Well I agree with Charlie,if we all sit & curtain twitch & tut tut but do nothing about it then the campers who have no respect for anyone else will just carry on with their bad behaviour won't they??
Maybe a full grown man picking a fight with another is / is not acceptable but I wish I and many others had the size and / or balls to stand up to society's scum that make other's lives a misery, rather than looking the other way.
My god, there are some real sour faces on here....
Kids will be kids..................and we were all kids.....several years ago for me.
Have a problem at home....phone the police......if they do nothing....complain.
Have a problem at a site....see the warden....if they do nothing....complain.....
Easy really......go to a NO kids and or NO dog site...
Someone posted that there are not enough of them......wonder why....could it be that mosts caravanners / campers have a life and don't need to get one........
Kids will be kids..................and we were all kids.....several years ago for me.
Have a problem at home....phone the police......if they do nothing....complain.
Have a problem at a site....see the warden....if they do nothing....complain.....
Easy really......go to a NO kids and or NO dog site...
Someone posted that there are not enough of them......wonder why....could it be that mosts caravanners / campers have a life and don't need to get one........
Calm down people, live and let live. Caravaning attracts both families with children and a fair number of elderly couples. Sure if you focus on it, the noise and activity of children can be irritating, but generally speaking if you relax it soon just becomes background. One poster commented about how neighbors care not for her rights because they make noise at 8am stopping him/her sleep late. However you could look on it, that if this person had kicked up a fuss then his/her desire to sleep past normal waking hours in complete silence is compromising the neighbors right to live and use their garden! Everything has two sides. What I would say is that there are plenty of adult only caravan sites, and also some that do not welcome dogs etc, so if you find families so annoying pick your campsite more carefully. I am not excusing antisocial behaviour as a bad family is just if not more likely to cause problems for other families using the site.
I don't normally get involved in topics like this but this time i am going to stand up and be counted.
Whilst on a site near Birmingham over the Easter break i had damage done to both my car and caravan by someone's little darling's.
We as a couple with grown up children park as far away from the play area as possible as i believe people with children can keep an eye on them, However it would seem that some parents (NOT ALL I MIGHT ADD) send there children away to play as far away from them as possible so as not to spoil there peace and quiet.
On a day out i returned to site to find a 3 foot dent/scratch down he side of my car ,clearly done by some little s***'s bike handle bars and just to top off the weekend football scuffs on the side our new van....If i had seen the damage done murder would have been commited no doubt.
When i asked around to see if anyone knew who had damaged the car and van i was met by silence.Now
Whilst on a site near Birmingham over the Easter break i had damage done to both my car and caravan by someone's little darling's.
We as a couple with grown up children park as far away from the play area as possible as i believe people with children can keep an eye on them, However it would seem that some parents (NOT ALL I MIGHT ADD) send there children away to play as far away from them as possible so as not to spoil there peace and quiet.
On a day out i returned to site to find a 3 foot dent/scratch down he side of my car ,clearly done by some little s***'s bike handle bars and just to top off the weekend football scuffs on the side our new van....If i had seen the damage done murder would have been commited no doubt.
When i asked around to see if anyone knew who had damaged the car and van i was met by silence.Now
So I suppose because this has happened you think that no children should be allowed on caravan sites?
No i am not saying that but i should be able to leave my property safe on site without worrying about it getting damaged don't you agree?
I wouldn't have normally replied to this thread. I agree with the sentiment of the original post, even if it is (as has been stated) a nearly full house of all the possible cliches.
That said, We are new to the whole caravanning scene. We ahve been away only twice, once last October and again at Easter. We are away this coming bank holiday too.
We are very much confirmed and dyed in the wool "fair weather" caravanners. We have 2 small (5 and 3) children, and I cannot see the point of caravanning without having a BBQ at every opportunity (smokier the better
).
BUT, we go to great length's to ensure the kids are quiet in the mornings - even though they are awake from about 6:30 / 7:00. We have them colouring in, or watching a DVD etc.
