[Trevor Knight]

As you may or may not know, the Association of Professional Window Cleaners has been asked to prepare a consultation paper to provide our views on the implications that future water restriction may have on the window cleaning industry.

One of the questions is as follows:

Q18. Are you able to provide any evidence of business cost impacts arising from water use restrictions during the 2004-06 drought in south east England?

To help us compile our response and to give a fair and acurate representation of the industry would anyone who has any specific issues relating to this question please email their replys to us at the following address:

 info@apwc.info

May I, on behalf of the APWC, thank you for taking the time to help us with this consultation.

Trevor

[Philip Hanson]

With the greatest of respect Trevor, I am rather worried about the apwc's involvement in this for a number of reasons, not least of which what happened at last year's drought order hearings.

I know you weren't on the apwc committee then, so for your benefit and that of new members here, let me explain why I am concerned.

Last year, when the water companies applied for drought orders they held public hearings to debate the drought order and its necessity.  All interested parties could attend and make clear any objections or cases which they wanted to put forward.

The FWC sent committee members to speak in behalf of its 1500 or so members, Craig Mawlam attended in behalf of the BWCA (and also spoke in behalf of The Federation, at their request), Glyn Howard of Omnipole attended and put the case for window cleaners forward.  I also attended, to report.

Unfortunately, this occurred at a time of some animosity between the FWC and the the fledgling apwc, and I'm sorry to say that it is my opinion that some on your committee, especially your chairman, tried to use this very serious issue to score points, with near disastrous consequences.

A petition was started by your chairman which sought to establish how many water-fed pole users would be in the affected area, and what the impact on their business would be if they were prevented from using water fed poles.  On the face of it this might not seem to be such a bad idea, but unfortunatley it had a very predictable and undersirable effect.

Firstly, only about 100 people responded to the petition, which so angered your chairman that he embarked on a name-and-shame campaign against those who had not signed up, and published the petition on the APWC website, including the names and addresses of those who were kind enough to show their support.  This was, of course, a breach of trust and was illegal under the data protection act.

Secondly, the data that was compiled in that petition was collected from, not just the affected area, but from window cleaners all over the UK, and so was not relevant to the argument.

Thirdly, and most embarassingly of all, the officer in charge of the drought order hearing pointed out that the petition showed that approximatley 50% of those who completed the petition used ladders, not water-fed pole.  He then put forth this argument: "If, as you claim, you are unable to use ladders because of the work at height regulations and health & safety issues, why are half of the people in this petition  still using them?"

This argument, to which there was no simple defense, was picked up on by the members of other water companies who were in attendance, and was repeated at each subsequent hearing, and I'm sure it was a significant factor in the secretary of state's decision not to grant window cleaners ANY dispensation on the grounds of health and safety or the Work at Height Regs.

I'm sorry to say it, but the apwc's involvement in this issue last year did significant harm to the window cleaner's case, both because of incompetence and also because of a pre-occupation in using the issue to score points.

The Federation of Window Cleaners attended representing its 1500 or so members. Glyn Howard attended representing his many hundreds of omnipole customers. Craig Mawlam attended representing many hundreds of BWCA members, Ionic customers and The Federation.  How many members were the apwc representing?  At that time it had about 10 members (including the 6 committee), I'd be interested to know how many you propose to represent now?  Is it still about 10?  I've certainly got no problem with the apwc being in an early stage of its growth, but with such a small membership I do not believe that you are in a position to claim to represent even a small part of the window cleaning industry.

The tone of your post leads me to believe that once again the apwc will seek to use this issue to try to score points and gain prominence.

"the Association of Professional Window Cleaners has been asked to prepare a consultation paper"

I happen to know for a fact that this is not true.  Nor have you been "invited" into the consultation.  The consultation is an open process in which anyone with an interest can participate.  I am concerned that, once again, we are to see the apwc damage the window cleaner's case in something of a despearate effort to score points and gain some prominence.

