Paladin

Obviously not to you

And what do you think Dr Packman’s plan is regarding the signs? It’s said to be “to raise the profile of the area’s special status both with residents and visitors and support the local tourism industry.” That is from Dr Packman himself. I don't believe that for one second. His expansionist plans were revealed in the response to the Glover review. A response that was, I believe, only shown to the members of the Authority after it had been submitted. If you look at the positioning of the signs in some detail (as I have), you'll see a number of obvious anomilies. Apart from which, the Broads Authority and the Norfolk County Council can't even agree among themselves what the purpose and legal status of the signs are. Dr Packman says they are, in effect, for marketing purpose (the only purpose for which the BNP expression may be used), while the Norfolk County Council says they are boundary signs (a status which the BA categorically denies), which adds fuel to the belief that Dr Packman will, eventually, make a land grab. But by using the term Broads National Park on the signs, the status of the Broads is actually diminished. It has a special status precisely because of the existence of the navigation. That’s what makes it different from ordinary national parks and that’s what the rebranding operation seeks to deny. I would have thought that, by the time they reach Acle or Martham or Horsey (to name just a few of the places the signs have appeared), tourists to the area have already made the decision to visit! To encourage people to come here, the promotion has to be in the places they live. Aren’t you forgetting the effect this might have on the people who live in these town and villages? I can think of a few people in my village (not boaters, either) who are very anti-BA and if BNP signs were put up, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were returned to Yare House in little bits, with a (photo of) a severed horse’s head.

Most emphatically NO. Dr Packman himself has said that the signs are to promote etc. No.2 of the BA’s duties. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘Protecting the interests of navigation’, no matter which way it is spun. Pointless? Oh, I don’t think so. There is a very clear point being made. What it might say about the perpetrator depends rather on your view a) about the morality of direct action and b) about the behaviour of the BA. The camps are clearly divided

Perhaps you should spend a little more time reading what people actually post before jumping in with both feet. Read what JM said again and look at what I've emphasised. He hasn't condoned causing the damage.

But two rites can make a wrong...bigamy

I don't know of any 'plan', but, living locally, I've seen the results of the vandalism affecting several BNP signs, in villages 6 or 7 miles apart. I can't see the 'bored youth' of the area bothering to cycle around the countryside for such a purpose. The over-spraying has only affected the words 'National Park'. The word 'Broads' and the village names have been untouched. You might not be seeing any message, but I'm pretty certain the Broads Authority does.

But if the wrong solvent is used...

I've just seen another one that's received the same treatment. Perhaps the BA might need to invest in CCTV at all the sites.

It was posted on Facebook, on 20 January to be precise. Just over an hour later, it was posted on here, and twice in 2016, now I've had time to have a good look. Shall we move on now?

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act predates that speech by 20 years, but some people still have to be reminded of its content.

You inferred it, but I certainly didn't imply it. I try to be very careful with my choice of words, say what I mean and mean what I say. And I also prefer to keep to topics, so I shall refrain from reply to any further ad hominem posts.

Congratulations on finding it. How exactly do you get the idea that I said I'm never wrong? Please read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said I couldn't find it, that's all. (I suppose I shouldn't mention it was JM, not JP, who posted the link )

It may well have been, but my searches didn't come up with anything. It was on FB in the past few days.

Back on topic, the attached photo has just appeared on FB. This is criminal damage and cannot be condone, but perhaps it is an indication of the strong feeling against these signs.

Have you actually read it all before? As far as I can see, that link has never been posted on here. I think JennyMorgan saw it on Facebook. “All you and others…”? That’s a very broad brush being used there. I try not to be repetitive, but sometimes facts have to be reiterated to rebut the erroneous statements that keep cropping up. These “old stories” are, most often, related to the history of the Broads and the historical conduct of the Broads Authority. If we don’t know, and learn from, that history, the same mistakes will be made again. There is always a continual influx of newcomers, who haven't heard those "old stories" before, rather infamously, the new North Norfolk MP being one. After his recent excursion on the Broads with the BA CEO, he made reference to the Broads National Park. He has made an apology and said it was "an innocent mistake". But where did he get that idea from? What should be acknowledged is that those most involved (on here and behind the scenes) in these debates tend to live in, or adjacent to, the Broads Authority’s executive area. It is therefore not just about boating. The BA has the ability to affect their everyday, non-boating, lives, but is totally unaccountable to those people, or, by all accounts, to anyone else. Those living elsewhere in the country, and who visit the area solely for leisure, don’t run the same risks of that interference. The BNP signs going up outside the BA's executive area is just one example, but that is the subject of a different thread. But I am aware that some of those living elsewhere are also very passionate about holding the BA to account.

