Dear All
Thanks for all your comments and sorry about the need to raise the price of Practical Caravan. As I'm sure you can imagine, the cost of virtually everything has shot up over the last two years and to preserve the quality of the magazine, a price rise had to be implemented.
If you don't like the magazine, you don't have to buy it but I cannot let nonsense about advertisers having sway over editorial pass unchecked.
The only person who decides what goes in the magazine is me. Our ad managers worry about the adverts and writers worry about words. If an advertiser does not like what is written, they can complain to me and I can decide whether or not we were fair or not. Categorically though, who advertises in the magazine has no bearing on what is written, whether a park, car manufacturer or caravan maker. A magazine can only be sued if it prints something that is not true. Everything we write is based on one of our writers climbing in a caravan, staying on a site or driving a vehicle. I can't recall us every being successfully sued.
Many magazine readers buy the issues that have something in that interests them. If you are someone that buys the magazine every month, swapping to a subscription will bring the cover price down to around
Thanks for all your comments and sorry about the need to raise the price of Practical Caravan. As I'm sure you can imagine, the cost of virtually everything has shot up over the last two years and to preserve the quality of the magazine, a price rise had to be implemented.
If you don't like the magazine, you don't have to buy it but I cannot let nonsense about advertisers having sway over editorial pass unchecked.
The only person who decides what goes in the magazine is me. Our ad managers worry about the adverts and writers worry about words. If an advertiser does not like what is written, they can complain to me and I can decide whether or not we were fair or not. Categorically though, who advertises in the magazine has no bearing on what is written, whether a park, car manufacturer or caravan maker. A magazine can only be sued if it prints something that is not true. Everything we write is based on one of our writers climbing in a caravan, staying on a site or driving a vehicle. I can't recall us every being successfully sued.
Many magazine readers buy the issues that have something in that interests them. If you are someone that buys the magazine every month, swapping to a subscription will bring the cover price down to around
Thanks for that Nigel
"A magazine can only be sued if it prints something that is not true. Everything we write is based on one of our writers climbing in a caravan, staying on a site or driving a vehicle. I can't recall us every being successfully sued."
I'm so pleased this is the case and must assume all those Haymarket Lawyers have defended actions successfully, if indeed any at all.
The freedom of the press is crucial in a democracy and it is reassuring that you can say or print if a particular site or caravan is" rubbish" ( My word not yours).
Perhaps the restriction on Forum Members of naming and shaming is a bit too draconian and could be modified but still within the rules?? "Which" Magazine for example investigate some of their members complaints and then publish a name and shame item. Could that happen here on the forum on the basis you or your team or the Mods agree the forum member is telling the truth about his /her problem?
Cheers
Dustydog
"A magazine can only be sued if it prints something that is not true. Everything we write is based on one of our writers climbing in a caravan, staying on a site or driving a vehicle. I can't recall us every being successfully sued."
I'm so pleased this is the case and must assume all those Haymarket Lawyers have defended actions successfully, if indeed any at all.
The freedom of the press is crucial in a democracy and it is reassuring that you can say or print if a particular site or caravan is" rubbish" ( My word not yours).
Perhaps the restriction on Forum Members of naming and shaming is a bit too draconian and could be modified but still within the rules?? "Which" Magazine for example investigate some of their members complaints and then publish a name and shame item. Could that happen here on the forum on the basis you or your team or the Mods agree the forum member is telling the truth about his /her problem?
Cheers
Dustydog
Well said Nigel.
As a self employed person I can empathise with you over the overheads of running business these days, but however an increase above inflation rate does make one cosider more carefully where the pennies are spent. I must say that I will be looking more closely at journalistic/editorial value for my hard earned.
I've been a loyal fan of PC for over two decades and have found through that time the topics covered and features to be generally of very good quality. I'm equally sure that future issues will have interesting features.
Perhaps a phased increase would not of made the issue stand quite so high above the parapit.
ATB Steve L.
As a self employed person I can empathise with you over the overheads of running business these days, but however an increase above inflation rate does make one cosider more carefully where the pennies are spent. I must say that I will be looking more closely at journalistic/editorial value for my hard earned.
I've been a loyal fan of PC for over two decades and have found through that time the topics covered and features to be generally of very good quality. I'm equally sure that future issues will have interesting features.
Perhaps a phased increase would not of made the issue stand quite so high above the parapit.
ATB Steve L.
Parksy
Moderator
What happens when individuals pursue online vendettas or grudges against companies or other service providers?