I only recount these events because at the time, (as far as I am aware) you were not part of the APWC and probably have not been told about exactly what went on.

I have also heard, and you can feel free to put me right if I'm wrong, that the apwc chairman has recently resigned, along with another committee member, leaving you with no chairman, only three committee members and debts of several thousand pounds.

As an organisation, I'm afraid that the apwc is at present unstable, unreliable and does not have enough members.  It is just not ready to represent the window cleaning industry in any matter, let alone one as important as this.  This is not to say that this will not change in the future, and I'm sure in the course of time this will change.

If you genuinely care about window cleaners, you should recognize that without first building a strong, credible  and well supported organisation, you are likely to do more harm than good, and this has been adequately shown in the past.

-Philip

[Clive McDonald]

Do you mean you have been asked to contribute with views to the consultation paper?

I doubt very much they would be asking you to write a consultation document.

This is already a lost cause, they are interested in tyeing up the loose ends. The way to go is to ask for grants , tax breaks, technical advice etc on the use of grey water. This would make a lasting contribution to the enviroment and the stated aims of defra in this context.

If you read the document advertised on here the onus is on the householder. Take a look at those Govt ads on the telly about the smoking ban, they would use similar tactics to impose a serious level drought order. The climate of public opinion would not allow us to work anyway.

You are playing at very high level, and you need the best brains.

[Clive McDonald]

I have just read Philips post and I see that you are up against it. 100 window cleaners 100 different opinions.

The only available strategy, I repeat, is to ask for defras help in making our industry more sustainable. You could get us a good deal out of this.

The obvious argument that you are all concerned with is already lost.

[Trevor Knight]

The tone of your post leads me to believe that once again the apwc will seek to use this issue to try to score points and gain prominence.

"the Association of Professional Window Cleaners has been asked to prepare a consultation paper"

I happen to know for a fact that this is not true.  Nor have you been "invited" into the consultation.  The consultation is an open process in which anyone with an interest can participate.  I am concerned that, once again, we are to see the apwc damage the window cleaner's case in something of a despearate effort to score points and gain some prominence.

If you genuinely care about window cleaners, you should recognize that without first building a strong, credible  and well supported organisation, you are likely to do more harm than good, and this has been adequately shown in the past.

-Philip

Philip,

Firstly I am dissapointed with your approach and think that if you are that concerned then you should telephone me or email me direct. However, with regards to your accusations I would point out the following!

1) - Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government are inviting views on a consultation paper setting out proposals to modernise the scope of hosepipe bans and drought orders which restrict or prohibit discretionary and non-essential uses of water. 

They call it a consultation paper, so where am i wrong there?

2) - http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/water-restrictions/consultlist.htm look for yourself, we are on the list the same as everyone else! FACT!

3) - This is by no means seen as an opportunity to get one over any other organisation and it is sad that you feel so threatened by this. My post was simply to understand from a broader perspective what the views were of other window cleaners. If you add the FED/BWCA and Omnipoles members together along with the APWC, this doesn't even scratch the surface of the number of window cleaners out there and the more people who can air their views and concerns regarding this the better chance all of us have at getting a result for the INDUSTRY!

It is a shame that such petty attitudes stop us all from joining together and working as a team instead of this ridiculous tit for tat attitude and quite frankly childish approach. I never have, and never will publicly run down any organisation as that in itself shows a lack of respect and understanding for each other. I respect what ALL of us are trying to achieve and we should all think about that.

Yes you are right, I wasn't involved in the past but you can be assured that I will ONLY act on the best interest of the INDUSTRY and the APWC.

Trevor

[Ian_Giles]

Philip Hanson also does posts that make fascinating reading...

Trevor's reply should be interesting too....

My personal opinion is that the powers that be should take a look and see just how many people there are out there in any given area using WFP on a daily basis.

