National Park? Does It Matter?

[Cockatoo]

Heard in the house of commons bar, sometime in the future:

 

"Hello Terry, how are you voting on this Broads becoming a National Park Bill"

 

"Well old man it's been a NP for years so this is just crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. Nice to have to vote on something we don't have to think about"

[batrabill]

4 minutes ago, SteveDuk said:

Heard in the house of commons bar, sometime in the future:

 

"Hello Terry, how are you voting on this Broads becoming a National Park Bill"

 

"Well old man it's been a NP for years so this is just crossing the Ts and dotting the Is. Nice to have to vote on something we don't have to think about"

What vote? Someone has to introduce a Bill. Who? Why? This is magic pixie dust stuff.

[Timbo]

49 minutes ago, batrabill said:

What vote? Someone has to introduce a Bill. Who? Why? This is magic pixie dust stuff.

Not really Bill, remember that referendum we had the other year? The one that's not legally binding and would need an act of parliament to enact? The one that's still not been enacted yet, but within a matter of months, for good or ill, is and will happen?

Our parliamentary structures seem to be so rigid and secure, yet the old boy network is still intact and operational. At one time I was not as cynical as I am now. I've seen that old boy network at very close hand both through my former occupation and a personal point of view. On a professional level, more often than not, it has been the frustration that much-needed legislation on antiquities has been defeated or on many occasions circumvented by tacking unwanted legislation unnoticed onto a totally unrelated bill in the early hours of the morning. Most recently getting the UK to stand by its commitments like the Blue Shield (similar to the Red Cross but for preserving antiquities and historic sites) which it has faithfully promised to do, yet somehow the agreement never get's signed.

On a personal level, I'm still in a little awe of a network where on a Monday I asked a friend for help. Tuesday I was sat in an MP's surgery, by Thursday I was sat chatting with the Home Secretary over dinner, Friday I received the documents and signed affidavits I required so that by the following Monday, I had various local government organisations and departments suddenly dancing to whatever tune I set. I should point out that six months later I found myself at various campaign fundraising events and providing archaeological reports...thus was my introduction to the way parliament actually works. Very little actually gets done within the parliamentary chamber.

Still, like Bill, I do have some faith in the parliamentary process and I very much appreciate his contributions, otherwise, it would be a one-sided debate and they are no fun at all.

[JennyMorgan]

Conservation bodies, the obscenely wealthy RSPB springs to mind, apparently employ people within the corridors of power. The recent Broads Bill cost many, many tens of thousands, indeed well in excess of one hundred thousand pounds. Could an MP be persuaded to promote a private bill, a bill backed by such as the RSPB? It didn't take long for Norfolk Wildlife to raise over a  million so it could purchase Hickling Broad. 

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

So really a Bill has to be introduced - not just a nod and a wink. 

Something that is virtually inconceivable in the current climate. So, basically impossible.

 

Bill, I mean you no disrespect but to suggest that it is virtually inconceivable that a Bill could be introduced is, I think, a very blinkered statement. Dr Packman is no fool,  complacency is his greatest allie. There are potential backers out there for whom money is absolutely no problem. We can not afford to say never, especially whilst it remains the ambition of the Authority then it's just a matter of time.

[batrabill]

Completely disagree but lets leave it there.

 

[marshman]

And which is why, people who are unaware of the details would do best to re read the old stuff rather than continue a new discussion!!

I do understand their comments but there is nothing worse than people taking sides based on incomplete information! On the internet there is no shortage of information, accurate information too about the whys and wherefores, but on the various Forums, and not just this one, the facts do tend to get distorted and the issue blurred by mutterings of conspiracies and the posting of slightly wrong information (false news?? ) coloured by personal judgements which may , or may not  be entirely true.

The trouble is further complicated by the fact that the "anti" brigade on the Forums probably outweigh those who offer an opposing view for one reason or another and indeed those who post an opposing view just for the sake of balance!! Probably this is because the vast majority do not want to get into an animated and often heated discussion and whilst some will persist in offering what they perceive an opposing view, they are in the minority simply because weight of numbers can over ride their point.

If you want to see a classic example of this in slow motion, I suggest they read the saga of Thorpe Island where it was often hard to even get at the truth through the squit being posted, aided and abetted by some professional pot stirrers!