When away at Easter, we were pitched between 2 vans that each had 2 small children - and the site in general was PACKED, it was Easter weekend afterall.
The site is rated for 400 or so pitches - how much noise was there between 10pm and 8am?? you could have heard a pin drop.
I know that families such as the one Charlie describes do exist. They exist in every town, city and walk of life. But, from my limited experience, most people away in their caravan for a break are well behaved and well adjusted human beings.
We should not be generalising and creating a general belief that you cannot go to a campsite without being assualted by a gang of hoodies at every turn.
I fear I have fallen into the trap that Parksey mentioned, and allowed myself to join into an emotive thread with no real reason for doing so - except to stand up for the 99% of "fair weather", parenting, BBqing caravaners who DO know how to control their children and ensure a pleasant stay for all.
Vince.
That said, We are new to the whole caravanning scene. We ahve been away only twice, once last October and again at Easter. We are away this coming bank holiday too.
We are very much confirmed and dyed in the wool "fair weather" caravanners. We have 2 small (5 and 3) children, and I cannot see the point of caravanning without having a BBQ at every opportunity (smokier the better
).BUT, we go to great length's to ensure the kids are quiet in the mornings - even though they are awake from about 6:30 / 7:00. We have them colouring in, or watching a DVD etc.
When away at Easter, we were pitched between 2 vans that each had 2 small children - and the site in general was PACKED, it was Easter weekend afterall.
The site is rated for 400 or so pitches - how much noise was there between 10pm and 8am?? you could have heard a pin drop.
I know that families such as the one Charlie describes do exist. They exist in every town, city and walk of life. But, from my limited experience, most people away in their caravan for a break are well behaved and well adjusted human beings.
We should not be generalising and creating a general belief that you cannot go to a campsite without being assualted by a gang of hoodies at every turn.
I fear I have fallen into the trap that Parksey mentioned, and allowed myself to join into an emotive thread with no real reason for doing so - except to stand up for the 99% of "fair weather", parenting, BBqing caravaners who DO know how to control their children and ensure a pleasant stay for all.
Vince.
I think it is absolutely disgusting that a moderator should be taking sides and making offensive comments whether the OP is right or wrong. A moderator is just that and should be neutral. Perhaps it is time for new moderators as the current one is not up to the job. Perhaps Nigel D should have a word with this so called moderator who has on this and many other occasions overstepped their boundaries.
BTW I sympathise with the OP as it has happened to us on occasions. Unfortunately it is minority that spoil it for the majority and that is where generalisations come into play and we are all guilty of generalisation.
BTW I sympathise with the OP as it has happened to us on occasions. Unfortunately it is minority that spoil it for the majority and that is where generalisations come into play and we are all guilty of generalisation.
Parksy
Moderator
That's your opinion Ian, It's a bit strange how it's taken you nineteen days to come up with it but of course you wouldn't want to stir things up would you?
I'm sure that similar things which the O.P writes about have happened to several members of this forum.
Not all of them decide to write that they are 'six foot six twenty one stone rugby players' ( later reduced to six foot two )who intimidated the 'somewhat smaller' father who had upset him so that by the time that he 'got back his kids had collected their stuff, and they were all inside'
Nice.
I'm sure that similar things which the O.P writes about have happened to several members of this forum.
Not all of them decide to write that they are 'six foot six twenty one stone rugby players' ( later reduced to six foot two )who intimidated the 'somewhat smaller' father who had upset him so that by the time that he 'got back his kids had collected their stuff, and they were all inside'
Nice.
To save confusion, I think it is high time (as stated elsewhere on the forum) for the moderators to have a non modorator login for non moderating posts.
Parksy
Moderator
I'm sorry but I disagree with you Zafiral.
If I (or any moderator) had a dual identity we could be accused of stirring up all kinds of trouble as 'non moderators' only to clamp down on the same things as moderators.
At least with the present system everything that we write is open to scrutiny as Ian's point proves.
