Guild of Battlefield Guides

[centurion]

Surely you can not just make up a qualification ?

Happens all the time in some parts of the world. Used to be (maybe still is) a little hut outside Bandung (Java) with some very sophisticated printers and software where for a modest fee you can have produced while you wait a very authentic looking certificate for any qualification in the world, real or imaginary, you care to specify and if you have invented the qualification they will even put it on some sort of 'international' register. But closer to home look at some of the portentous - sorry pretentious organisations quoted in some advertisements.

[ianjonesncl]

Ian; forgive me for not being able to quote the EXACT relevant information; I have no direct knowledge of the precise academic accreditation beyond the stated constitution of the Guild, which states that the qualification of 'badged status' is recognised at NVQ level. If this is indeed incorrect then I can only apologise and will take the issue up with the appropriate executive members.

Petroc

Many thanks, appreciate this is not the type of information one has to hand, indeed it was only as a result of trying to search for the qualification that I found Ofqual.

Ian

Happens all the time in some parts of the world. Used to be (maybe still is) a little hut outside Bandung (Java) with some very sophisticated printers and software where for a modest fee you can have produced while you wait a very authentic looking certificate for any qualification in the world, real or imaginary, you care to specify and if you have invented the qualification they will even put it on some sort of 'international' register. But closer to home look at some of the portentous - sorry pretentious organisations quoted in some advertisements.

Institute of Great War Forum Posters ?

[sjustice]

<snip>

Used to be (maybe still is) a little hut outside Bandung (Java)...

<snip>

Priceless

Cheers,

Simon

[Ice Tiger]

<snip> Institute of Great War Forum Posters ?

Ian

What is the joining fee & will I be awarded an NVQ equivalent qualification?

I may be interested in becoming a member but only if I am allowed to use InstGWFP after my name

Andy

[ianjonesncl]

Ian

What is the joining fee & will I be awarded an NVQ equivalent qualification?

I may be interested in becoming a member but only if I am allowed to use InstGWFP after my name

Andy

Andy

It will depend whether or not you have a GWF Badge

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=150534&st=0

Ian

[David Filsell]

Or a badger

[Steven Broomfield]

GWF Budgies. That's what we need. I'll design one.

GWF Budgie Smugglers also available.

[Tom Lang]

To all,

I just found this thread and got disinterested by the 3rd page.

This sounds like a bunch of old Colonel Bagshots bumping heads over a scheme to make themselves money, avoid tax, and satisfy their own self-importance over the graves of men & women who dug trenches and died.

And all while making sure that they 'earn' another 'badge' to feed their over-sized egos.

Surely there's enough examples throughout this Forum of many such Colonel Punka-Wallahs blabbering of their self-imposed rules & regulations, while blowing their own trumpet from a Chateau 25 miles behind the lines where men & women are dying, or even drowning in mud.

I even know some of those old fogeys today who want me to wear a jacket and tie at the 19th hole, even though no such requirement was ever considered or intended at the creation of the 19th hole.

But it gets 'sold' as just another scheme to 'brighten' the place up and 'keep the riff-raff away'. And they try to justify it to me because they're "... on the committee...".

If anyone wants to 'guide' others, do it as an act of remembrance. Otherwise stop feeling so 'self-important' - you're not.

The 'Guild' (and its existence) has my pity.

Kindest Regards,

Tom.

[judy7007]

As one who takes a lot of tours (battlefield and other historical) I have followed this with interest. I am becoming increasingly selective about tours and do research wherever possible on who is guiding. One thing I never look for is a badge of any sort. I look for reviews, listen to any first hand accounts (customers do a lot of talking about the guide both during and often after the tour), and if the guide has published I will endeavour to read at least some of what they have written to 'see where they are coming from' as it were. In my experience, qualifications (academic, military - including very senior - or otherwise) in no way guarantee the quality of the guiding. Post #201 is extremely relevant as far as I am concerned. It doesn't matter what badges or qualifications the guide has, if they don't have these attributes then the whole experience can become something to 'just endure'. I also found post #202 extremely relevant in that sometimes, when booking with a battlefield tour company, the customer is not advised in advance who will be guiding. In this case, knowing that the employer is satisfied with the guide, and having trust in that particular employer's judgement (because of reputation) is extremely important.

