Rated 4 of 5

Rated 4 of 5

Peace and quiet

Rated 4 of 5

Facilities and cleanliness

Rated 5 of 5

Location

Rated 5 of 5

Good for families

Why is negative reviews of wardens being removed

Why are mine and others negative reviews of the wardens at Ferry Meadows are being removed? I’m sorry but the whole purposes of a review good or bad is just that, good or bad. You as the CAMC obviously have an issue with the wardens on this site and their poor customer service, so why are you not dealing with this issue? What the CAMC have to realise and if it’s to survive, is that the club has to move forward and adopt a more inclusive customer base. This review will be removed by the club, but before it’s removed the club needs to take a long hat look at itself as it’s an outdated dinosaur

 

Comment from the Club:

Please be assured negative comments are not removed from reviews. We only remove reviews if they contravene our community guidelines and you will see from reviews on the Club website which may well have criticisms or negative feedback, that we always try and address concerns raised rather than remove. However as mentioned we will remove reviews if they contravene our Community Guidelines. For example, some of the reasons why a review may be removed is if it is offensive to staff as we have a duty of care to our staff, could be potentially libellous, the reviewer has not stayed on the site or if the review is not actually a review i.e. such as this post. We will be removing this post in the next few days as it is not a review of the site but we wanted to advise why a review would be removed and reassure you that we always try and address concerns raised and appreciate feedback from our members. Please also note some other reviews have been removed as again they are not a review of the site but posts.  

Reviewed on

7 reviews

0 Helpful notes

Report this reviewer

Cornersteady replied on 11/08/2019 22:02

Posted on 11/08/2019 21:58 by atcloudspeakers

Really ?? Have you got your third CAMC kiss my bum review ?

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:02

I think with that offensive remark you may have lost all credibility with your remarks about the wardens.

replied on 11/08/2019 22:06

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:02 by Cornersteady

I think with that offensive remark you may have lost all credibility with your remarks about the wardens.

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:06

No they havnt.

You and another have wound this person up, baited them  rather than calm them down. Far far more offensive in my opinion.

Therefore you cannot now claim the moral high ground to make that complaint against them.

In fact if I was the reporting type, I'm not, I would have reported the the other poster.

atcloudspeakers replied on 11/08/2019 22:10

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:06 by

No they havnt.

You and another have wound this person up, baited them  rather than calm them down. Far far more offensive in my opinion.

Therefore you cannot now claim the moral high ground to make that complaint against them.

In fact if I was the reporting type, I'm not, I would have reported the the other poster.

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:10

Havnt is spelt haven’t 

replied on 11/08/2019 22:12

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:10 by atcloudspeakers

Havnt is spelt havenā€™t 

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:12

Cheers, for that.

Post via mobile, predictive text isn't always the best!

Plus I cant spell eitheršŸ˜

You  want to say what's gone on?

Cornersteady replied on 11/08/2019 22:14

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:06 by

No they havnt.

You and another have wound this person up, baited them  rather than calm them down. Far far more offensive in my opinion.

Therefore you cannot now claim the moral high ground to make that complaint against them.

In fact if I was the reporting type, I'm not, I would have reported the the other poster.

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:14

So being offensive to a fellow poster is acceptable to you?

I am not claiming any high ground, and baited no one , which is also offensive. No need. Argue your point rationally, no need to be offensive.

End of.

Tinwheeler replied on 11/08/2019 22:21

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:21

I think this is proving the need for clarification of what is acceptable to post in Comments as I called for earlier.

We know the review is in breach of the guidelines (whether we agree with them or not) but what about the comments?

replied on 11/08/2019 22:26

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:26

So my stance was to try and draw the OP out and say his complaint.

Calm the immediate situation down, and perhaps others could give guidance on the validity of the grievance.

 

Saying " Dont join","Win Win" is antagonistic,  baiting.

The other posters I wont repeat.

 

I feel you, the debating society enjoy eliciting a response, a negative one from the intended seems to excite the most.

 

My opinion.

 

replied on 11/08/2019 22:29

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:26 by

So my stance was to try and draw the OP out and say his complaint.

Calm the immediate situation down, and perhaps others could give guidance on the validity of the grievance.

 

Saying " Dont join","Win Win" is antagonistic,  baiting.

The other posters I wont repeat.

 

I feel you, the debating society enjoy eliciting a response, a negative one from the intended seems to excite the most.

 

My opinion.

 

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:29

W&M, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then throw it some bread and let it swim in the pond. 

Tinwheeler replied on 11/08/2019 22:31

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:31

This isn’t the place for complaints, Brit. By encouraging the OP, you could be seen to be inflaming the situation. Hence, the need for some boundaries.

replied on 11/08/2019 22:32

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:29 by

W&M, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then throw it some bread and let it swim in the pond. Pointless ruffling its feathers

Posted on 11/08/2019 22:32

Wrong.

People when angry arnt themselves.

I've been toe to toe with some seriously aggressive lorry drivers, you have to reserve judgement until you get to the bottom of what's grieving them.