Talk:Warnborough College

HETAC Denial of Accreditation

Does it add anything to the article on HETAC's recent action to include Warnborough's claim that the denial is under appeal, and HETAC's response that there is no appeal process, or it is superflous? Fladrif (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif, for asking. I do think it may be superfluous. I guess I'm of the opinion that this article goes a bit overboard on detail in some places. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is superfluous and how does this affect the Warnborough issuing degrees from or in Ireland now?Degreemill (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to delete that sentence. Fladrif (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would an accreditation body not have an appeals process? Is this something that should be discussed here?Warnborough (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a talk page is about. Its not about discussing how to improve an organisation, its about how to improve the article. This is not a blog. See WP:TALKPAGE.

Locations - Warnborough IE

In anticipation of Warnborough IE relocating after its lease at All Hallows expires at the end of this month, let me suggest the following revision:

Warnborough College (UK) is located in Canterbury, Kent.

Warnborough College (IE) initially opened with offices on Hanover Street in Cork, and then moved to offices above a pub in Bray. For two years it rented offices from All Hallows College in Drumcondra. In February 2008, the Irish Independent reported that All Hallows officials were concerned that Warnborough had falsely represented itself as linked to All Hallows, and, as a result, that All Hallows had decided not to renew its rental agreement with Warnborough after August 2008.[1] John Joe Spring, vice president of All Hallows, told the Independent that his institution had no involvement in the academic programs or arrangements of Warnborough College.[1] Warnborough College (IE) is currently located at offices in __________.

Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds good. The part about being "above a pub" seems unnecessarily derogatory and seems like an unnecessary detail. What do you think? Please consider, too, whether the John Joe Spring sentence is redundant. TimidGuy (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Warnborough College (IE) presence in Cork was their Registered Office address, this is where the entity of the Warnboroughs' Irish Limited company resided and nothing more, I believe the Cork office was either a Solicitor or Accountant. There was no real time trading from that office. It acted as the legal address for statutory documents for the Irish Limited Company. The Bray office was indeed over a pub, this presence was opened in response to the authorities acting up over the University title in UK, this office forms part of a business centre run by their accountants in Bray.

Yes the Joe Spring statement is entirely relevant as it clearly portrays Allhallows attitude to the Warnborough and leaves no doubt as to the reason why the Warnborough College (IE) did not have their tenancy renewed. Allhallows were concerned by the possiblity of 'trading off' and took the appropriate action to protect their good name.Degreemill (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But what does the Joe Spring sentence say that this doesn't? "All Hallows officials were concerned that Warnborough had falsely represented itself as linked to All Hallows." And yes, it's a fact that the office was over a pub, but why is that relevant? See the section on Tone in WP:NPOV: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." TimidGuy (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with Timidguy and I should have made this clearer, the 'over a pub' is not relevant to the Warnborough article, the actual fact of the matter was that the Bray Office was in a Business Centre that happened to be over a Pub.Actually as I worked for the Warnborough, I think having an office a pub would have would be quite perfect.Degreemill (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Degreemill. I'll go ahead and delete. And I think we would agree that the business centre location was probably preferable to All Hallows. :-) TimidGuy (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Timidguy has a point on the Joe Spring sentence. Some of this article does get to be a little like a newspaper instead of an encyclopedia article. Would this be any better?

Warnborough College (UK) is located in Canterbury, Kent.

Warnborough College (IE) initially had a registered office in Cork, and later opened offices in a business center in Bray. For two years it rented offices from All Hallows College in Drumcondra. In February 2008, the Irish Independent reported that All Hallows officials were concerned that Warnborough had falsely represented itself as linked to All Hallows, which had no involvement in Warnborough's academic programs or arrangements. At All Hallow's request, Warnborough removed photographs of All Hallows from its website. All Hallows said that it would not renew Warnborough's lease after August 2008.[1] Warnborough College (IE) is currently located at offices in __________. Fladrif (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. Looks good. TimidGuy (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New address in Ireland.. Warnborough College Ireland, 316 The Capel Building Mary's Abbey, Dublin 7, Ireland, Tel: +353 (0) 1 857 1964. See here.. http://www.daft.ie/searchcommercial.daft?id=32811&search=1 (the link may vanish as this is the very office number 316) it is a Business Centre in the centre of Dublin..Degreemill (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see here http://www.warnborough.ie/aboutwc/faq.htm and go to 1.Degrees in Ireland.. Degreemill (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Warnborough take HETAC to High Court

