Paladin

While forums are being watched, even openly joined, I understand that private FB groups are being infiltrated by the BA.

Minor exceptions? Really? I have to wonder on what you have based that judgement. There are quite a few people who are following the subject, here and elsewhere. They may not have the knowledge on which to base any action and I would say that the majority of them aren't members here, or even read this forum. But, apart from derogatory comments, you don't appear to add much to the subject. That's your perogative, but such comments won't make the facts go away.

NCC and SCC are both highways authorites, individually responsible for the majority of road signs in their areas. It is their job to know the law regarding road signs inside out. If they didn't know the legal position, they should have asked their legal teams, and/or the DfT, before any signs were authorised by them. That the DfT is now being asked to authorise the signs (if that is the case) is a clear admission that NCC and SCC had no power to authorise the signs in the first place.

No.

Sorry, but I tend to take things as they are written. marshman didn't say "more important", and nor did I. At the moment, I don't have a murder to inquire into, but I do have possible illegal activities by two local authorities to look at, so I'm looking. Only a few days ago, marshman wrote, "There is absolutely no place for condoning what is probably criminal damage," yet he appears to be rather relaxed about the possibility of local authorites breaking the law.

Isn't it important that local authorities obey the law, then? At least they are accountable.

I have now had a reply from Suffolk County Council: "The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that we have contacted Norfolk CC and are aware you have asked them the same questions. NCC is seeking approval from the Secretary of State for use of these signs (wording, colour and logo) which they expect to receive shortly. We will then be informed and can update you." I'm sure the electorate of Suffolk will be heartened to know that their county council is now subservient to Norfolk County Council. It is apparent, from that reply, that the BNP signs required, but did not have, the approval of the Secretary of State. Nor have Suffolk CC actually answered any of the questions I asked. Obviously, they don't know the answers, without asking Norfolk CC!

Thank you. That's very nice of you to say so.

I sent an email to Suffolk CC yesterday and got a reply today. I asked the following questions: 1. How Suffolk County Council categorises the signs? 2. With which specific diagram of the TSR&GD are the signs compliant? 3. If the category is ‘boundary signs’, has special authorisation for the signs been obtained from the national authority? 4. As the colour of the background of the signs does not conform to the standard colour palette for traffic signs, has special authorisation been similarly obtained. This is their reply: Thank you for your recent report. We can now provide you with the following update: The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that as the majority of the proposed signs were to be located in Norfolk and only a few in Suffolk, we took the lead from Norfolk County Council. They advised us when we contacted them that they had already approved the signs for Norfolk under the information contained in TSR & GD 2016. We therefore approved the signs for Suffolk to enable continuity of signing. The information we received was: We have interpreted the regs that govern boundary signs (Schedule 11 part 5 sec 38- 2 & 17) as allowing symbols & colours as long as its contrasting. In order to provide a better sense of place, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Transport have worked closely with the traffic sign manufacturing industry to develop new boundary signs that can incorporate photographic images. For example, Plymouth City Council’s new Tourist Gateway Sign, showing Smeaton’s Tower, designed with the Department for Transport’s assistance, was the first Tourist Gateway Sign to be formally authorised. Department for Transport authority is no longer required for these signs as permitted under the 2015 Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions (TSRDG). Attractive, attention-grabbing traffic signage is a great way to draw visitors to revenue earning destinations such as towns, scenic areas and individual attractions which I think covers the broads national park. For further information about how we deal with highway issues, please visit our website: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/highways/ Please do not use the reply function of this message. This mailbox is not monitored and therefore your email will not be seen. All I get from this is that Suffolk County Council approved the signs simply on the say-so of Norfolk County Council , but did not make any independent assessment of their own. Yet they are the ones who would be culpable, should it be found that the signs do not comply with the regulations, and the jury's still out on that one. A reply has been sent!

For the sake of clarity, Norfolk County Council has been asked to demonstrate the legality of the BNP signs, in relation to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. It appears that, while they were comfortable with their decision in the beginning, they are less so now and have referred the matter to the Department for Transport. Pending a response from the DfT, further installation of the signs has been put on hold. Nothing at all to do with vandalism, just people legally challenging authority. Democracy in action?

The Broads has got plenty of molehills, and no mountains. I see no need to try to change that situation. To put some perspective into this, one person, ChrisB, has withdrawn from discussions because of the nature of the debates on the BA threads. Another has left this thread, but not the forum, having totally misread, or misunderstood, several posts – he is still actively posting on other threads. I note, on a different thread, that someone else has just said they’re leaving altogether, having got upset for a reason that is nothing to do with these discussion. It happens with forums. Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. I can’t think of any critic of the Broads Authority, here or elsewhere, who has not had actual experiences of the Authority that have coloured their opinions. Trying to close down discussion is a negative approach, which simply won’t make the problems (as some see them) go away. If a genuine reasoned argument is put forward, which defeats the “little people”, so be it, but I haven’t seen much of that on here lately.

That is an interesting explanation, but how many times has ‘Gus, the chap who helps you to moor at the New Inn at Horning - top man’ been mentioned on here, over the years. Recommendations are often something like, ‘Go and see Bob at Bloggs and Co.’ Quite a dilemma knowing where to draw the line, particularly in regard to someone in a public-facing job.

