Hello everyone, and I apologise for my recent absence from the forum, especially when questions about the magazine are being raised. I have been away for a few days, but I will address these issues now.
The apparent contraversy raised initially by Bryan Dolby (in, what is my opinion an attempt to divert attention from the Federation's own situation) in who actually owns Professional Window Cleaner Magazine.
When the magazine was launched back in February of this year, I made no secret of the fact that the initial stages of pubication were being supported (and funded) by the British Window Cleaning Academy. I am very grateful to Craig Mawlam for this support, and I can tell you that without it there would simply be no magazine.
Following the launch, PWC was very well received by readers, and it's clear to me that window cleaners have been crying out for a source of information on their trade. However, while other "general" cleaning magazines are funded entirely by advertising, the window cleaning industry is a very different animal.
Indeed, after the first issue was out, it was clear that a major restructuring of the magazine was necessary, and of course, the medium term funding of the magazine was an issue which needed attention. I'm sure that members of the forum would be quite suprised to know just how much it costs to produce a single issue of PWC.
In view of this, The BWCA, well Craig actually, was so keen to see that the magazine was a success, that he agreed to support the magazine in its early stages beyond the first issue. Again, I can assure everyone here that if it were not for this generous support, there would be now no magazine.
To facilitate this, a seperate publishing company was formed, "The Professional Window Cleaner Magazine Ltd" and it is the documents of this company that have been posted here, and you will notice, quite rightly, that Craig is a director. As his funding is supporting the publishing of the magazine in these early stages, this is appropriate, and has never been hidden. The documents of the company have been a matter of public record for some months now, and indeed if you wanted to hide something - forming a limited company is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Anyone can pay the £1 download fee and obtain the company documents, as rightly they should.
Although this arrangement is entirely new for the window cleaning industry, it is not at all new for magazine publishing. Mobile Choice, for example, which is now Britian's leading Mobile Phone magazine was sponsored in its erly stages by The Link (The mobile phone shop).
The real question to ask is, does this mean that Craig Mawlam has an influence over the content of PWC? And here is the answer:
As you might expect, you will see adverts from Ionic Systems, The BWCA and Pure2o - but you will also see adverts from direct competitors to Ionic, including Tucker Pole Systems, Outreach Systems and Clena Systems. Aside from these, I have also invited (and continue to invite) other pole supply manufacturers to advertise, in addition to other types of supplier (for example Hand tools and Hydraulic Platforms). I have not invited Brodex to advertise, for reasons that many on this forum will know.
When the Daily Mirror printed fake photographs of Iraqis being tortured, in the storm of contraversy that followed, it was Piers Morgan, the Mirror's editor that was held responsible, NOT the directors of Mirror Group Newspapers. The point I'm making is that I am wholly responsible for the content of PWC, and I am the person responsible for its policies. Readers can use their own judgement to see if it is a magazine they want to read or not, and I am very pleased to say that, though I am not perfect, it is received well, and enjoyed by those who get it.
I even referred to this arrangement in the June issue of PWC, in the editorial section, page 5:
"in order for us to continually produce a high-quality magazine, it has meant we have needed to completely restructure our publishing operation. We are also accepting the ongoing support of The British Window Cleaning Academy"
But then, as neither Sean nor Bryan subscribe to PWC, I can understand that they would not have all the facts at their disposal.
So, as Paul Risbridger has rightly pointed out, I have made no secret of this, and the fact that Bryan and Sean have chosen to raise this issue at a time when the Federation is being criticised, in my opinion, tells you more about Bryan, Sean and the Federation than it does about PWC.
While we're on the subject of directors, I find it particularly fascinating that Sean should bring it up. Although you, Sean, repeatedly refer to yourself as the sales director of Brodex, I have the current appointments report for Brodex Ltd in front of me, (which I have just downloaded from the Companies House website), and you are not on it. You are not a director of Brodex, and are you aware that it is a criminal offence to claim the office of a company that you do not hold?
-Philip
PS Out of respect for Mike Boxall and this forum, if anyone has any other questions to do with the magazine, I'll be happy to answer them by email.