Tolls Rise?

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/thousands_of_boat_owners_could_be_affected_by_broads_authority_s_proposed_changes_to_tolls_restructure_1_4603283

Do I sense a big, overall increase in the Tolls? You bet I do! Silver tongued men that come bearing gifts should not be trusted, in my opinion.

[Vaughan]

38 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Silver tongued men that come bearing gifts should not be trusted, in my opinion.

Just the men, Peter? What about Ms Boudicca?

[JennyMorgan]

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the biggest thumb print on any decision will be that of a man, that man.

[MBA Marine]

I don't currently have a boat to toll, but if the people are unhappy then perhaps they should unite and create a coup to force a change at the helm.  I'm not a political man but I can see British politics is getting a reboot,  the BA are well overdue the same.

[JennyMorgan]

Amen to that, Mark.

[Maxwellian]

If you keep doing the same thing why act surprised when nothing changes.   

If it was not for the protest groups very little would change. Women would still not have the vote etc etc.

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Maxwellian said:

If you keep doing the same thing why act surprised when nothing changes.   

If it was not for the protest groups very little would change. Women would still not have the vote etc etc.

 

Not sure that that was the best example to have chosen! 

[Maxwellian]

I thought that it would get a rise. Now back to the stock pool.

[JennyMorgan]

Interesting reading here:

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2016/07/the-restructuring-of-navigation-charges.html

Written by a man who has been on the inside and does know what he is writing about.

[JanetAnne]

Is there a definition of 'navigation'?

To be able to use the system by canoe would be to navigate it therefore navigation is possible yet we still can't get out of Catfield Dyke with our Yacht so, for us, navigation is no longer possible.

[Viking23]

9 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Interesting reading here:

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2016/07/the-restructuring-of-navigation-charges.html

Written by a man who has been on the inside and does know what he is writing about.

I just opened this and thought it was the Broads Authourity official blog, a bit misleading, check out the Broads Authourity blog here..

http://thebroadsblog.blogspot.co.uk

Same format, same background, but the Broads Authority does have their logo, all be it very small. I am beginning to wonder if this is the real blog too.!

[JennyMorgan]

49 minutes ago, Viking23 said:

I just opened this and thought it was the Broads Authourity official blog, a bit misleading, check out the Broads Authourity blog here..

http://thebroadsblog.blogspot.co.uk

Same format, same background, but the Broads Authority does have their logo, all be it very small. I am beginning to wonder if this is the real blog too.!

Perhaps being misleading is intentional!, a spot of mischief!  At least it is not a lie, heavens above, it could have been branded The Broads Authority!!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, JanetAnne said:

Is there a definition of 'navigation'?

To be able to use the system by canoe would be to navigate it therefore navigation is possible yet we still can't get out of Catfield Dyke with our Yacht so, for us, navigation is no longer possible.

Navigable as was navigable when the original Broads Act was enacted. If you were able to get out of Catfield Dyke in 1986 but can't in 2016 then the Authority is duty bound to remedy that. 

[Viking23]

If you decided not to pay the river toll on that basis, then what are the consequences?

[JennyMorgan]

Time to insist on the BA meeting its obligation.

[kfurbank]

15 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Interesting reading here:

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2016/07/the-restructuring-of-navigation-charges.html

Written by a man who has been on the inside and does know what he is writing about.

Interesting in deed. So was it written by a man in the know, or Sue as she has put her name to it?

[rightsaidfred]

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Interesting reading here:

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2016/07/the-restructuring-of-navigation-charges.html

Written by a man who has been on the inside and does know what he is writing about.

Two points one is the question of infringement of copyright and secondly the deliberate intention to deceive, both these issues  do nothing for the credibility of those involved with this blog, if they feel they have a point to make by all means do so but do it openly and under their own banner.

Fred

 

[JennyMorgan]

Keith, perhaps it was written by Sue, I was under the impression it was by one of the other named contributors. 

Fred, infringement of copyright, how so? In reality the Authority is not above branding with someone else's name so perhaps the originator of this new, informative blog is having a gentle, tongue in cheek nod to that fact, 

An intention to deceive? How so? 

The names of the contributors are clearly there for all to see, you might recognise several of them!. 

[rightsaidfred]

Maybe JM and I could be wrong but to impersonate another person or their website if not a transgression of copyright could well be an infringement of intellectual  property rights, I have no real interest in the legalities more a case of how pathetic it is to need to use what appears to be subterfuge to denigrate someone else something I take to be outside the new T & Cs and I did note the names that appeared on the blog.

Fred

 

[JennyMorgan]

Don't worry, Fred, the originator of this new blog has taken legal advice. Personally I see the use of actual names by the contributors lifts it above the efforts of the Broads National Pike, albeit I believe that the BNPike, like Private Eye, makes valid comment.

[Vaughan]

4 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Two points one is the question of infringement of copyright

Ah, but whose copyright? Suppose the original "user" had not checked to ensure this name was not already registered?

[kfurbank]

I would imagine a large part of the similarity between the clone and the original site stem from the background wallpaper. A rather nice picture taken by Julian Claxton a professional photographer. I hope his palm has been crossed with silver by both bloggers? or should that be blaggers  or is the picture royalty free now? I guess if the lawyers have been consulted then it must be ok, don't want to see toll money being spent on a copyright case.

[Vaughan]

Speaking as a layman I have always heard that once a photo is on the internet, it is "up for grabs".

Speaking rhetorically, if I post a picture on this forum of Hearts Cruisers, and someone then also posts it by way of quoting me in the discussion, is he infringing my copyright? Do I even have a copyright, having posted it on a forum, or blogspot? If I do, then this is rather embarrassing for all of us on here!

Furthermore, if someone pays a professional for a photo, that they then post in the public domain, on a web name that they do not actually own, does the real owner then have the right to use that photo, posted in his own name?

Please understand I know nothing of all this. I am just a member of this forum, posing a question for discussion.

 

[kfurbank]

Copyright is a form of legal protection that is assigned to content creators at the moment of creation. The moment you take a photo, you own the copyright to that picture. You can sell or give away the rights to it, but posting it on the internet does not give away the copyright. Anyone who wants to copy it or repost it should ask permission first. The BBC fell foul of this as recently as 2011 by reposting images of the Tottenham riots and attributing the source as being Twitter, rather than asking permission of the photographer who posted the picture on Twitter.

I would think that if you were to reference a picture by posting a link to the original thread, or post containing the picture you would be fine, but copying and reposting the picture in your own post or thread without the owners permission would be breaking the copyright.

Probably very complex, but I'm not sure how forums such as these stand with regards to copyright and ownership. I would think unless the terms of use of the forum state that by making such a post you effectively give free use of the picture, then it is still copyrighted. A feature of this forum made me think of copyright the other day, and how that might be applied to the written content as well as any pictures. In the case mentioned above, the Twitter Ts and Cs state that users retain the rights over all the images they post.

You are off course free to give away your right to a picture, or the more common method is via an Attribution license where any one using your picture must give you credit for the picture.

Edited to add that the terms of this forum state that you should not post copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or the owners of the forum.

Edited July 7, 2016 by kfurbank

[Vaughan]

Sounds to me like rather a grey area then?