I have no criticism of the work done at Hickling, but the purchase of the dredging operation from May Gurney has been put 100% to the navigation budget. You have just accepted that, in the Hickling case, there was a benefit, I would say a substantial benefit, to conservation. Such benefit sharing can be seen in other areas, the recreation of Salhouse Spit, the creation of wildlife habitat at the SWT centre at Carlton Marshes. I'm just saying that dredging is widely acknowledged to benefit conservation, so why isn't that reflected in the apportioning of the purchase cost?

It's somewhat ironic that Vaughan left after a moderator's reminder to keep to the topic, which he seems to have taken personally. Yet this thread has moved from a discussion about the original topic, BNP road signs at Acle, to an introspective debate about relationships between members, without a hint of moderation. Perhaps a new thread on the latter topic could be started, the relevent posts moved to it from this thread, and the new thread put into the members' area, where such matters usually end up.

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/world-wetlands-day-a-new-vision-for-hickling

From the draft statement of accounts 2018/19: "This year’s sees the introduction of the Capital Receipts Reserve within the useable reserves. This reserve has been created following the sale of the Fieldbase at Ludham, previously classified as Investment Property held for Sale. This can be used for future capital purchases or the repayment of debt."

This is what was written when Speakers' Corner was set up: "This section of the forum is dedicated to the open discussion and debate of subjects relating to the present and future stewardship of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. This area has been specifically set up to enable moderation of these threads to be simpler, quicker and fair to all participants and to provide better access to the important information the threads contain. In order to facilitate these changes please note the additional guidance for posting in this section... Moderators will adhere strictly to the NBN Terms of Service (ToS) with the following additions... General Guidance For Posting Keep it civil. Keep it factual." I haven't noticed the moderators stepping in much to separate any bickering members. I don't read threads in which I have no interest, but I do have a keen interest in the Broads and its management. I do my utmost to keep it civil and, just as importantly, factual.

No, we, apparently, can still access existing EU funding until 2023.

Some good news perhaps? In 2007 the BA took out a loan of £290,000 at a fixed rate of interest of 4.82% pa, to buy the dredging operation from May Gurney. It has cost something in the region of £14,000 pa in interest charges. Consideration is now being given to repaying that loan in full, using the proceeds from the sale of the Ludham Field Base and money in the Capital Receipts Reserve. Repaying the loan early would release funds (from the capital and interest repayments) back to the navigation chest and relieve the upward pressure on tolls. There will be a consultation with the Navigation Committee in April, as the loan is regarded as 100% Navigation. On the other hand, wasn’t dredging carried out at Hickling for conservation purposes? Perhaps the Navigation Committee should challenge this "100% Navigation" position, but I don’t hold out much hope. Would spending the money from the Ludham Field Base sale impact the amount available for the proposed Acle Visitor Centre? I note the BA is opening a Visitor Centre at the Forum in Norwich. Is that the cheaper alternative?

The last sentence was added after I had replied to the original post, so I will add, feeding them a counterfeit of a 'known and trusted brand' may be good practice if you are running a Far Eastern 'knock-off' business, but it hardly inspires confidence.

I had seen that post, but he was reacting to a post which had a big grinning smiley attached to it, so hardly anything to get upset about, I would have thought. But he'll be a loss to the forum, if that is the case.

Let me set the record straight. The IUCN sets out categories of protected areas, from Category 1 to Category 6. The highest category is 1. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: A protected area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection. Then comes Category 2. National Park: A protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation. All the UK National Parks and the Broads come in Category 5. Protected Landscape/Seascape: A protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation. So, in international terms, none of the UK National Parks nor the Broads are legitimate national parks, as defined by the IUCN.