JennyMorgan

With the right solvent that should wipe off without actual damage. I share Paladin's view on this one nevertheless, if the sign is of the usual road sign quality, then the damage should be nothing more than an inconvenience to the BA. .

Sad! Are you giving up on the Broads as well? Always enjoy your input.

This has been posted recently only I can't find where but I think it worth rereading and reminding ourselves where it all started to go wrong. If nothing else it might help folks understand where we are coming from: http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/archive_speeches/broads_bill.htm?fbclid=IwAR223T2D7JshVj4lCjFax5X39G9EG31gya4oL7OgnRZsVYwfcbYidkaQ3OU

On the other hand if a conservation project, one that's been charged to conservation, also benefits navigation then perhaps navigation should dig its hand in its pocket, or would nobody agree with that?

Thank you, Vaughan, I hope that your obviously wise words will be heeded.

No one else to grouse about!

There are those amongst us with a passion, there are those amongst us who appear to enjoy a spot of trouble making. No names, no point, it's the nature of forums, whether it be crocheting or whether it be the Broads. I can't abide one particular unfunny comedian so I avoid programs in which she's involved, doesn't stop we watching TV though!

There has been some criticism within Yare House both of the level of reserves and also the seemingly stagnant nature of the Field Base windfall. Whilst I applaud the BA for releasing the cash, better late than never, I do suspect that this logical move failed to receive universal applaus within JP Towers!

The Field Base dosh was apparently ring fenced for the Acle Debacle so that it has been released to pay off that loan is good news on two fronts. One being that it is no longer required for that reason, which should be good news, secondly, obviously, the loan has been paid off which sounds as if the BA has done good! I wonder how many boaters will visit the Forum?

No, it hasn't, has it!!

I suspect that BA Tom is unlikely to wade into an argument that is not of his own making and one that he can not possibly win. In this instance perhaps we should ask Dr John Packman to face his public. If he would accept such an invitation then I would ask him to share with us the unadulterated, unedited copies of the complete correspondence that he cites as evidence for his claim that the Broads shares the same status as do national parks proper thus is entitled to be called a national park. What I don't want to see is his translations of what others have written nor do I want to read cherry picked, especially when its out of context , information. Over to you, Dr Packman, the ball is in your court.

Welcome to the forum, Big Frank. By and large it does appear that your project is generally approved of.

My information, maybe wrongly, was that both organisations had had to change their constitutions. Whatever, thanks for the clarification.

Bill, since you insist, it is a fact that the UK National Parks had to change their constitution to include the Broads within its membership. Perhaps that was because the Broads is not actually and legally a national park. It is a fact that JP has a full time job as CEO of the BA yet here he is dabbling in this UKNP thing. Is the BA not enough for a man entering his twilight years? Surely preferable that he devotes his time to Broads matters, after all he is well paid and will have a healthy pension from BA coffers. Coincidently both organisations are run from the same address, indeed are sharing office space. Why is JP ingratiating himself in with the UK NP organisation? For the same reason that he's having these blessed road signs erected perhaps? In both cases both mission and boundary creep, probably? Oh, I nearly forgot, and the sheer vanity of the man. I accept that the costs are probably being shared with other NP's and that an individual has been employed thus there is some independence from the BA but knowing JP I feel sure his thumb print will be in evidence. The cost issue, I have no doubt that it's being met from the DEFRA/NP grant but equally I have no doubt that that money could be spent a great deal more wisely, especially on infrastructure projects.

The bus runs to Loddon during the week, not sure about Sundays though. The bus goes via Carlton Colville which is a bit of a walk or bus to Lowestoft first and then onto Loddon. Not sure what number or time but it is a route that one of my daughters uses. If you get stuck then I might be able to give you a lift, even if its only to the bus stop.

I did!!

I suspect the so called NP grant. Dear old JP, ingratiating himself in with the real NPs! .

Please note the address of National Parks UK and draw the obvious conclusion! https://nationalparks.uk/about-us/contact-us

As Chris B has shown there is a local precedent for location signs, normally erected by Parish Councils. We also have village signs sprawled across East Anglia. The difference being that they are for places that actually exist in reality, and not just in someone's delusional mind!

As had the Ordnance Survey. Maps should, indeed must be factually correct. Well done that man, s small but important point of detail. Who to persuade next, Marshman maybe?

"Veritas vinci"!

Okay, so I accept that but the court judgement is clear with its condition re marketing. noun: the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising. Wooly, I know, but that's nothing new for you know who.

Marketing is. lest we forget, the only use that the BA can make of the BNP term. I can't believe that the BA would be so cavalier as to forget that very clear judgement!

That would have paid for the proposed 24hr moorings accessing Peto's Marsh!

Twenty something thousand plus the cost of replacing ones damaged by staff removing unauthorised stickers