JennyMorgan

Bill, please note that I have included, verbatim, the wording of the BA's submission to the Glover Report. Agreed that I have highlighted areas that I believe to be worthy of concern but nevertheless the information is there, surely sufficient for those who wish to decide for themselves. I would ask people to consider the campaign and conduct of the BA in relation to its quest to be a national park. Experience suggests that if there is any latitude in legislation or policy then it will be taken advantage of. Does that make Dr Packman wicked? Not a question that had crossed my mind. Clever certainly, sometimes manipulative, not to be trusted in my opinion, but wicked, your words not mine.

Just depends on the gas pressure.

The WRC is also a great place for those of us who like to walk, commune with nature, enjoy a decent pint in a lovely pub or visit the unique church at Burgh St Peter.

Quite right, and the Authority is at present duty bound to maintain it. However the wording of the Glover Response appears to make it quite clear that the Authority now seeks to be able to limit maintenance to what it, the Authority, decides and declares to be reasonable. In other words a wriggle out clause that would allow the Authority to decide that there is no reasonable need to dredge a particular area of water thus exclusion by abandonment. Why else would the Authority seek to restrict maintenance to what it considers reasonable? The obvious conclusion has to be that it would ignore that that it does not consider reasonable to maintain, for whatever reason, perhaps Sandford by the back door?

Or at least being shown the door for which there is plenty of evidence to show that it happens, e.g. the outspoken Allan Mallett, one time vice chairman of the Authority.

You are quite right about James, my comment was quickly and poorly worded but nevertheless made in order to illustrate the apparent fact that if your face does not fit then, one way or another, then you'll be out.

Very true, but there have been recent moves to exclude local authority members. Indeed James Knight has been manouvered out of the door and Lana Hempsell only just managed to hang in there. As has been suggested elsewhere 'he' is growing bolder'.

No, it's who controls the chairman? I could tell you!

Theoretically but events suggest otherwise. The Authority might well choose it chairman, in principle, but let's put it another way, who chooses, or at least has a great deal of input into the choice of the members?

Regarding the comment that the offending clause is poorly written is, I think, quite true. I think that that is quite intentional. We only have to look at the national park saga to see how poorly worded documents are rewritten or quoted out of context in order to confuse or justify something that was never intended in the first place. As to whom is Packman answerable? Quite simply it is chairman of the Broads Authority, and there lies the problem? The next question has to be 'who controls the chairman'?

In my honest opinion Dr Packman has finally and openly nailed his true colours firmly to the mast. I quote directly from the Authority's response to the Glover/National Parks Review: Recommendation 1: Section 2 (1) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act should be amended to read: "2 Functions of Authority: general. (1) It shall be the general duty of the Authority to manage the Broads in accordance with the principles of sustainable development for the purposes of— (a) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads; (b) promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; (c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required; and, (d) promoting sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.” I refer you immediately to paragraph (c), namely "protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required". Alarm bells have to ring loudly here. The Authority wishes to be able to maintain the navigation area as it sees fit. A laudable sentiment, perhaps, but it also means that the Authority seeks to be able to abandon, to exclude boaters and anglers from areas that the Authority doesn't see as being reasonably required to be maintained. Paragraph (C) is very clearly a double edged sword, read it for what it is. No safeguards or reference to the requirements of stakeholders, the Authority wishes to be able to maintain the navigation area as only it sees fit. That can only mean that it also wishes to be able neglect, to abandon, to exclude stakeholders, as it, the Authority sees fit. I've banged this drum long and hard, wake up and smell the coffee, in this case it's not very pleasant.

Ahh, Bubble is just so cute though!

Welcome, Bubble. You were a sweet little fella!

I never knew that, and nor do a lot of other folkl!

No, not misleading at all! It was bang on the money, one way or another and probably both at the same time. I'm sure that James would dearly love to do just that but, unlike some, James clearly cares for the environment that he he lives and works in. My hat is well and truly off to James for both sticking to his guns and more importantly, standing up for the long term good of the Broads, the one that his children and grandchildren will inherit.

Especially when said pricks hold the upper hand!

Not just hire boats that use their bow thrusters for steering. Some of the tales related to me by the OB HM of private cruisers, especially ones coming off Lake Lothing, have had me in stitches! The scream of a protesting, abused bow thruster can be quite impressive!

James has said elsewhere that to continue would cost him thirty thousand pounds. Twenty or so years ago I was in a similar position with my local authority and I was then told that it would cost me twenty-five thousand pounds and even if I won, as I probably would have done, there was no guarantee that I would be able to recover my costs and that it would tie up related matters for not less than two years, I suspect James is now in the same or a similar position. In my opinion James has made the right decision. PS, by the way, I won the 'related matter'!

Lidl's was selling Christmas presents for dogs this year so there must be a market for them! Best not admit to laughing!

I wasn't there, but I do know an individual who was. As I have written before, in the context of that pesky pike, no smoke without fire and, so I'm reliably told, once again absolutely right, if you can make head or tail of it!. http://www.broadsnationalpike.com/2019/01/back-to-school-for-planners-fisticuffs.html?fbclid=IwAR1trQruBK0q8BIzLQpfhzNq8MuR7VyybRqe04F28oEqdmqWVK0,MI5wXiYU

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2019/01/to-sue-or-not-to-sue-that-is-question.html?fbclid=IwAR20eLlaMnAhy6MqK1aTWnRfMYcg1S75v-yQjuGIPIN2kgptFzmQyGvZgzg

Perhaps a FreeSat set up is worth considering. I have several 'showman' friends who are on the road all summer, their wagons all having been set up for satellite. Doesn't matter where they are, they get a good signal. My own house is in the shadow of a big house and with FreeSat I have absolutely no problem. You can also have auto-tracking, useful for the crew when under way! Hight ceases to be a requirement.

I believe that they can be something of a handful.

I believe that I know her and something of her history. Her registration is, I think, W, she's a Waveney boat that once belonged to a Mr Bent of Beccles.