Do you obey your spellchecker religiously? Do you do everything it tells you to do even when you don’t know whether it’s right or wrong? Your spellchecker is only as good as your knowledge of the English language.
Let me give you an example of what my spellchecker was telling me to do today:
I’d written the sentence (referring to some website content): “I think your content is fine, however,….”. My spellchecker was telling me to change ‘your’ to ‘you’re’ which is obviously wrong in this context. It was thinking that ‘content’ meant ‘happy’ in which case ‘you’re’ would be right.
OK, this is a fairly clear-cut example and I knew the difference and chose to ignore it. Would you have done the same?
This is an example of ‘contextual spelling’, first introduced in Word 2007. Whilst it’s a great facility to have, unless you know what is right or wrong, it can only serve to confuse.
You can turn the option on or off by clicking File, Options, Proofing (Word 2010) and (un)checking the ‘use contextual spelling’ option and then clicking ‘OK’ to save your settings.
If you still have doubts and want to ensure that your ‘content’ is right, speak to a proofreader.
As business owners we know that a positive online endorsement can help sell our products and services.
Checking out blogs, vlogs and other online endorsements is an increasingly common way for people to decide what particular product or service to buy.
It is not illegal for businesses to pay people or publications to promote their products in online articles.
BUT the people that publish such content, both the businesses that want to get their products endorsed and any media agencies that place endorsements all need to make sure that the consumer knows that the endorsement has been paid for.
Misleading consumers may breach consumer protection law. Also the UK Advertising Codes, published by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), contain rules to ensure marketing communications are easily identifiable.
Having recently spent an afternoon with Rob thrashing out an important policy for our charity, his guidance and facilitation were crucial to the finished product and unlike some consultants we have used in the past, he has actually written it on our behalf as well as several other policies in conjunction with us.
As Chairman of Enable Me, it is a huge weight off my mind to know that someone with such competence is supporting us in such an important area. I highly recommend Crimson Crab to all sectors of industry.
The High Court held that an individual appointed as the “shepherd in charge” of the spiritual wellbeing of the congregation of a religious charity was a charity trustee and not an employee and had been validly removed from office by the trustees of the charity.
The High Court been looking at the scope of a professional’s duty of care and has given a judgement which provides useful analysis of case law considering the scope of professionals’ duty of care, and the limited circumstances in which the courts will extend a duty beyond its terms.