Jump to content

Paladin

Full Members
  • Content Count

    1,009
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    15

Paladin last won the day on February 15

Paladin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,359 Excellent

About Paladin

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    4mins from my moorings

Recent Profile Visitors

1,008 profile views
  1. I have no intention of debating the Royal family, here or anywhere else. I instantly saw the branding link, you don't. So be it.
  2. The different attitudes to "Branding".
  3. I don't think a new thread is needed. I consider this news to be apposite for this thread. The way I read it was that just because you are a member of the Royal family, it doesn't mean you can go about using the 'Royal' brand for gain. So just because the Broads is a member of the national park family, doesn't mean they can brand themselves a national park. I'm not sure the military comparison works. My son-in-law retired from a senior military rank, and is now a reservist. He doesn't actually use his rank, although he is entitled to and certainly would consider using it for profit.
  4. This is a right-Royal lesson that the Broads Authority and National Parks UK should take note of: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex must drop their 'Sussex Royal' label after deciding to step down as working royals. Following lengthy and complex talks, the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word 'royal' in their 'branding'." [Daily Mail 19/02/20] The full article can be read here.
  5. You asked me a while ago if I knew what de facto meant and you kindly gave me a definition: "existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right" This was my reply then and it is still my reply; Defra has repeatedly confirmed that the Broads is not a national park, which takes care of the 'in fact' part of the definition. The 1949 Act failed to designate the Broads as a National Park, which takes care of the 'legal right' bit.
  6. I wanted to 'Like' this post more than once, but I can't.
  7. Simply because of your comments about snide comment and members on here commenting about a business. The only business that had been mentioned up to that time was the one on Facebook to which batrabill had posted a link and a comment. I apologise if I interpreted that wrongly, but you haven't given any other explanation. Yes, I totally agree that expressions such as 'snide', 'making mischief' and 'if the cap fits' are nasty and unhelpful, which is why I avoid using them. Perhaps we can now get back to the topic, when there is something else about it to discuss.
  8. My confusion deepens. batrabill posted a link to something that was happening on Facebook. Until that point, the premises in question had never been mentioned in this thread. You then post: "What a business choses to adopt as it's corporate identity has no right to be commented on by those on here persuing an agenda. If I were the owner of the establishment I would not be happy." Followed by: "I have no problem with freedom of expression. However I have a real problem when it becomes a "Snide" comment about a business using a legitimate marketing tool to further a few members vendetta against a man and the organisation he heads." Perhaps you would explain precisely how the activities on Facebook have any connection with members on here? Even if those involved are members here, what they do elsewhere isn't, or shouldn't be, any concern of ours. And why should you suggest I, as a member here, am a part of that activity? If you’re not referring to me, to which members are you referring?
  9. I am now totally confused. What have the posts made on the Protect the Broads FB page got to do with the members on here? I’m not a member of that group and rather resent the implication that I have made any snide comments. Who was it introduced the Norfolk Mead Hotel into this thread? This is just one of 17 threads on here to which posts have been made in the last 48 hours. Plenty of other things to read and talk about, then.
  10. We're not allowed to. We're not allowed to. Contrary to the Tos. But I think he would be able to confirm that he did receive some critical emails when the company started using the BNP expression, even though its use is compliant with the stated reason for the re-branding (marketing). But I think that may have been a bit before your time. I can't quite see how wearing a pin badge for viewing by customers who have already arrived (presumably most having booked beforehand) can be seen in the same light as promotional 'literature' which seeks to encourage potential customers to 'buy' your product.
  11. No right? Whatever happened to the right of freedom of expression?
  12. If it’s the same issue, it isn’t trolling. Nor is posting a genuine complaint. “Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community.”
  13. That’s an excellent idea. Then, perhaps, this thread could be kept on somewhere near the topic.
  14. I didn't mean to cause alarm and dispondency but there is no need to fear. That phrase already appears in section 10 of the 1988 Act: 10 Functions of Authority and others in relation to the navigation area. (1)The Authority shall— (a)maintain the navigation area for the purposes of navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required; and (b)take such steps to improve and develop it as it thinks fit. It's the proposal to remove the protection of the interests of the navigation we should keep an eye on.
  15. But you use semantics in your arguments frequently. OK for you and not for me? I use Sandford constantly? I think not, unless I'm referring to someone else's comments. The Broads Authority will continue to have a responsibility for the navigation while it is also a Harbour Authority and I haven't seen any recent suggestions that that will change. But the response by the Authority to the Glover Review included a suggestion to change the duty re the navigation to: (c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required; The 1988 Act says: (c) protecting the interests of navigation. The bits about maintenance etc., come later, in section 10. On the face of it, all that would do is put the requirements into one sentence instead of three, but the exclusion of the “protecting the interests of navigation” is worrying. The right of navigation doesn’t actually need the protection of the BA. There is already sufficient protection at common law. The right of navigation simply means the right to navigate from A to B to C etc., with a right to anchor in inclement weather or to await a favourable tide. But the interests of navigation go far beyond the right of navigation. It would include things such as the provision of moorings, tree clearance, removal of obstructions, enforcing byelaws, providing Ranger services, etc. So you see (I hope) that semantics play a very important part in this saga.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.