Paladin

Whoops! I forgot this one. BA Members and Chairman Letter 170320.docx

Having now received the author's express permission, I have attached the three documents they published. I have included the one already posted, to keep them all together. In the EDP article, the (anonymous!) BA spokesman is reported as saying the report was “produced by an anonymous individual and not from a credible source”. If the source is unknown, how can the credibility of that source be judged? Perhaps that judgement can be better made by looking at the information provided and the arguments made, which, I suggest, are very credible. “The author has selectively used information to suit the campaign aims of discrediting the status of the Broads as a member of the family of 15 National Parks." Poppycock! The only reference in the 'Broads National Park - Friend or Foe' document to the National Broads Family is made on page 9, where it is written "2002/3: Requests to call itself a NP submitted to Government by the BA, were rejected. As a compromise, it could call the Broads “a member of the NP family”." So far from "discrediting the status of the Broads as a member of the family of 15 National Parks", the author is highlighting why the Broads should be referred to as a member of the National Parks family. The copy of the document with active links provides a link to the John Kilner letter of 2006, which I have also attached. The links were disabled to prevent problems with spam filters. Broads National Park-Friend or Foe (disabled links)120320 .pdf Councillor letter 150320.pdf Kilner 2006.pdf

I don't understand the preoccupation with the author's wish to remain anonymous for the time being. Their report(s) should be judged on their content. If I revealed their name, you would be none wiser. Nearly all the correspondents on here, and on other forums I frequent, are anonymous to me. So what? Does that mean their posts should be regarded as snide or smelly? In the comments section of the EDP article, I also noted that all the people criticising the author for using a pseudonym used a pseudonym of their own. You couldn't make it up.

No, I don't think so. That is just the covering letter. The one the BA doesn't like is the one entitled “Broads National Park – Friend or Foe". If I can get the author's permission, I'll publish it on here.

It all depends on what is meant by "on brokerage". If the boat is being offered for sale by a broker, but is still in use, a toll is required. If it's in the broker's premises, no longer in use, no toll is required. Test runs by a potential purchaser would be covered by the broker's trade plate. The explanation can be found in the 2009 BA Act. Section 16 Broads Authority Act 2009 Exemption of certain vessels (1)In this section...“the specified provisions” means— (a)any byelaws made or deemed to be made under section 11; (b)section 12 (construction and equipment standards); (c)section 14 (vessels: insurance requirements)… (6)Nothing contained in or in force or done under the specified provisions shall apply to any vessel which— (a)is not for the time being in use for the purposes of navigation, or for residential or commercial purposes; (b)is moored on waters occupied or customarily used by a person carrying on a business; and (c)is so moored for the purposes of being serviced, repaired or stored by that person or of being sold or offered or exposed for sale by that person (whether acting as principal or agent).

Apologies for the delay in updating on this subject. I have been trying to get information from the Broads Authority since 19 January and it has only just been provided. See attached documents. At the BA meeting on 22 November 2019, the Authority members (and the NavCom members before them) were given options regarding the tolls increase, one of which was to increase the tolls by a percentage to pay for the proposed pontoon moorings at Peto’s Marsh. What the members do not appear to have been told was that the Chief Executive had already legally committed the Authority to providing these moorings (and further moorings), by an agreement he signed with Suffolk Wildlife Trust back at the beginning of 2018. So it doesn’t seem that there was actually any option available, other than to agree to the funding of the pontoon moorings. In that Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), there is also an agreement for the Authority to provide additional moorings on the Waveney bank of the marsh, so toll payers can look forward to another hit. At that meeting, on the subject of the proposed pontoon moorings at Peto’s Marsh, the members were told “The Broads Act provides that “expenditure incurred in respect of moorings” is Navigation Expenditure so it cannot be funded from National Park Grant.” As has been mentioned previously, this is not accurate. The Act actually says: “navigation expenditure” means— (a) the expenditure which the Authority incurs in respect of its functions under Part II of this Act and under the 2009 Act ; (b) expenditure incurred in respect of the provision of moorings; and (c) expenditure incurred in relation to adjacent waters under section 10(2A) of this Act, but for the purposes of this section expenditure incurred wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of any area, including expenditure on dredging wholly or mainly for conserving those things, shall not be classified as navigation expenditure unless in the case of expenditure incurred wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the cultural heritage of any area it is incurred for the purpose of maintaining, improving, facilitating or promoting the public right of navigation.” It should be mentioned that: “The right of navigation is a right to pass and repass. It carries with it a right to moor temporarily to wait for the tide or to load and unload but not to lay down permanent moorings. It does not include a right of landing or embarkation without the consent of the owner of the bank or foreshore.” [Jonathan Gaunt QC] So the provision of moorings has nothing to do with "maintaining, improving, facilitating or promoting the public right of navigation,” which is separate from the duty of "protecting the interests of navigation." By far the most significant effect of the agreement and MoU will be in relation to the “conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads”. There appears to be a substantial argument for the cost of the moorings to be met from the conservation budget, or at the very least to be split between the navigation and conservation budgets, an argument that, it seems, wasn’t available to the BA or NavCom members, as the two attached documents were never presented to the meetings. Peto's Marsh - MoU BA SWT April 2018.docx Peto's Marsh - Landowner Agreement_Signed.pdf

I have no intention of debating the Royal family, here or anywhere else. I instantly saw the branding link, you don't. So be it.

The different attitudes to "Branding".

I don't think a new thread is needed. I consider this news to be apposite for this thread. The way I read it was that just because you are a member of the Royal family, it doesn't mean you can go about using the 'Royal' brand for gain. So just because the Broads is a member of the national park family, doesn't mean they can brand themselves a national park. I'm not sure the military comparison works. My son-in-law retired from a senior military rank, and is now a reservist. He doesn't actually use his rank, although he is entitled to and certainly would consider using it for profit.