He disagrees with something that I've done and he's perfectly entitled to say so on the forum.
I'm equally entitled to defend or justify my position as a moderator openly on the forum as myself, not by using a Mickey Mouse pseudonym.
At least everyone can see what is happening, this forum operates under enough limitations because of the software without us 'hiding' by using different names.
I tried to defuse a potentially troublesome topic in this instance with a bit of banter or humour.
It obviously backfired, the O.P. took offence and I apologised to him:
'10th April 2009
04:09PM
'Hi Charlie
I'm sorry that I've offended you, I took my joke a bit too far.'
I'm at a loss to see why there is any confusion. I must admit that I didn't like the look of the subject matter because it could have created problems. I could have deleted it but I gave the O.P. the benefit of the doubt.I was acting as a moderator but it would seem that according to my self appointed overseers I'm not allowed to joke with anyone now!
I try to explain and provide reasons for my actions on this forum as a moderator.
I'm always happy to discuss my methods both on the forum for all to see and privately via email.Any mistakes that I make are very public ones and I've eaten some very public humble pie on occasions. The scrutiny and criticism from certain sections of this forum is unrelenting.
It would appear that the majority of forum users disagree with my methods, that's fine by me.
I would respectfully suggest that those who are moved to criticise me and make sweeping generalisations about me look round at other forums which have more up to date software and are more modern than this one.
I think that they might find that the moderators of those forums brook no argument, their decisions are final and topics can be locked without any discussion or dialogue being entered into by the moderators or administrators of these forums.
This topic opened on 10th April. I've been away on holiday and returned since. Until I was attacked I haven't added anything to this topic since 11th April.
I had already apologised to the O.P.for any distress that I've caused him.
And you're still going on about it??
If I (or any moderator) had a dual identity we could be accused of stirring up all kinds of trouble as 'non moderators' only to clamp down on the same things as moderators.
At least with the present system everything that we write is open to scrutiny as Ian's point proves.
He disagrees with something that I've done and he's perfectly entitled to say so on the forum.
I'm equally entitled to defend or justify my position as a moderator openly on the forum as myself, not by using a Mickey Mouse pseudonym.
At least everyone can see what is happening, this forum operates under enough limitations because of the software without us 'hiding' by using different names.
I tried to defuse a potentially troublesome topic in this instance with a bit of banter or humour.
It obviously backfired, the O.P. took offence and I apologised to him:
'10th April 2009
04:09PM
'Hi Charlie
I'm sorry that I've offended you, I took my joke a bit too far.'
I'm at a loss to see why there is any confusion. I must admit that I didn't like the look of the subject matter because it could have created problems. I could have deleted it but I gave the O.P. the benefit of the doubt.I was acting as a moderator but it would seem that according to my self appointed overseers I'm not allowed to joke with anyone now!
I try to explain and provide reasons for my actions on this forum as a moderator.
I'm always happy to discuss my methods both on the forum for all to see and privately via email.Any mistakes that I make are very public ones and I've eaten some very public humble pie on occasions. The scrutiny and criticism from certain sections of this forum is unrelenting.
It would appear that the majority of forum users disagree with my methods, that's fine by me.
I would respectfully suggest that those who are moved to criticise me and make sweeping generalisations about me look round at other forums which have more up to date software and are more modern than this one.
I think that they might find that the moderators of those forums brook no argument, their decisions are final and topics can be locked without any discussion or dialogue being entered into by the moderators or administrators of these forums.
This topic opened on 10th April. I've been away on holiday and returned since. Until I was attacked I haven't added anything to this topic since 11th April.
I had already apologised to the O.P.for any distress that I've caused him.
And you're still going on about it??
I have had trouble on a range of forums with over zealous moderators and administrators and with those who are far from impartial. In general I think this is one of the best moderated forums I have come across, and of the two moderators that I have had dealings with (Parksy and Damian), Parksy would be the one that by far I am happiest with.