It seems that Team Warnborough are taking legal action in Ireland. Link here http://www.independent.ie/national-news/legal-war-looms-in-colleges-battle-for-approval-1475517.html Degreemill (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Date of the hearing in the case of WARNBOROUGH COLLEGE IRELAND LTD -V- HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS is 24th September 2008 http://www.courts.ie/legaldiary.nsf/8e97b098452f0d9180256dc2004f82e0/7c5f723b31c52651802574cd003c7a80?OpenDocumentDegreemill (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume, based solely on the Rules of the High Court, and not having seen the filings, that the hearing scheduled for this week would be for to the High Court consider whether Warnborough should be granted leave to seek judicial review of the HETAC decision, and would not involve any decision on the merits. Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Judgement should appear on the High Court,Ireland's web site in due course, and the decision will be reported in the Independent newspaper beforehand. I should imagine that HETAC's decision was taken without bias, however this law suit will now include lawyers who will argue a detailed case for HETAC and against the Warnborough and vice versa. Perhaps the Warnborough feel that their past involvements produced a biased decision by HETAC. If the High Court find in the Warnborough's favour then a precedent may be set for other similar institutions and if the decision is against the Warnborough. Would this mean the end of the Warnborough College issuing degrees. I think the Judgement will make an interesting read.Degreemill (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get too carried away here, WP:NOTBLOG. Djegan (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the lawsuit has now been withdrawn, because HETAC instituted an internal appeal process, and will allow Warnborough to pursue that process. [1] [2] For purposes of this article, however, I do not think it appropriate or necessary to follow the developments blow-by-blow like a newspaper. We might say simply that the denial by HETAC is under appeal. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fladrif. Sounds like a good step. Maybe we could say that after initially denying the application, HETAC is now reconsidering it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Given today's back-and-forth, I am now inclined to say nothing in the article about this appeal process until there is some verifiable, independent information on what actually is happening. There is a significant disconnect between the characterization of the High Court's action the other day as reported in the Irish newspapers and the characterization of that action by User Warnborough in the "press release" that got deleted. The actual order has not yet been published on the High Court's website, and when it is we'll have a better idea of what actually happened. Further, taking the published sources together with the recent posts here, I have the impression that the appeal/reconsideration/reapplication (however it is appropriately characterized) has not actually been commenced, so I would not say that the decision is under further review until there is some reliable source that confirms it.Fladrif (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I noticed that Warnborough had put up a statement about the court case earlier, but it's been deleted. Is this the policy of a discussion page to delete anything that Warnborough might have to say to defend itself i.e. is this a closed shop only open to a select few? The thoughts expressed on these pages seem to be heavily skewed towards the idea that Warnborough is totally bad and has no redeeming factors whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.135.241 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Djegan. As this section is for discussion as you mention can we discuss why HETAC lost the case and had to pay out all court costs? Could it be that an injustice had been done to Warnborough? Could it be that HETAC had no appeals procedure? Could it be that HETAC was influenced by colourful hearsay on Wikiepedia and in the media? Warnborough (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of what is in the article, it is not for "quotes" of what happened in court or the media. Its not a section for heresay or "what if". Its is not a blog. Its not a "refuge" for organisations that cannot get mainstream media attention. Djegan (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At university we were taught to think, be critical, analytical and certainly don't trust newspapers to be completely factual, honest or objective even 'mainstream media'!Warnborough (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. If you can provide a reputable source for your claims or quotes then the place for it is in the article, not in the talk page. Talk pages are not a refuge for content likely to be rejected on the article page. Finally please see WP:CONFLICT. Djegan (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Djegan - will do. Warnborough (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Per my note above, the Irish Independent and Irish Times articles do not say that the court ruled against HETAC. They do not say that the court ruled in favor of Warnborough College (IE). They do not say that costs were awarded. They say that the appeal was stricken, that HETAC implemented an appeal process after the petition for leave to seek judicial review was filed, and that Warnborough intends to pursue that process with HETAC. The newspaper articles may well have the ruling exactly backwards, but they are the only independent sources we have, and the edits from User Warnborough are not supported by them. Fladrif (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Exactly right Fladrif.08:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degreemill (talk • contribs)

This is not correct. You will see this when the Judge's comments are put up. HETAC would not have to pay all costs if it had won the case.

