Sales Hotline 0151 678 7182
Shopping cart is empty.
cart

The High Visibility Blog

The High Visibility blog brings you regularly updated news about hi vis clothing and security equipment. High Visibility is a subsidiary of the Equisafety Group.

Working with Shearwater Insurance to keep you safer.

Nicky Fletcher - Wednesday, March 05, 2014


POLITE a huge success at the EcCel

Nicky Fletcher - Thursday, February 20, 2014

We would like to say a MASSIVE thank you to everyone we met at the MCN Motorcycle show 6-9th February. The POLITE range was a huge success and we sold out!!

Motorcyclist have a fantastic personality and the trade stand girls said it was their best ever show. We think this was more due to the fact of there being mostly men at the show walking around in leathers!!

Thank you for all you’re really positive attitudes toward the POLITE range and a big thank you to the Met Police for their support towards the POLITE range and telling people it is not illegal. It says POLITE not Police.

We have already booked for next year and look forward to seeing you all again and listen to your fantastic storys.

Check out our facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/#!/highvisibilitysportswear?fref=ts

Our next Motorbike Show is the following

Manchester Bike Show – 22-23rd March

BMF Peterborough Motorcycle Show 17-18th May

Bikefest Kelso  5-6th July

TailEnd Peterborough  13-14th September

More shows to be added soon.



Offical BBC Trust report on the BBC apology

Nicky Fletcher - Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers

Editorial Standards

Findings

Appeals to the Trust

and other editorial

issues considered by

the Editorial Standards

Committee

October 2013 issued December 2013

October 2013 issued December 2013 6

Appeal Findings

Fake Britain, BBC One, 4 June 2012

Appeal to the Trust

The complainant appealed to the Trust on 9 May 2013. With regard to point (a) of the

ECU’s decision, the complainant stated that, despite the ‘blobbing’, the design of the

‘POLITE’ waistcoat was obvious. Within minutes of the broadcast, the complainant was

receiving emails regarding the waistcoat being shown on Fake Britain, and Equisafety’s

Facebook page was being inundated with questions regarding the product’s authenticity.

While acknowledging that some viewers would not have known the design, the

complainant argued that this segment was aimed at horse riders who would have been

watching. As the waistcoat was so identifiable, and as it was indicated that the product

was ‘fake’, in that it did not meet standards, Equisafety should have been given the

courtesy of being asked to comment.

With regard to point (b) of the ECU’s decision, the complainant stated that the ‘POLITE’

waistcoat (although ‘blobbed’) was easily identifiable by horse riders watching the

programme, and it was therefore very obvious which product the tester was classing as

‘fake’. If the programme researchers had contacted Equisafety, or if they had taken notice

of Wirral Trading Standards, they would have been shown the certificates issued by one

of the largest international testing houses (namely, SATRA), which stated that the

waistcoat was tested after logos, signage and chequered strips were in place and that the

product had passed the applicable test. At the time the programme was aired, the

‘POLITE’ range was the only range on the market with these distinctive features, but due

to its popularity it has been copied by “many other companies”. The word ‘POLITE’ was

trademarked and all other products briefly shown were not of the same design at all.

With regard to points (d) and (e) of the ECU’s decision, the complainant raised various

points to state that the Contributor had been hostile to Equisafety over the past few years

and this is what motivated the Contributor to contribute to the programme. The

complainant reiterated that the Contributor was a close personal friend of the

Competitor’s owner and could be found working on the Competitor’s stand at events and

modelling for them on photo shoots.

The complainant said that, at the beginning of the programme [sic],7 the commentary

made viewers aware that a ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was being tested, started talking about the

Contributor buying a fake hi-vis jacket, then finished by talking again about the ‘POLITE’

range. According to the complainant, this “clever piece of editing” was done to lead

viewers to believe that the programme was about the ‘POLITE’ range only. The

complainant acknowledged that the Contributor did not state what brand of jacket she

had bought, but in the complainant’s view the insinuation was clear. As the Contributor

only ever wore the Competitor’s products, the complainant doubted whether she would

purchase another company’s product on any other occasion. According to the

complainant, the Contributor was also very aware of the ‘POLITE’ range before the

programme was aired, so to state that she had “come across the ‘POLITE’ range of

garments and accessories made by Equisafety” was completely untrue. The complainant

stated that the Contributor had been aware of the ‘POLITE’ range since 2010, and queried

why she had suddenly “come across it”.

