Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.

We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.

So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was.  We
got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
photo opportunity.

The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.

OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even get
a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(

Chris

"Dragon Heart"  wrote in message 
news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
>
> We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.
>
> So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was. 
> We
> got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
> photo opportunity.
>
> The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.
>
> OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even 
> get
> a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(
>

Perhaps they forgot to pay the licensing fee and thus got told to yank 
a certain bear from Peru out of the lime-light, such is the vigour 
some protect their intellectual property rights these days! I well 
remember the anger that some preserved lines had for Brit ??? when she 
demanded that preserved railways start paying her for the privilege of 
publicising 'her'[1] products... :~(

[1] Reams could and probably have been written about how she come by 
the rights to TTT
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
>
> news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
>
> > We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.
>
> > So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was.
> > We
> > got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
> > photo opportunity.
>
> > The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.
>
> > OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even
> > get
> > a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(
>
> Perhaps they forgot to pay the licensing fee and thus got told to yank
> a certain bear from Peru out of the lime-light, such is the vigour
> some protect their intellectual property rights these days! I well
> remember the anger that some preserved lines had for Brit ??? when she
> demanded that preserved railways start paying her for the privilege of
> publicising 'her'[1] products... :~(
>
> [1] Reams could and probably have been written about how she come by
> the rights to TTT

From what I understand Hit Entertainment are even worse ?

Chris

Dragon Heart wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
>>> We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.
>>> So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was.
>>> We
>>> got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
>>> photo opportunity.
>>> The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.
>>> OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even
>>> get
>>> a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(
>> Perhaps they forgot to pay the licensing fee and thus got told to yank
>> a certain bear from Peru out of the lime-light, such is the vigour
>> some protect their intellectual property rights these days! I well
>> remember the anger that some preserved lines had for Brit ??? when she
>> demanded that preserved railways start paying her for the privilege of
>> publicising 'her'[1] products... :~(
>>
>> [1] Reams could and probably have been written about how she come by
>> the rights to TTT
> 
> From what I understand Hit Entertainment are even worse ?

Rights to Paddington appears to be controlled though "The Copyrights 
Group", not HIT Entertainment.
http://www.copyrights.co.uk/home.aspx
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On 31 Aug, 15:26, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> Dragon Heart wrote:
> > On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> >> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.> >>> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
> >>> We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.
> >>> So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was.
> >>> We
> >>> got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
> >>> photo opportunity.
> >>> The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.
> >>> OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even
> >>> get
> >>> a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(
> >> Perhaps they forgot to pay the licensing fee and thus got told to yank
> >> a certain bear from Peru out of the lime-light, such is the vigour
> >> some protect their intellectual property rights these days! I well
> >> remember the anger that some preserved lines had for Brit ??? when she
> >> demanded that preserved railways start paying her for the privilege of
> >> publicising 'her'[1] products... :~(
>
> >> [1] Reams could and probably have been written about how she come by
> >> the rights to TTT
>
> > From what I understand Hit Entertainment are even worse ?
>
> Rights to Paddington appears to be controlled though "The Copyrights
> Group", not HIT Entertainment.http://www.copyrights.co.uk/home.aspx
> --
> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was thinking about Thomas not Paddington :-)

I feel the main problem,  it was a Paddington Bear event and only
Paddington Bear was on site !  I am not sure what else you could have
apart from a marmalade sandwich stall but ..... ?

Compared to other events I would suggest it was not well attended,

I would imagine Paddington Bear is a bit like Marmite ... you love or
loath it.

I always feel a little sympathetic to those 'volunteered' to wear
those costumes ..... in the summer weather you are sweltering but in
the rain you are cooler but the fur gets wet,  heavy & smelly.  In any
weather you cant see were you are going very well.

Chris

Dragon Heart wrote:
> On 31 Aug, 15:26, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Dragon Heart wrote:
>>> On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>>>> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
>>>> news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>>>>> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
>>>>> We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.
>>>>> So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was.
>>>>> We
>>>>> got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
>>>>> photo opportunity.
>>>>> The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.
>>>>> OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even
>>>>> get
>>>>> a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(
>>>> Perhaps they forgot to pay the licensing fee and thus got told to yank
>>>> a certain bear from Peru out of the lime-light, such is the vigour
>>>> some protect their intellectual property rights these days! I well
>>>> remember the anger that some preserved lines had for Brit ??? when she
>>>> demanded that preserved railways start paying her for the privilege of
>>>> publicising 'her'[1] products... :~(
>>>> [1] Reams could and probably have been written about how she come by
>>>> the rights to TTT
>>> From what I understand Hit Entertainment are even worse ?
>> Rights to Paddington appears to be controlled though "The Copyrights
>> Group", not HIT Entertainment.http://www.copyrights.co.uk/home.aspx
>> --
>> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> I was thinking about Thomas not Paddington :-)
> 
> I feel the main problem,  it was a Paddington Bear event and only
> Paddington Bear was on site !  I am not sure what else you could have
> apart from a marmalade sandwich stall but ..... ?
> 
> Compared to other events I would suggest it was not well attended,
> 
> I would imagine Paddington Bear is a bit like Marmite ... you love or
> loath it.