However I suspect no one will "hear" me and try and drag it all out yet again but do not necessarily expect a balanced discussion as some of us cannot be bothered all of the time to post opposing views which in the event may prove to be right!! Nonetheless I am gratified that even my old m8  PW, readily admits any change will require primary legislation, although he spoils that statement by suggesting a wad of cash could change all of that!!!

[JohnK]

And which is why, people who are unaware of the details would do best to re read the old stuff rather than continue a new discussion!!

Does that apply to every subject?
Once the enlightened few have spoken there’s never a need to discuss it ever again?
That sounds more like Wikipedia than a forum.
[Posted very much tongue in cheek]

I keep koi and use a couple of forums. Every year the same subjects come up over and over again. Some people choose to get involved, some choose not to. I think it makes new people feel welcome when they can get their questions answered.
Things change too. Good advice / right answers five years ago may no longer be good advice / right answers today in my experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, by suggesting that a wad of cash could be forthcoming is hardly a spoiler! More that it's a realistic view bearing in mind the nature of the beast. The last Bill was promoted at a time when it was thought that Parliament itself would be less likely to devote much time to it and that there was a cabinet reshuffle, remember that I was on the Nav Com back then and heard it all from executive reports. Since then there has been talk in high places of a next time, face to face indeed, so I have no reason to doubt that it will happen. Dr Packman does not easily take 'no' for an answer, witness the use of the term Broads national park which is despite several setbacks in Parliament and from the relevant Secretaries of State & DEFRA itself.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, marshman said:

And which is why, people who are unaware of the details would do best to re read the old stuff rather than continue a new discussion!!

I do understand their comments but there is nothing worse than people taking sides based on incomplete information! On the internet there is no shortage of information, accurate information too about the whys and wherefores, but on the various Forums, and not just this one, the facts do tend to get distorted and the issue blurred by mutterings of conspiracies and the posting of slightly wrong information (false news?? ) coloured by personal judgements which may , or may not  be entirely true.

The trouble is further complicated by the fact that the "anti" brigade on the Forums probably outweigh those who offer an opposing view for one reason or another and indeed those who post an opposing view just for the sake of balance!! Probably this is because the vast majority do not want to get into an animated and often heated discussion and whilst some will persist in offering what they perceive an opposing view, they are in the minority simply because weight of numbers can over ride their point.

If you want to see a classic example of this in slow motion, I suggest they read the saga of Thorpe Island where it was often hard to even get at the truth through the squit being posted, aided and abetted by some professional pot stirrers!

However I suspect no one will "hear" me and try and drag it all out yet again but do not necessarily expect a balanced discussion as some of us cannot be bothered all of the time to post opposing views which in the event may prove to be right!! Nonetheless I am gratified that even my old m8  PW, readily admits any change will require primary legislation, although he spoils that statement by suggesting a wad of cash could change all of that!!!

Yes I remember the anti brigade and who it consisted of regarding Thorpe island and how they tried to belittle others opinions , I guess it just  depends which side of the fence you are one in any one discussion , if I remember correctly that whole situation was sorted out with a large wad  of cash after of cause a certain body had thrown an awful lot of money at it .

Right after that slight drift in thread I see no reason what do ever why this subject can't be discussed , yes research is important but there's nothing wrong with asking a question that's how humans find things out after all .

As for those who can't be bothered to discuss that's entirely up to them but speaking personally if I feel passionately about a subject I will join in a debate even if I'm alone in my views but each to thier own I guess .

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

For those people who have been a member of or following a forum for a long time, it can be tiresome to see the same topics raised time and again, but it must be remembered that people who are new to the forum won't have seen those old discussions. Yes they can go and use the search facility and read all the old threads, but how many of those threads have digressed time and time again or just plainly descended into a slanging match? I think it would take a week of searching and reading for someone new to the subject to catch up on the various discussions about Thorpe Island. Which to be fair, over the course of the various discussions new nuggets of information did come to light each time buried amongst all the wheat and chafe.

[Guest]

I thread is kept alive by people posting, when all interest is lost the postings stop, therefore logic would suggest that whilst there are still postings there is still interest.