The complainant stated that, owing to her association with the Competitor, the

Contributor was extremely knowledgeable and proficient in the legalities of relevant tests

and certificates, and regularly gave safety talks at a county British Horse Society in her

capacity as Safety Awareness Officer. Consequently, the complainant was “astounded”

that the Contributor had presented on camera a certificate issued by testing house TUV

and had insinuated that it was one of Equisafety’s. The complainant had contacted TUV,

who stated that they had neither heard of the Contributor nor sent her a certificate, which

led the complainant to believe the certificate had been downloaded via the Internet.

The complainant’s appeal raised the following points:

Point A: Equisafety’s ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was said to have “failed legal EU safety

requirements”, whereas it had been certified by international testing house SATRA, and

Wirral Trading Standards had told the Producer/Director that it was satisfied that

Equisafety’s products met the applicable standards.

Point B: The tester stated that Equisafety’s ‘POLITE’ waistcoat did not have a

sufficiently large area of yellow material because it had been modified after certification,

whereas the waistcoat was tested and certified with all logos, signage and chequered

strips in place.

Point C: The BBC should have given Equisafety an opportunity to comment on the

allegation that the waistcoat failed to meet safety requirements. Had the BBC done so, or

had the BBC taken notice of the Trading Standards Officer they contacted, they would

have been shown the SATRA certificates.

Point D: As the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was identifiable, the allegation that it was fake and

did not meet safety standards was unfair to Equisafety. Equisafety should have been

given the opportunity to comment on these allegations.

Point E: The Contributor has a history of being hostile to Equisafety and this was what

had motivated her to contribute to the item.

7 It was assumed that the complainant was in fact referring to the beginning of the item,

not the programme.

October 2013 issued December 2013 11

Point F: A number of comments were made by and about the Contributor which were

inaccurate and misleading.

Point G: The Contributor made references to a hi-vis jacket and corresponding TUV

certificate which were inaccurate and misleading.

Point H: The way in which the item was edited misleadingly implied that Equisafety’s

products are fake and do not meet safety standards.

3. Applicable Editorial Standards

The full guidelines are at http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines. The sections on

Accuracy, Impartiality, and Fairness, Contributors and Consent were relevant to this

appeal.

4. The Committee’s decision

In reaching its decision, the Committee took full account of all the available evidence,

including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report, a supplementary note prepared

by the Editorial Adviser and submissions from the complainant and from the BBC.

Points A and B

The Committee considered Points A and B against the editorial tests in Accuracy

Guidelines 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.4.11.

The Committee took the view that the BBC was bound at all times by the Accuracy

Guidelines, regardless of whether a given product was identifiable or not. Therefore, any

statement that a garment “failed legal EU safety requirements” must, irrespective of the

garment’s identifiability, be duly accurate. Similarly, any suggestion that the garment did

not have a sufficiently large area of yellow material because it had been modified after

certification, must also be duly accurate. Given the potential seriousness of any allegation

that a company was selling a hi-vis product that was purported, but failed, to meet legal

requirements, the Committee believed the requirements of due accuracy in this context

were high.

The Committee considered the subject and nature of the programme and how viewers

would have regarded products depicted in the programme. The Committee noted that the

programme’s webpage8 describes Fake Britain as a:

[s]eries which reveals the extent of fake goods in the UK, and investigates the

conmen who are trying to get their hands on your money.

In the Committee’s opinion, the title ‘Fake Britain’ suggested that any product depicted in

the programme was by implication fake, unless indicated otherwise. The Committee felt

that an allegation that a product was fake was an extremely serious one. The Committee

therefore concluded that it was incumbent on the programme makers to consider very

carefully how audiences were likely to regard any product depicted in the programme.

8 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011f8m5

October 2013 issued December 2013 12

The Committee noted that the programme refers to the following in relation to the

(unnamed) ‘POLITE’ waistcoat:

Commentary: To meet the required visibility standards, the garment

MUST have a certain area of luminous material and this one falls short.

And Chris thinks he knows why.