I don't recall much input on the thread from customers, but I doubt that I am the only one with these thoughts.

Judy

[Chris_Baker]

Pals may be interesting in an announcement made today ( found this on Facebook): "Guild Update - The Council is very pleased to announce that Anglia Tours have joined the Guild Partnership Scheme. Welcome on board Anglia."

http://www.angliatours.co.uk/ are a significant provider of battlefield tours for schools.

[salientguide]

To all,

I just found this thread and got disinterested by the 3rd page.

Then why on earth are you coming in on the 10th page? Do try and keep up that man! Lagging behind with a load of meaningless drivel what on earth is the point of your anecdote? Have you been turned down for the local golf club or something ( 19th hole?) and are taking it out on the Guild? Cheers SG ( AKA Colonel Bagshot, damn my true identity discovered at last!!)

[Chris_Baker]

The Guild has also now announced a partnership with Galloway Tours, another significant player in the tours market: http://www.travel-galloway.com/centenaryintroduction.php

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Chris - I did post a reply to your post #233, however it has "disappeared". I thought I had raised a valid and pertinent point in a very legitimate way, however I note from my inbox that there was an "excited" reply to my posting, which has also disappeared.

I feel obliged to record that I FIND THE REMOVAL OF MY REPLY TO #233 TO BE EXTREMELY HEAVY-HANDED AND UNJUSTIFIED MODERATING which has removed what I believe to be a very valid point from the topic. Nothing short of censorship, and, I'd have to say, a move showing heavy bias towards the guild. Is this a forum for adults, or five year olds ?

Tom

[Chris_Baker]

Not guilty, m'lud. I haven't been able to apply moderation of even a light-handed nature for some years now. I can only assumed that you transgressed ... not like you at all!

[centurion]

I suspect that where you went wrong was comparing the organisation with something that might be set up by Roderick Spode (see P G Wodehouse) or rather some one quite like him with a liking for sombre coloured shirts and rallying round at times. I hope that this is a sufficiently elliptic reference to survive but clear enough to be understandable.

I did think you were skating very close to the wind and said so (but that got purged as well).

[Roger H]

Very understandable!

Roger

[PMHart]

I congratulate the Moderators on their actions. Sorry that Tom occasionally excites me but I am a man of a certain age and he is just so damned attractive!!!!

Pete

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Clearly the GofBFGs has friends in the right places who are prepared to stifle criticism or questions as to the legitimacy of the modus operandi of the organisation and their "partner" organisations.

A Closed Shop is a closed shop, and it clearly looks like that is what is being aimed for.

Being forced to join an organisation (as the explained my last censored post) is not a legitimate way forward.

Tom

[AlanCurragh]

I hid your post, Tom. I have no interest or connection to the Guild and neither to my knowledge do any of the other moderators. The forum is for adults and 5 year olds, most of whom can hopefully make a point without referring to 1930's Germany or modern Trade Union legislation

And I find your suggestion that we stifle criticism of the Guild laughable - this thread has now run to 10 pages!

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

... 1930's Germany or modern Trade Union legislation ...

By inference you misrepresent the intent of my censored post. I was drawing attention to the illegitimacy of any organisation which one is forced to join (or not, at your peril). There is a clear movement here towards trying to create a Closed Shop in the battlefield touring / guiding industry.

Tom

[PMHart]

Hi chums,

I am totally gobsmacked to see Tom delivering such a left-wing diatribe against conscription. I would however remind him that without men being forced by conscription to join the army then we might well have lost both the First and Second World Wars. I also entirely refute his claim that the British Army is an illegitimate organisation. Finally - and most painfully of all - without conscription what would right wing commentators have to threaten long haired layabouts with?