However I see Zafiral's point. Perhaps a second log in as just Parksy with out the word moderator would be better for posts of the kind that are made by any member as apposed to cases when you are answering questions directed to a moderator etc would be a good idea.
However I see Zafiral's point. Perhaps a second log in as just Parksy with out the word moderator would be better for posts of the kind that are made by any member as apposed to cases when you are answering questions directed to a moderator etc would be a good idea.
Parksy
Moderator
That's very kind of you to give me some support William.
Damian helped to carry this forum through some very dark episodes in times past and if our styles differ slightly we are both rowing the same boat.
Damian at one time had to deal with what appeared to be a concerted campaign of verbal intimidation which was directed against him.
He received little or no support from the hosts of the forum or it's membership( before my time let me say or things would have been different) so if he adopts a slightly more robust approach to things sometimes one can hardly blame him.
I may be not making my thoughts very clear.
Most of my input to this forum is done as a moderator. It can be difficult to let others know when I'm joking with them, I can understand people not wanting me to edit or delete what they've written but there's no need for me to be nasty about it.
Sometimes if I try to inject a bit of humour it can be taken as sarcasm which would indeed be nasty.
We don't have the smiley icon thingy's that other forums have so that might be why others think that I'm being nasty or sarcastic.
It isn't meant in this way.
You won't find many 'opinion based general' posts from me on this forum and nowadays I avoid using other forums to avoid expressing opinions which might conflict with the policy of the moderators or admin of this forum.
Obviously I have strong views on a wide range of subjects including dogs, children, gypsies and all of the other things that can make caravanners foam at the mouth.
I try my hardest not to inflict my views on other members here because to do so would be inappropriate.
I'm not preventing others from expressing their views.( Unless they break the rules or try to start a bust up, then I'm very much a moderator even when I'm joking)
If a topic has the potential to stir up strong feelings but it doesn't break the rules I stay out of it.
The same applies to Carry on Camping, Caravan Talk, Touring and Tenting and other forums of which I'm a member.
Anyone can look and find that 'Parksy' is listed as a member of these forums but I try to avoid serious issues and I'm careful with my opinions nowadays.
On this forum I'm Parksy (Moderator) because if I started ,say, a rant against travellers I wouldn't be in a position to judge others posts or views fairly.
I'm Parksy (Moderator) on every post that I submit to this forum so that the members who's posts that I judge have a chance to judge mine.
I will still try to defend myself against accusations of 'taking sides', 'making offensive comments' being 'not up to the job' and having 'overstepped' my 'boundaries'.
The accusation was made against me as a moderator and I'm sorry but I insist upon being able to reply as a moderator.
Thanks though William, I know that you're trying to be constructive and fair.
Damian helped to carry this forum through some very dark episodes in times past and if our styles differ slightly we are both rowing the same boat.
Damian at one time had to deal with what appeared to be a concerted campaign of verbal intimidation which was directed against him.
He received little or no support from the hosts of the forum or it's membership( before my time let me say or things would have been different) so if he adopts a slightly more robust approach to things sometimes one can hardly blame him.
I may be not making my thoughts very clear.
Most of my input to this forum is done as a moderator. It can be difficult to let others know when I'm joking with them, I can understand people not wanting me to edit or delete what they've written but there's no need for me to be nasty about it.
Sometimes if I try to inject a bit of humour it can be taken as sarcasm which would indeed be nasty.
We don't have the smiley icon thingy's that other forums have so that might be why others think that I'm being nasty or sarcastic.
It isn't meant in this way.
You won't find many 'opinion based general' posts from me on this forum and nowadays I avoid using other forums to avoid expressing opinions which might conflict with the policy of the moderators or admin of this forum.
Obviously I have strong views on a wide range of subjects including dogs, children, gypsies and all of the other things that can make caravanners foam at the mouth.
I try my hardest not to inflict my views on other members here because to do so would be inappropriate.