Chris (BTTG Garment Tester): There are things put on them which

obviously obscure the fluorescent fabric. This is the sort of problem that we

see quite often with garments that are tested and certified and then

they’re slightly modified, they’re altered. It’s, I suppose, a question of not

considering the consequences of those small changes.

Commentary: Of the two jackets we tested, both failed legal EU safety

requirements, but for different reasons …

The Committee also noted that the commentary stated:

But it’s not just the industry experts that are concerned about fake hi-vis safety

gear on sale to the public …

In the Committee’s view, viewers would have construed the phrase “fake hi-vis safety

gear” as referring to the two garments tested by BTTG in the sequence that immediately

preceded the line of commentary, one of which was the (unnamed) ‘POLITE’ waistcoat.

The Committee considered whether the item’s description of the (unnamed) ‘POLITE’

waistcoat as “fake hi-vis safety gear”, the statement that the garment “failed legal EU

safety requirements”, and the reference to the garment not having a sufficiently large

area of yellow material due to possible modifications, were duly accurate.

The Committee noted that there was evidence to suggest that the waistcoat met EU legal

standards.

It noted that on 5 June 2009, SATRA issued an EC type examination certificate for

Equisafety’s ‘Air’ waistcoat, of which the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was a later variant.

The Committee noted that the ‘Air’ waistcoat bore reflective strips and no

lettering, whereas the ‘POLITE’ variant bore chequered reflective strips and

lettering.

The Committee noted that the complainant had stated that Equisafety’s ‘POLITE’

waistcoat first came onto the market in 2010. The Committee also noted that the

Contributor had brought the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat to the attention of the Association

of Chief Police Officers on 14 August 2010, from which the Committee inferred

that the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was on the market at or before that date.

The Committee noted that Equisafety submitted the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat to SATRA

for testing in November 2011, and that SATRA issued a Technical Report on

30 November 2011. Page 3 of SATRA’s Technical Report, dated 30 November

2011, showed photographs of the front and back of the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat with

logos, signage and chequered strips in place, from which the Committee inferred

that the garments tested by SATRA and BTTG were both ‘POLITE’ waistcoats.

With regard to the regulatory effect of SATRA’s Technical Report, the Committee

noted that, according to SATRA’s Managing Director:

October 2013 issued December 2013 13

“Test reports are an important part of the technical file, but cannot be considered

as satisfying the [PPE] Directive on their own. The legitimacy to apply the CE mark

comes from an EC type examination certificate after the EC type examination

process has been successfully completed … Only once the EC type examination

process has been passed, can the product be deemed to have satisfied all the

requirements of the PPE Directive.”

The Committee noted that, on 7 March 2012, SATRA added the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat

to its previously issued EC type examination certificate for the ‘Air’ waistcoat. The

Committee noted that the date of certification of the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat postdated

the purchase and testing of the garment that appeared in the item, and

pre-dated the broadcast.

The Committee noted that the Editorial Adviser’s report and supplementary note referred

to other safety certification relating to the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat.

The Committee noted that SATRA and BTTG are accredited by UKAS9 to test and certify

certain products and are ‘Notified Bodies’ (Notified Bodies are appointed by EU Member

State governments and notified to the European Commission on the basis of their ability

to carry out the examinations and tests required for CE marking of Personal Protective

Equipment).

With regard to the apparent conflict between SATRA’s certification of the ‘POLITE’

waistcoat and BTTG’s findings, the Committee noted that, according to the BTTG tester:

“For EN 1150 design assessment, there is no agreed test method. Therefore, there

is scope for difference between Test Houses.”

The Committee noted that the commentary stated that “other areas leave a lot to be

desired” [emphasis added], whereas the BTTG tester had subsequently explained:

“The failure was by 0.01 m², or 100 cm², which is of the order of 2-3% of the

required total. It is the equivalent of approximately 1 cm extra length on the Vest.

It could be described as a failure by a slight margin. [emphasis added]”

The Committee noted that it is responsible for determining appeals on BBC Editorial

Standards, but it was not within its remit to determine whether legal standards had been

met and at what point those standards were deemed to be met. The issue to be

determined was whether the statements in the programme were duly accurate.

The Committee took into account that there was evidence that the waistcoat was

purchased and tested by the programme makers prior to SATRA adding the ‘POLITE’

waistcoat to the previously issued EC type examination certificate for the Air waistcoat.