I'm not about to go into detail but this has actually happened several times on this and other caravan forums.
What happens when unfounded allegations are posted on a caravan forum to the detriment of say, a small caravan park?
Do we get those affected to agree not to seek any form of redress and accept that even if a completely untrue and one sided allegation is posted on a caravan forum which puts people out of business they simply shrug it off?
What I can never understand is why when forums with what seems like more advanced software delete or edit a members post that is the end of the matter.
It's true that if dissent or disagreement does arise the thread can be locked or moved on other forums.
When a similar thing takes place on this forum these things are hotly debated, attributed to 'pressure from advertisers' (which is not the case) and seemingly never fully understood or accepted.
I don't know of any mainstream caravan forum where this 'naming and shaming' is indulged in but this seems to be the only caravan forum where members seem to want or expect to be able to name companies in connection with grievances or disputes.
I'm not about to go into detail but this has actually happened several times on this and other caravan forums.
What happens when unfounded allegations are posted on a caravan forum to the detriment of say, a small caravan park?
Do we get those affected to agree not to seek any form of redress and accept that even if a completely untrue and one sided allegation is posted on a caravan forum which puts people out of business they simply shrug it off?
What I can never understand is why when forums with what seems like more advanced software delete or edit a members post that is the end of the matter.
It's true that if dissent or disagreement does arise the thread can be locked or moved on other forums.
When a similar thing takes place on this forum these things are hotly debated, attributed to 'pressure from advertisers' (which is not the case) and seemingly never fully understood or accepted.
I don't know of any mainstream caravan forum where this 'naming and shaming' is indulged in but this seems to be the only caravan forum where members seem to want or expect to be able to name companies in connection with grievances or disputes.
In response to Dusty's comment about Which magazine.
The reason Which, within reason, can give negative comments about products is because they don't accept advertising so don't have to rely on the revenue that it brings to the coffers, hence the high price of Which.
The reason Which, within reason, can give negative comments about products is because they don't accept advertising so don't have to rely on the revenue that it brings to the coffers, hence the high price of Which.
Wooooo. Take a chill pill Parksy.
Nobody on this topic has portrayed any vendetta or grudge to any person/company or organisation. We have simply stated fact.
1/ The price increase is above the rate of inflation.
2/ By looking at the magazine sheleves you can make your mind up.
Even Nigel D supports that view in his post.
"If you don't like the magazine, you don't have to buy it but I cannot let nonsense about advertisers having sway over editorial pass unchecked."
Just remember that what any of us post on here or E-mail comes under the same British laws that publisist's have to work with and we can face the same litigation if we go over the top.
Nigel and his team have to balance many balls in their court.
Advertising revenue to support mainstream print costs.
Producing interesting articles that attract sales of the mag.
Being supportive to us on the forum even when we do our bit of sabre rattling.
Allowing freedom of speech, so that companies can see when they touch raw nerves of the public.
Finally allowing companies such as Swift to join the forum to partcipate and assist us.
We all enjoy the freedom of speech in the uk and sometimes that does mean both posative and negative comments have to be aired to get a balanced discussion. I can and have contributed in both veins in the past and hope to do so in the future.
Regards.
Steve L.
Nobody on this topic has portrayed any vendetta or grudge to any person/company or organisation. We have simply stated fact.
1/ The price increase is above the rate of inflation.
2/ By looking at the magazine sheleves you can make your mind up.
Even Nigel D supports that view in his post.
"If you don't like the magazine, you don't have to buy it but I cannot let nonsense about advertisers having sway over editorial pass unchecked."
Just remember that what any of us post on here or E-mail comes under the same British laws that publisist's have to work with and we can face the same litigation if we go over the top.
Nigel and his team have to balance many balls in their court.
Advertising revenue to support mainstream print costs.
Producing interesting articles that attract sales of the mag.
Being supportive to us on the forum even when we do our bit of sabre rattling.
Allowing freedom of speech, so that companies can see when they touch raw nerves of the public.
Finally allowing companies such as Swift to join the forum to partcipate and assist us.
We all enjoy the freedom of speech in the uk and sometimes that does mean both posative and negative comments have to be aired to get a balanced discussion. I can and have contributed in both veins in the past and hope to do so in the future.
Regards.
Steve L.
Parksy
Moderator
'Wooooo. Take a chill pill Parksy.'
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that Steve in Leo but I won't bother to debate or discuss your personal public comments any further at this stage.