I'm not preventing others from expressing their views.( Unless they break the rules or try to start a bust up, then I'm very much a moderator even when I'm joking)
If a topic has the potential to stir up strong feelings but it doesn't break the rules I stay out of it.
The same applies to Carry on Camping, Caravan Talk, Touring and Tenting and other forums of which I'm a member.
Anyone can look and find that 'Parksy' is listed as a member of these forums but I try to avoid serious issues and I'm careful with my opinions nowadays.
On this forum I'm Parksy (Moderator) because if I started ,say, a rant against travellers I wouldn't be in a position to judge others posts or views fairly.
I'm Parksy (Moderator) on every post that I submit to this forum so that the members who's posts that I judge have a chance to judge mine.
I will still try to defend myself against accusations of 'taking sides', 'making offensive comments' being 'not up to the job' and having 'overstepped' my 'boundaries'.
The accusation was made against me as a moderator and I'm sorry but I insist upon being able to reply as a moderator.
Thanks though William, I know that you're trying to be constructive and fair.
The point about the insult was relatively minor but the issue here is whether a moderator should be making unnecessary comments on a post.
I have no issue with a moderator who calls for order as that is known as moderation. Neither do I have a problem with a moderator offering advice on a specific question but as someone suggested this should be done under another name and not with the moderator banner floating around.
Some people may mistakenly assume that a moderator on a forum knows everything there is to know about a subject and whether the advice is right or wrong, will accept it and this is by no means a go at Parksy as you have offered good advice previously.
You are an unpaid volunteer on this forum and in effect have no real authority however by the same token the times where you have correctly moderated are appreciated and it is perhaps best that you carrying on moderating and confine yourself to moderation and not remarks that could be interpreted as sarcasm or insult.
I have no issue with a moderator who calls for order as that is known as moderation. Neither do I have a problem with a moderator offering advice on a specific question but as someone suggested this should be done under another name and not with the moderator banner floating around.
Some people may mistakenly assume that a moderator on a forum knows everything there is to know about a subject and whether the advice is right or wrong, will accept it and this is by no means a go at Parksy as you have offered good advice previously.
You are an unpaid volunteer on this forum and in effect have no real authority however by the same token the times where you have correctly moderated are appreciated and it is perhaps best that you carrying on moderating and confine yourself to moderation and not remarks that could be interpreted as sarcasm or insult.
A moderator's job can be a very difficult one - you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't!! (I speak from experience).
Whatever the opinions or decisions of the moderator, in reply to whatever topic, they are never going to be able to please everyone. They can only do their humble, human best, having regard to their own experience and to the rules/guidelines/constraints of the forum in which they operate.
Personally, I think Parksy does an excellent job, in return for virtually nothing by way of remuneration and very little support from either Haymarket or certain very vocal members of this forum!
Whatever the opinions or decisions of the moderator, in reply to whatever topic, they are never going to be able to please everyone. They can only do their humble, human best, having regard to their own experience and to the rules/guidelines/constraints of the forum in which they operate.
Personally, I think Parksy does an excellent job, in return for virtually nothing by way of remuneration and very little support from either Haymarket or certain very vocal members of this forum!
Parksy,
I am sorry if my post supporting you seemed to be attacking Damian, it wasn't. I just meant that I prefer your style. I still think that Damian does a good job and better than many other forum moderators I have dealt with. I am a man with strongly held views and I have found that have in the past on other forums - most notably the 'briskoda' Skoda owners forum lead to members taking a dislike to me. On that forum for example the moderators took sides and I was actually banned, despite never having broken a rule but just because the forum Administrators cronies had taken a dislike to me. In the time I have been using this forum I have detected no such behaviour by Parksy or Damian, so you have my full support.
I am sorry if my post supporting you seemed to be attacking Damian, it wasn't. I just meant that I prefer your style. I still think that Damian does a good job and better than many other forum moderators I have dealt with. I am a man with strongly held views and I have found that have in the past on other forums - most notably the 'briskoda' Skoda owners forum lead to members taking a dislike to me. On that forum for example the moderators took sides and I was actually banned, despite never having broken a rule but just because the forum Administrators cronies had taken a dislike to me. In the time I have been using this forum I have detected no such behaviour by Parksy or Damian, so you have my full support.