Add to that the average amount of water those window cleaners will use in the course of the production of pure water for window cleaning , and the amount they actually use to clean windows.Pure conjecture on my part of course, but at least anecdotally it would appear that the average WFP user uses approximately 300-350 litres per day, and with most R/O systems having a 3;1 ratio of pure to waste (roughly) then they are using around a 1000 litres of water per day.

I know I am only drawing figures out of the air, but in my own town of some 12 to 15 thousand people there are about 15-20 window cleaners and less than half of them are WFP
But if there are in fact 10 of us using WFP, then we are using around 10,000 litres of water a day between us (production and use)

Just one individual in our town with his sprinkler on all day long will use more than all of the towns window cleaners combined.

PERSPECTIVE!!!!

The collective water boards need to get some of it!

To pick on a handful of tradesmen is pathetic, and yes, I am well aware that the handful soon becomes many hundreds as you add in all those from other towns and villages throughout any given county, and so there combined use of water then runs into tens of thousands of litres per day.

which is a useful ploy from water companies to justify window cleaners not being exempt.
But the total use of water they use is still a very tiny fraction of the whole.
And many times there entire use of water per day will not even amount to that lost in a single big leak.

Per head of population what we use is a very tiny fraction.

But we are a visible minority aren't we?

So the government and the water companies can beat us over the head and say, "Look what a good job we are doing cutting down waste."
When it is in fact doing no such thing.

I agree with stopping people watering their lawns with sprinklers (its just cosmetic anyway) and restricting the use of hosepipes to wash their cars with (one person taking 20 minutes to wash his car can use the best part of a 1000 litres)
Things like that make a real saving.

As I said earlier, the authorities need to get a proper sense of perspective...In my opinion.

Ian

Trevor posted ahead of me.....I was right....his reply was a good one......

[Philip Hanson]

Trevor, I think you have missed my point.  I have not made any accusations at all, and I have certainly not suggested that you personally would act in anything but the interests of widow cleaners.

I have merely expressed my concerns as I see them and based on my own experience, which if I may be so bold,on this subject is broader than yours.

You said "the Association of Professional Window Cleaners has been asked to prepare a consultation paper"

No matter how you look at it, that is most certainly not a fact.  The consultation paper was prepared by DEFRA.  The APWC has not been asked to prepare it.  The APWC may be a consultee, agreed, but that is totally different.  A previous APWC chairman, Martin Bolt, did something similar to what you have done there, when he made reference to a meeting he had attended at Downing street.  As it turned out, theat meeting was totally inconsequential as regards window cleaning, but he made a post on the forum and worded it to make it sound like the apwc was more involved in something at a high level, when of course it was not.  The day that DEFRA asks the APWC to prepare a consultation paper, well, you'll be able to relax in the knowledge that you have attained the respect of government.  Until then, it is poor form to suggest that you have.  Perhaps you didn't mean to come across as misleading, in which case fine.  My advice is to be careful not to make statements that are untrue, even by accident. 

I find it interesting that you would suggest that I would feel threatened, may I ask why would I be threatened by the apwc?  If you look at my history of posts, you'll see I have a long and colourful history with the federation which concluded in me being unceromoniously booted out of it for asking to look at the accounts, but thats another story.  I was present when this new association was established, I wrote and published a six page article about it.  Has nobody on the APWC committee filled you in on exactly how it even came to be founded and the chain of events that followed?  I am quite surprised that you would seem to know so little about it, or how my federation fiasco served as the catalyst for the open forum meeting which directly led to the creation of the pwca, later renamed the apwc.

From reading your posts, Trevor, I have concluded that you are well-meaning and even passionate, and I do admire that in anyone.  But I also now realise that you havent been fully informed as to what has happened within the apwc previously.  If you were, you would understand better why, as you put it, "petty attitudes stop us all from joining together and working as a team", which is actually quite a succinct way to put it if I may say!  What I don't think you fully appreciate, is that very attitude has been evident from the apwc for some time.

