Berney Arms

[MauriceMynah]

Thanks for explaining that ECIPA, I was unaware of the group concerned, and agree that details of a conversation in a private area should not, under normal circumstances, be discussed anywhere else.

However, Ian seemed to be discussing the attitudes of some of the members towards him and the information he was passing on, and saying that as a result he was leaving that group. Whether it was appropriate for him doing so might be debateable, but it was not breaking any confidentiality.

20 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

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.

Couldn't agree more.

  

[NorfolkNog]

Ah, all becomes clear(er) Many thanks. 

So presumably Ian was also a member of this closed group - so 2 members here were involved. 

I'm a bit sceptical about cross fertilisation between platforms and from what I've heard about Facebook it makes this place seem like the vicars tea party. I agree, I think maybe the moderators need to take a lead but as we know one prominent part of the team is otherwise occupied 

I think perhaps respected members are having a disagreement which I'm sure can be amicably resolved 

[ModeratorTeam]

Gentlemen

The Mods team are ever omnipresent

Please hold your discussions amicably

Or repercussions may be put in place

[grendel]

2 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

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.

correct, its in place to stop arguments elsewhere from spilling over to here and disrupting the forum, we generally give a bit of leeway, but if things start getting hot under the collar it gives us a reason to step in and stop any nastiness.

[grendel]

1 hour ago, NorfolkNog said:

Ah, all becomes clear(er) Many thanks. 

So presumably Ian was also a member of this closed group - so 2 members here were involved. 

I'm a bit sceptical about cross fertilisation between platforms and from what I've heard about Facebook it makes this place seem like the vicars tea party. I agree, I think maybe the moderators need to take a lead but as we know one prominent part of the team is otherwise occupied 

I think perhaps respected members are having a disagreement which I'm sure can be amicably resolved 

that doesnt mean i dont stop and catch up every few hours you know, so far i have had pretty good signal everywhere I have stopped.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Somebody mentioned A vicars tea party, well I bet they can get a bit lively! 

[grendel]

having now caught up to this topic, I will just say Ian did not break the TOS by saying he had left the particular facebook group, and the reasons, no discussion was brought from there to here, just the fact they had been giving him a hard time over it and he had left.

thus no discussion here was necessary following that announcement.

meanwhile myself and the rest of the moderators will be watching this thread to see that you all behave.

 

[MauriceMynah]

23 minutes ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:

Somebody mentioned A vicars tea party, well I bet they can get a bit lively! 

Nun livelier 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Nun livelier 

You telling me that they smoke cigars, play poker, drink wiskey and swear as well? 

[MauriceMynah]

That's just in the Convent. When they go out to play, at Vicars tea parties for example, then they really PARTY!

[VetChugger]

This is not the first time a discussion such as this has arisen. I also doubt it is the last. There was a big discussion about this forum having its own faceache presence, which I opposed, but am still here obviously.  You simply cannot have a dicussion forum unless you have members with contrasting views. The consensus eventually providing a well debated conclusion. Ian is one of the most valued and respected members on here and I  carefully read all his posts with interest. Ian will tell you himself, I don"t always agree and vice versa but I value his knowledge and experience. It would be a loss to the quality of this place to lose him.

[JennyMorgan]

When similar topics are discussed on alternative platforms then surely there should not be a problem with cross referencing. As Vaughan has mentioned, heard along the rhond.

[grendel]

if a quote comes from a closed forum or group, with members only access, then it could seen as a betrayal of a confidence.

[ExSurveyor]

The summary of a discussion, whether on FB or on the Rhond, is just that, it is not a direct quote of a  conversation, private or otherwise.

It is always useful to acknowledge a source of information generally.

[Meantime]

I guess if you allow the summary of an acrimonious discussion had elsewhere to be relayed here, then there is always a chance that the discussion had elsewhere reignites and continues over here. I thought that was why cross forum politics and discussions of reasons for leaving other forums were frowned upon here? 

[ExSurveyor]

It does take a second party to ignite a heated discussion.

