JennyMorgan

All the signs have been reinstalled today! This one won't be going away just yet!

Poppy. Tom does admit to including 'adjacent areas' in the calculation. Fair do's to Tom for that but it's why I queried Yarmouth and Lowestoft etc.. Personally I think that using the STEAM tourism data is misleading and wonder at its value in regards to the tight, limiting boundary of the Broads Authority. I also have to say that I don't really think that the Authority can take much credit for the figures and in truth why should they, they are not the tourist driver for the general area.

As yet no revealing information from along the rhond. Meanwhile the executive pram is devoid of its much abused teddy bears. I wonder if the replacement bear fund is topped up from the tolls account?

Thank you, Tom, revealing stuff. I suspect that areas such as Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft inevitably contribute hugely to those figures, visitors to either perhaps not being unduly influenced by the presence of the Broads or the BNP tag. It is a difficult one because I suspect that attractions such as Pleasurewood Hills, Wroxham Barns and Bewilderwood are visited on their own merit rather than because of anything over which the Authority has any influence.

I hope that we have been heard and if so it won't be for the first time. Not so long ago JP was crowing that the Broads , and the Authority, were to be featured on BBC's Countryfile, A number of us contacted the BBC explaining that the Broads has never been granted national parks status. We presented the evidence and the BBC suitably and very clearly edited the program. On another occasion, despite telling a group of MPs that BNP notices would not be erected, they were at Whitlingham's redundant gravel pits. Within hours those notices were removed. Then of course we had our victories at Westminster!

The polyestermite content of burning fibreglass makes for delicious eating, waste not, want not!

The BNP signs can only be regarded as advertising signs simply because legally the BA should only use the BNP term for marketing. Strikes me that the BA should put its house in order and respect the letter & intention of the law.

Let us not forget that the Authority has ingratiated itself with the Campaign For National Parks. Remember that the CNP is a charity, it is not the UK governing body responsible for electing national parks. https://www.cnp.org.uk/sector/about-us

For your information, if I understand correctly, all three BNP signs at Acle have now been removed although by whom and whether permanently I don't know.

Out of curiosity I pulled up the word 'prevarication', not that I don't know its meaning but rather to check that I was right. In doing so I picked this up. "Definitions of prevarication 1 the deliberate act of deviating from the truth Synonyms: fabrication, lying Types: fibbing, paltering a trivial act of lying or being deliberately unclear Type of: falsification, misrepresentation a willful perversion of facts." I have to agree that some of those definitions are entirely apt, others perhaps less so. As to whether Tom, or Dr Packman for that matter, would be wise to assert one way or the other as to legal status of the Broads is clearly a matter of opinion but I suggest that it is the lack clarity, and honesty, that is at the very root of much of the discontent that emanates from various oiks populating the rhond. A straightforward Yes or No is all that Paladin & I are asking. Until the man at the top is entirely open and honest as to the legal status of the Broads, and perhaps his ambitions, then I believe the present lack of support and distrust will only continue. There can surely be no doubt that the BNP road signs at Acle are a perversion of fact, designed to confuse for whatever reason, ones that we can only guess at.

Tom, will you please elucidate us as to what those benefits really might be. Not so long ago I was a keen walker, visiting both The Peak District and Snowdonia, both 'real' national parks. There have been numerous instances when I have had to queue to access a public footpath and then I have had to join a continuous crocodile of fellow walkers, very sociable but not so pleasant when jostled and abused by faster walkers than myself. Do we really want that for Broadland? Over to you, my new friend that I have never met, please make the case for the Broads being a national park.

Makes Nyx look relatively clean too! I take it that you got back to Northampton okay, thanks for everything, good to meet you.

Wishing you all a Happy & Prosperous New Year.

Lovely boat but I suspect that you could lose £25K on her without really trying!

Was down Brundall Gardens today where there is a boat that is actually greener than Nyx!

Or just an excuse to w0p up the price!

Twice cooked surely is reheated so thrice cooked must mean twice reheated!

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/broads-authority-national-park-signs-acle-1-6445829?fbclid=IwAR31gH-m-9px7zO1lrMMIbFq91jwWKqUdM0W0dPIVPvzpzGL5XfFqyb_9mc

By that do you mean the BA's spin? (Sorry, couldn't resist!!)

Why not, what is wrong with requesting a direct answer to a direct question? Doubtless the Authority is well aware that the Broads is not a national park so why won't they admit it rather than beating around the bush, as its recent posting does? By the way, MM, Tom wrote, & I quote: "Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council have helped achieve a very cost effective way of promoting the Broads National Park".

Tom, thank you for your seasonal greeting, may I wish you the same.

There is still the great misconception within Packman Towers that the Broads is a national park, it's not, despite the three abortive attempts in Parliament to make it one that I am aware of. Beyond that I fully endorse Paladin's comment and question. Tom, yes or no?

I always think that it reflects badly on mooring owners when this happens. I appreciate that unless a key has been left at the office access might be a problem but even then putting a pump onboard is generally possible,

Marsh, please read and inwardly digest the following: http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf Please also refer to Hansard, Parliamentary records, as to why Parliament rejected the Broads National Park Bill. Namely that the National Park's legislation requires that to be a national park it requires observance of the dreaded Sandford Principle. Navigation and Sandford are incompatible thus the Broads has its own peculiar legislation, as I am sure you already know! Surely I don't need to elucidate any further, do I?

I couldn't agree more! I'm not generally averse to crediting JP with a high degree of both cleverness and ability but in this instance I respectfully suggest that public relations and gaining public trust has not proven to be his strongpoint. Anyway, that aside, once again over to BA Tom, what are Dr Packman's objectives in regards to national park status for the Broads and how did he arrive at said objectives? Mister Mynah, Sir, I agree with your assertion and have asked the question!