JennyMorgan

No doubt that that question, and JP's interpretation of it, is at the very root of the problem.

I think the penny dropped, 11 years and 9 months ago, eh!

Searching for his tactically lost wallet by any chance?

Apparently the metal of which they are made is unsuitable for recycling .

Having just re-read the above, again, I was drawn to the last paragraph, prophetic or what? "I fear that the authority’s approach has not enabled the House to give it the warm cross-party endorsement that it might otherwise have had, and serious concerns among our constituents remain. That said, there will be further opportunities in the other place. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, the ultimate test will be the behaviour of the authority in interpreting and using its powers in the years ahead. If the fears of the navigators prove justified, we will know soon enough, and we will have the opportunity to do something about it in due course." The sentence that I have highlighted in red was apt back then and remains wholly apt right now. In my opinion I think it reasonable to suggest that the Executive has failed on a number of counts, all relating to the BNP obsession, and culminating with the Acle Debacle and these road signs in particular.

Re the BNP. a very good read here: http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/archive_speeches/broads_bill.htm?fbclid=IwAR0E4YTOl2hv963nlDvSXax2IsXyIY0NP94Oa0TPX3k4YLX3f4yjvxixOmM

Just a question of the right lubrication !

A good Easterly can also force the water out of the North Sea or hold back water from the Atlantic. We'll know on the day!

Trusting that the final touches will include the true to life sound effects of Griff regaling all and sundry with his awesome repertoire of awful jokes!

Absolutely quackers!

Is this the prettiest amendment yet?

I think that you are entirely right on that but I am mindful of a conversation between myself, JP & Trudi Wakelin on our personal aspirations for the Share Marshes. Surprisingly, to some maybe, we were in broad agreement and today we see many of those shared thoughts reaching fruition, thanks to the SWT. One of those thoughts was that either a round the island trip on such as the BA's Electric Eel at How Hill could be developed or that a 'walk & ride' circular trip could be created. The 'walk' being to or from the nature reserve with a boat trip to complete the journey. It could really be a worthwhile and popular attraction involving both navigation and conservation, well worth thinking about, but it would require either separate, dedicated moorings or a change in 24hr mooring policies. The BA is not adverse to changing or creating policies to suit its agenda, witness amended Broads Plans over the years. We were also told 'no road signs', ha ha ha!

Is it our fault that the BA provides so much ammunition? Marshman, are you seriously suggesting that we ignore the Authority's shortcomings?

Ha ha! Pots and frying pans immediately spring to mind! I fully accept the need for balance but occasionally that balance, due to the nature of the debate, is sometimes hard to achieve. I will, if you'll allow me, restate that in my opinion the proposed new mooring is only being built because of its proximity to the new nature reserve. Remember, if you are able, that there is already a 24hr mooring in Oulton Dyke, there are also moorings, and a ferry, at Burgh St Peter. Not only that but there is a free mooring for several boats in Fisher Row, also in Oulton Dyke, as well as 'wild' moorings in what are known as 'The Wherry Dykes'. Let's not forget the moorings on the nearby Oulton Broad and the existing 24hr moorings at Aldeby, Worlingham and Barnby, the area is well provided for. The need for these new moorings, compared to other areas of the Broads, is surely insignificant. I will also repeat myself when I stress that I have no great desire to replace the Broads Authority, however I will support any call for it to be brought to task, for it to be reviewed and for it to be accountable and democratic. A change at the top would probably be a good starting point, and I make no excuses for suggesting that.

I'm not quite as certain as some folk clearly are in that the proposed mooring is solely conservation related. The clue is in the name, mooring, and that relates to boats. However, I do agree that without the nature reserve that there would be no mooring at the proposed location. I've known JP long enough, both directly and indirectly, to reasonably assume that his purpose is both to work with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, commendable, but also to promote the NP aura, his personal ambition. Annoyingly he is clearly using our money as a resource to take forward his vision. However, just because it is his vision is no reason to reject it, indeed I do support much of it, but I do question what I consider to be the sharp practice in promoting and financing that vision. Yes, I do support the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, indeed I shall be going for a walk there this evening. I will even use the new mooring, but only because it is there, however I go back to my previous suggestion that this should be a shared cost. SWT certainly wouldn't be accepting spoil from Oulton Broad if in some way there was not an advantage to them. Whilst this new mooring is ostensibly 'navigation' it also very obviously panders to conservation thus JP's NP vision. We must also consider that it supports the BA in its duty towards the recreation and enjoyment of the Broads by the public thus a large proportion of the costs should fairly be met both by the DEFRA grant and the wildlife trust itself. A bit of guesswork here, the proposed mooring will provide an excellent destination for local passenger/trip boats. For that to work it will require that space is reserved for the quite large passenger boats to moor at predetermined times. First come, first served has long been the way of 24hr moorings, that should continue. It also adds weight to my suggestion that the navigation account should NOT totally finance this project.

