News From The BA

[Guest]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

Surely, you can't help but notice that many of you are being backed into positions where you suggest things like:

voting against the Broads in a national competition,

trolling many people seeking publicity for the Broads by commenting in a negative way (when you must know this is precisely the thing that the Broads are allowed to do, use the NP status in marketing)

and coming up with negative scenarios like the above.

Is this really a good thing? 

 

I've no objection to it being called a national park for marketing purposes , but when it stands in line for being something it isn't then I object on the grounds it shouldn't have been nominated in the first place , the statement from country file in their answer to the letter is totally inaccurate .

The point I think JM was making is vote for a TRUE national park not t an anti broads thing , and to be perfectly honest I believe you know that Bill , all the other nominees are true national parks and deserve voting for as the competition is for the best true national park in my view not an area that has been allowed to use the term national park ONLY for marketing purposes .

Incidentally I don't believe I or anyone else is backing themselves into any position , but I do believe they and I are standing up for what we believe in and nothing else .

[batrabill]

I think you're just wrong.

The Scottish national Parks are not under the same legislation as the main block of NPs so perhaps we should all lobby to have them removed as well? 

Perhaps we could have The Continuity NPs, and the Real NP's

Self-evidently the National Parks are a family who are not all the same - why is that such a problem?

By voting for another National Park in this event - which is what is being promoted here by JM -  you are deliberately trying to damage Broads holiday businesses by denying them valuable marketing.

Can you possibly argue with that statement?

And how can you possibly justify that?

Have a look at Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park on Facebook for how some Broads holiday businesses feel about this idea. Comments section.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I think you're just wrong.

The Scottish national Parks are not under the same legislation as the main block of NPs so perhaps we should all lobby to have them removed as well? 

Perhaps we could have The Continuity NPs, and the Real NP's

Self-evidently the National Parks are a family who are not all the same - why is that such a problem?

By voting for another National Park in this event - which is what is being promoted here by JM -  you are deliberately trying to damage Broads holiday businesses by denying them valuable marketing.

Can you possibly argue with that statement?

And how can you possibly justify that?

Have a look at Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park on Facebook for how some Broads holiday businesses feel about this idea. Comments section.

Look Bill how I voted is for me to know , as far as I can remember iv not actually stated who I voted for , the broads shouldn't be in this competition to begin with , yes you can say its marketing but country files reply stated that its a true national park and funded in the same way as the others and that's not true , please read what DEFRA think on the issue .

Now I call a spade a spade coming from Yorkshire originally , not a shovel but a spade .

Just how long do you think it will be before the full national park rules are thrust upon the broads if they continue to consider they are based purely on the fact they have permission to use the term for marketing only! A competition is not marketing it is giving anyone who want to vote a false impression that the broads are a national park in the same way Snowdonia is and that's where I object , as for the business complaining I see many that aren't ie river side pubs , imagine this for a minute if the broads got full status and then navigation was closed off for wild life etc , who would suffer then ? The same business and many many more besides , the broads calling themselves a national park for marketing proposes does not mean increased or even maintaining the turn over of any business , that is down to their own marketing no one else .

[Baggywrinkle]

Anyone who wishes to complain can do so to the National Parks, particularly those which aren't finalists and so might feel selecting the Broads is unfair on them. A list of contacts can be found on the web site. http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us

[batrabill]

43 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Just how long do you think it will be before the full national park rules are thrust upon the broads if they continue to consider they are based purely on the fact they have permission to use the term for marketing only!

That's where we differ - never in my view.

[batrabill]

33 minutes ago, Baggywrinkle said:

Anyone who wishes to complain can do so to the National Parks, particularly those which aren't finalists and so might feel selecting the Broads is unfair on them. A list of contacts can be found on the web site. http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us

But, 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

I've no objection to it being called a national park for marketing purposes , but when it stands in line for being something it isn't then I object on the grounds it shouldn't have been nominated in the first place , the statement from country file in their answer to the letter is totally inaccurate .

The point I think JM was making is vote for a TRUE national park not t an anti broads thing , and to be perfectly honest I believe you know that Bill , all the other nominees are true national parks and deserve voting for as the competition is for the best true national park in my view not an area that has been allowed to use the term national park ONLY for marketing purposes .

Incidentally I don't believe I or anyone else is backing themselves into any position , but I do believe they and I are standing up for what we believe in and nothing else .

Sorry have thought some more about this; "for marketing purposes only", was this part of the original written agreement between the BA & NP or is it an assumed benefit, in which case who is the beneficiary?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

That's where we differ - never in my view.

Bill explain or better show me by quote if you wish where I have said I expect the broads to become a national park ! , all I have said is it is currently not a national park and hence has no right to be included in a competition for national parks regardless of it being classed as some as marketing , it is not marketing it is a competition nothing else and it does not meet the criteria of a national park and should not be entered , and that is all I have said , not once have I said I expect or indeed hope it becomes a national park as I know full well the outcry there will be and I WILL be amongst that outcry believe that .