That's very gracious of you. But I'll miss your contributions.

You really don't read the posts properly, do you? My reply to grendel's question was, "I don't know if anyone has written to Suffolk CC, to ask for clarification, so perhaps I'll get on and do that now." Did that not convey to you that there was an intent to do something? For the avoidance of any further doubt in your mind, that clarification has been sought and a reply awaited.

What on earth are you on about? My point (which you have totally missed) is that if you are trying to promote an area, to get more people to visit, you don't wait until the visitors arrive there. You go to where they live, whether in this country or abroad, and tell them how wonderful the area is and why don't you come and visit. Sorry, but I missed the report that said something was being smashed up.

Then, with the greatest respect, you know very little, really, either about Dr Packman or me. If you think he is all-powerful, may I suggest you start by researching the ill-fated Broads National Park Authority Bill, that Dr Packman tried (and failed) to get through parliament in 2006. He wanted to change the name of the Authority to the Broads National Park Authority, and the name of the Broads to the Broads National Park. A small number of local people petitioned parliament, objecting to this move. You can find out a great deal about the arguments by searching Hansard. The Defra Head of National Parks Branch, John Kilner, wrote to Dr Packman and told him explicitly that he (JP) could not use the title "National Park", or "National Park Authority". Yet here we are, with Broads National Parks road signs. But please don't think he has won. Those "little people" who presented opposition then will continue today. If you compare the resources Dr Packman has at his disposal compared to the total lack of resources available to his opponents, I would say he hasn't done too well in his 20 years of being chief executive in trying to achieve his ambition of the Broads becoming a National Park. Incidentally, he was forced to abandon that notion, in order to get the NSBA and RYA to drop their opposition to the rebranding, but did he really mean what he said? I've attached a draft copy of the Bill and the Kilner letter, but this only just scratches the surface, so I think it is early days for you to pass any judgement on him, or me. Second_Draft_of_Bill.pdf

That is a somewhat mute point, as Norfolk County Council has classified them as boundary signs, a decision that has been challenged. Further installation of the signs has been halted while NCC consult the Department for Transport.

Probably not you

The Suffolk CC guidelines say: National Parks and collective areas such as AONB will not be signed unless traffic is routed to a permanently established tourist information facility with good access and parking and toilets, and the name appears on maps/atlases and has signed boundaries. It should be noted that boundary signs for geographical areas are not covered by TSR&GD and would therefore require special authorisation. I know that Norfolk CC has classified the signs as boundary signs. I don't know if anyone has written to Suffolk CC, to ask for clarification, so perhaps I'll get on and do that now. But that doesn't stop anyone else writing to them.

Which legislation would you like us to consider?

I would suggest that the police would have to act very, very cautiously, unless of course, the perpetrator was actually filmed in the act of spraying the sign. I have been taking close-up photos of a number of the BNP signs. My vehicle has been parked close by and I wear a hi-vis jacket. I have been taking part in a perfectly innocent activity. If the police wanted to try to accuse me of a crime, where no evidence exists, they could find themselves in a bit of bother.

How on earth can trying to put oneself into the mind of the person responsible for a crime be interpreted as condoning that crime? As a police officer, surely you were doing that all the time, trying to judge motive and get some idea of where the next crime might occur (in the case of serial offences). If JM had said, 'my gut feeling was that the person responsible intended to damage the sign permanently', would that be 'condoning' it? In fairness to the BA, the signs may have been 'cleaned' by a well-meaning, but misguided, member of the community. I would have thought the BA would first contact the manufacturer of the signs for advice, before making any attempt at cleaning. Just a minor point, while the BA has paid for the purchase, erection and maintenance of the signs, property in them remains with the County Council that authorised them (according to the County Council, anyway).

Give me a few minutes and I try to see how JP can be blamed for a hole in someone's boat cover.

I'm trying to add to the debate. Someone said, very recently, that the defaced signs would have a detrimental affect on visitors' perceptions of the area. Obviously there are some who would prefer this dies a death, but this is a discussion forum and without discussion it (the forum) will simply fade away. I choose to read, and contribute to, discussions that interest me. I ignore all the others.

I haven't read that anyone here is condoning it, but it has happened and it's perfectly valid to discuss it. But I think it is the BA who are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, not the other way around. Here’s another thought to ponder. Up until now, the resistance against the BA has principally been from boaters. Dr Packman has, with a few notable exceptions, had the upper hand, as the battles have been fought within the corridors of power, away from public gaze. Now, one tussle has come into the public domain and will involve not only those boaters with their entrenched views, but ordinary residents living outside the BA's executive area, to whom the Broads Authority is just a name. Residents who have something of a pride in their neighbourhood. Now, each time they return to their village, they see a despoiled sign, right below the name of their village. I’m sure quite a few of them will be wondering what it’s all about, and some might take the trouble to find out. As far as I know, no parishioners were canvassed on their views about the signs. Those parish councils who ignored the BA’s letter about them have had signs installed anyway, even though the BA didn’t have their agreement. Perhaps now, those with some civic pride will be lobbying their parish councillors to have the signs removed. The Police haven’t got the resources to closely monitor the signs. The signs add nothing to the lives of the villagers, yet they spoil the ‘kerb-side’ appeal for residents and visitors alike.