I will ONLY act on the best interest of the INDUSTRY and the APWC

I like your spirit, and I believe you would.  Let me ask you this.  What would happen if what was best for the industry is not best for the APWC?  Just hypothetically, what if I was right, and the very best thing for the industry over this issue would be for The APWC to not be involved? Would you bow out?

Ah if only everthing in life was so clear cut eh?  I guarantee there will be times when what is best for the industry is not best for the APWC.

Take, for example, water-fed pole systems and the Fed.  Nearly everyone would agree that WFP is best for the industry, yes? When they were introduced, was WFP the best thing for the Fed? NOPE!  The fed sells traditional equipment, and is unable to fit water-fed pole systems. So in that case, what was best for the industry was not best for the Fed.  So what did they do? Did they embrace something that was of benefit for the industry even though it wasn't the best for them?  Before we judge them too harshly, let's wonder what would the APWC have done?  There are countless other examples.

But anyway, back to the point.  I note that you didn't correct me about the resignations and financial position.  Ironically, I think that this particular set of resignations is likely to improve the apwc in the long term.  However, at present (and this consultation is the present) the apwc does not have enough members to claim to be able to represent the window cleaning industry.  Its also clear that your leadership is currently in a state of flux, and financially the position is not good.  That is a poor platform to begin any sort of campaign, but especially one where the numbers are everything.

Hypothetically speaking (again!), if you are invited to DEFRA to present any sort of information perhaps based on what you collect here or anywhere else, one of the first questions they will ask is "How many APWC members do you represent?"

How many people you are speaking for is absolutely paramount with issues such as this, if you say "ten", "twenty" or whatever, DEFRA will on that basis form an unfavourable view of window cleaners and their representatives.  And, let's face it, who could blame them?

-Philip

[matt]

interesting reading

Philip from the post, i guess you and craig are now " buddy'd up" with the FED now, otherwise why post this, unless craig is planning to start another Organisation ( wasnt he involved in the APWC ?? i guess that didnt work out ?? ), as this post smacks of just trying to rubbish the APWC and thats a shame

Trevor is posting on here, as afterall this is the biggest window cleaning forum and even though we may not all be members of the APWC, as he says, they are represnting the industry, not just members , good on him for asking options here

lets leave the name calling and mug slinging to the children eh

[Clive McDonald]

I'm assuming you are in a position to lobby Trevor. The only thing that will be listened to is a responsible leadership offering to work with government to mitigate the effects of expected future  drought orders made more frequent by global warming.
The key to this is sustainability and the more inteligent use of grey water by individual operators. To achieve this a combined approach is required. You've got a winning hand, you just need to play it.


Ps. Has Philip said one word about the actual issues.

[ValueValeting]

Philip Hanson also does posts that make fascinating reading...

Trevor's reply should be interesting too....

My personal opinion is that the powers that be should take a look and see just how many people there are out there in any given area using WFP on a daily basis.

Add to that the average amount of water those window cleaners will use in the course of the production of pure water for window cleaning , and the amount they actually use to clean windows.Pure conjecture on my part of course, but at least anecdotally it would appear that the average WFP user uses approximately 300-350 litres per day, and with most R/O systems having a 3;1 ratio of pure to waste (roughly) then they are using around a 1000 litres of water per day.

I know I am only drawing figures out of the air, but in my own town of some 12 to 15 thousand people there are about 15-20 window cleaners and less than half of them are WFP
But if there are in fact 10 of us using WFP, then we are using around 10,000 litres of water a day between us (production and use)

Just one individual in our town with his sprinkler on all day long will use more than all of the towns window cleaners combined.

PERSPECTIVE!!!!

The collective water boards need to get some of it!