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Sorry have thought some more about this; "for marketing purposes only", was this part of the original written agreement between the BA & NP or is it an assumed benefit, in which case who is the beneficiary?

I'm not sure if there is any written documents to show such , I imagine there will be , but that said who is the government office that deal's with this ? Yes DEFRA and their statement says its not a national park and won't be anytime soon , what needs to be defined is what is marketing and what is beyond that and I truly believe that a competition is not marketing intge true sense of the word, why should others parks who have full status be excluded for something that's doesn't fit  the full criteria in the first place .

[grendel]

I suppose advertising it as a NP on the NP website can be considered marketing, but there seems to be a fine line when calling it a NP is no longer advertising / marketing, and it seems that the BA are pushing the boundaries of this fine line, so that is now getting quite elastic.

[marshman]

Good to see a vibrant two way discussion in a good natured way!!! Or very nearly!!!

Long may democracy reign and I can have this discussion without being put away because on this Forum, my views might be different!!!

Hurrah - long live the Queen and the National Parks - except the Broads and the Scottish ones as they are not the same either!!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, grendel said:

I suppose advertising it as a NP on the NP website can be considered marketing, but there seems to be a fine line when calling it a NP is no longer advertising / marketing, and it seems that the BA are pushing the boundaries of this fine line, so that is now getting quite elastic.

Absolutely spot on ! 

[Guest]

Quite sad, in bygone years other companies used The Broads for marketing purposes.

t

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, marshman said:

Good to see a vibrant two way discussion in a good natured way!!! Or very nearly!!!

Exactly I don't see any problems just discussion , not sure what very nearly means ?  but I'm used to the odd enigmatic comment .

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Quite sad, in bygone years other companies used The Broads for marketing purposes.

t

They still do but it's not in a national competition against other areas that have full NP status 

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Quite sad, in bygone years other companies used The Broads for marketing purposes.

t

Over the last few posts it has become clear that we are now going round in circles. However, as this 1930's poster shows, the Broads has long been marketed as the Broads, quite successfully too. Why change what has been and still is successful? No logic to that, has Coca Cola, London or McDonalds changed their names? Why change what has taken generations to become established and recognised? There just has to be an ulterior motive!   

[batrabill]

Going round in circles, yes for years.

I thought the Broads were still called the Broads - or the Norfolk Broads - or the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Nothing has changed.

44 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

There just has to be an ulterior motive!

No there doesn't.

You will never change your mind - but you do change others, and if you try to convince people to do things which deliberately harm the Broads, like voting against it in a widely publicised bit of marketing fluff then we'll go round these circles again and again.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Going round in circles, yes for years.

I thought the Broads were still called the Broads - or the Norfolk Broads - or the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Nothing has changed.

No there doesn't.

You will never change your mind - but you do change others, and if you try to convince people to do things which deliberately harm the Broads, like voting against it in a widely publicised bit of marketing fluff then we'll go round these circles again and again.

Bill do you consider all member's to be either sheep or devoid of any ability to make up their own minds ? Seriously I can see far more commenting on this what IMHO is an outrage in a positive way , they are not trying to convinced others nor have they used that in the discussion , equally it could be said that you yourself are trying to convince others , it works both ways and is not really appreciated I'm sure to stand accused of manipulation of the members on here .

[JohnK]

Silence doesn’t necessarily mean concurrence.
Personally, I have voted for the Broads and I have no problem with the BA calling it a National Park, the people responsible for National Parks calling it a National Park or it being entered into a National Park competition.
I chose not to participate in this discussion, that doesn’t mean I agree with the loudest opinions (I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, I just can’t think of a better way of putting it).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[batrabill]

What JohnK said. 

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, much of what you accuse me of applies at least as much to yourself. You also tell me that I won't change my mind, true, but will you change yours?

[batrabill]

I will change my mind when I detect any evidence that there is any real threat. 

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I will change my mind when I detect any evidence that there is any real threat. 

I too will change my mind, when I detect any evidence to suggest that there is no threat.

[JohnK]

I found this:
http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/broads-to-be-called-a-national-park
It says in there

Members were also given comfort after it was additionally agreed to no longer pursue the long held ambition to become a National Park by law as the branding gives the area all the benefits it needs

That’s dated January 2015. Have we seen anything after that that shows they are still pursuing a legal change?

It’s a genuine question.
If some people believe they are because of what’s happened in the past I absolutely respect that. But I (and I suspect others) need to see something happening to convince me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

36 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I found this:
http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/broads-to-be-called-a-national-park
It says in there

That’s dated January 2015. Have we seen anything after that that shows they are still pursuing a legal change?

It’s a genuine question.
If some people believe they are because of what’s happened in the past I absolutely respect that. But I (and I suspect others) need to see something happening to convince me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If I could trust the Authority then I might put some credence to that publication. Forks and tongues spring to mind!!