However, the Committee took the view that, given that there was evidence to suggest

that the waistcoat had been certified to pass safety standards by SATRA at the point of

broadcast, that there was no agreed test method, and that the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat had

failed BTTG’s test by only a slight margin, the description of the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat in the

programme as “fake hi-vis safety gear”, and the statement that the jacket “failed to meet

EU legal standards” were not duly accurate. In reaching this decision the Committee

noted that it was not its role to resolve the apparent conflict between the SATRA and

BTTG test. Rather, its role was to determine whether the unequivocal statements in the

item, that the waistcoat failed to meet safety standards, were duly accurate. For the

reasons set out in this finding, the Committee concluded that they were not.

9 see footnote 3 above

October 2013 issued December 2013 14

The Committee also took the view that the cumulative effect of the commentary – and in

particular the statement that other areas left “a lot to be desired” – would have been to

mislead viewers into believing that the margin of failure was significantly greater than was

actually the case.

In relation to the reference to possible modifications leading the waistcoat to fall short of

safety standards, the Committee noted that, in the ‘rushes’ (unedited footage) of his

interview, the BTTG tester had repeatedly qualified his comments concerning possible

post-certification modifications:

“What often happens is that a manufacturer will submit a garment for certification,

and it’ll be a plain garment, and it will meet the requirements, will get a certificate,

but often you’ll see manufacturers then changing the garment, adding badges,

adding things onto it, which then take away from the area of the material and will

then actually make that garment no longer compliant with the standard. That’s

possibly what’s happened in this case. …

So, possibly what has happened is that, when they first submitted the garment

for testing, it may not have had the badge on the back. …

Then possibly what has happened is that the manufacturers decided to put the

badge on the back …

It’s possible that when the garment was first checked it was a plain waistcoat,

and possibly what’s happened is that the manufacturers, after certification, after

testing, they’ve then decided to put the badge on the back …

It’s possible that, when the garment was submitted, it was a plain garment with

no badges on, no writing on, that maybe that was added after the garment was

tested and certified … [emphases added]”

The Committee compared the BTTG tester’s comments with the corresponding section of

the item:

Commentary: To meet the required visibility standards, the garment MUST have

a certain area of luminous material and this one falls short. And Chris thinks he

knows why.

Chris: There are things put on them which obviously obscure the fluorescent

fabric. This is the sort of problem that we see quite often with garments that are

tested and certified and then they’re slightly modified, they’re altered. It’s, I

suppose, a question of not considering the consequences of those small changes.

In the Committee’s view, the item as broadcast suggested that the addition of wording or

other design changes on the waistcoat led this waistcoat to “fall short” of safety

standards. Given the room for difference between testing houses, given the naturally

speculative nature of the tester’s comments in the rushes, and given the waistcoat was

certified as having passed the EU safety standard at the time of broadcast with the

wording in place, the suggestion that this waistcoat fell short of the EU standards due to

modifications was not duly accurate.

Finding: Upheld

October 2013 issued December 2013 15

Point C

The Committee considered Point C against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1

and 3.2.2.

The Committee noted that the ECU had not considered the issue of whether the

information regarding the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s alleged non-compliance with safety

standards was properly sourced and/or cross-checked.

The Committee noted that the penultimate paragraph of Editorial Guideline 3.1 states:

Where appropriate to the output, we should:

gather material using first hand sources wherever possible

check and cross check facts

validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material

corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

The Committee noted that Editorial Guideline 3.2.2 states:

All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced,

based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise

language. We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid

unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that

cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.

The Committee noted that the programme makers had acknowledged that, at a meeting

on 7 February 2012 (at or about the time of filming), Wirral Trading Standards had told

the programme’s Producer that they did not believe there was a problem with Equisafety

products, and that the test certificates they had seen (supplied by Equisafety) showed

they were compliant with safety standards (although Wirral Trading Standards had

acknowledged that there was a conflict between those results and test results supplied by

the Retroreflective Equipment Manufacturers Association (REMA).

The Committee also noted that the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s User Information sheet, which

was enclosed with the garment tested by BTTG, stated that an EC type examination had

been carried out by SATRA.

