Quote:
Originally Posted by northwind
No- those trousers (Strike) were never advertised as being armoured. FT pointed out as much in the article, but the magazine muddied the waters for the purposes of their article. "These unarmoured trousers might as well be unarmoured!" There was a good article there to be written, about armour upgrades, checking your gear, filling available pockets, choosing your gear better...
|
The exact same armour was being used in other FT clothing and they were sold as being CE armoured. Their reps were on a mission directly after that magazine went to press to remove and replace all the offending armour from garments hanging in shops. I was working for a rival firm at the time and we'd all deliberately follow the FT reps round nicking all the business they lost because of that article. After a few months you learn the rival rep's call cycles and have them noted in your diary - usually you would try to get in before them so the customer spends with you, but this was different. The FT rep may be one of my best mates outside of work, but business is business. He left and joined our firm to cover my neighbouring area.