Jump to content

JennyMorgan

Full Members
  • Content Count

    11,139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    188

JennyMorgan last won the day on October 15

JennyMorgan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15,998 Excellent

3 Followers

About JennyMorgan

  • Rank
    The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oulton Broad
  • Interests
    Broads, boats, music, art and angling.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,722 profile views
  1. These are a real bonus, especially at night: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1pc-Fladen-floatation-flotation-suit-immersion-fishing-sailing-boating/152806297699?hash=item2393f71063:m:mGmimRSToqKOYehEFy3KrOw
  2. If I were still involved with letting caravans or boats then I would continue to offer both dog free and dogs welcome accommodation.
  3. A dead bream, urghhhh! Pet owners have to be aware that some folk are allergic to pet hairs and others react quite violently to fleas and the hover flies that dogs on holiday pick up when playing in long grass.
  4. Marshman, the Charity Commission, as well as Companies House, are duty bound to publish details, past and present, of trustees, directors, members, secretaries and the like, interesting reading. The Authority were more than just managing an asset. I thoroughly recommend Google to you!!
  5. Very wise words, Fred. As far as Whitlingham is concerned hopefully my last words will be these! First of all, over the years, it has become increasingly thought that BA policy has been set and driven by Officers rather than by Authority members, this has lead to resentment & a loss of trust. Does that apply to Whitlingham, probably not but it might. If the Trust wanted to go one way & the BA another over the issue of agenda, personal or otherwise, then I do believe that the Authority members should, even just as a matter of common courtesy, have been kept informed of developments, that is presuming that they weren't. I have asked the question, I remain curious as to the the detail. However I am reliably informed that Authority Members were not generally aware of what was going on regarding the management agreement. I do question that. My view is that the Authority should set policy, the duty of the Officers is then to the members and thus to stakeholders. It does concern me that the Whitlingham Trust and the Authority have not been able to move forward together, for whatever reason. Granted that the final decision is that of the Trust but nevertheless I do question what finally triggered the parting of their ways. Mountain out of a molehill, maybe but I still have my concerns and suspicions.
  6. Consistency in the way that laws and policies are upheld would seem reasonable. Perhaps we should replace consistency with fairness. Would it be fair for a development at Acle but then refusing something similar at Whitlingham? Possibly, possibly not, the locations and surroundings are different. This is where both judgement and fairness come in, and perhaps mite of honesty. If the Authority professes to being 'green' then it should not pick and choose when it is convenient to ignore what it has signed up to. Perhaps at Whitlingham the BA has done just that, stood up for its general policies. If that is the case then they are to be commended. Just my muddled thoughts but can the Authority really be green? It is not a very fair world.
  7. And also at Acle Bridge & the adjoining marshes. Building in wood does not make a building 'green', just wooden.
  8. Hence both my questions and my suspicions. I'm pretty darned certain that there was a breakdown in the relationship otherwise the agreement, as it has been suggested, would probably still be in situ. Are we criticising, or are we just asking concerned questions at this moment? In the future I suspect that the Trust is going to have to pay its own way so yes, there will be changes. So far there has been a guarded joint statement, probably to avoid any nastiness's, but all things considered I don't think that that is enough.
  9. Exactly right. Personally I'd like to see a sympathetic development as I suspect it will be but I do think that the Authority will have to play this one with scrupulous caution, as I suspect that it sensibility will, I hope.
  10. Definitely not a Hampton. Nice looking boat though, must be worth your asking price, even as a restoration project. Pity she's not Broads based, reckon that she'd sell very quickly if she was.
  11. A very cautious comment from the Trustees as to the future of Whitlingham: https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/whitlingham-country-park-management-change-latest-1-6330189
  12. Some external shots of her out of the water would be useful, and settle the ID question.
  13. Could you post some exterior pictures of her out of the water please.
  14. Well? John personally showed me some of his plans for Acle a year or two back and having sat on the Nav Com for four years I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what makes the man tick.
  15. BatraBill, regarding hostility, kettles, frying pans and black immediately spring to mind. Despite what Tom has said I do think that there is a public interest on this one. I am quite certain the Authority knows exactly why the management agreement has been terminated and it is only natural us 'little people' are at least curious. I actually messaged Tom, in my own name. I don't see my questions as hostile but yes, I would like to know exactly went wrong, if it did. I'm not convinced that it was entirely an amicable parting of the ways.Time will tell, I have no doubt that the truth will filter down to and along the rhond telegraph sooner or later, it usually does. On a personal level my feeling is that the Authority did a generally good job at Whitlingham, no obvious reason for the parting of the ways.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.