The Committee noted that the programme makers had explained that they did not

contact Equisafety to make further enquiries regarding the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat because

they did not identify Equisafety in the programme. The Committee repeated its earlier

conclusion that, regardless of whether the garment in question was identifiable or not, the

BBC must comply with the Accuracy Guidelines. In the Committee’s view, being aware

that Wirral Trading Standards were satisfied with Equisafety’s certification, and also being

in possession of the garment’s User Information sheet, the programme makers were

under an obligation to double-check with SATRA whether the garment met applicable

safety standards. Alternatively the programme makers could have contacted Equisafety to

make enquiries regarding the safety certification. Noting that the programme makers had

not contacted SATRA or Equisafety, but had relied solely on BTTG’s test results, the

Committee concluded that the item was not properly sourced and/or cross-checked.

Finding: Upheld

October 2013 issued December 2013 16

Point D

The Committee considered Point D against the editorial tests in Fairness Guidelines 6.1,

6.2.3 and 6.4.25.

Before addressing Point D, the Committee considered whether the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was

identifiable.

The Committee noted that, despite having given the complainant and programme makers

a fair opportunity to provide evidence on this point, at the time of considering the appeal

the Committee had not seen any evidence that any garment resembling Equisafety’s

‘POLITE’ waistcoat was on the market at the date of broadcast 10.It also noted that a

chequered waistcoat by the Competitor was not on sale at the date of the broadcast.

In any case, the Committee noted that, starting from the date of broadcast, numerous

comments about the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s appearance on Fake Britain had been made on

Equisafety’s Facebook page. In the Committee’s view, it appeared from some of those

comments that people in the equestrian hi-vis market, including purchasers of Equisafety

products, had recognised the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat.

The Committee therefore concluded that, despite the blobbing, the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat

was identifiable.

The Committee then considered Point D against the editorial tests in the Guidelines on

Fairness, Contributors and Consent. The Committee noted that Editorial Guideline 6.1

states:

The BBC strives to be fair to all – fair to those our output is about, fair to

contributors, and fair to our audiences.

In the Committee’s view, given the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s identifiability, the cumulative

effect of the breaches of the Accuracy guidelines under Points A–C above had resulted in

unfairness to Equisafety.

The Committee agreed that there was a significant public interest in investigating the

standards of high visibility garments on sale to the public. The Committee noted,

however, that, where the BBC’s output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or

incompetence, or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or organisation

(as was the case in this instance), Editorial Guidelines 6.2.3 and 6.4.25 state that the

individual or organisation should normally be given a right of reply, unless there is an

editorial justification to proceed without it.

10 Following circulation of the finding to the complainant and programme makers, the

programme makers alleged that it was unfair for the Committee to conclude that no other

garment was on the market at the time without requesting any evidence of this. They

sought to provide evidence of another person selling similar waistcoats at the time of

broadcast of Fake Britain. The Committee considered that the programme makers had

been provided a fair opportunity to provide comments and evidence prior to the

consideration of the appeal. The Committee agreed that the additional information was

provided by the programme makers out of time. In any case, it appeared from the

Facebook comments that some people had identified the POLITE waistcoat.

In the Committee’s view, Equisafety should have been given the opportunity to comment

on the serious allegations that had been made against it, and there was no editorial

justification for proceeding without this.

Finding: Upheld

Point E

The Committee considered Point E against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guideline 3.4.7

and Impartiality Guideline 4.1. In the Committee’s view, the questions for consideration

were whether the programme makers had made appropriate checks to establish the

Contributor’s credentials (as Guideline 3.4.7 required), and whether the programme was

duly impartial in this regard (as Guideline 4.1 required).

In the Committee’s view, the complainant’s allegation that the Contributor had made a

number of previous complaints about Equisafety did not necessarily imply that the

Contributor’s concerns were not legitimate, or were not sincerely held.

The Committee noted, and agreed with, the ECU’s finding that viewers might have judged

the Contributor’s contribution somewhat differently if they had known that she was

associated with the Competitor.

With regard to the checks that were made to establish the Contributor’s credentials (in

particular, the nature of her association with the Competitor), the Committee noted that,

according to the programme makers:

The programme makers had contacted the Contributor, having been referred to her

by REMA, to whom they were referred by the CEO of the British Safety Industry

Federation.

The Contributor represented herself as a keen horse rider with an interest in safety.

The Contributor mentioned that she had previously complained about Equisafety to

the ASA, Wirral Trading Standards, Aldi and other manufacturers.

