National Park? Does It Matter?

[Guest]

It is not legally a national park , BA are allowed to use the national park image for marketing and that's all .

[grendel]

No, I dont avoid posting on the threads generally, I might avoid posting on the subject (well other than as a new moderator to warn people when they are making their arguments too personal or  otherwise out of the boundaries of the terms people signed up to when they joined) - or to gently rib JM on the topic occasionally.

[C.Ricko]

I think as soon as someone chips in with 'not a NP' it kills any thread as most folk can't be bothered to respond.

its a shame as it stifles any conversation about events and opportunities in and for the area, which is one of the major benefits of it all. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

9 minutes ago, C.Ricko said:

I think as soon as someone chips in with 'not a NP' it kills any thread as most folk can't be bothered to respond.

its a shame as it stifles any conversation about events and opportunities in and for the area, which is one of the major benefits of it all. 

 

Some truth in what you say, Clive, but both the long established 'Broads' and 'Broadland' brands, plus the emerging 'The Broads, a National Treasure', are all quite capable of standing on their own two legs without pampering to the misleading 'branding' with its obviously ulterior motives, in my own personal opinion of course!

[Broads01]

3 hours 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

 

No I don't feel that way John. Whilst I don't contribute to discussions about the BA that often because I feel I don't have detailed knowledge on the subject matter, I do read and digest because it's a subject that affects us all. Not long ago I didn't know what all the fuss was about but through keeping up with the forum I now feel informed. I fully understand why the Broads shouldn't be labelled a National Park. 

[High6]

We'll find out if it matters if the Broads wins the vote over the actual National Parks. How will all the other willing volunteers and selfless donors feel about being beaten by an organisation which is not legally a NP?

Yet another gaffe by the incredibly biased, Green Party governed and EU sponsored BBC.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

[JohnK]

I think as soon as someone chips in with 'not a NP' it kills any thread as most folk can't be bothered to respond.
its a shame as it stifles any conversation about events and opportunities in and for the area, which is one of the major benefits of it all. 
 

Exactly my point.
But put a lot better than I did.
Thank you.
I’m sort of glad it’s not just me.

I get that the Broads isn’t a National Park in the same terms as the others.
I get that the BA are allowed to call it a National Park.
Isn’t it more important we discuss what they’re doing rather than what they label themselves?

The most ironic part is that the BA could slip something bad through because the focus is on NP / not NP rather that what’s being slipped through. Not to mention getting no credit for the good stuff they do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grendel]

I feel that as long as there are people like JM keeping a weather eye on what they are doing and posting it here, then the BA wont be allowed to just slip anything through, without someone raising a ruckus, though on every count there will be others with the opposite view.

as long as both exist and manage to post their views without resorting to insults, we will end up with a balanced view at the end of the day.

[JohnK]

I feel that as long as there are people like JM keeping a weather eye on what they are doing and posting it here, then the BA wont be allowed to just slip anything through, without someone raising a ruckus, though on every count there will be others with the opposite view.
as long as both exist and manage to post their views without resorting to insults, we will end up with a balanced view at the end of the day.

Not if the debate always goes back to the one discussion and away from what’s being done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[C.Ricko]

8 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Some truth in what you say, Clive, but both the long established 'Broads' and 'Broadland' brands, plus the emerging 'The Broads, a National Treasure', are all quite capable of standing on their own two legs without pampering to the misleading 'branding' with its obviously ulterior motives, in my own personal opinion of course!

The Broads and Broadland are not really brands, I have never heard of 'The Broads National Treasure'  so although you may be right, I don't think they share the same clout as the National Park connection, and despite not being a marketeer I know the best way to promote the area to the visitors we need is to be part of a world wide recognised group because despite not being one in every sense of the name, we are legally allowed to call ourselves one

[ChrisB]

If there was a way of ensuring fully mapped and documented areas of navigation could be enshrined in the form of a Broads Charter then I could only see benefits from full National Park status.

Clive is correct, National Parks are a World Wide recognised "brand". Maybe there should be some quiet areas, outside of main channels where it is sail, paddle and row only? 

I am playing devil's advocate here but at times the Broads popular areas can be anything but a magical waterland.

[Chelsea14Ian]

Does it matter,or matter not if the Broads are a National park?I think the problem  is strictly speaking  it's not.Perhaps there is to much attention promoting to one and all that it is.What I think we all share is our love and affection of the broads.I want to see BA spend its time where it can improve the broads.In fairness much has been done already.Much still needs to be done.

[JohnK]

Perhaps there is to much attention promoting to one and all that it is.

