PUCCI GALORE

or have better uses for your time. No, nor have I read the agreements that Microsoft or Apple insist that I tick either. I’ve probably agreed to being chosen to become a concubine of the incumbent President if the USA, or personal maid to his daughter.

NWI Flyer is right unfortunately. I would pay money to start a thread saying « I was rude about Seńor Cruz and now I’ve been drummed out of the Brownies ». NWI Flyer can plead my defence as he’s very Perry Mason like. Probably diminished responsibility would work well. 😉

mikeyfly

According to the catering thread, these images are fine, as there is a * on the page ......

SKT-DK

I think you put it very well into perspective - while they reserve the right to do something, it does not mean they will act upon it.

NickB

No, it won't because virtually no-one reads the TandCs until something happens that forces them to read them. Second, as to those who do routinely read them, many will know that vague clauses in consumer contracts are likely to be regarded as "unfair" and, as such, unenforceable. Moreoever, this particular clause is so extraordinary in a consumer contract that it really stands out as a prime candidate for being held "unfair".

BOH

Assuming it is edible of course..

rapidex

So I presume brown trousers are ok then. Looking forward to winter weather

brunos

I am no legal expert and I rely on NWIFlyer expertise that I would win the case if I went through the hassle of taking BA to a British court.

Nevertheless, the plain English meaning of the text is surprising. Any post on FT that "reflects unfavourably on the reputation of British Airways or any aspect of its business, brands, products or services" is a Misconduct.

NWIFlyer

Please don’t rely on me, I’m not a lawyer, certainly not in the Perry Mason mode! It’s merely my opinion, a wholly unqualified one. What is clear is that the circumstance of someone criticising the airline on Facebook, Twitter or Flyertalk is very different to the deliberate manipulating of the system that has caused other passengers to lose their legal cases, so comparisons between the two don’t hold.

If you want a legal opinion, still not a guarantee, there are far more knowledgable people than me. The fact they seem to align with my opinion by liking it may or may not be an indication of their view ... but ultimately the only person who can decide is a judge.

corporate-wage-slave

For the record, here is the previous and current definition of Misconduct from the Terms and Conditions

Prior to 25 September

After 25 September

NWIFlyer

It strikes me this is aimed at the bloggers and vloggers rather than ‘ordinary’ individual passengers. If so I’d have thought there were far more effective ways of managing the situation, such as starving them of information or interview opportunities. The very worst thing BA could do, in fact, is terminate the membership of a high profile blogger because that would create far more negative publicity for them than whatever the original article was about. BA has come through a slamming on here on BoB, on Business Class seating, on seat reservation costs, on lounge champagne, and innumerable other things. If it had wanted to stop anyone commenting negatively on this forum it would have brought this clause in and activated it years ago.

There’s next to no chance of it being used for the purpose apparently feared.

Certainly not, that’s a crime against humanity

PGberkshire

What is wrong with Brown shoes?

cameramaker

They’re frowned upon in the City of London, “no brown in town” is the saying. You’ll never see bankers wearing them.

Raffles

I've never been offered an interview with anyone at BA! Alex and I have a quick chat when we see each other but its never been on the record.

The Geek

Nothing, although they really should put a misconduct clause in for gold luggage tags on Louis Vuitton luggage.

fruitcage

Pretty sure members are allowed to be members purely at BA's discretion anyway, so this makes no difference at all as far as I can see.