The programme makers’ interest in the Contributor was because of a referral by REMA

and her complaint to the ASA.

The Contributor showed a keen interest in the general public safety aspects of the

story and had suggested that the programme focus on “the fakes in circulation from

all manner of manufacturers”.

It was clear to the Producer that the Contributor had a lot of knowledge of safety

standards. When asked about why she had this knowledge, she explained that she

had started looking into it after buying a jacket she was unhappy with.

The programme makers had checked with the Contributor whether she had any

connection to the hi-vis industry. The Contributor told them that she had done some

modelling for her friend’s company and occasionally helped out at trade shows, but

categorically told the programme makers that she did not work for that company.

The programme makers accepted that this was the case. Given that: the Contributor’s

complaint to the ASA was upheld; the hi-vis equipment (including an Equisafety

jacket) failed the test that was filmed; and the Contributor had mentioned other

companies in addition to Equisafety, the programme makers believed (and still

believe) her to be a valid contributor.

During a meeting with the programme’s Producer on 7 February 2012, Wirral Trading

Standards had mentioned the Contributor’s complaint against Equisafety. This was

why the programme makers had contacted Wirral Trading Standards, having been

alerted by REMA. Wirral Trading Standards did not mention any links between the

Contributor and the Competitor.

The Committee also noted from the rushes of the Contributor’s interview that, when

invited to compare Equisafety’s User Information with that of the Competitor, the

Contributor at first hesitated, then agreed, saying:

“I don’t think [the Competitor’s Managing Director] would mind … No, I don’t think

she’d mind.”

It seemed to the Committee that the Contributor’s contribution to the item was an

important and substantial one, and that viewers would have accorded considerable weight

to her comments. Given the significance of the Contributor’s contribution, and given that

viewers might have judged her contribution differently had they known that she was

associated with the Competitor, the Committee concluded that the programme makers

should have taken further steps to ascertain the precise nature of the Contributor’s

association with the Competitor.

The Committee then considered whether the item was duly impartial. Having previously

concluded that viewers would have accorded considerable weight to the Contributor’s

contribution, and that the programme makers had not taken sufficient steps to ascertain

the precise nature of her association with the Competitor, the Committee concluded that

the item was not duly impartial in this regard.

Finding: Upheld (regarding the failure to ascertain the precise nature of the

Contributor's association with the Competitor)

Point F

The Committee considered Point F against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1,

3.2.1–3.2.3 and 3.4.11.

The Committee noted that this point of appeal concerned the accuracy of the following

statements in the commentary:

“She [the Contributor] recently invested in a hi-vis jacket, to help her ride around

her local area in safety …

But it’s not just the industry experts that are concerned about fake hi-vis safety

gear on sale to the public. [the Contributor] is a keen horse rider …

After finding out hi-vis garments needed to be properly tested and certificated, she

began to doubt whether the one she’d bought was up to scratch …

October 2013 issued December 2013 19

But the jackets themselves are not the only fakes in the hi-vis market, as [the

Contributor] discovered when she decided to look at other hi-vis clothing and

came across the Polite range of garments and accessories made by Equisafety...”

In the Committee’s view, these comments implied that:

the Contributor had purchased the jacket in question recently, whereas it appears she

had purchased it in 2009

the Contributor was a lay person, whereas she appeared to have detailed knowledge

of the regulation and certification of hi-vis apparel

apart from her personal concerns, the Contributor was disinterested in hi-vis apparel,

whereas she was associated with a hi-vis company (although the precise nature of

that association was not known).

In the Committee’s view, considered singly, the quoted comments were not so serious as

to amount to individual breaches of the Accuracy Guidelines. However, considered

cumulatively, their effect was to give the impression that the Contributor was a

disinterested member of the public. This was inaccurate and misleading.

Finding: Upheld

Point G

The Committee considered Point G against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1,

3.2.1–3.2.3 and 3.4.11.

