At the bottom of each page of the main web site is a menu bar with the usual things like Contact, Privacy policy and Site map.

I've just noticed that at the end is an item "No Win No Fee", which links to an ad for a No Win No Fee lawyer.

Apart from being an inappropriate place for a link lilke this, should a reputable organisation such as the NWN be carrying ads like this at all?

Edit: I'm wondering if the site designers "snuck" this in without the knowledge of NWN.

I don't feel it's any different to any other advert on the page, except it doesn't have a pictorial link. I presume it’s therefore cheaper too.

Additionally, it may be a sponsor.

It's very different. It is stuck on to the end of a general navigation bar; it is part of the page template and therefore appears on every page. It has the hallmarks of being included by the web designer without NWN's knowledge (but maybe we'll be told differently).

As for sponsorship - assuming it was - should the NWN be accepting sponsorship from companies like that?

You could be correct and maybe NWN agreed it?

You may not agree with the companies ethics or morals but they are legal and legitimate and there would have to be a very good reason to exclude them.

All the same adverts seem to appear on every page. They are all links attached to an image apart from this one and it's positioning on the page, which is probably down to their particular advertising strategy.

It does look odd Jeff, I wonder if NWN actually know. Is it possible to hack that kind of link into the template?

Ok. I don't actually see those ads, since I have them blocked in my browser .

As this site is part funded by those adds, it might be wise to not be too vocal about it! I don't see anything wrong with the company linked at the bottom.

Found it at last!

Took me a while though even when you pointed it out.
Maybe just me!

Can't see them drumming up much business from that link though although I agree it is somewhat strange.

NWN gets paid for the adverts... that is how they fund these forums.

Me too, right click, "block images from...".

I don't really see the benefit of doing this on this site.

It means no more annoying adverts.

Well, yes, but I've never found them obtrusive but you also lose the pictures from the news page as well.

To be honest I don't even notice them.... you must go looking for them. Properly a bored existence.

Not obtrusive just annoying, but that's just personal preference.

Apparently the pictures on the news pages tend to be stock photos according to a previous thread on here.

No you don't if you use a proper browser. I use Firefox with the AdBlock Plus plug-in.

I do use a 'proper browser', but I was replying to user23's suggestion. Anyway, the ads don't bother me on this site. The absence of the adds doesn't improve the viewable area.

Whichever browser you use, I was just wondering why blocking ads blocks pictures from the news page as well.

I agree that blocking the ads doesn't improve the viewable area - I just find them distracting, and I am ad-resistant anyway

I repeat, I was replying to user23's solution (i.e. not yours). His solution blocks all pictures. As for being ad-resistant, I do hate the pop up type, but blocking the sponsors of free to use websites can only lead eventually to one conclusion.

Ah, but they don't know I'm doing it

Well up until 14:40 yesterday anyway!

So if the site suddenly gets shut down, you can blame me

Anyway, back to the original topic, I'd be interested in a response from Mr Admin.

It's still there!

While you might not agree with the 'no win, no fee' model, it has given thousands access to legal remedies against multinational companies that they would not normally have.

What has soured the industry is those practices who submit flimsy claims in the hope of a payout as it's cheaper to settle out of court.

What has "soured the industry" is the American model of litigation first (and on the cheap), rather than people taking responsibility for their own actions.

This works at corporate level as well. If people or organisations knowingly put people at risk for their own gain, then they should be brought to account; in my view.