My reply which you appear to take issue with was in answer to the question asked earlier by Dusty Dog and often asked by others in different threads.
For your benefit I will reproduce the relevant points from Dustydog here to try to avoid further misunderstanding or confusion:
'Perhaps the restriction on Forum Members of naming and shaming is a bit too draconian and could be modified but still within the rules?? "Which" Magazine for example investigate some of their members complaints and then publish a name and shame item. Could that happen here on the forum on the basis you or your team or the Mods agree the forum member is telling the truth about his /her problem?'
I'm not suggesting that anybody on this topic has pursued a vendetta or grudge against any company.
In point of fact individuals have pursued online vendettas and campaigns to discredit companies or organisations on this forum to the point where after repeated warnings from both moderators and administrators of this forum which were disregarded their membership of the forum had to be suspended indefinitely.
I had given a reply from a moderators standpoint and raised some questions as to where the limits of this 'naming and shaming'
idea can lead to.
Moderators are the ones who have to accept the flak when members posts which break the clear rules and guidelines are removed or edited so I have every right to state the position and explore the situation as it affects me and what I do.
You wrote:
'Just remember that what any of us post on here or E-mail comes under the same British laws that publisist's have to work with and we can face the same litigation if we go over the top.'
Exactly!
Except that moderators ensure as far as possible that this never happens because the publishers i.e. the owners of the forum would be the ones facing the 'British Laws'.
In fact in the case of internet forums international laws can also sometimes apply but that's unlikely in the case of a British based caravan forum.
I would agree that we all enjoy a degree of freedom of speech in the UK as you have stated.
With any freedom comes a degree of responsibility, we work to a set of rules and guidelines which although they are by no means perfect actually do the job that they were set up to do.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that Steve in Leo but I won't bother to debate or discuss your personal public comments any further at this stage.
My reply which you appear to take issue with was in answer to the question asked earlier by Dusty Dog and often asked by others in different threads.
For your benefit I will reproduce the relevant points from Dustydog here to try to avoid further misunderstanding or confusion:
'Perhaps the restriction on Forum Members of naming and shaming is a bit too draconian and could be modified but still within the rules?? "Which" Magazine for example investigate some of their members complaints and then publish a name and shame item. Could that happen here on the forum on the basis you or your team or the Mods agree the forum member is telling the truth about his /her problem?'
I'm not suggesting that anybody on this topic has pursued a vendetta or grudge against any company.
In point of fact individuals have pursued online vendettas and campaigns to discredit companies or organisations on this forum to the point where after repeated warnings from both moderators and administrators of this forum which were disregarded their membership of the forum had to be suspended indefinitely.
I had given a reply from a moderators standpoint and raised some questions as to where the limits of this 'naming and shaming'
idea can lead to.
Moderators are the ones who have to accept the flak when members posts which break the clear rules and guidelines are removed or edited so I have every right to state the position and explore the situation as it affects me and what I do.
You wrote:
'Just remember that what any of us post on here or E-mail comes under the same British laws that publisist's have to work with and we can face the same litigation if we go over the top.'
Exactly!
Except that moderators ensure as far as possible that this never happens because the publishers i.e. the owners of the forum would be the ones facing the 'British Laws'.
In fact in the case of internet forums international laws can also sometimes apply but that's unlikely in the case of a British based caravan forum.
I would agree that we all enjoy a degree of freedom of speech in the UK as you have stated.
With any freedom comes a degree of responsibility, we work to a set of rules and guidelines which although they are by no means perfect actually do the job that they were set up to do.
LB
I'm not cynical enough to believe that truth comes at a price, more so I see "Which" as a scientific magazine testing things to destruction.
For years Dyson vacuum cleaners were slated for poor reliability. Dyson took note and now has one of the best reliability records.
Thus the corollary is that the press were correct in highlighting deficiences which then resulted in a better product.
I'd rather see the truth than a mag that has to grovel to advertisers and say otherwise.
Nigel to be fair has said that doesn't happen with PC.
Parksy
A lot of members here do feel some frustration that we can't have open discussions on poor products. I do understand your position but at times there should be a half way house.If a dealer will not refund a customers deposit and it takes the Law to make a successful recovery then surely British Justice has spoken and there can be no harm to this forum or Haymarket if the story is told in truth?
Finally the immortal words of the Sun Editor on the Gillian Tayleforth Libel case comes to mind. "Don't swallow the evidence"! She lost of course.