As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit 
aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of one 
rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a hardcore 
railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it might put 
people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big railway which 
would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in lots of money).

"Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We did 
Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where that old man 
swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...

> I always feel a little sympathetic to those 'volunteered' to wear
> those costumes ..... in the summer weather you are sweltering but in
> the rain you are cooler but the fur gets wet,  heavy & smelly.  In any
> weather you cant see were you are going very well.

Many years ago I spent some time one summer wandering around Scarborough 
dressed as a whelk called Reginald. Unfortunately the designers had 
forgotten to put any eye holes in the outfit, and more fundamentally, 
the costume was quite clearly based on a squid, not a whelk....

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ZsmdnWii29I1QyfVnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
<snip>
>
> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit 
> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of 
> one rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a 
> hardcore railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it 
> might put people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big 
> railway which would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in lots 
> of money).

How would simple paying for the privilege of putting a face in the 
front of a locomotive [1] (or in this instants using a bear costume) 
prevent a 'poor event' - indeed if the above mentioned event has paid 
for the rights the exact thing you seem to be claiming wouldn't happen 
has!

[1] IIRC Brit Allcroft's company tried to claim that rights were 
payable to them if *any* face was put on a locomotive, and it didn't 
mater if the loco didn't look like any TTT charter either (they 
failed).

>
> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We 
> did Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where that 
> old man swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...

Or, and this is a real case, "Oh no, hold on. We did Thomas before, at 
that other railway, and there was that pervert who put his hand up 
that little girls skirt and felt her knickers, remember the court 
case?' - how does any licensing prevent problems arising?
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

On 31 Aug, 19:10, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> Dragon Heart wrote:
> > On 31 Aug, 15:26, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> Dragon Heart wrote:
> >>> On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
> >>>>> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
> >>>>> We like Butterley as the staff are always friendly & helpful.
> >>>>> So what a let down the Paddington Bear 50th Anniversary event was.
> >>>>> We
> >>>>> got one brief glimpse of the furry chap all day but no chance of a
> >>>>> photo opportunity.
> >>>>> The rest of the even was great but the event attraction was poor.
> >>>>> OK it must have been hot in the costume but ......... did not even
> >>>>> get
> >>>>> a marmalade or Marmite sandwich :-(
> >>>> Perhaps they forgot to pay the licensing fee and thus got told to yank
> >>>> a certain bear from Peru out of the lime-light, such is the vigour
> >>>> some protect their intellectual property rights these days! I well
> >>>> remember the anger that some preserved lines had for Brit ??? when she
> >>>> demanded that preserved railways start paying her for the privilege of
> >>>> publicising 'her'[1] products... :~(
> >>>> [1] Reams could and probably have been written about how she come by
> >>>> the rights to TTT
> >>> From what I understand Hit Entertainment are even worse ?
> >> Rights to Paddington appears to be controlled though "The Copyrights
> >> Group", not HIT Entertainment.http://www.copyrights.co.uk/home.aspx
> >> --
> >> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK- Hide quoted text> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I was thinking about Thomas not Paddington :-)
>
> > I feel the main problem,  it was a Paddington Bear event and only
> > Paddington Bear was on site !  I am not sure what else you could have
> > apart from a marmalade sandwich stall but ..... ?
>
> > Compared to other events I would suggest it was not well attended,
>
> > I would imagine Paddington Bear is a bit like Marmite ... you love or
> > loath it.
>
> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit
> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of one
> rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a hardcore
> railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it might put
> people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big railway which
> would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in lots of money).
>
> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We did
> Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where that old man
> swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...
>
> > I always feel a little sympathetic to those 'volunteered' to wear
> > those costumes ..... in the summer weather you are sweltering but in
> > the rain you are cooler but the fur gets wet,  heavy & smelly.  In any
> > weather you cant see were you are going very well.
>
> Many years ago I spent some time one summer wandering around Scarborough
> dressed as a whelk called Reginald. Unfortunately the designers had
> forgotten to put any eye holes in the outfit, and more fundamentally,
> the costume was quite clearly based on a squid, not a whelk....
>
From what I understand it's the level of insurance cover they demand
and last minute demands.