The Committee noted the complainant’s points that:

although it was not expressly stated what brand of jacket the Contributor had bought,

it was implied that it was an Equisafety product

contrary to what was implied, the Contributor had not contacted Equisafety

the commentary made viewers aware that a ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was being tested,

started talking about the Contributor buying a fake hi-vis jacket, then finished by

talking again about the ‘POLITE’ range; this “clever piece of editing” was done to lead

viewers to believe that the programme was about the ‘POLITE’ range only

the presence of workwear in the background of the interview with the REMA

spokesman, taken in conjunction with the presence of products by Equisafety and

another hi-vis company in the foreground of the interview with the Contributor,

implied that the Contributor was discussing Equisafety products

contrary to what was stated, the Contributor had not contacted German testing house

TUV

while it was not stated that the TUV certificate referred to Equisafety, this was

implied.

The Committee noted that the programme makers had not checked the authenticity of

the TUV certificate.

October 2013 issued December 2013 20

Noting that the item did not mention the identity of the manufacturer of the jacket that

the Contributor had purchased, the Committee considered whether the item had implied

that it was an Equisafety jacket.

The Committee noted that, following the Contributor’s discussion of the jacket in

question, the commentary stated that she had:

“decided to look at other high-vis clothing and came across the Polite range of

garments and accessories made by Equisafety. [emphasis added]”

Noting that this was the first time that Equisafety’s name was mentioned in the item, the

Committee took the view that viewers would have construed the word “other” as implying

that the jacket previously discussed by the Contributor was not an Equisafety jacket.

Given the presence of another hi-vis company’s product in the foreground of the interview

with the Contributor, the Committee could not agree that the presence of Equisafety

products in that interview implied that the Contributor was referring solely to Equisafety

products.

The Committee did not therefore agree that the editing and commentary of the BTTG test

and the Contributor’s interview had implied that the jacket purchased by the Contributor

was an Equisafety jacket.

With regard to the authenticity of the TUV certificate referred to by the Contributor and

shown in the item, the Committee noted that the complainant had supplied it with what

appeared to be a copy of the certificate, which the complainant stated had been

downloaded from the Internet. However, in the Committee’s view, the mere fact that the

complainant had downloaded from the Internet a copy of the certificate, or one

resembling it, did not prove that the Contributor had done so. The Committee noted that,

in email correspondence with the complainant, TUV had been unable to confirm that the

Contributor had not contacted it in connection with the certificate, stating “It is possible”.

The Committee's view was that it had not seen any evidence which led to a conclusion

that the TUV certificate was not authentic, or that the Contributor had not contacted TUV

in connection with the certificate.

Finding: Not upheld

Point H

The Committee considered Point H against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1,

3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.4.11, Impartiality Guideline 4.1 and Fairness, Contributors and Consent

Guideline 6.1.

The Committee noted the complainant’s allegation that the item as a whole, and its

editing in particular, was inaccurate, misleading, partial and/or unfair.

The Committee noted that Equisafety’s were not the only identifiable products in the

programme, and that, in the course of the complaint correspondence, the complainant

had identified other hi-vis clothing companies’ products from the item.

Having reflected upon its previous findings in this appeal, the Committee concluded that,

considered as a whole, the item was inaccurate, misleading and unfair towards

Equisafety. The Committee noted that the commentary regarding the ASA's investigation

October 2013 issued December 2013 21

was accurate: the ASA had found that the suggestion that the Police had endorsed the

product was misleading. However, the Committee considered that the overall effect of the

item was to give the misleading impression that the 'POLITE' waistcoat was fake in that it

did not meet safety standards.

The Committee could not agree that the item as a whole was biased in focusing on one

particular manufacturer, as other hi-vis clothing companies’ products were featured in the

programme.

Finding: Upheld in relation to accuracy and fairness; not upheld in relation to

impartiality.

The Committee decided that the BBC should broadcast a statement of the

Committee’s finding with the date, time, service and wording to be approved

by the Committee.

Supplementary points

The complainant asked that a letter concerning the Contributor’s complaints to the ASA

about Equisafety be made available to the Committee. This letter was made available at

the meeting.

At a late stage in the appeal process, the complainant requested that the Committee

adjudicate upon an issue that had not been considered at Stage 2 or raised on appeal.

The Committee confirmed that this issue had been brought to its attention, and agreed

with the Trust Unit that it would not be appropriate, proportionate or cost-effective for the

Committee to consider this issue.