To pick on a handful of tradesmen is pathetic, and yes, I am well aware that the handful soon becomes many hundreds as you add in all those from other towns and villages throughout any given county, and so there combined use of water then runs into tens of thousands of litres per day.

which is a useful ploy from water companies to justify window cleaners not being exempt.
But the total use of water they use is still a very tiny fraction of the whole.
And many times there entire use of water per day will not even amount to that lost in a single big leak.

Per head of population what we use is a very tiny fraction.

But we are a visible minority aren't we?

So the government and the water companies can beat us over the head and say, "Look what a good job we are doing cutting down waste."
When it is in fact doing no such thing.

I agree with stopping people watering their lawns with sprinklers (its just cosmetic anyway) and restricting the use of hosepipes to wash their cars with (one person taking 20 minutes to wash his car can use the best part of a 1000 litres)
Things like that make a real saving.

As I said earlier, the authorities need to get a proper sense of perspective...In my opinion.

Ian

Trevor posted ahead of me.....I was right....his reply was a good one......

Ian

Sorry but I'm going to have to pull you up on that one - don't pick on another trade just because yours is being picked on - at least you have been asked to "consult".

Car Valeters as a rule do not use any more water than shiners.

Clean windows are also just cosmetic as well don't forget - just like lawns.

Phil

P.s. I wish my 650 Litre water tank filled up in 20 mins. - thats 2 days useage btw

[matt]

surely the arguement must be to allow us to use water UPSTAIRS and traditional downstairs, this will HALF the water used, which will only be a good thing that we are trying to meet the water boards half way

[Steve Lowe]

Hi Matt
That is what the federation proposed to its members last year and it was at least a good will gesture that showed that we were trying to meet the water boards  half way. Unfortunately i will not get involved this time as i am no longer with the fed.

Steve

[Clive McDonald]

No. The consultation doc is brilliantly drafted.A govt minister's car cannot be valetted , whereas a taxi which is classed as public transport can.
You can not use a hosepipe(or water drawn from a hosepipe to wash a house). The offence and liability would be the householders and not yours. You can not even use water that you have gotten from an area that is not under a hose pipe ban.
As I say the consultation document is a work of art.

[Steve Lowe]

I think if they tried to stop you using water from another area they would be on dodgy ground ! And the onus would be on them to prove where you got it from! A bit difficult when its been through an ro and di

[Clive McDonald]

That's what the consultation paper is about tieing up the loose ends. It was drafted by barristers knowing just the sort of arguments that window cleaners, car valetters etc would come up with.

That part of the argument has already been lost. The leadership, and I use the term loosely, needs to salvage what it can.

[matt]

Hi Matt
That is what the federation proposed to its members last year and it was at least a good will gesture that showed that we were trying to meet the water boards  half way. Unfortunately i will not get involved this time as i am no longer with the fed.

Steve

i didnt know that Steve, it does show at least we are prepared to meet half way

what happened with you and the FED then steve, i thought you were heading for the head honco position, could get the old un's out ?? ?? ?

[Steve Lowe]

Hi Matt
           Yes its true that i was nominated for Chairman but i refused because for something to change they need to want to and they dont ! Throughout my business carrer i have always tried to run my business in an honest and ethical way and i was not really happy with some of the things i saw

Steve

[matt]

Hi Matt
           Yes its true that i was nominated for Chairman but i refused because for something to change they need to want to and they dont ! Throughout my business carrer i have always tried to run my business in an honest and ethical way and i was not really happy with some of the things i saw

Steve

fair enough steve, so i guess they all had there "payday" then

[Steve Lowe]

Hi Matt
Forgot to say they have also lost Paul Smith and Alan Lillington so are now down to five on the commitee.

Steve

[Helen]

Glyn Howard attended representing his many hundreds of omnipole customers. Craig Mawlam attended representing many hundreds of BWCA members, Ionic customers and The Federation. 

Or to put it another way the manufacturers will put more into this not because of the individual window cleaner but because the manufacturer stands to lose a lot more.
Any individual window cleaner could adjust his methods or find other manual labour. Stamp out wfp and who really loses?