Perhaps you’re right.
But perhaps too much time is also spent debating that the BA are calling it an NP too.
Clearly people can debate whatever they choose. I think the danger is they detract from the real issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughan]

I think Clive and ChrisB make very good points.

I can well see why Clive feels that putting the "national park" idea into the minds of tourists is possibly very good for business. I can also see that what JM sees as the sword of Damocles, is what he calls "Sanford by the back door", since he feels that NP status would put navigation at risk.

This is a very obvious remark but if the Broads were no longer navigable, there would not be any more boatyards! 

I noticed another article in the EDP and on ITV News about a project with a grant of £4 million which, as far as I understood it, will open up our awareness of wind pumps, and seek to discover, in the UEA, how they fit in to the history and archaeology of our landscape. There will be all the usual bark-chippings and signage, to let the heaving masses have access to these sites.

This is all very well especially if at least some of this is spent on the mills themselves but, to me, this is an example of national park thinking. If there were no longer boating tourism then all these cycle paths, canoe trails and bird hides will not contribute anything to the upkeep of the Park. These activities are all very welcome but boating tourism is carrying them on its back.

I think the question is : do you see full NP status as a long term threat to the Broads that we love? Personally, I do.

[JohnK]

I think Clive and ChrisB make very good points.
I can well see why Clive feels that putting the "national park" idea into the minds of tourists is possibly very good for business. I can also see that what JM sees as the sword of Damocles, is what he calls "Sanford by the back door", since he feels that NP status would put navigation at risk.
This is a very obvious remark but if the Broads were no longer navigable, there would not be any more boatyards! 
I noticed another article in the EDP and on ITV News about a project with a grant of £4 million which, as far as I understood it, will open up our awareness of wind pumps, and seek to discover, in the UEA, how they fit in to the history and archaeology of our landscape. There will be all the usual bark-chippings and signage, to let the heaving masses have access to these sites.
This is all very well especially if at least some of this is spent on the mills themselves but, to me, this is an example of national park thinking. If there were no longer boating tourism then all these cycle paths, canoe trails and bird hides will not contribute anything to the upkeep of the Park. These activities are all very welcome but boating tourism is carrying them on its back.
I think the question is : do you see full NP status as a long term threat to the Broads that we love? Personally, I do.

Agree 100% with what you’ve written.
Are we seeing any recent evidence that the BA are still actively trying to get full NP status or are we assuming that because that’s what they once wanted they still must?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughan]

9 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Agree 100% with what you’ve written.
Are we seeing any recent evidence that the BA are still actively trying to get full NP status or are we assuming that because that’s what they once wanted they still must?

Perhaps JM had better answer that!

[rightsaidfred]

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/broads-briefing-january-2018

Fred

[JohnK]

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/broads-briefing-january-2018
Fred

Thanks.
I have seen the last few of them and haven’t seen anything to suggest they’re trying to get a change of status. Have you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rightsaidfred]

Read it and make up your own mind on the emphasis.

Fred

[JohnK]

Read it and make up your own mind on the emphasis.
Fred

I did (several times). I must be missing something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SwanR]

I can see that there is a thread on Facebook about the Countryfile Magazine Awards which seems to have reignited the topic by including the Norfolk Broads in the National Park of the Year category.

Like some other folk I don't tend to get involved in this discussion because I don't know enough about the legalities of why the Broads should or shouldn't be termed a National Park. To the average tourist looking for a boating holiday it simply means an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, another term that I don't know if you can officially apply to the Broads!

[High6]

There is no need to seek full NP status. Just like the EU changes are made gradually and surreptitiously not by making or changing any laws but by regulations devised and enacted by an unelected and unaccountable quango quoting non-verifiable "scientific studies"  by unnamed "leading experts", to the point where there is no discernible difference to a change in the law.

[rightsaidfred]

26 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I did (several times). I must be missing something.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No your not missing anything, that is the reason I only posted the link and no comment, it is all down to perception, at the moment the Broads are not a National Park and as a navigation cannot be however what some see as the future is a different matter, all we can do is concentrate on the present and preserve the area as best we can.

Fred

[Wyndham]

I'm another one without in depth knowledge of the situation but do have a question.

If I understand correctly, the view of some is that full National Park status is being sought by disguised tactics.

If so, can I ask why?

What motive has anyone got for wanting full NP status given the possible implications.

Genuine question.

[ExSurveyor]

5 minutes ago, Wyndham said:

I'm another one without in depth knowledge of the situation but do have a question.

If I understand correctly, the view of some is that full National Park status is being sought by disguised tactics.

If so, can I ask why?

What motive has anyone got for wanting full NP status given the possible implications.

Genuine question.

Brace yourself 

I have read all the different views over the years but have found some interesting information and views in this latest round.