Parksy
Moderator
Thank you very much William. I know that you weren't attacking Damian in your comments but at the moment he's busy with family matters and he deserves some time off because he covered for me when I was on holiday recently.That's why I answered for him.
I'm sorry to learn of your treatment on another forum and although there are some members and ex members who will no doubt feel that they've been treated unfairly by the moderators of this particular forum we try hard not to take sides or let personal views or prejudices influence us unduly.
We really appreciate your support, Thank you
Parksy
Moderator
Ian
I will gloss over the inconsistencies which appear within your comments and complaints about me.
In one post you are expressing disgust because in your opinion I have 'taken sides' and made 'offensive comments'. You go on to state that I'm 'not up to the job' whilst expressing the view that 'perhaps it's time for new moderators'.
You later changed tack after forum members offered me support and you stated that 'the point about the insult was a relatively minor issue'.
I will do my best to give a measured response to your criticisms and comments about me Ian.
I can't help wondering why you decided to resurrect a matter that was dealt with almost three weeks ago in order to level severe criticism which appears to be an attempt to have me dismissed as a forum moderator.
I have no wish to injure the feelings of Charlie, the originator of this topic or to cause him further offence or embarrassment but it contained all of the classic 'flame bait' ingredients as well as some glaring discrepancies concerning physical attributes.
I dealt with it as I saw fit.
I could simply have deleted Charlie's opening post but in spite of my feelings that the subject matter might cause quarrels I decided to allow the topic to be debated.
I warned Charlie that in my opinion he was trying to stir things up and in the course of my exchanges with him I and other forum members indulged in some fun, perhaps at the expense of Charlie who complained that my comments had offended him.
I apologised to Charlie for the perceived offence, my feelings that the topic was 'flame bait' remain unchanged and I stated this.
I continued to joke with others generally about topics which cause problems for moderators of forums as well as to give brief details of my holiday which was coming up at that time.
Please allow me to clarify a few points Ian
Forum moderators on every caravan forum in existence on the internet take part in discourse, sometimes with jokes and humour, and discussion without any problems.
This forum is no different.
Members who receive advice or information via caravan forums should be aware that the information supplied is done so in good faith but must decide for themselves if the advice or information is accurate.
A look through the terms contained within Forum Etiquette will outline the position of the forum in this respect.
I'm fully aware that some might add weight to my comments because I am a moderator of this forum.
If you had taken the trouble to actually read through my submitted posts which offer advice or information you would know that I only ever offer information on things of which I am 100% certain and on which I can supply confirmation if it is needed. If I have any doubt I state that I might be wrong but my post might have brought the original query to the attention of someone who does have the correct advice.
I'm fully aware of my responsibilities as a moderator of this forum.
You state that in your opinion I should confine myself to moderation but I'm sorry to inform you that you do not have the right to decide what I write or what my username will be on this or any other forum.
With all due respect Ian, I decide not you.
Finally Ian, I'm disappointed that you decided to launch an attack on me. I hadn't thought of you as a member of the dwindling band of keyboard gladiators who launch attacks on forum moderators in order to make themselves look good in front of others.
I'm sorry to state that I have now revised my estimation of you.
I will gloss over the inconsistencies which appear within your comments and complaints about me.
In one post you are expressing disgust because in your opinion I have 'taken sides' and made 'offensive comments'. You go on to state that I'm 'not up to the job' whilst expressing the view that 'perhaps it's time for new moderators'.
You later changed tack after forum members offered me support and you stated that 'the point about the insult was a relatively minor issue'.
I will do my best to give a measured response to your criticisms and comments about me Ian.
I can't help wondering why you decided to resurrect a matter that was dealt with almost three weeks ago in order to level severe criticism which appears to be an attempt to have me dismissed as a forum moderator.