Also, where is the citation that Warnborough courses/qualifications are not accepted in Australia where we have lots of graduates? Warnborough (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is this statement relevant since Warnborough does NOT offer UK degrees and never has? :# Warnborough College (UK) does not have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in the U.K.,[16] and does not offer recognized British degrees.[21] Again a negative twist is being put up.Warnborough (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this TALK section was useful for us to win the case since it was seen as 'colourful hearsay' with many unsubstantial facts and gossip. Warnborough (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of content posted by User:Warnborough about the HETAC case, Djegan's approach of tagging it rather than deleting may have been more in line with WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." Since the publication of the judge's comments is apparently imminent, I guess we'll know soon.

We need to start thinking about mediation. If Warnborough becomes accredited by ASIC and/or HETAC, we really should take an objective look at this article. As it is, I think it violates NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It feels like it was written by a critic. There's an excess of detail that skews it, such as the point about creditors hiring a private detective. Also, the two schools are separate corporate entities with separate histories. It may be a violation of WP:NOR the way we've put everything into one article. I don't want to hash out these issues without the context of mediation, because I feel that some editors here have been abusive in the past and have crossed the line into incivility, violating WP:CIVIL. Also, I think that mediation would give a more level playing field. As it is, the preponderance of editors seems to be critics with a strong point of view. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Djegan's approach is entirely correct. The User:Warnborough edits are not merely unsupported by a reliable source, they are directly contradicted by reliable sources. Who has it right, two Irish newspapers, or User:Warnborough? I have my suspicions, but the contradtiction will be resolved soon enough when the High Court judgement is published. That is why I said above that the article should not be changed until the matter is cleared up. I still think that is the appropriate approach.

As for mediation, you are way ahead of yourself. I would point out that User:Warnborough and its proxies/sockpuppets has been repeatedly warned about vandalizing this article and the Talk page and has been banned on more than one occasion. It has an inherent conflict of interest with respect to this article. Everything here that you are complaining about has been meticulously documented with appropriate references to reliable sources. Fladrif (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right -- leave out HETAC court case for now. Regarding my other "complaint": It doesn't matter if it's meticulously documented. Issues with weight and NPOV are irrespective of sourcing. An article can be impeccably sourced yet still violate NPOV. The only solution I see is mediation, because I don't see that we'll ever be able to address this otherwise. TimidGuy (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to consider the Warnborough comments placed here, history cannot be rewritten but we can and should amend the article to portray the current situation, I think we should edit the article like this.

Can we amend the Article Main Heading to remove the words non-accredited because those words encompass all the courses and is a statement that is not exactly correct and we know that accreditation matters are addressed in Section 2 and 2.1.

Next, in 2.1 can we delete paragraph 1 as it is superfluous and can we promote old paragraph 3 to paragraph 1 and insert the word "currently" within the words "courses are not recognised"., also the link number 16 in paragraph 1 should be moved to be with link 15 in the article.

In new paragraph 2 can we include a statement that the Warnborough have an appeal in progress with HETAC as per the newspaper reports, also can we portray HETAC as a Validation Body in Ireland for third-level education institutions such as the Warnborough.

