Berney Arms

[Chelsea14Ian]

Last night  I pulled out of the southern broads boat owners. This is s group on Facebook. Like here I posted my reply  regarding  the BA 24 hour moorings. Due to my concern that they would  pull out of Berney. They said as reported  that they will remain thankfully. Sunday and yesterday  about four people linked with the application  I assume kept asking me what BA said to me.I told them many times my question  just concerned there moorings. None of them believed me.They said oh are there moorings then have slower running tide/water then the pub often swearing and whatever I said they just wouldn't accept what I told them.Yesterday it got to the point where I was receiving comments almost  constantly. Therefore I pulled out of that group.

Clearly they are upset by the application. To keep asking silly questions, when they would be better off looking  at an improved application to there liecence. 

What this whole thing has done personally is if these people gain a liecence for Berney  they won't see me there as a customer. 

[Smoggy]

As with the beauchamps I doubt I will be a customer till the freehold ownership changes, I'm probably not the only one with that approach.

[Meantime]

With all due respect Ian, what has a conversation on a Facebook group that's not even connected to this forum, got to do with this forum? I have seen the conversation elsewhere and talking at cross purposes and poking a hornets nest spring to mind, but that's a conversation for elsewhere.

[Chelsea14Ian]

My point  is clear I asked the same question. Will the  BA 24 hour moorings remain  at Bern.The anwer was yeas.I reported  that here and on the Southern  broads boat owners. They in turn kept asking me pointless questions,There response to me was I feel out of order.

With due respect it seems whatever I say you disagree with! Maybe this also may push me to depart from this forum 

I don't mind healthy  debate,but of late I feel at times to being picked on.

I will leave it at that lifes to short putting up with this.

[JennyMorgan]

Alan, wherever you go on the internet you will need a thick skin! I would personally miss your valued input.

[Meantime]

The point is that on Saturday down the pub I had a discussion with someone about one of the topics on this forum. Some valid points were raised but is our conversation down the pub of any relevance to this forum? No because it happened down the pub, not on this forum. The same is true for Faceache or any other forum. Airing your gripes from elsewhere on this forum where the people you had a discussion with may not even be members is wrong and generally frowned upon by the moderators here, or so I thought?

I am not picking on you Ian, I have and would have made the same point to anyone who brings a gripe or discussion from another place to this forum.

Things like this have happened in the past and generally what happens is people elsewhere then start to moan about this forum, or members from elsewhere join here to have a right of reply which generally lowers the tone for all members.

There used to be a saying for the full members section here, that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That was more generally expanded to what happens on another forum belongs on another forum, or so I thought.

[Vaughan]

Just hold on a minute there!  I fully agree with this forum having nothing to do with facebook and I never even read it, but what Ian (Chelsea) has told us is relevant to our discussion, as he implies that it reflects on the sort of customer base that might be attracted to a successful application.

Very much a part of the forum debate and thank you Ian, for telling us.

[MauriceMynah]

Bumble bees cannot fly.

Fred Astaire couldn't act, couldn't sing could dance a bit.

The Beatles would never amount to much.

The Berney Arms can never be a viable concern.

 

I am amazed that there are so many people who can't ( or won't ) see the possibilities the Berney Arms offers. I have discussed the place with someone who already owns a number of successful pubs, and he is looking at it, if the price ever becomes reasonable.

I don't have the capital to own it and start the businesses there that could thrive, but I would if I could. With the amount of land there, assuming you could get it all, I can think of at least 5 businesses, all perfectly in keeping with the area, that could each make sufficient profit to give a "lifestyle" living, and I don't in any way see myself as a "visionary" .

It seems fairly plain that the current owner wants to sell it off as building land, and the only way to acheive this is to prove that it has no other meaningful value, and that no business can survive in spite of what history indicates.

 

[Meantime]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Just hold on a minute there!  I fully agree with this forum having nothing to do with facebook and I never even read it, but what Ian (Chelsea) has told us is relevant to our discussion, as he implies that it reflects on the sort of customer base that might be attracted to a successful application.

Very much a part of the forum debate and thank you Ian, for telling us.

Vaughan a discussion has taken place in another place and one person has reported their take on it. I was not a part of that discussion and have seen it and can make a valid appraisal of it but won't post it here. What Ian has posted here is purely his perception of a debate taken place elsewhere. That I would say is not a matter for this forum to get involved in.

[Vaughan]

I certainly don't wish to argue about this but I wonder what is the difference between reporting this discussion (altercation) to the forum, and reporting what was said at the planning meeting? Or reporting what was seen on a Youtube clip of it?

I hope we are not now going to have to base our opinions only on what we read in the EDP?

[JennyMorgan]

I often refer to EDP24 and subsequently put my take on it. Is that a crime? ECIPA, I'm afraid that your criticism of Ian is unfortunate. It's been a good debate up to that point. I'm not happy in criticising you, perhaps we shouldn't do it.

[Meantime]

Just now, Vaughan said:

I certainly don't wish to argue about this but I wonder what is the difference between reporting this discussion (altercation) to the forum, and reporting what was said at the planning meeting? Or reporting what was seen on a Youtube clip of it?

I hope we are not now going to have to base our opinions only on what we read in the EDP?