Easy! You only have to look at the previous and historical resistance to dredging to realise why. The Sound for example was undoubtedly silting up, coincidently after comments from senior conservation officers that the Upper Thurne, and Hickling in particular should be closed to navigation, a verifiable fact so don't bother arguing over that one! The outcome of that was the reduced flow and a realisation that that was creating quite serious ecological problems, coincidence or cause, the Sound was dredged! Reedbeds provide valuable habitat, surely no argument about that. Ah ha, we need mud to recreate reedbeds, now I have no argument about that, clearly navigation and conservation can work together, a win win situation to be encouraged. In an ideal world surely it is only reasonable that the costs, like the advantages, should be shared. Reedbed reconstruction might be providing the key to dredging but for many years now conservation has dictated the wheres and whens both of dredging and importantly the disposal of spoil. The growing costs of disposal are directly and largely in response to the needs of conservation, the traditional and cost effective dumping of spoil on the bank is no longer considered acceptable. Navigation costs have increased dramatically in response to the needs of conservation, surely no one can reasonably argue that point. Accept that and clearly it is only fair and reasonable that these costs are shared.

Further to the above I would add the dredging program on Hickling. Why I suggest this is because calls for dredging at Hickling were continually resisted until it was realised that there was an advantage for conservation purposes. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State grants should totally finance that dredging because, clearly, there are advantages for navigation. What I am suggesting is that conservation should pay its way rather than hammer the navigation account. The executive has something of a regrettable history of selective and even questionable quoting when it comes to its reports to its members and committees.

Not lost though, they are out there, generally in private groups on Facebook but with the occasional, sometimes tactical sortie out into the public arena on topics such as the Acle Debacle and the Acle BNP charade.

Not one and the same?

Old Frank is not a member but I do spot dear old Grunts and Mardler now and again. As for Tree Hugger, occasionally see him shuffling around the boat yard or propped up in the boozer but not online.

A good wake, plenty of Adnams Broadside, pink gin, a decent ploughmans plus pickled eggs takes some beating!

Yee haa, we pay less tolls than you do so yar boo sucks!! I rarely, if ever, see sailing cruisers moored at 24hr moorings, or plugged into the leccy, so of course they should pay less!

Rob Leigh would do well if he were to research the outcome of the failed Broads National Park Bill.

Interesting response from the BA! Dear Parish Clerk, As I am sure you are aware Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils have been installing the Broads National Park signs that we previously wrote to you about last year. We have only proceeded with signs where the appropriate Parish Council welcomed the initiative, or where no objections were raised following our emails in April and May 2019. Whilst many people have reacted positively we are aware that a group of individuals are actively trying to discredit the project claiming that the signs are illegal, dishonest or part of some ulterior motive to change the legal status or boundary of the Broads Authority. None of which are true. We are legally entitled to promote the area in this way and our applications to Norfolk and Suffolk County councils satisfied the requirements of their respective application process. There are no ulterior motives and our intentions with this project are entirely positive. We would reiterate that the signs are not intended to accurately mark the boundaries of the Broads Authority Executive area. Instead we hope to highlight iconic Broads locations associated with the Broads National Park brand which in turn provides many benefits, not least to support local businesses and the visitor economy which is worth £633m and supports over 7,000 jobs. Being legally able to promote the area using the term Broads National Park is important as National Park is an internationally recognised term that people both know and respect. Being part of the family of 15 National Parks in the UK helps us to inspire people to care about the Broads. We have also seen calls to inflict criminal damage, deface or cover the signs or add additional signs with their own messages. Sadly we have already had to react to some vandalism. We have of course alerted the police to this activity and would urge parish councils to report any such activity around the signs to us or to the police. Please do let me know if you need any support in dealing with such issues or correspondence from these individuals. Many thanks in advance for your ongoing support for this initiative. Regards Rob Rob Leigh Head of Communications