JennyMorgan

Nice one, enjoy!

He just has to massage his ego!

Can't think why I so rarely go up that way!

I've noticed that a number of canal moorings are cheaper but many are more basic than the Broads ones plus they don't have to allow for the rise and fall of the tides. That said, perhaps supply and demand plus a degree of greed is also a factor on the more expensive Broads ones. Perhaps also a case that if people are prepared to pay it then there are folk who are prepared to charge for it.

The Authority missed the boat so to speak when it updated the Broads Act. In the meantime greater effort with what they have would not go amiss.

Seems to me that reaching a conclusion is no nearer than previously. Reading between the lines there does appear to be a dissatisfaction with the BA in that it does not uphold time limits on 24hr moorings but then that is pretty universal. Perhaps the BA should consider appointing local 'mooring wardens' to keep some form of control?

When in doubt refer to Google so I have, namely tapping in 'UK National Parks Foundation'. I found and was impressed with the American National Parks Foundation but zilch on this latest UK creation. What I did find were the several, existing UK national park's related charities and organisations, all of which the Authority/Packman already appears to be involved with. It would be interesting to find out what Packman's actual involvement has been in the creation of this latest addition to the NP cause.

For the benefit of the Broads or just for Dr Packman. I wouldn't normally recommend visiting the so called 'Darkside' but Paladine's comments on this topic are a real wake-up call.

I don't know that the BA has actually set up another charity but it has certainly agreed to accommodate this new one in its Norwich office. I can only guess at Dr Packman's possible motives and involvement with this one. I am concerned that this new charity's clearly stated purpose is at odds with the legislative duties of the Broads Authority. More than that I rather suspect that this new charity will provide a nice little earner, perhaps to a soon to retire redundant CEO. I do wonder at the need for this new charity. I also accept that there is a need watch progress with a cautious eye. A bit more delving I suspect.

I doubt it. Authority members apparently went to lunch at The Bridge today.

Just in case folk haven't sorted it: https://mailchi.mp/6db4a0203cc0/broads-briefing-march?e=259d8798cf For the rest of you, my appologies. In the meantime I have read the details of the UK National Parks Foundation including their charter & purpose. Wow, hardly compatible with the statutory duties of the Broads Authority. Having said that there is nothing contentious I have to change my mind now, sorry and all that sort of thing, I was wrong. I can not see how the Authority can allie itself to this new charity as its purposes differ quite markedly from the Broads Act. I also question the need for two charities campaigning on behalf of national parks and perhaps the Broads. If there is any wisdom within the Authority membership then perhaps someone might burst JP's bubble.

https://outlook.live.com/mail/inbox/id/AQQkADAwATc3AGZmAGUtODI5Ny1lOTVhLTAwAi0wMAoAEADr%2F7TjqnFbTLj6nSNOlnie Nothing really contentious and actually some very good news! Enjoy! Sorry, but for some strange reason the P in JP in the title insists on reverting to lower case.

A great pity that said filter does not take context into consideration.

And if your boat breaks down whilst out on hire? Call out Boulters? They are busy! Richardsons, your guess is as good as mine. Call in at another hire yard only to be told to sod off? Practicalities apart, NO!

The problem, both perceived and practical, of weighty documents is that the supposed final deciders, Authority & committee members, don't actually read what has been prepared for their enlightenment, preferring to simply abide by officers' recommendations. Indeed I am past despairing at the lamentable lack of knowledge sometimes displayed at meetings. No doubts that the authors have done their research. With regard to residential moorings I well remember a distant cousin, my bloodline is many & varied and not normal for Norfolk in being typically straight, telling me that all he and other showmen/travellers required is a field and to be left alone. Involving local authorities does tend to complicate the issue. There are obvious parallels between those who travel by river with those who travel by water. The final solution, I suspect, often boils down to cost. That boats hop between 24hr moorings is an obvious cost saving and probably the basis of the problem. Roger at Jenners Basin understood both the ethos and the problems and provided accordingly. Having read the report I don't see that as being replicated. Boats are boats, do they really have to meet the criteria for land based dwellings?