Is HIT a US based company,  as that would explain the above ?

Butterly have their own 'Thomas' which is hired out,  I understand
demand has dropped dramatically over the past year.

These events are based on children enjoying themselves.  Do a poor or
even an average job many children of today will not accept it.  I am
surprised many accept everyday loco's with hand drawn face boards held
on with wire as 'Thomas' loco's.

Chris

"Dragon Heart"  wrote in message 
news:be2c3934-612c-4fa7-959b-a7aee057cc0c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>
> These events are based on children enjoying themselves.
> Do a poor or even an average job many children of today
> will not accept it.  I am surprised many accept everyday
> loco's with hand drawn face boards held on with wire as
> 'Thomas' loco's.

I suspect that most children, of the intended age group, are either 
far to spell-bound (or totally freaked out) by the real live 
steam/diesel locomotive with all the wheezing, groaning, creaking and 
what ever other noises are being made to notice the 'face' for very 
long!
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

Dragon Heart  wrote:
> Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Dragon Heart wrote:
>> > Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote: 
>> >> Rights to Paddington appears to be controlled though "The
>> >> Copyrights Group", not HIT
>> >> Entertainment.http://www.copyrights.co.uk/home.aspx -- Arthur
>> >> Figgis               Surrey, UK- Hide quoted text - 
>>
>> > I was thinking about Thomas not Paddington :-)
>>
>> > I feel the main problem,  it was a Paddington Bear event and only
>> > Paddington Bear was on site !  I am not sure what else you could
>> > have apart from a marmalade sandwich stall but ..... ? 
>>
>> > Compared to other events I would suggest it was not well attended,
>>
>> > I would imagine Paddington Bear is a bit like Marmite ... you love
>> > or loath it. 
>>
>> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit
>> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of one
>> rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a
>> hardcore railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it
>> might put people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big
>> railway which would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in lots
>> of money). 
>>
>> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We did
>> Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where that old
>> man swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...
>>
>> > I always feel a little sympathetic to those 'volunteered' to wear
>> > those costumes ..... in the summer weather you are sweltering but
>> > in the rain you are cooler but the fur gets wet,  heavy & smelly.
>> >  In  any weather you cant see were you are going very well. 
>>
>> Many years ago I spent some time one summer wandering around
>> Scarborough dressed as a whelk called Reginald. Unfortunately the
>> designers had forgotten to put any eye holes in the outfit, and more
>> fundamentally, the costume was quite clearly based on a squid, not a
>> whelk.... 
>>
> From what I understand it's the level of insurance cover they demand
> and last minute demands.
> 
> Is HIT a US based company,  as that would explain the above ?

It's a multinational company, registered in England but responsible for 
brands such as Thomas, Barney (ugh!), Bob the Builder, Angelina 
Ballerina, Pingu and Fireman Sam. Many of its executives have worked in 
both the UK and North America (US/Canada).

http://www.hitentertainment.com/home.html

> Butterly have their own 'Thomas' which is hired out,  I understand
> demand has dropped dramatically over the past year.
> 
> These events are based on children enjoying themselves.  Do a poor or
> even an average job many children of today will not accept it.  I am
> surprised many accept everyday loco's with hand drawn face boards held
> on with wire as 'Thomas' loco's.

Not to mention the wrong colour or wheel arrangement.

How many railways have a Toby the Tram Engine?
How many people have actually seen a steam tram engine?

-- 
Martin S.

In news:be2c3934-612c-4fa7-959b-a7aee057cc0c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
  Dragon Heart bashed on  keyboard and typed:
> On 31 Aug, 19:10, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Dragon Heart wrote:
>>> On 31 Aug, 15:26, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Dragon Heart wrote:
>>>>> On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>>>>>>> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.

>
> These events are based on children enjoying themselves.  Do a poor or
> even an average job many children of today will not accept it.  I am
> surprised many accept everyday loco's with hand drawn face boards held
> on with wire as 'Thomas' loco's.
>
> Chris
Maybe the kids are not rivet counters. As a Kid I enjoyed my Trix Twin train 
set and To be honest the locos did not look like anything that BR had ever 
had. But I had two locos one black and one green what more could a lad want.