In new paragraph 3, can we remove Australia as there is no citation of evidence to this fact.Degreemill (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article on HETAC, which explains what it is and does. We should add an internal link to that article where HETAC is referenced. Fladrif (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, because should HETAC validate the Warnborough, their name will also appear on that HETAC article page.Degreemill (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The High Court's website has now published the written judgments issued through the date of the reported action in the Warnbrough application for leave to seek judicial review. No judgment on the merits was published in that matter. [3] In light of that telling circumstance (rather like the dog not barking in the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze), I am inclined to believe that the Irish papers had it right, and that User: Warnborough has been blowing smoke here, regarding the substance of the Court's action. Fladrif (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let us see what appears in due course. Why would HETAC have to pay all court costs including ours if we had not been successful in obtaining a ruling from the judge that HETAC has to consider a new application from Warnborough? If HETAC had been successful wouldn't it be obvious that the newspapers would boast that Warnborough had lost its case? The newspapers do not want to omit that what they said about Warnborough was 'colourful hearsay' as pointed out at the hearing!Again, it is obvious that you only want to see and hear negatives about Warnborough. Warnborough (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is one of conspiracy and secrecy - something not to be taken seriously. No doubt you are a vested interest. Djegan (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Warnborough, why don't you point us to independent sources, for example verifiable internet sources, such as alumni who have benefited etc., or if you can find a verified internet source regarding the award of costs against HETAC. Then we will include those sources within the article and achieve the balance that you seem to believe is missing.Degreemill (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We have been told by the High Court that no judgement will be published on the High Court's website since it was an ORDER by the judge for HETAC to consider a new application. A copy of the ORDER will be put up as soon as our lawyers obtain a copy from the High Court. Warnborough (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't seem to be working. I did a search on "Warnborough" in the Irishi Examiner website and found this letter to the editor.[4] If that's the source being used, it may not meet Wikipedia guidelines. I don't understand why the search didn't turn up the original article. And I don't understand why the addition to the article says that the appeal was successful. My understanding of "appeal" means that a review process has commenced. Saying it was successful would suggest that Warnborough is now accredited. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this change in the article. A self-serving letter to the editor does not meet WP:RS. Further, I think that the edit you added earlier is also misleading and proceeds from a misunderstanding from what apparently went on. Taking all of the various published sources together with the comments of User: Warnboroughhere, and giving everything due weight an the benefit of the doubt, it appears to me that what happened was that Warnborough College (IE) sought leave to take judicial review of HETAC's denial of accreditation, and prior to any ruling on whether the High Court would grant leave to proceed, HETAC agreed to permit Warnborough to submit a new application for accreditation. Warnborough agreed to do so in lieu of pursuing judicial review. It would appear the the judge sanctioned this accomodation, and the proceedings were dismissed ("stricken" as the paper put it). Given the posture of Warnborough's application to HETAC at the point it was denied, and given the procedureal posture of the judicial proceedings, there was no possibility of the Judge "reversing" HETAC in a manner that would have resulted in Warnborough being accredited at this point in time. Fladrif (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The facts are HETAC would not allow Warnborough to re-submit its application, it had no appeals procedure, refused to meet with us, supplied hearsay to the panel of experts, etc. Our only option was to seek a Judicial Review. At the hearing HETAC agreed that Warnborough could make a new application, so there was no need for a Judicial Review which would have taken years to get back into court. So this application was 'struck out' and HETAC had to pay all court costs for both parties. It is a simple as that, and now Warnborough is moving forward with a new application. Warnborough (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So, in short, the newspaper reports about the status and resolution of the petition for leave were entirely correct, and your editing here significantly misrepresented the facts. Stop vandalizing this article! Fladrif (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be cautious about calling this vandalism. According to WP:VANDAL, it's not. And please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. TimidGuy (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed version

Warnborough College (IE) courses are not currently recognized by Ireland's Department of Education, HETAC, or the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI). In February 2008, Sean O'Foghlu, chief executive of NQAI told the Irish Independent that because Warnborough College is not a recognised higher education institution or awarding body, the qualifications are "effectively worthless." [1]

In July 2008, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), an accrediting body for Ireland's third-level educational institutions, denied Warnborough College (IE)'s application for accreditation because Warnborough failed to agree to quality-control procedures, which was the first step in the accreditation process. [22] Warnborough has appealed this decision.