This is a right-Royal lesson that the Broads Authority and National Parks UK should take note of: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex must drop their 'Sussex Royal' label after deciding to step down as working royals. Following lengthy and complex talks, the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word 'royal' in their 'branding'." [Daily Mail 19/02/20] The full article can be read here.

You asked me a while ago if I knew what de facto meant and you kindly gave me a definition: "existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right" This was my reply then and it is still my reply; Defra has repeatedly confirmed that the Broads is not a national park, which takes care of the 'in fact' part of the definition. The 1949 Act failed to designate the Broads as a National Park, which takes care of the 'legal right' bit.

I wanted to 'Like' this post more than once, but I can't.

Simply because of your comments about snide comment and members on here commenting about a business. The only business that had been mentioned up to that time was the one on Facebook to which batrabill had posted a link and a comment. I apologise if I interpreted that wrongly, but you haven't given any other explanation. Yes, I totally agree that expressions such as 'snide', 'making mischief' and 'if the cap fits' are nasty and unhelpful, which is why I avoid using them. Perhaps we can now get back to the topic, when there is something else about it to discuss.

My confusion deepens. batrabill posted a link to something that was happening on Facebook. Until that point, the premises in question had never been mentioned in this thread. You then post: "What a business choses to adopt as it's corporate identity has no right to be commented on by those on here persuing an agenda. If I were the owner of the establishment I would not be happy." Followed by: "I have no problem with freedom of expression. However I have a real problem when it becomes a "Snide" comment about a business using a legitimate marketing tool to further a few members vendetta against a man and the organisation he heads." Perhaps you would explain precisely how the activities on Facebook have any connection with members on here? Even if those involved are members here, what they do elsewhere isn't, or shouldn't be, any concern of ours. And why should you suggest I, as a member here, am a part of that activity? If you’re not referring to me, to which members are you referring?

I am now totally confused. What have the posts made on the Protect the Broads FB page got to do with the members on here? I’m not a member of that group and rather resent the implication that I have made any snide comments. Who was it introduced the Norfolk Mead Hotel into this thread? This is just one of 17 threads on here to which posts have been made in the last 48 hours. Plenty of other things to read and talk about, then.

We're not allowed to. We're not allowed to. Contrary to the Tos. But I think he would be able to confirm that he did receive some critical emails when the company started using the BNP expression, even though its use is compliant with the stated reason for the re-branding (marketing). But I think that may have been a bit before your time. I can't quite see how wearing a pin badge for viewing by customers who have already arrived (presumably most having booked beforehand) can be seen in the same light as promotional 'literature' which seeks to encourage potential customers to 'buy' your product.

No right? Whatever happened to the right of freedom of expression?

If it’s the same issue, it isn’t trolling. Nor is posting a genuine complaint. “Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community.”

That’s an excellent idea. Then, perhaps, this thread could be kept on somewhere near the topic.

I didn't mean to cause alarm and dispondency but there is no need to fear. That phrase already appears in section 10 of the 1988 Act: 10 Functions of Authority and others in relation to the navigation area. (1)The Authority shall— (a)maintain the navigation area for the purposes of navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required; and (b)take such steps to improve and develop it as it thinks fit. It's the proposal to remove the protection of the interests of the navigation we should keep an eye on.

But you use semantics in your arguments frequently. OK for you and not for me? I use Sandford constantly? I think not, unless I'm referring to someone else's comments. The Broads Authority will continue to have a responsibility for the navigation while it is also a Harbour Authority and I haven't seen any recent suggestions that that will change. But the response by the Authority to the Glover Review included a suggestion to change the duty re the navigation to: (c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required; The 1988 Act says: (c) protecting the interests of navigation. The bits about maintenance etc., come later, in section 10. On the face of it, all that would do is put the requirements into one sentence instead of three, but the exclusion of the “protecting the interests of navigation” is worrying. The right of navigation doesn’t actually need the protection of the BA. There is already sufficient protection at common law. The right of navigation simply means the right to navigate from A to B to C etc., with a right to anchor in inclement weather or to await a favourable tide. But the interests of navigation go far beyond the right of navigation. It would include things such as the provision of moorings, tree clearance, removal of obstructions, enforcing byelaws, providing Ranger services, etc. So you see (I hope) that semantics play a very important part in this saga.

You do like to put words into my mouth. What I am always proving is that the Broads isn't a national park, full stop. It shares some of the same purposes, but has different ones, as well. There is still one person, at least, to convince that it isn't a national park http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4850052.stm Groups? The National Parks Charity had to change their constitution to allow the Broads Authority to join, simply because the Broads isn't a national park. If you want to find a duck that isn't really a duck, look up 'Muscovy Duck'.

And then you go on to refer to Sandford a further 11 times in that same post. Evidently, you don't believe what you write.

Q.E.D (again)

From FarmingUK: "The survey, by Cadbury's, also revealed that 1 in 8 children from London (12 per cent) don’t know that cows moo – with almost twice as many boys than girls being confused about what sound they make. The research shows the bizarre beliefs many British children hold about food and farming. Nearly one in five believe milk comes straight from the fridge or supermarket (18 per cent). When it comes to their appearance, one in 10 believe that a cow is the size of a double decker bus and over 10 per cent think they’re as small as cats." Perhaps it's the education system that needs looking at, rather than marketing. I would think that the vast majority of people living in Norfolk and Suffolk have little or no interest in the Broads, and that lack of interest is passed on to the children.