-- 
Trev
Nobody is perfect.
But Being a Yorkshire man is as close as you can get.

Jerry wrote:
> "Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:ZsmdnWii29I1QyfVnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> <snip>
>> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit 
>> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of 
>> one rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a 
>> hardcore railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it 
>> might put people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big 
>> railway which would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in lots 
>> of money).
> 
> How would simple paying for the privilege of putting a face in the 
> front of a locomotive [1] (or in this instants using a bear costume) 
> prevent a 'poor event' - indeed if the above mentioned event has paid 
> for the rights the exact thing you seem to be claiming wouldn't happen 
> has!

I've no idea, but as that is not what happens with the events in 
question, your hypothetical case doesn't really matter very much, does it?

"Hit Entertainment has also said anybody wanting to play the Fat 
Controller must go on a course in either York or London."
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510400/Thomas-Tank-Engine-Fat-Controller-20-years-experience-banned-bureaucrats.html
(okay, the top Google hit is from the Daily Heil, but some of it is 
probably broadly accurate).

> [1] IIRC Brit Allcroft's company tried to claim that rights were 
> payable to them if *any* face was put on a locomotive, and it didn't 
> mater if the loco didn't look like any TTT charter either (they 
> failed).
> 
>> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We 
>> did Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where that 
>> old man swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...
> 
> Or, and this is a real case, "Oh no, hold on. We did Thomas before, at 
> that other railway, and there was that pervert who put his hand up 
> that little girls skirt and felt her knickers, remember the court 
> case?'

"...having everybody associated with the event undergo a Criminal 
Records Bureau (CRB) check..." prevents someone doing it again, if they 
have been prosecuted previously.  I am assuming it is taken as read that 
if anyone shows up as having a relevant conviction they will not be 
allowed to participate - they don't just say "oh look, we have one, tick 
the box", and leave it at that.

 > - how does any licensing prevent problems arising?

It doesn't. An asteroid could strike and wipe out all life on earth. 
Martians could land and anally probe Sir Topham Hatt in front of Great 
Aunt Ethel. A disgruntled ex-employee could have left having overwritten 
the event instructions with TTT slash fiction.

Sometimes you just have to do what you can, and take a gamble on the rest.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Trev wrote:
> In news:be2c3934-612c-4fa7-959b-a7aee057cc0c@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
>   Dragon Heart bashed on  keyboard and typed:
>> On 31 Aug, 19:10, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Dragon Heart wrote:
>>>> On 31 Aug, 15:26, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Dragon Heart wrote:
>>>>>> On 31 Aug, 10:14, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dragon Heart"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f74d8584-d755-4b58-bc4f-c61044870fa2@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....
>>>>>>>> Visited the Paddington Bear event @ Butterley on Saturday.
> 
>> These events are based on children enjoying themselves.  Do a poor or
>> even an average job many children of today will not accept it.  I am
>> surprised many accept everyday loco's with hand drawn face boards held
>> on with wire as 'Thomas' loco's.
>>
>> Chris
> Maybe the kids are not rivet counters. As a Kid I enjoyed my Trix Twin train 
> set and To be honest the locos did not look like anything that BR had ever 
> had. But I had two locos one black and one green what more could a lad want.

I've seen plenty of kids shouting "don't be silly mummy, <character> is 
a <type of loco> not a <loco in front of them>".

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Dragon Heart
 said in
:

>These events are based on children enjoying themselves.  Do a poor or
>even an average job many children of today will not accept it.  I am
>surprised many accept everyday loco's with hand drawn face boards held
>on with wire as 'Thomas' loco's.

I fee sorry for those children who lack a creative imagination. Mine
would have been fine with that, and still are fine with "playing
trains" rather than railway modelling.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:zMadnR5n_ab0libVnZ2dnUVZ8q_inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> Jerry wrote:
>> "Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:ZsmdnWii29I1QyfVnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> <snip>
>>> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit 
>>> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of 
>>> one rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a 
>>> hardcore railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it 
>>> might put people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big 
>>> railway which would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in 
>>> lots of money).
>>
>> How would simple paying for the privilege of putting a face in the 
>> front of a locomotive [1] (or in this instants using a bear 
>> costume) prevent a 'poor event' - indeed if the above mentioned 
>> event has paid for the rights the exact thing you seem to be 
>> claiming wouldn't happen has!
>
> I've no idea, but as that is not what happens with the events in 
> question, your hypothetical case doesn't really matter very much, 
> does it?