Warnborough degrees are not accepted in Texas,[23] Oregon,[24] by Michigan civil service,[25] Maine [26]. A Warnborough degree is not accepted in South Korea for purposes of obtaining an E-2 Visa.[27][28] Warnborough is listed on the New South Wales register of unrecognized universities. [29]

Thanks, Degreemill. Above is a new version with your suggested changes. I'd also go along with your suggested change to the lead. Good point. TimidGuy (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Timidguy, I think this looks good and I hope everyone else agrees. Looking ahead, once the HETAC deliberations are concluded then we will probably need to give consideration to amending the History section. However lets cross that bridge as and when events dictate. ThanksDegreemill (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Timidguy, the link 29 for Warnborough/NSW., goes to a pdf file using an InterWeb link in the pdf article item that relates to the Warnborough led me to a web site for NSW and the Warnborough are not listed by name. So it does not support the fact that the Warnbrough are unrecognised in NSW. If I am right, can we delete.Degreemill (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I guess we can implement these. I guess I didn't understand, though, why you thought the first paragraph was superfluous, as it's the only statement about Warnborough UK's accreditation. TimidGuy (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Timidguy, actually in the Distance Learning section, we state that the Warnborough UK does not offer degrees, so maybe we can cut and paste and make a statement like this.

Suggestion...Section Distance education programs.. paragraph 5, not the whole paragraph just this sentence.

Warnborough College (UK) issues certificates and diplomas for short-course vocational and personal-enrichment subjects.[18] It does not offer degrees as it does not have the educational accreditation necessary to be a chartered university in the U.K.,[16] which is a requirement to offer recognized British degrees.[21]Degreemill (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Good suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Timidguy, lets go for it. Good workDegreemill (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct information has been put up about IARC membership Warnborough (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

St. Theresa's Medical University

The paragraph listing an associaton with St. Theresar's Medical School has been removed since this is not the case.Warnborough (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the information on the Warnborough (IE) website about partnership for a dual degree program incorrect or outdated?[5] Fladrif (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the information on the Warnborough (UK) wesbite about a partnership for direct admission incorrect or outdated?[6]Fladrif (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to my confusion, here is the now dead link to STMU's website describing these partnerships and linking to the Warnborough websites, [7], as well as a live link at ACS Distance Education to similar effect. [8] So, what gives? Clearly Warnborough (UK), Warnborough (IE), ACS and STMU are/were representing to the world that they had an association to offer these programs. In what way was the removed paragraph "not the case"? Absent something concrete, I should think that this should go back in the article.Fladrif (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

St Theresa's has it own wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Theresa's_Medical_University_(St._Kitts) it seems in those days it was run by a Mr Uhrin. Does a revert back, add anything to the article because the Warnborough are not linked to St Thereas's any more and the supporting links will no doubt disappear soon.Degreemill (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that Team Warnborough has been diligently revising its web pages to excise any mention of STMU, and because it added a robot.txt to its websites to prevent the Internet Archive from archiving its old sites[[9]], the references will ultimately dissolve into the ether when the Google cache disappears. Query - and this goes back to some material that User:Orlady added and later deleted regarding Affiliated Institutions [10]] - is it material to the article to retain a reference to the (apparently) former relationships between Warnborough and STMU? Birds of a feather, and all that jazz. I might even be willing to trade User:Timidguy an Affiliated Institutions section for a Notable Alumni section and a player to be named later. Fladrif (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that entries regarding Warnborough and St Kitts would be suited for placement in the St Theresa's Wikipedia page as that page seems to be mostly historical and Warnboroughs' involvement with St Theresa's is obviously historical. There could be an argument for the inclusion of a Historical Affliliation section but only if consistent supporting evidence is available. Where an Alumni section is concerned, I did put a note in the Talk page asking the Warnborough to suggest some alumni, as yet nothing suggested by Team Warnborough.Degreemill (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fladrif, I don't see the point of adding this information. Why is it important for a reader to know that Warnborough has had an affiliation with this institution? Warnborough has had affiliations with many institutions. Your edit summary doesn't seem appropriate -- nor does your edit-warring approach. Please see WP:CONSENSUS. In my opinion, you've already distorted the balance of this article, such that it violates WP:NPOV. You need to justify inclusion of this material. Regarding notable alumni, I believe we earlier had consensus not to include such because of WP:BLP' considerations. TimidGuy (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not relevant and another attempt to put up more negatives. Why not put up the positive affiliations and links such as UK College of Teachers, Investor in People, ISO9001, ISO27001, NAFSA, Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce, EDEN, official US examination centre for ETS, Princeton New Jersey for SAT,ACT,TOEFL,TSE, etc. - yes lots of good stuff!Warnborough (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct information has been put about IARC. Warnborough (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)