Those who had heard it all before can simply ignore the threads where "they have seen it all before" and they are certainly under no obligation to contribute further.  

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, Philosophical said:

I thread is kept alive by people posting, when all interest is lost the postings stop, therefore logic would suggest that whilst there are still postings there is still interest.

Those who had heard it all before can simply ignore the threads where "they have seen it all before" and they are certainly under no obligation to contribute further.  

How very true. If someone stops posting because they can’t be bothered or because ‘it’s all been said before’ then I guess they are probably not as passionate about the subject as they would have others believe. If new members ask about an issue they have not come across before, they are entitled to the best explanation members can offer be it in support or otherwise. 

[marshman]

To be fair, this topic has not come up just once before but many many times - neither is it true to say that just because individuals do not post, they are no longer passionate about the truth!

Posting a large untruth about it will probably provoke a response and believe me, if I really thought it was suddenly about to happen, it would awaken me from my slumbers and I will be there, if i think it appropriate, with everyone else if necessary.

In the meantime discuss away......!

[JanetAnne]

I am glad that we are able to re open these discussions whether that be through new members or old. Every time we revisit such issues there are different members active from the previous time and so we get different view points. Peoples views also change over time, I know mine have, and reading through this recent thread I have, once again, learnt something from the contributors.

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, JanetAnne said:

I am glad that we are able to re open these discussions whether that be through new members or old. Every time we revisit such issues there are different members active from the previous time and so we get different view points. Peoples views also change over time, I know mine have, and reading through this recent thread I have, once again, learnt something from the contributors.

I have long thought the NP issue a very complex subject to understand and I too learn something new each time it is discussed. One definitely needs to keep an open mind if at all possible! 

[Guest]

I decided to look to the National Park webpage for some clarity.

Yes, the Broads is indeed named as being one the National Parks, so question closed I thought, but a little deeper delve to the webpage that details when the areas were designated as National Parks, states that: "1989 The Broads given equivalent status to a National Park"

So clear as mud.

[Guest]

Yep its as clear as mud for lord know what reason , thinking about it because I'm male I have equivalent status given he's male too to super man , doesn't mean I can fly though if you get my meaning 

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I decided to look to the National Park webpage for some clarity.

Yes, the Broads is indeed named as being one the National Parks, so question closed I thought, but a little deeper delve to the webpage that details when the areas were designated as National Parks, states that: "1989 The Broads given equivalent status to a National Park"

So clear as mud.

I really would like to know who, or which body, gave the Broads the equivalent status to a National Park. It was agreed that it could call itself a 'member of the national park family' which most folk were happy with. Recently the Authority was cornered on its own blog into admitting that It is correct that the Broads was not designated as a National Park under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 . The reality can't be much clearer than that!

[KaptinKev]

I personally don't care what they call it, for me it will always be known as "The Broads" and as long as I can cruise these wonderful waterways, I really don't give a toilet version for any political correctness.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Yep its as clear as mud for lord know what reason , thinking about it because I'm male I have equivalent status given he's male too to super man , doesn't mean I can fly though if you get my meaning 

Try a low window first if you feel tempted to try!

[JennyMorgan]

I rather suspect the Dr Packman is hoping that curious folk will apply the 'duck test':

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. (Even if it isn't!)

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Try a low window first if you feel tempted to try!

Na I'm afraid flying ain't for me   as much as my pet pigeon trys to teach me I just can't flap my arms fast enough , that said a low window is a good idea 

[JohnK]

I have to say. The constant “it’s not an NP” reply to everything the BA says or does (good or bad) stops me from getting involved in any discussion now (here and FB)

I’d be very interested to know if anyone else feels the same way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KaptinKev]

26 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I have to say. The constant “it’s not an NP” reply to everything the BA says or does (good or bad) stops me from getting involved in any discussion now (here and FB)

I’d be very interested to know if anyone else feels the same way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It sounds like you want to get into a discussion of not getting involved, is there a difference?

[JohnK]

It sounds like you want to get into a discussion of not getting involved, is there a difference?

No. I mean exactly what I said. I’m interested to know if other people avoid posting on threads about the BA because of all the “you’re not an NP” posts.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk