Photo of a heron

[BroadsLady]

I wonder if the Heron minds having his picture taken, now there's a whole different debate  

Seriously, thank you for the explanation of what is acceptable. I completely understand the need to protect the forum, the moderators and forum members. It must be a nightmare to keep track of everything at times 

[Bikertov]

Whilst it is a real shame, IMHO, that the world had gone this way of over-protecting privacy - again, IMHO - we must remember it is not this Forum, the owners or the Mods that have created these regulation. 

So we should try as best as possible to support the Mods as they are, rightly, protecting the Forum and themselves from the potential consequences.

I'm we will all at some time post something - word or pictures - that may inadvertently breach the ToS. If we do, and have a post or picture modified or deleted, then just don't take it personally and accept the Mod team are only doing what they have to do.

 

[grendel]

26 minutes ago, Bikertov said:

Whilst it is a real shame, IMHO, that the world had gone this way of over-protecting privacy - again, IMHO - we must remember it is not this Forum, the owners or the Mods that have created these regulation. 

I think that the privacy protection has come about in a way from the behaviour of people on facebook and other social media sites, by allowing them to behave as they wish no matter who they hurt, those platforms have brought about the government actions out of a necessity.

our thanks really must go to Timbo, who as chairman kept abreast of the developments and papers that went into this bill, and set us the targets of being compliant with them before they even went to parliament, giving us a clear head start over other platforms, the terms and conditions were inspected and in some cases reworded or sections added to put the compliance in place.

[Paladin]

I am having difficulty with what the Online Safety Bill actually says when compared with what the NBN official line is. It must be remembered that it is only a Bill at the moment and there are no legal sanctions available against anyone who doesn’t comply with it. It is also liable to further amendment before it passes into law. While it is as well to be prepared, members are being criticised and posts are being edited and/or removed, supposedly because of what the Bill contains (but the Act might not).

But while there have been numerous references to the Bill as a reason for the moderation, what has been noticeably lacking is any specific reference to a clause in the Bill which would justify such moderation.

The latest offering, in justification of editing the content of a photograph of a heron, is simply to refer members to the Online Safety Bill, with a vague reference to the protection of privacy.

This is what the Bill says about the protection of privacy, in clause 19:

 (1) This section sets out the duties about freedom of expression and privacy which apply in relation to regulated user-to-user services as indicated by the headings.

(2) When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law.

(3) When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant to the use or operation of a user-to-user service (including, but not limited to, any such provision or rule concerning the processing of personal data)…

This is repeated in section 29 and in other clauses throughout the Bill.

I would simply make the following comments:

1. I have seen very little enthusiasm for the implementation of the clause (repeated several times in the Bill) “When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law.“

As far as I have seen, none of the moderated or removed posts have breached any existing law, so freedom of expression is being suppressed unnecessarily.

2. The clauses that say “…protecting users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant…” make it clear there must be a breach of an existing statutory provision or rule of law before any action is necessary.

The right of privacy stems not from this Bill but from the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8), which was introduced in 1953. So to claim the Bill gives any right to privacy is simply wrong. The conduct of this forum since its creation hasn’t invoked any sanctions for breaching Article 8 and there have been very robust discussions, and even ‘naming and shaming’ (horrible expression used, IMO, to make raising a complaint seem unacceptable), so why should it be any different in the future? I fear a forum haunted by fear of offending will wither, due to lack of contributors.

[floydraser]

10 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I am having difficulty with what the Online Safety Bill actually says when compared with what the NBN official line is. It must be remembered that it is only a Bill at the moment and there are no legal sanctions available against anyone who doesn’t comply with it. It is also liable to further amendment before it passes into law. While it is as well to be prepared, members are being criticised and posts are being edited and/or removed, supposedly because of what the Bill contains (but the Act might not).

But while there have been numerous references to the Bill as a reason for the moderation, what has been noticeably lacking is any specific reference to a clause in the Bill which would justify such moderation.

The latest offering, in justification of editing the content of a photograph of a heron, is simply to refer members to the Online Safety Bill, with a vague reference to the protection of privacy.