Cheers
Dustydog
I'm not cynical enough to believe that truth comes at a price, more so I see "Which" as a scientific magazine testing things to destruction.
For years Dyson vacuum cleaners were slated for poor reliability. Dyson took note and now has one of the best reliability records.
Thus the corollary is that the press were correct in highlighting deficiences which then resulted in a better product.
I'd rather see the truth than a mag that has to grovel to advertisers and say otherwise.
Nigel to be fair has said that doesn't happen with PC.
Parksy
A lot of members here do feel some frustration that we can't have open discussions on poor products. I do understand your position but at times there should be a half way house.If a dealer will not refund a customers deposit and it takes the Law to make a successful recovery then surely British Justice has spoken and there can be no harm to this forum or Haymarket if the story is told in truth?
Finally the immortal words of the Sun Editor on the Gillian Tayleforth Libel case comes to mind. "Don't swallow the evidence"! She lost of course.
Cheers
Dustydog
Parksy
Moderator
Hi DD
'Finally the immortal words of the Sun Editor on the Gillian Tayleforth Libel case comes to mind. "Don't swallow the evidence"! She lost of course.'
You must of course be referring to the infamous 'Tayleforth Sausage' invented at the time by The Sun - LOL!
You raise a valid point about discussions when cases have been settled but how would we know one way or the other?
I said in a similar thread to this that moderators already walk through a potential minefield without the added responsibility of checking through published court documents to establish whether a court case has been settled and what the judgement was.
If we were to simply take a members word for it we would very soon run into trouble.
Members can and do have discussions about poor products already on this forum, we simply don't name names.
We've highlighted cracked end panels, faulty windows, condensation issues,faulty door locks, wheels falling off...
The list goes on and on.
I sympathise and understand members frustrations but a misconception that is difficult to dislodge is that a forum such as this exists to champion the cause of someone dissatisfied with service or treatment that they allege that they have received.
We have no way of checking facts and nobody qualified to do this, it is not the remit of this forum to fight individual cases but that never stops people from trying as my ever expanding library of deleted posts saved on CD will prove.
I know of no internet caravan forum which does this taking up of arms or of any of the larger moderated ones where naming and shaming takes place.
'Finally the immortal words of the Sun Editor on the Gillian Tayleforth Libel case comes to mind. "Don't swallow the evidence"! She lost of course.'
You must of course be referring to the infamous 'Tayleforth Sausage' invented at the time by The Sun - LOL!
You raise a valid point about discussions when cases have been settled but how would we know one way or the other?
I said in a similar thread to this that moderators already walk through a potential minefield without the added responsibility of checking through published court documents to establish whether a court case has been settled and what the judgement was.
If we were to simply take a members word for it we would very soon run into trouble.
Members can and do have discussions about poor products already on this forum, we simply don't name names.
We've highlighted cracked end panels, faulty windows, condensation issues,faulty door locks, wheels falling off...
The list goes on and on.
I sympathise and understand members frustrations but a misconception that is difficult to dislodge is that a forum such as this exists to champion the cause of someone dissatisfied with service or treatment that they allege that they have received.
We have no way of checking facts and nobody qualified to do this, it is not the remit of this forum to fight individual cases but that never stops people from trying as my ever expanding library of deleted posts saved on CD will prove.
I know of no internet caravan forum which does this taking up of arms or of any of the larger moderated ones where naming and shaming takes place.
I really do agree with the last paragraph in particular. Owing to back problems, we only ever use fully serviced pitches and it would be nice to be able to locate them easily.
Parksy
At Taylforth's Trial Judge Carman said he was discusted by her animations with the sausage.Little did he know what was for lunch. LOL.
All that Taylforth sausage got me thinking about alternatives.
Here we have the Cricklade Banger and SWMBO still does the Toad in the Hole.
How do you make a sausage roll? Push it!
Meanwhile fuel prices down here are now
At Taylforth's Trial Judge Carman said he was discusted by her animations with the sausage.Little did he know what was for lunch. LOL.
All that Taylforth sausage got me thinking about alternatives.
Here we have the Cricklade Banger and SWMBO still does the Toad in the Hole.
How do you make a sausage roll? Push it!
Meanwhile fuel prices down here are now
I think we should all press Haymarket to promote Nigel Donnelly to become editor of Autocar and let Chas Hallet run Practical Caravan - just to prove that objective journalism can be done without alienating the adverisers.
Facebook
Twitter