JennyMorgan

But has this one? Seems to me that we have generally healthy debates and often opposing opinion. That some are derailed by the few is to be regretted but by and large we do pretty well as a forum, better than most.

The Broads is really quite a small world in some respects, fair chance that someone knows someone else and so on. In my case such a trail lead to an outspoken supporter of all things BA. I am assured by my informant that said pro BA spokesman has actually been known to criticise the good Doctor and has something of a reputation amongst those who know him for his often contrary opinion and argument. I happen to trust my informant and find his comments both revealing AND amusing. Yes, Sandford as such as been superseded by other, similar powers, at least that is my understanding. The principle remains, that of excessive and potentially unbridled control should the Broads become a 'real' national park. As I have said before, the intentions are clear, just read the Broads Bill, leopards don't change their spots, witness his tenacity in regard to the Broads national park saga. Has Sandford actually been dropped from the National Parks Act? I don't believe that it has, unless someone knows better.

The shame of it is that John is an able and pleasant communicator. Times when I considered him a tad naive in matters concerning the BA but he is never afraid to state his opinion yet always willing to ask questions. Unlike some he does it in a manner that ruffles few feathers and causes no offence so why this unfortunate turn of affairs is something of a mystery to me. Anyone who has experience of forums will, I suspect, agree with me when I say that I think a thick skin is a prerequisite of membership. Not always a barrier to what people say, very often as to how it is said/written. Then there are people who take a delight in creating discontent, no names, obviously, but we have one member who dives between forums, seemingly only posting when he can make mischief, but why? His idea of fun I suppose. However John is not of that ilk. We often disagreed but I found his manner in dealing with that a real bonus, I shall miss him. I really don't think that he'll find the grass greener elsewhere, perhaps it's just that forums are not really for him.

I'm sure that they did. For example the deeds of my house clearly show a nearby brickfield and it's associated mooring and staithe. It can have had no other purpose other than to service the brickfield and clearly both mooring and kilns etc. were owned by one and the same man. My solicitor lives on the other side of me and in his view the present owner of that mooring has a tenuous possession albeit it would take a man with deep pockets to contest that. It does appear that as far as the Broads are concerned staithes are a pretty unique institution.

MM, some years ago now DEFRA made a £1.5 million pound grant, over three years, to the Authority in order that it might catch up on its maintenance backlog. After much manipulation and pleading most, if not all, of that cash went on other projects such as The Broads Bill and an explosion in staff numbers thus Dragonfly House was deemed necessary in order to house them all. We certainly didn't see £1.5m being spent on dredging so yes, your comment is apposite. The Authority did have the budget but that was not what it was used for.

Ones with bloke's heads on them by any chance?

"As someone who has lived in the Broads for only 4 years . . . . . . . . . . . . " Says it all really. Sorry, Bill, not going to be dragged into this one, life's too short!

Bill, is that your nice side?

What!?!?

Your posts were acceptable to me! Anyway, been good reading your input. Don't honestly think that you'll find it any better elsewhere, although you might find less people with which to have a debate! Cheerio my friend, please don't feel that you can't come back.

John, as I understand it the Authority has no duty towards maintaining adjacent waters. Indeed if they had then where would that end?

Thank you, hugely interesting, blowed if I could find it before!

In principle, Vaughan, I support your question, but with caution. When JP made his report at a Broads Authority meeting, and it was well witnessed by several NBN & NBF members, he had the brass neck to claim that he had dialogue with the public and then proceeded to blatantly misquote in order to garner support from the Authority members. The following 'Ask JP' was then less than civil towards him and I don't blame the forum members one iota, it was not they who set the tone of dialogue. I believe that JP is still a member of the NBF but whether he will put his head above the parapet again, well, I have my doubts. Very unfortunate, an unexpected turn of events. However, I see no reason why he can't be asked to join NBN, I for one would welcome him. Whilst I know that I can knock on his door at anytime, and would be welcome, I would also appreciate his presence amongst us all. He's not an ogre, indeed he's a very able operator, just unfortunate that he's paddling up the wrong dyke, in my opinion of course!!

I haven't commented in order to win. Sorry to read that you have had a post removed, however, welcome to the club!

Pedant! John, I haven't provided a link to another Broads forum. I rather hoped that the information contained within went some way to answering the original question.

I have used the path between the houses for access to the river without problem.

http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/forum/showthread.php/53287-Public-Staithes-on-The-Norfolk-amp-Suffolk-Broads-(implications-elsewhere-)

My understanding is that it has been published but has failed to be the hoped for in depth research document that was hoped for, something of a damp squib apparently. Regretfully I don't personally know how to access it.

Oh no he's not, he's actually a very personable character. Just that we have varying opinions.

A fair and constructive appraisal, thank you.

Chris, for national angling matters we have the Angling Trust which is affiliated to several international bodies including WWW. Whether there would or could be confusion, well, possibly but I doubt that that would matter. BASG in its previous life as the Broads Angling Strategy Group existed for a good number of years, I don't really see a need for a relaunch but there we go, and I'm not aware that there was ever any confusion, at least not in my time as a member.

Robin, that looks to me to be a very tidy boat. I have an eleven foot dory with a ten on the back, ideal for the Broads and in a place like Brundall ideal for poking around the likes of Rockland and Surlingham proper. I also have my 21' Drascombe and she has a 4.5 sail/drive on the back.At no point have I felt the need for anything bigger, I can reach max hull speed, obviously won't plane but then I'm not allowed to so why bother. In your position I would go for it, smart little boat and sure to be great fun! By the way, a kayak is also a huge amount of fun, sod the engine, paddle power is the way forward, and sidewards and backwards!!

In recent engagement with 623 pupils in 12 primary schools only two of the students knew that a Broad is a lake or is in anyway associated with water. That statement actually made my blood boil. Indeed how many of us Broadlanders know that the Broads are lakes, indeed until recently I didn't and I'm far from ashamed to admit it. The Broads are Broads, not sodding lakes, grrrrrrr. Why this determination by Packman to remove the identity of the Broads by calling them lakes or indeed a national park? I have read an opinion elsewhere as to why JP wants an education centre, that being that he can then set the agenda and the syllabus, that he would be in control. I'm not convinced that that opinion is that far removed from reality.

Not only boating activities but also field craft, bird watching, angling and worthwhile walks for example.

When I opened this thread I asked what did we/you want at Acle. Inevitably we have gone beyond the ideal and some of us are now asking questions. For example, has the Authority itself given JP the go ahead? Here is a copy of the officer's report at the March meeting of the full Authority: “At this very early stage in the development of this project it is recognised that there are many unknowns associated with it and risks that will have to be identified and managed. The Authority will need to have a full understanding of the capital costs and sources of funding before proceeding, along with realistic figures for income and expenditure.” That was March yet by April the competition was announced, budget set, specification decided, non of which appears to have been presented to and approved by the Authority members. Someone more wise than me might be able to find when the full Authority gave JP the mandate to proceed with this 'vision'. Lots of unanswered questions!