JennyMorgan

You may not like my route to the discussion but we do know that JP is aware of this forum and that Tom, brave man that he is, is the public voice of the Authority. For far too long there has been supposition, assumption and just plain guesswork both here and elsewhere. It really is time to clear the air, put this all to bed, although I doubt that it will be once and for all though! It really is a case of 'over to you, Tom, have a natter with John (JP) and, as Delilah Smith once famously said, let's be 'aving you'! JP has preached transparency in the past, may that be the Authority's New Year's Resolution.

I have asked. just waiting for a response. As for the RSPB report, a few years old now but don't know when.

An interesting question, I shall ask around.

I am genuinely interested in Dr John Packman's reasoning and justification, at least for the erection of these road signs. It is only fair that the Authority has the ability to justify itself and I would appreciate it if they would. I don't expect anything other than utter loyalty from Tom, he comes over as a thoroughly decent type, but nevertheless I would appreciate detailed clarification of the party line on this one. Indeed I think that the Authority owes it to us, its customers, to take this opportunity to present its case and defend its position both in regard to the BNP & these road signs in particular. There is public interest, a clear response would be appreciated.

Thank you, Monica, may I wish you all of the same. Peter W

Bytheriver, local MP's are being kept informed although, regretfully, one of the new intake has already been nobbled /got at. This new chapter, the road signs, could well be the tipping point, or not.

Marsh, your continued support of dishonesty does you little credit! We agree on that one! But why the lie, exemplified by these misleading road signs?

I suspect, Fred, that it is not as simple as that. The local authority responsible for road signs has apparently agreed that the BA can be erected as it has been. That authority has been informed of the dishonesty of the sign but has nevertheless it chose to ignore it.

It will be interesting to see if and how BA Tom responds to this topic. It would be better though if JP himself would respond and clarify the legal position of the Authority in regard to the use of the BNP tag. The Authority has chosen to ignore repeated Government dictates in regard to the use of the BNP title and also appears to have forgotten the three failed attempts to gain formal, national park status within Parliament.

Apparently a mile and a quarter in the case of Acle! I have no doubt that it's a cynical, executive decision to push the boundaries knowing full well that the BA is unlikely to be challenged in Court on this one. In my opinion it is a morally dishonest methodology.

The pinnacle of unelected power has so far managed to avoid any meaningful accountability or democracy in general. There is an unattractive culture of excessive, executive control within Yare House, I don't see that being abandoned any day soon.

Having reread the report I note the following, largely self explanatory and worrying paragraph: "Debating point: should those living and working in the Broads accept the Sandford Principle? In 2006, the Government rejected the idea of the Broads being called a National Park. All other National Parks are signed up to the ‘Sandford Principle’ – see above – whereby in the event of an irreconcilable conflict of interest, conserving our natural environment is the first priority. The Broads could be a National Park by adopting this same principle as the other National Parks." Perhaps people will now better understand why so many folk are opposed to the mythical BNP and the constantly repeated lies surrounding the use of that tag. There is also a suggestion that at least 50% of Broads boats should be oar, paddle or sail powered, how's yours powered? Would you continue to navigate the Broads if you were barred from using an engine?

Flaccid batteries can be extremely frustrating.

I firmly believe that this report lost the RSPB a goodly number of Broads based supporters: http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf I don't think that I am alone in wishing that the RSPB was politically less active.

I'm afraid it is, they already have an access policy which is hardly inline with the general character of the Broads.

Following the RSPB's report on Broadland and their declared support for shoreline retreat along the Norfolk Coast in order to create wetlands for wildlife and subsequent habitat loss for humans then I'm afraid I withdrew my support of the RSPB.

Norfolk Broads News has provided a link to our forum and this topic. Seems only courteous to return to compliment! https://www.facebook.com/groups/785936721494266/

Several wherry yachts had leccy motors but subsequently reverted to diesel auxiliary power, probably because the charging points were always hogged by folk with trouser presses, hair straighteners or curlers, shoe polishers, microwaves. kettles and heavy duty mains powered Ann Summers products!

I have an image in my mind of a little old white haired lady armed with a huge torque wrench and a handbag full of ire attacking the signs during the early hours! No, I honestly don't have a clue as to who loosened the Authority's esteemed nuts and lowered their fanciful signs to the ground but well done them!

Humble appologies for such a heinous error!!

Thank you, Paladin. If my information is correct then all three BNP signs erected at Acle are sited outside the Authority's executive area. I can't say outside of the BNP because no one knows where that boundary really is!

That was the old bridge, now with the new one its screams of passion from the undergrowth behind the public privvy!

Bluddy foriners! Tha' hint chenged, yung mawthur! Nun o' yaw funnee Essex tork up hare Bor!

Thank goodness for spell checks!

Posted as the earlier, similar posting had disappeared, weird or what?