Tom you've surely gone to far down the path of anti-war peace-loving lefties with your latest diatribe! Pull yourself off that track of doom and return to the jaunty rogue that we all have fallen just a little bit in love with....

SIncere Pete

[Tom Lang]

I hid your post, Tom. I have no interest or connection to the Guild and neither to my knowledge do any of the other moderators. The forum is for adults and 5 year olds, most of whom can hopefully make a point without referring to 1930's Germany or modern Trade Union legislation

And I find your suggestion that we stifle criticism of the Guild laughable - this thread has now run to 10 pages!

By inference you misrepresent the intent of my censored post. I was drawing attention to the illegitimacy of any organisation which one is forced to join (or not, at your peril). There is a clear movement here towards trying to create a Closed Shop in the battlefield touring / guiding industry.

Tom

I'm with Tom T-M on this matter.

This is a Forum, and not a Charm School.

You can discuss the matter either way, but to deny the other side of the discussion is a poor show.

It's never a good idea to shoot the messenger, but it is a whole different matter to 'remove' the message.

Censorship is not a proper tool in any discussion. If anything, it shows collusion in the contrary, and a weakness in the opposition.

Under 'Help'-> 'Subjects that I can not discuss' it states "All discussion should be on Great War subjects. Stay off modern-day politics and religion, unless absolutely relevant to our subject."

So what's wrong with having a 'go' at this guild thingy?

I am fortunate in that I 'follow' this thread so I have seen the 'hidden' posts.

I see nothing wrong with the content and I vote that you un-hide the postings and allow the matter to be discussed and settled between the members.

Kindest Regards,

Tom L.

[AlanCurragh]

I'm with Tom T-M on this matter.

This is a Forum, and not a Charm School.

You can discuss the matter either way, but to deny the other side of the discussion is a poor show.

It's never a good idea to shoot the messenger, but it is a whole different matter to 'remove' the message.

Censorship is not a proper tool in any discussion. If anything, it shows collusion in the contrary, and a weakness in the opposition.

Under 'Help'-> 'Subjects that I can not discuss' it states "All discussion should be on Great War subjects. Stay off modern-day politics and religion, unless absolutely relevant to our subject."

So what's wrong with having a 'go' at this guild thingy?

I am fortunate in that I 'follow' this thread so I have seen the 'hidden' posts.

I see nothing wrong with the content and I vote that you un-hide the postings and allow the matter to be discussed and settled between the members.

Kindest Regards,

Tom L.

Thank you for your "vote". You are entirely free to comment and discuss the matter as you choose as long as you stay in forum rules. Just to reiterate, I don't give a d*mn either way about the GBG and I'm getting tired and bored of being accused of collusion. As for denying the other side of the discussion, as I said above, there is masses of anti GBG comment in the pages above.

[centurion]

This whole tedious and at times paranoid discussion is much like that that appeared in the correspondence columns of various news papers at the end of the 19th century over the Guild of Chamonix Guides - effectively a self regulating association of the men who guided tourists in the Alps. It became a legal requirement for tourists to use them and what began as a sensible effort to introduce standards of safety became a bit of a racket. Even experienced climbers had to pay for a guide. As Mark Twain pointed out in A Tramp Abroad you had to use the guide selected for you even if he was the worst guide of them all. His view seems to have been that you were a damn fool not to use a good guide but people are entitled to be damn fools if they want.

It's a peril any attempt at self regulation is in danger of falling into.

[healdav]

Clearly the GofBFGs has friends in the right places who are prepared to stifle criticism or questions as to the legitimacy of the modus operandi of the organisation and their "partner" organisations.

A Closed Shop is a closed shop, and it clearly looks like that is what is being aimed for.

Being forced to join an organisation (as the explained my last censored post) is not a legitimate way forward.

Tom

If the shop is closed, just how do customers get in? Or the guides get out for that matter?