What was said at the planning meeting is a matter of public record. What was said in the Facebook private group and only visible to members of that group cannot be verified by you unless you intend to join the group. Therefore you cannot make up your onw mind on what is the truth, or someone's perception of the truth. It is also very like someone having a row here in members only and posting one side of that row in another forum for others to see. That action would get them banned from this forum under the current TOS here. 

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I often refer to EDP24 and subsequently put my take on it. Is that a crime? ECIPA, I'm afraid that your criticism of Ian is unfortunate. It's been a good debate up to that point. I'm not happy in criticising you, perhaps we shouldn't do it.

Peter we have had many discussions, some we agree on and some we don't. I'm happy for you to criticise me, because I'm adult enough to defend myself.

I repeat what is being discussed is information taken from a closed group. A bit like publishing info from members here, elsewhere! 

It is a betrayal of trust, and worse one sided bias reporting of an incident.

[Vaughan]

Sorry, but I think this is all a bit precious.

As this has now been made into part of the forum debate then my view is with Ian.

What he has told us is nothing more (in sacrosanct T.O.S. terms) than what PW often says he has "heard along the rhond".

[Cheesey69]

So basically then we are not allowed to bring any views, conversations, gossip, inside knowledge, feelings and general moaning unless first aired here and with the consent of all parties involved?

well that’s China booked for this year then. 

[NorfolkNog]

Personally I find Facebook totally abhorrent and that's why you will never find me there. Stick on here Ian, at least you get treated with respect - most of the time!! 

[Meantime]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Sorry, but I think this is all a bit precious.

As this has now been made into part of the forum debate then my view is with Ian.

What he has told us is nothing more (in sacrosanct T.O.S. terms) than what PW often says he has "heard along the rhond".

How can you have a debate, when you cannot see 99% of the conversation? If the moderators are happy for me to, then I'll give my appraisal of the conversation that took place elsewhere?

Since I wasn't involved in the conversation, it's likely to be a little more honest and less biased!

[Vaughan]

8 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Since I wasn't involved in the conversation, it's likely to be a little more honest and less biased!

Where are you going, with a personal remark like that?  It would almost seem to me, by your continued arguing, that you are trying to force one of our valued contributors off this forum.

In my opinion you have just "broken the TOS" yourself. 

 

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Vaughan said:

Where are you going, with a personal remark like that?  It would almost seem to me, by your continued arguing, that you are trying to force one of our valued contributors off this form.

In my opinion you have just "broken the TOS" yourself. 

 

If someone is involved in a heated discussion, they are unlikely to be able to give a reasoned synopsis on that discussion, especially if they have thrown their toys out of the pram and left the group or forum. By their very closeness to the issue they will have a bias.

I am not trying to force Ian of the forum, just think that private discussions from elsewhere have no place on here! A stance I have put forward before whoever it involves and why I wouldn't report my view on the conversation without permission from the moderators.

In my opinion, if you haven't read the discussion elsewhere you are not in a position to make a judgement.

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

especially if they have thrown their toys out of the pram and left the group or forum.

I object strongly to your use of language to personally criticise another member. I say "personally" as it is glaringly obvious to whom you refer.

If this continues any further I shall report it.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Vaughan said:

If this continues any further I shall report it.

And you believe that isn't against the terms of service? It sounds like your trying to censor me. Either report it or don't, but don't try and silence me.

And I might just add that situations such as this, and how this has just escalated are precisely why conversations had on other forums or Facebook groups should remain there.

[NorfolkNog]

I'm getting a bit confused (not difficult) - "elsewhere" generally refers to the 'other' Forum which we must not mention (sounds a bit like 'allo 'allo) or are we referring to Facebook?? I agree with Vaughan we must respect other members but this maybe a case for the moderators to rule on what is or not relevant 'elsewhere' 

I think all this started as Ian was kind enough to make enquiries with the BA on our behalf. 

Confused of darkest Yorkshire. 

[Vaughan]

6 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

why conversations had on other forums or Facebook groups should remain there.

You misunderstand me.  It is the language, and attitude, used, that should remain there.

[Meantime]

Just now, NorfolkNog said:

I'm getting a bit confused (not difficult) - "elsewhere" generally refers to the 'other' Forum which we must not mention (sounds a bit like 'allo 'allo) or are we referring to Facebook?? I agree with Vaughan we must respect other members but this maybe a case for the moderators to rule on what is or not relevant 'elsewhere' 

I think all this started as Ian was kind enough to make enquiries with the BA on our behalf. 

Confused of darkest Yorkshire. 

Howard, There is a Facebook private group called Southern Broads Boat Owners. You have to ask to join and wait to be approved before you can view posts or comment on posts. The discussion took place over there and no part or it, or opinion from it has any right being aired over here in my honest opinion. I did not take part in the discussion, but have read it all. Reading it from a detached point of view allows you to see how wires have been inadvertently crossed and positions then unfortunately entrenched. A bit like what is now happening here.

I don't think there are many moderators around at the moment, so as a courtesy I will post no more on this subject until the mods have had a chance to take a look and have their say.

Hopefully others also show similar constraint.

[Maxwellian]

MoD are everywhere :) I am sure one will be along if needed. Meanwhile my view is please play nicely and be considerate. The MoDs have the option to put posters on Preauthorisation should they wish. Thank you all for showing restraint.