WTF are you going on about, I have not use any hypothetical cases, 
perhaps if you should look up the meaning of the word "if"!

>
> "Hit Entertainment has also said anybody wanting to play the Fat 
> Controller must go on a course in either York or London."
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510400/Thomas-Tank-Engine-Fat-Controller-20-years-experience-banned-bureaucrats.html
> (okay, the top Google hit is from the Daily Heil, but some of it is 
> probably broadly accurate).

Your point?...

>
>> [1] IIRC Brit Allcroft's company tried to claim that rights were 
>> payable to them if *any* face was put on a locomotive, and it 
>> didn't mater if the loco didn't look like any TTT charter either 
>> (they failed).
>>
>>> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We 
>>> did Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where 
>>> that old man swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...
>>
>> Or, and this is a real case, "Oh no, hold on. We did Thomas before, 
>> at that other railway, and there was that pervert who put his hand 
>> up that little girls skirt and felt her knickers, remember the 
>> court case?'
>
> "...having everybody associated with the event undergo a Criminal 
> Records Bureau (CRB) check..." prevents someone doing it again, if 
> they have been prosecuted previously.  I am assuming it is taken as 
> read that if anyone shows up as having a relevant conviction they 
> will not be allowed to participate - they don't just say "oh look, 
> we have one, tick the box", and leave it at that.

Your point, other than showing up your ignorance - again...

>
> > - how does any licensing prevent problems arising?
>
> It doesn't.
<snip irrelevance about the end of the world!>

Exactly, and it rather blows your suggested reason for a marketing 
company to demand money from preserved railways etc. - just so they 
can make money out of others publicising their brand out of the 
water - have these (rip-off) companies never thought that many kids 
will pester their parents to buy TTT branded goods after being taken 
to see a TTT event at a local railway?....
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I fee sorry for those children who lack a creative imagination. Mine
> would have been fine with that, and still are fine with "playing
> trains" rather than railway modelling.

There's a difference?

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Jerry wrote:
> "Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:zMadnR5n_ab0libVnZ2dnUVZ8q_inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> Jerry wrote:
>>> "Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:ZsmdnWii29I1QyfVnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> <snip>
>>>> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit 
>>>> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of 
>>>> one rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a 
>>>> hardcore railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it 
>>>> might put people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big 
>>>> railway which would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in 
>>>> lots of money).
>>> How would simple paying for the privilege of putting a face in the 
>>> front of a locomotive [1] (or in this instants using a bear 
>>> costume) prevent a 'poor event' - indeed if the above mentioned 
>>> event has paid for the rights the exact thing you seem to be 
>>> claiming wouldn't happen has!
>> I've no idea, but as that is not what happens with the events in 
>> question, your hypothetical case doesn't really matter very much, 
>> does it?
> 
> WTF are you going on about, I have not use any hypothetical cases, 
> perhaps if you should look up the meaning of the word "if"!

As is detailed below, it is not a case of "simple paying for the 
privilege of putting a face in the front of a locomotive". I doubt Paul 
Gadd and Josef Fritzl would get permission to stage an event, however 
much they offered to pay.

>> "Hit Entertainment has also said anybody wanting to play the Fat 
>> Controller must go on a course in either York or London."
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510400/Thomas-Tank-Engine-Fat-Controller-20-years-experience-banned-bureaucrats.html
>> (okay, the top Google hit is from the Daily Heil, but some of it is 
>> probably broadly accurate).
> 
> Your point?...

If there are some long words you are having problems with, you could try 
asking an adult for help.

>>> [1] IIRC Brit Allcroft's company tried to claim that rights were 
>>> payable to them if *any* face was put on a locomotive, and it 
>>> didn't mater if the loco didn't look like any TTT charter either 
>>> (they failed).
>>>
>>>> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We 
>>>> did Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where 
>>>> that old man swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...
>>> Or, and this is a real case, "Oh no, hold on. We did Thomas before, 
>>> at that other railway, and there was that pervert who put his hand 
>>> up that little girls skirt and felt her knickers, remember the 
>>> court case?'
>> "...having everybody associated with the event undergo a Criminal 
>> Records Bureau (CRB) check..." prevents someone doing it again, if 
>> they have been prosecuted previously.  I am assuming it is taken as 
>> read that if anyone shows up as having a relevant conviction they 
>> will not be allowed to participate - they don't just say "oh look, 
>> we have one, tick the box", and leave it at that.
> 
> Your point, other than showing up your ignorance - again...