This is what the Bill says about the protection of privacy, in clause 19:

 (1) This section sets out the duties about freedom of expression and privacy which apply in relation to regulated user-to-user services as indicated by the headings.

(2) When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law.

(3) When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant to the use or operation of a user-to-user service (including, but not limited to, any such provision or rule concerning the processing of personal data)…

This is repeated in section 29 and in other clauses throughout the Bill.

I would simply make the following comments:

1. I have seen very little enthusiasm for the implementation of the clause (repeated several times in the Bill) “When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law.“

As far as I have seen, none of the moderated or removed posts have breached any existing law, so freedom of expression is being suppressed unnecessarily.

2. The clauses that say “…protecting users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant…” make it clear there must be a breach of an existing statutory provision or rule of law before any action is necessary.

The right of privacy stems not from this Bill but from the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8), which was introduced in 1953. So to claim the Bill gives any right to privacy is simply wrong. The conduct of this forum since its creation hasn’t invoked any sanctions for breaching Article 8 and there have been very robust discussions, and even ‘naming and shaming’ (horrible expression used, IMO, to make raising a complaint seem unacceptable), so why should it be any different in the future? I fear a forum haunted by fear of offending will wither, due to lack of contributors.

If I were a moderator or owner of a forum such as this one I would be very aware of the possibility of retrospective claims. I fully support the approach taken by the mods here although I can also see that it may look like over reaction.

[ExSurveyor]

Our own naming and shaming clause has been in effect for many years, I see it as a foundation of a friendly forum.

If it goes further than any potential legislation it will remain in our Terms of Service that everyone who joins us agrees to.

When the Bill is eventually enacted we will implement the parts that could effect us.

I would rather the forum "withered"for offering a friendly safe place than prospered as an unsafe, unfriendly cesspool that is so widespread in many social media sites.

[ExSurveyor]

10 minutes ago, floydraser said:

If I were a moderator or owner of a forum such as this one I would be very aware of the possibility of retrospective claims. I fully support the approach taken by the mods here although I can also see that it may look like over reaction.

It doesn't often look like an over reaction if you are holding your own cheque book open

I do still occasionally write cheques, although the quill and ink pot has been replaced by a biro.

[grendel]

it must be noted that the site owner can set rules that he wishes, we will be bound by the potential legislation, but not limited by it, we are at liberty to set higher standards, that all agreed to when they joined (and i recall last time something was added everyone had to click to say they agreed.) so its all very well quoting from the online safety bill, but the standards we work to are set out in the guidelines (link in the banner at the top) and that the majority of those guidelines have been in place a long time, as i mentioned before, some were slightly reworded to bring us into compliance with the proposed legislation, but essentially they are as they have always been. so while you may be having difficulty with what the online safety bill says, that is probably because we are working to what the guidelines state, to the best of our ability and as a team with due discussion over interpretation, which is done on a case by case manner.

[andyg]

What a nightmare...I tend to agree with paladin on this, well for now at least. I'm big enough and I'm sure ugly enough to publicly retract my comments of yesterday and apologies to grendal for my comments. I now totally understand your actions trying to protect the forum. I don't agree with the bill in its entirety but understand its attempt to protect. 

[ExSurveyor]

I am growing to hate facebook, it really is becoming a cesspool, full of irelvent adverts and groups of all kinds who just want to argue with each other. It is nothing like it used to be and Meta are going to take a big hit when the Bill becomes law.

I suspect in a few years Fb will no longer exist given the widespread use of Whatsapp groups for like minded people.

[FlyingFortress]

I know you will shoot me down as I have never been a member, or is it, a user,or even a viewer of FB other than what Mrs FF shows me sometimes funny pictures on her phone.

But I do know how toxic FB is and have had reports from friends and family of some pretty horrible goings on there.

Mrs FF is savvy enough not to get drawn into anything on there. 

I also refuse to use WhatsApp LinkedIn Tik Tok or any other Social Media, in fact this platform is the only Social Media I use.