The EQUISAFETY TREC Ireland National Championships

Nicky Fletcher - Sunday, June 30, 2013
We are thrilled to announce that we are the main sponsor at the “EQUISAFETY TREC Ireland National Championships” There are 7 fantastic classes

EQUISAFETY Level 1 Pairs
EQUISAFETY Level 2 Pairs
EQUISAFETY Level 2 Individuals (As above Cla...ss 2)
EQUISAFETY Level 3 Pairs
EQUISAFETY Level 3 Individual
EQUISAFETY Level 4 Individuals – FITE European Cup
EQUISAFETY Team Competition
All winners will receive POLITE products.

TREC Ireland is delighted to announce the title sponsor for the 2013
National Championships. The EQUISAFETY TREC Ireland National Championships
will be held from the 19th to the 21st of July at Ross House Equestrian
Centre, Mountnugent, Co. Cavan. UK based company Equisafety produce high
quality high viz products for horse and rider as well as a range of
performance sportswear. Visit their website
www.equisafety.com to see their excellent selection of products
http://trecireland.webs.com/.


Fashionable & Funky...

Nicky Fletcher - Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Stand Out In A Crowd

 

 

Ever wanted to ride out wearing a product that kept you cool, but that offered you the chance to be at the height of fashion at the same time? Well now you can……

 

By wearing the Chiffon Rainbow Top, from High Visibility, is at the forefront of this year’s fashion featuring all those neon/bright colours that can be seen everywhere on the high street – pinks, oranges, yellows, greens etc.

 

Designed for the lady who wants to looks fashionable while riding, cycling or just out and about, this chic and sophisticated top has been designed using the very latest in technical performance fabrics.

 

This stunning garment has a vivid rainbow-striped chiffon back, which with its plain pink or yellow front, made from wickable fabric, will keep you cool but allow you to stand out in a crowd.

Sizes: Small – XXL

Colours: Yellow or Pink with Rainbow Striped Back

RRP: £19.99

Available from July - only at  www.highvisibility.uk.com

 



Competition time

Nicky Fletcher - Friday, April 26, 2013

Best Caption wins a £45.00 rug.

Please go to our Equisafety Facebook page to add your caption.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Equisafety-/177348828956663?fref=ts



Comment from a new Cycling customer about the POLITE waistcoat

Nicky Fletcher - Friday, April 26, 2013
Just got one of the polite waistcoats just been out cycling wow it is great people do not want to come close to me when they do overtake me they leave lots of room and go slow, one of the best hi viz waistcoats i have ever had :)

Like · · Tuesday at 16:36



Police guidence to HighVisibility about the POLITE range

Nicky Fletcher - Thursday, April 25, 2013

The POLITE range was manufactured after this positive response by Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO)   Lead of Mounted Policing, Commander Robert Broadhurst from the Metropolitan Police who stated the following;

“Provided there is no deliberate attempt to impersonate Police there us very little we can do other than perhaps ask them to ensure the word looks more like polite than police. Assuming they have no items of police uniform it is unlikely the public will mistake them for us but if they do it will just be another High Visibility Patrol which should add to the reassurance picture.

After Commander Robert Broadhurst left the ACPO Mounted Section, Acting Head of the Mounted Section Christopher Rowbottom stated;

My understanding of impersonating a police officer requires actions and intent not merely wearing clothing. I do not believe the wearing of your polite range would constitute impersonating a police officer.”

The new 2014 POLITE range was designed with the guidence from ACPO.



POLITE waistcoat being tested on Radio 4 today

Nicky Fletcher - Thursday, April 25, 2013

The POLITE Cycling Waistcoat is the best high viz on the sportswear market for giving you respect on the road

We are thrilled to announce that the Goverment are going to invest One Billion into cycling and cycling safety.

Its being talked about on Radio 4 today Also in the same feature they are interviewing a keen cyclist from London Mike Blackman, who wears the POLITE waistcoat daily and gives a glowing report on how effective it is.

Listen to Radio 4 today between 12 and 1pm YOU & YOURS program

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qps9

 

 

 



Equisafety Launches in to the USA

Nicky Fletcher - Friday, February 15, 2013

Equisafety was proud to be a sponsor of the 4th riders4helmets safety symposium held in Kentucky USA.
In the video below, Equisafety founder Nicola Fletcher discusses her inspiration for the Equisafety range and how it will benefit the American market.

Please click the link to watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDcLSNPe3Rg&feature=youtu.be