If English is not your first language, I might try to spell it out. 
Otherwise, tough luck. I'm not your teacher, thank goodness.

>>> - how does any licensing prevent problems arising?
>> It doesn't.
> <snip irrelevance about the end of the world!>
> 
> Exactly, 

Replying to something you have first chopped out draws attention to your 
lack of clue, rather than hiding it.

> and it rather blows your suggested reason for a marketing 
> company to demand money from preserved railways etc. - just so they 
> can make money out of others publicising their brand out of the 
> water -  have these (rip-off) companies never thought that many kids
> will pester their parents to buy TTT branded goods after being taken 
> to see a TTT event at a local railway?....

Not if it is a crap event. There is always a risk of a poor event 
damaging the brand as a whole, which the brand's owners would wish to 
minimise even if they can never totally avoid it. Brand owners may not 
get the balance right - they could get it very wrong - but it is 
understandable that they might want to make an attempt to protect their 
interests.

The brand must be worth something, else people wouldn't be wanting to 
use it themselves. I doubt anyone decides to hold an event simply 
because they think it will help someone else flog branded goods at some 
point in the future.

One answer could be for railways in invent their own brand, or find a 
lesser-known one. I know someone who goes to Jack the Station Cat, which 
I assume is not a dubious fetish.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:gqednWE3ytw1uybVnZ2dnUVZ8s_inZ2d@posted.plusnet...

FOAD troll.

On 31 Aug, 21:24, MartinS <m...@my.place> wrote:
> Dragon Heart  wrote:
> > Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> Dragon Heart wrote:
> >> > Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> Rights to Paddington appears to be controlled though "The
> >> >> Copyrights Group", not HIT
> >> >> Entertainment.http://www.copyrights.co.uk/home.aspx-- Arthur
> >> >> Figgis               Surrey, UK- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > I was thinking about Thomas not Paddington :-)
>
> >> > I feel the main problem,  it was a Paddington Bear event and only
> >> > Paddington Bear was on site !  I am not sure what else you could
> >> > have apart from a marmalade sandwich stall but ..... ?
>
> >> > Compared to other events I would suggest it was not well attended,
>
> >> > I would imagine Paddington Bear is a bit like Marmite ... you love
> >> > or loath it.
>
> >> As well as simple greed, one of the reasons people can be a bit
> >> aggressive about rights to these things is because of the risk of one
> >> rubbish event damaging the brand. If a child-hating owner of a
> >> hardcore railway anorak museum ran a token-effort Thomas event, it
> >> might put people off visiting a future entertaining event on a big
> >> railway which would make the kiddies happy (and, yes, bring in lots
> >> of money).
>
> >> "Oh look, Thomas event at the NYMR next week. Oh, no, hold on. We did
> >> Thomas before, on that miniature railway in the park where that old
> >> man swore at Little Johnny for calling his loco Duck"...
>
> >> > I always feel a little sympathetic to those 'volunteered' to wear
> >> > those costumes ..... in the summer weather you are sweltering but
> >> > in the rain you are cooler but the fur gets wet,  heavy & smelly.
> >> >  In  any weather you cant see were you are going very well.
>
> >> Many years ago I spent some time one summer wandering around
> >> Scarborough dressed as a whelk called Reginald. Unfortunately the
> >> designers had forgotten to put any eye holes in the outfit, and more
> >> fundamentally, the costume was quite clearly based on a squid, not a
> >> whelk....
>
> > From what I understand it's the level of insurance cover they demand
> > and last minute demands.
>
> > Is HIT a US based company,  as that would explain the above ?
>
> It's a multinational company, registered in England but responsible for
> brands such as Thomas, Barney (ugh!), Bob the Builder, Angelina
> Ballerina, Pingu and Fireman Sam. Many of its executives have worked in
> both the UK and North America (US/Canada).
>
> http://www.hitentertainment.com/home.html
>
> > Butterly have their own 'Thomas' which is hired out,  I understand
> > demand has dropped dramatically over the past year.
>
> > These events are based on children enjoying themselves.  Do a poor or
> > even an average job many children of today will not accept it.  I am
> > surprised many accept everyday loco's with hand drawn face boards held
> > on with wire as 'Thomas' loco's.
>
> Not to mention the wrong colour or wheel arrangement.
>
> How many railways have a Toby the Tram Engine?
> How many people have actually seen a steam tram engine?
>
They have a steam tram @ Telford,  not Toby,  but a working steam
tram.  I recall seeing some photo's of a full size replica but I don't
think it was steam driven or remember were it was.

Chris