I do view a few platforms that interest me but this is the only one I am a member of.

After that bit of a ramble my point is.

If you don't like what goes on on FB , please feel free to delete your account. But please don't compare and reference what goes on FB to what goes on here.

I do have issues with the Moderation on here but as it says on the tin (T&C s ), my ball , my rules. 

Also as a member since 2007 , clever me just found out how to find out that information, I have never clicked agreement to an amendment to The T&C's.

Just before clicking Send Reply, I must correct myself. I am still a member of another Broads Forum that must not be mentioned and did recently post a greeting to its owner after seeing him a couple of weeks ago after many years.

[ExSurveyor]

FF, I have very selective use of FB, as I moderate our group and also my old school group I need to remain on it.

That said, I ignore or block most pages.

"But please don't compare and reference what goes on FB to what goes on here."

I haven't and wouldn't, there is no comparison, that is the ethos of this forum.

Whatsapp is just a messenger service, like a group text, with encrypted transmission.

I have no idea what tick tok instagram or twitter do, thankfully.

It is a fast changing world in social media, it makes my head spin sometimes.

[ScrumpyCheddar]

I don’t think Faceache will disappear to many world wide users.. There’s nothing out there to take it’s place…

To many adverts on there tho.. 
 

It does have its good points just trying to think of one, Oh and bad ones. 🤣

[FlyingFortress]

In all fairness Mr Surveyor it was not you who came in all BBB about how things descend into chaos on FB.

[ExSurveyor]

5 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

In all fairness Mr Surveyor it was not you who came in all BBB about how things descend into chaos on FB.

Two hours ago, I expressed similar sentiments. 

Youngsters shun it now,  middle age folk rant and the older generation either rant as well or shake their heads in disbelief.  Ok that is a generalization,  but the trend is downwards.  Sell your fb shares quick 😁

[Wonderwall]

The person in said boat,may be happy.

I hope that isn't what is ripping others peoples knitting 😄😄

The heron looks happy too 🤗

[MargeandParge]

On 21/09/2022 at 15:25, Mouldy said:

Chugging up The Ant and spotted a heron fishing at Johnny Crowe’s Staithe. Grabbed my phone, as I didn’t have my camera ready and took a quick photo.  Shame about the background!

 

Just a little unbiased advice for Grendel, don't rely on boat building for a living as the gel coat colour match is dreadful

Kindest Regards

Marge and Parge

[BroadsLady]

7 hours ago, Wonderwall said:

 

 

The heron looks happy too 🤗

I think so too, a very happy looking heron and a very nice photo of a heron, there see, sorted 

[Vaughan]

On 22/09/2022 at 17:23, Paladin said:

It is also liable to further amendment before it passes into law.

In this respect I note that the new Prime Minister is quoted in today's papers, when talking about the bill :

What I want to make sure is we protect the under-18s from harm, but we also make sure free speech is allowed, so there may be some tweaks required.

I wonder what her new deputy prime minister has to say about her use of the Oxford comma.

On 22/09/2022 at 17:23, Paladin said:

I fear a forum haunted by fear of offending will wither, due to lack of contributors.

Not the first time this has been said and I agree.  I have noticed for months that there is very much less discussion about day to day topics which concern the Broads.  There have been several articles in the local paper lately that would have at once been linked here by some of our (ex) regular contributors, to animate a forum discussion.

For instance (and very bad for the heron) there have been hundreds of thousands of dead fish in the north rivers over the last couple of days, with the EA and the BA involved in rather tense debate.

Not a word about it, on here, that I have seen.

[CeePee1952]

45 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

For instance (and very bad for the heron) there have been hundreds of thousands of dead fish in the north rivers over the last couple of days, with the EA and the BA involved in rather tense debate.

Not a word about it, on here, that I have seen.