[marshman]

Or someone providing a bit of balance!!!!!!

[jeffbroadslover]

Now that everyone seems to have finished bitching about everyone else does anyone have any up to date information about the real subject of this thread........THE BERNEY ARMS?

Jeff

[Meantime]

They applied for a premises license to open the building next to the pub as a cafe / bistro. The application was turned down on a number of grounds. As a result it is staying closed for the foreseeable. One of the objections that was put forward by the BA is that it is close to a fast flowing river and they were concerned for the safety of the patrons. The owner of the land has as a result of this decided on the grounds of safety to close their moorings to the public. There is talk about removing the mooring posts as well. 

This obviously does not affect the two moorings owned and leased by the BA. 

In another place there has been much discussion about whether the water / river slows down as it passes the BA moorings and speeds up when it passes the pub moorings. 

The BA were objecting as an interested representative to The Broadland District Council Premises and Licensing Committee. This was not a change of use, or planning application. Presumably that would have been another discussion and application, if they had got the premises license sorted.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Or someone providing a bit of balance!!!!!!

Oh no, the death knell to the discussion!!

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

There is talk about removing the mooring posts as well. 

Rhond anchors are wondrous things! Just exercising my right to wait for the tide or the contrary weather to subside  

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

This was not a change of use, or planning application. Presumably that would have been another discussion and application, if they had got the premises license sorted.

Is that usual practice? Seems to be fore-deck about transom to me! 

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Is that usual practice? Seems to be fore-deck about transom to me! 

I was making the distinction because the role of the BA would be different at either. If a change of use, or planning application was needed, and I don't know that's the case, the two could be applied for concurrently because they are decided by two different bodies. The BDC solicitor was asked about change of use or planning and whether that affected the premises license application and as a point of order he stated it didn't.

It is an important distinction because the BA as planning authority have refused a change of use for the pub to become a private dwelling. As far as I know it is still licensed and could open again, despite the fast flowing river outside, given an appropriate DPS onsite. Designated Premises Supervisor.

However the BA were invited to make representation at the licensing committee to determine the application for a premises license for the attached building next to the pub and objected on noise grounds affecting people moored at their moorings, and also on safety grounds due to the fast flowing river in that location.

One would logically assume therefore that the BA on the grounds of safety wouldn't want a licensed cafe or bistro to open, and would therefore look favorably on a change of use that would see the pub delicensed and become a private dwelling, or if it is safe for the pub to still trade and the moorings are safe for pub customers that there wouldn't be an objection to licensing the building next door to be a bistro on the grounds of a fast flowing river outside. The BA seem to be supporting the continued use of a licensed premises, the pub, as a pub, whilst the BA as owner of an asset, the moorings seem to be objecting to a premises license for the building next door to the pub, on the grounds of the safety of the customers and the pub / bistro moorings. This all becomes all the more illogical when you consider the mooring along that the section, both pub and BA are of the same construction and defended by the EA.  As pointed out along the rhond, the river doesn't slow down when it gets to the BA mooring.

I have no doubt that the biggest stumbling block there is the owner of pub and bistro and personally am no fan of his, but there does seem to be an undeniable flawed logic about the approach of the BA to the overall situation that actually makes me very, and only very slightly sympathetic to the land owner.

Off course the BA were not the only objector to the premises license application,.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Rhond anchors are wondrous things! Just exercising my right to wait for the tide or the contrary weather to subside  

I guess the use of private land when there is a public BA mooring next door might be debatable if the public mooring is free. I would more question whether you can remove posts that have presumably been installed by the EA? even if it is private land.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I guess the use of private land when there is a public BA mooring next door might be debatable if the public mooring is free. I would more question whether you can remove posts that have presumably been installed by the EA? even if it is private land.

It would be interesting to know for sure that Mr Horrocks, rather than the EA, actually owns the shoreline at that point. There is an instance in St Olaves where the land has been built up on the river bed thus the land in question belongs to the Crown.