I have no wish to injure the feelings of Charlie, the originator of this topic or to cause him further offence or embarrassment but it contained all of the classic 'flame bait' ingredients as well as some glaring discrepancies concerning physical attributes.
I dealt with it as I saw fit.
I could simply have deleted Charlie's opening post but in spite of my feelings that the subject matter might cause quarrels I decided to allow the topic to be debated.
I warned Charlie that in my opinion he was trying to stir things up and in the course of my exchanges with him I and other forum members indulged in some fun, perhaps at the expense of Charlie who complained that my comments had offended him.
I apologised to Charlie for the perceived offence, my feelings that the topic was 'flame bait' remain unchanged and I stated this.
I continued to joke with others generally about topics which cause problems for moderators of forums as well as to give brief details of my holiday which was coming up at that time.
Please allow me to clarify a few points Ian
Forum moderators on every caravan forum in existence on the internet take part in discourse, sometimes with jokes and humour, and discussion without any problems.
This forum is no different.
Members who receive advice or information via caravan forums should be aware that the information supplied is done so in good faith but must decide for themselves if the advice or information is accurate.
A look through the terms contained within Forum Etiquette will outline the position of the forum in this respect.
I'm fully aware that some might add weight to my comments because I am a moderator of this forum.
If you had taken the trouble to actually read through my submitted posts which offer advice or information you would know that I only ever offer information on things of which I am 100% certain and on which I can supply confirmation if it is needed. If I have any doubt I state that I might be wrong but my post might have brought the original query to the attention of someone who does have the correct advice.
I'm fully aware of my responsibilities as a moderator of this forum.
You state that in your opinion I should confine myself to moderation but I'm sorry to inform you that you do not have the right to decide what I write or what my username will be on this or any other forum.
With all due respect Ian, I decide not you.
Finally Ian, I'm disappointed that you decided to launch an attack on me. I hadn't thought of you as a member of the dwindling band of keyboard gladiators who launch attacks on forum moderators in order to make themselves look good in front of others.
I'm sorry to state that I have now revised my estimation of you.
Parksy, I was not saying that your comments were overstepping the mark or was offensive, I was just thinking it would be easier (mainly for you) if you could differentiate if you are stating an opinion or trying to reign someone in.
However, from reading your posts to myself and William, I can see your points and I wholeheartedly agree that both you and Damian are admirally treading a very fine line especially with the commercial side of the website to take into account.
However, from reading your posts to myself and William, I can see your points and I wholeheartedly agree that both you and Damian are admirally treading a very fine line especially with the commercial side of the website to take into account.
Parksy
Moderator
Thank you Zafiral,constructive comments and criticism are always welcome and I understand that your comments are made in good faith.
It would be disingenious of me to pretend that Practical Caravan Magazine has no commercial considerations and in many ways the forum reflects this because as you rightly say it is part of the Practical Caravan website.
Damian, Ray and myself try not to let commercial considerations unduly influence our input to this forum but we have to be fully aware of the legal implications that forum content which is sponsored by a caravan magazine encompasses.
It would also be wrong of us to allow the forum part of the website to cause damage to the reputation or commercial interests of the magazine.
This forum is unique amongst caravan forums because in extreme circumstances things which happen here could potentially affect careers or livelihoods, so yes, it can be a very fine line indeed.
It would be disingenious of me to pretend that Practical Caravan Magazine has no commercial considerations and in many ways the forum reflects this because as you rightly say it is part of the Practical Caravan website.
Damian, Ray and myself try not to let commercial considerations unduly influence our input to this forum but we have to be fully aware of the legal implications that forum content which is sponsored by a caravan magazine encompasses.
It would also be wrong of us to allow the forum part of the website to cause damage to the reputation or commercial interests of the magazine.
This forum is unique amongst caravan forums because in extreme circumstances things which happen here could potentially affect careers or livelihoods, so yes, it can be a very fine line indeed.
Facebook
Twitter