Hi Vaughan, that's a coincidence! I posted a link to a news report about the amount of dead fish due to the salt surge a couple of days ago. Admittedly, I posted it on my Holiday tales thread (The 2 W's Afloat in Oct 22) as we are hoping to have a decent bit of fishing during our week afloat).  Perhaps in hindsight I should have posted it in the Fishing section 

Chris

[Meantime]

I think there are two issues here. The first is that the forum is in many ways, and it is only my opinion, over preparing for the Online Safety Bill, and in many respects using it as an excuse to moderate in the same ways that Health and Safety is nearly always blamed when something gets stopped, cancelled or tamed down on the grounds of Health and Safety. The Health and Safety laws have a place for making life safer, but are often used as a scape goat as well. In the same way this forum is in danger of doing the same and hiding behind the Online Safety Bill which as Palandine has rightly pointed out is not even law yet. It is my opinion only, but when it does become law it will go after the big boys and not the likes of the NBN and the many hundreds of thousands of forums like it. The damaging and highly personal trolling that happens on the likes of Facebook can very easily reach an audience of millions overnight and cause real mental health harm to the subject of the abuse. However, having said that, I am not personally responsible for the NBN, and we should respect the wishes of the people who are, if they feel they need to take a belt and braces approach to how they moderate the forum. No one is forced to read any messages here or post here.

The second issue is this thread itself. Let's all be honest this thread has absolutely nothing to do with a picture of a heron, badly taken or otherwise. The original title of the thread made plain the real subject of the thread, as does some of the text that still exists within the original message. It is about a certain boat on a certain mooring, nothing more and nothing less, no matter how you try and dress it up. The picture may have been a very good picture of a heron, but let's face it they are two a penny on The Broads. I'd have been very impressed if it had been a picture of a Kingfisher, but even then IF I'd been lucky enough to get what I thought was a fantastic shot of a Kingfisher, and I wasn't happy with the background I wouldn't have posted it. 

So let's be honest and stop hiding behind the Online Safety Bill, or the forum terms of service. My boat currently looks quite grubby on the topsides and I can assure you that if someone took a picture of it with a heron in the foreground and posted it here saying shame about the background I would be mightily (insert your own appropriate expletive here) about it. The forum should have removed the picture full stop without all the fuss about covering up the boat reg number in the name of privacy. It is someone's boat. It was the true subject of the picture if we're honest, and in many ways it is the very shaming that this forum needs to avoid. By all means take the picture and send it to each other on WhatsApp and email the local council if you feel your favourite mooring spot is being abused but keep it off the forum.

[ScrumpyCheddar]

Apparently the salt surge has not only killed loads of fish it’s effected a lot of the broads ego system to by killing off water snails and swan mussels to. 

[Vaughan]

28 minutes ago, CeePee1952 said:

I posted it on my Holiday tales thread (The 2 W's Afloat in Oct 22) as we are hoping to have a decent bit of fishing during our week afloat).

Sorry Chris, I missed it. I was a little distracted at the time.     

All the same I am surprised no-one else has commented.  Something like this affects the whole balance of nature in the Broads system and is of concern to fishermen as well as all others involved in the river system.

[ExSurveyor]

I am also very suprised there has been no mention of the devastating salt surge, our own facebook group has a number of separate posts on the devastation it has caused throughout the Broads. I suspect it is going to take a few years for the eco system to recover.

Perhaps people were destracted by a photo of a heron.

The dilemma is, leave the photo intact and that breaks ToS,

Edit the photo and that is wrong,

Remove the photo and that is over moderation.

We can't win.

 

[kpnut]

41 minutes ago, CeePee1952 said:

Perhaps in hindsight I should have posted it in the Fishing section 

I don’t think it’s only fisherman who should be concerned. 

From bottom up, aquatic plants, invertebrates, and upwards through the food web, the whole Broads ecosystem will have been, or will be affected. That also has implications for water quality and clarity, silting etc. and eventually to navigation. 
I have no idea of the types of things that could be done and even if it would be worth doing in the short term as the long term prognosis is for change to the area. When change happens slowly, species adapt. It’s the sudden episodes that cause the imbalances in the system. 

I did put in my holiday blog on Saturday that I was so shocked that the water near Stokesby tasted of pure sea water, even a slight taste at Ranworth, but then again, I don’t make a point of going round tasting the water!