for the entire 
    industry.  These dummies are now in universal use throughout the motor 
    industry.
    
    Animals have not been mistreated or caused pain during these studies.  
    Not only is this a requirement of GM's research laboratories in the US, 
    but GM is also required to comply with US Government guidelines.
    
    GM effectively conducted research on behalf of the entire industry, 
    avoided the necessity for duplication by other companies.  Research 
    results have been widely recorded in medical literature, the data 
    freely available to and used by other manufacturers, in the cause of 
    safeguarding health and safety of vehicle users and the wider 
    community."
    
    You can be assured that your views will be passed on to the 
    Headquarters of General Motors in Detroit,.
    
    I hope this proves helpful.
    
    Yours sincerely
    
    
    
    TOM DOBBYN
    Manager, Corporate and Business Affairs
    
    

VMSmail To information: Moderators of conference CARS_UK
Sender's personal name: My God! Its full of stars