An astute reader sent me a note suggesting that the use of the Bermuda Coat of Arms on the PLP website could be illegal. (Before you bombard me with emails...I'm not hosting the offending image on my site, I'm simply passing through to the offending image on the PLP site...as a public service of course!)
Now I'm not one to nitpick, but we are trying to stem the tide of lawlessness aren't we? So I felt duty bound to look into it, and after verifying this with some people in the know, it would appear that the reader could be correct:
Summary Offenses Act 1926
"Restriction on using Royal coat of arms and that of Bermuda
"22 Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who, otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Governor or under other lawful authority, uses or displays——
"(a) in connection with the carrying on of any business, trade, profession or calling; or
"(b) in connection with the activities of any body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate,
"the Royal coat of arms or the coat of arms of Bermuda, or any arms so closely resembling either of these coats of arms that they might reasonably be taken to be that coat of arms, commits an offence against this Act:
"Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to the reproduction or representation of the Royal coat of arms or the coat of arms of Bermuda on any article, goods or things sold or offered for sale unless the Governor, on its appearing to him that any reproduction or representation of the Royal coat of arms or the coat of arms of Bermuda on any articles, goods or things is objectionable on public grounds, declares, by order published in the Gazette, that such foregoing provisions shall have effect in relation to the reproduction or representation of the Royal coat of arms or to the reproduction or representation of the coat of arms of Bermuda on those articles, goods or things."
Now I suppose that they could have sought permission from the Governor (or use themselves as the "other lawful authority"), but seeing as Mr. Vereker is the representative of the oppressive colonial master I doubt they did that.
Perhaps our new, rather humourous AG would like to look into this potential violation of the law when he's dealt with the seat belt and parking ticket problems?