Thank you, By the River, and welcome to the forum. Personally I have been involved in the consultation and and have been watching this new local plan with much interest. I am not sure whether the documents are more enlightening than they are confusing or whether it's the other way round! I suspect that most of us would appreciate bullet points that we can relate to. Anyway, good intention on your part and much appreciated.

I would be pleased to review those so called false rumours, Mr xxxxxxxx. That most of my Broads comments are posted on NBN does, I think, give me a certain right of passage after all this time. I don't just visit when I see a opportunity for a tad of vitriol, not likes some people that we both know!

What does annoy me is when people come onboard NBN with the avowed intention of creating conflict. Mutual acquaintances, baring in mind that the Broads is actually a very small world, tell me that in conversation one or two well known fans of the Doctor are actually quite critical of him. Pass wind in Ludham and sooner or later it will waft along the rivers until it reaches Oulton Broad. Someone always knows someone else!

Bill, you don't know me nor, it would seem, my motives. You can attack me as much as you like, doesn't bother me in the least, especially as it gives me a right of reply and to do so in the same insulting manner. Where we have been is relevant to where we are going, surely. This particular own goal set the tone for much that has followed on since. It was when harmony and trust headed for the open door. Surely even you can see that?

It should be a fairly simple solution if those that abuse that the system were to be banned from using 24h moorings but even then I doubt that the Authority has the power. I'm not sure of the letter of the law but I believe that folk have the right to moor for the duration of a tide or when conditions are foul. The Jenners Basin saga, where a commercial interest was prepared to offer basic mooring facilities, was something of an own goal. The problem was moved from 'off river' to the tidal river consequently we have all missed out one way or another. An answer needs to be found but there doesn't appear to be any willingness to do so.

Even if it has relevance today? Anyway, that aside, I was actually explaining the origin of an oft used term to describe us generally ignored toll payers, a term that many will be familiar with but perhaps not be aware of its unfortunate history. I don't have to discredit JP

Bill, so you don't wish to read views that are contrary to your own then why on earth do you read my outpourings?

Be careful what you wish for! At the moment the Authority does not have the power to pick and choose who can navigate on a tidal water. Would you really want them to be able to? Where would it stop?

Coincidently the term was actually repeated the following day at an annual public meeting, albeit the microphone had inadvertently been turned on prior to the start of the meeting. JP was asked to distance himself & the BA from the comment but that didn't happen. Anyway, if folk have bothered to read the whole link they would have read that I was supportive of Hilary Franzen who I always regarded as a pawn. Hilary was back then the wife of the EDP Editor and presumably provided a hoped for link to the editorial desk. It wasn't just trial by forum but arrows being fired at JP who was known to assiduously read what was then Speaker's Corner. Stapleton did resign, as he should, after all he did readily admit to and apologize for his indiscretion. It did highlight the void between the Authority and the toll payer and it clearly resonates to this day and regretfully illustrates the democratic deficit and lack of rapport that still exists in various quarters. I suspect that the term 'little people' is often used as a reminder for JP's benefit as well as a badge of honour by the user! In resurrecting this subject I have reminded folk of the origins of the derogatory use of the term and that a nod to political correctness, with a tint of humour perhaps, was behind the minor change to the original. In the meantime, twelve years later and even after a critical NP review, are we really any closer to a healthy relationship between the Authority executive & the Little People?

Unearthed this the other day, doesn't seem possible that 12 yrs ago the Broads Authority condoned the use of the term, thus boaters on the Broads became 'The Little Men', p.c. 'Little People'. Anyway, here's a link that explains some of the history of this one. Amazing that it happened all those years ago! Not sure that much has changed in the meantime! http://www.broadly-speaking.co.uk/forum/topic679;don-t-forget?fbclid=IwAR1L-oFqyPc4ws24yj6jEYKk-jIs4mK1YpmxXkZUSniFAY007aX7xSf0dIw