JennyMorgan

My wife and I were great fans, both of us were quite shocked at her passing. RIP.

Some might! But hopefully you get my point. Sell something for what it is, not what you want it to be.

To those doubting Thomases, whilst you may not be convinced that there is a risk, that indeed any suggestion of a risk is just the figment of a crazed, tormented individual's mind, then please consider what we stand to lose if those risks turn out to be real. Complacency is also a risk.

For marketing purposes my Skoda is a Rolls Royce!

There is no doubt the full NPs have it now. Or at least I don’t think there is. But if a change in legislation would be required to make the broads an NP why not change the current rules to exclude the broads from Sanford? John, the above came up in the House of Lords when I and others petitioned in the House of Lords and also in correspondence with DEFRA. It was made abundantly clear that all English national parks would have to operate under the same legislation and that there would be no exception. To do otherwise, being able to pick and choose in regard to Sandford, would be unfair on other parks. However I do agree that it might have been a reasonable solution but it was made clear that it is not an option.

Bill, they already have gone back on their Broads Plan policy statement by dropping their NP status quest. You can't have it both ways!

No, my only restriction, in an open boat, is in being limited to 'up to twelve miles offshore'.

John, I really can't be asked to go through it all again, surely!? I shall resort to opinion and speculation and end with some questions. I take it that you accept that Dr John has repeatedly sought national park status in the past but that you now accept his word that he no longer seeks it. I would suggest that that withdrawal of intent was simply expedient to being able to use the BNP term for marketing, that being a step in the desired direction. I can not prove that but past behavioural patterns suggest that he is playing it like a game of chess, so to speak, thus we need to stay one step ahead. I've used the phrase before, gently, gently, catch the monkey, I stand by that. Dr John has changed Broads Plan policy in the past, might he not change it again, if the opportunity arises? At every given opportunity Dr John rams home the BNP catch phrase, why? He doesn't justify it, he just does it, an opportunity to educate the unquestioning masses perhaps? I'll remind you that you have accepted that Dr John has sought NP designation in the past. He has done so with great tenacity, I'm sure that you will agree. There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package. There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill. John, I ask you one final, pertinent question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal? Grendel, no problem with the 'crazed' accolade, provided I can refer to clowns!!

Bill, I respectfully refer you to the last paragraph in my last posting.

John, this has all been answered before and in quite some depth so I'll try and be brief. The precursor to the relatively recent Broads Bill was in fact an attempt to have the Broads named as the BNP. Paladin has gone into this one in some depth, explaining the detail, sufficient to satisfy the most curious of minds. On top of that we have the Broads Plan, 2015 I think it was, in which there is a clear policy statement explaining the Authority's ambition to be a national park. We then have a recent court decision where the BA makes a policy change, it tends to do that, where it will no longer seek to be an NP in return for being able to use the BNP tag, allegedly for marketing purposes. Anyway, a clear admission that it once sought to be a fully fledged National Park. Just one small detail, that policy will be reviewed in twelve years time, the Authority has said so, it's in writing. Nothing here that isn't in the public domain. History and written evidence is clear, the BA has sought to be a national park. Its recent policy change, I suggest, is simply expedient to its stated quest that by 2030 the Broads will be a national park, complete with Sandford and the repugnant control that that entails. If I have my facts right, and I think that I have, the Secretary of State did not allow the BA to use the BA tag, rather that it allowed the Authority to decide for itself whether it could use the BNP term, only for marketing purposes you'll understand. Gaining acceptance by the public of the BNP title, some might argue, is at least half the battle in gaining NP designation. There is obviously more to it than just the above, plenty of history, plenty of documentation, bit of opinion too, but DEFRA, BA and now the CNP have all admitted that the Broads is NOT a national park. We can't argue with that, although seemingly some insist on trying! I hope that this goes some way to answering your questions.

That point has been made by the Authority and, to be truthful, I can see its validity. On the other hand I do question what happens when it rains?

By now we should all be able to judge for ourselves, both as to the reality of the BNP issues and to our fellow posters. I can understand the frustration and exasperation being experienced by those of us who feel that they are now bashing their heads against a brick wall but hey, that's life! Facts have been presented, can't really argue with them, although some insist on trying, but when it comes down to each other then that really does come down to opinion. In that respect can we all at least be nice to each other, please?

Bill, this is becoming tedious in the extreme. Unlike the Authority such as myself don't have the facilities to promote an agenda that is alternative to that of the senior Authority members and executive. We don't have a budget, we don't have access to the paid for media or p.r. companies & the like. Another thing is that we rarely, if ever, make the first move, my comments, at least, come in response to Authority spin or comment by others. Challenge the likes of me by all means, but please justify your comments, don't just sound off in anger.

The Authority does have the upper hand on this one. A tad more insistence wouldn't go amiss though. If you have half an hour to spare then check out railway bridges here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/26-27/92

Likewise, trying to flog me iffy viagra or demanding my bank details.

You weren't involved with that bit of nonsense, were you, Bill? If you really thought that I was in favour then I can only assume that you didn't search as deeply as you might. I vaguely remember being threatened with legal action because of my objections and comments. Anyway, that tagline appears to have died a death. The Broads Act is entirely clear on the legislative duties of the Authority. That aside why would the Authority wish to be involved in marketing, an area in which it has no obvious expertise and only questionable success?

The Broads Act says, good enough?

Because they don't need to, plain and simple.

John, your input to-date has been appreciated. What you don't appear to be doing is looking back at the wider picture though, despite it being explained in some depth. Fred has made some valid points too, not least in questioning the BA's reasons and need to be involved in marketing, a field with which they have little success with in the past. Personally I have tried to explain my take on the Authority's involvement in 'marketing', as have others, up to you how you react. Just ask yourself why is the BA CEO promoting the BA as an NP when he has no need to?

Bill. the BA is not the local tourist authority.

Fred, exactly.

Just in case there are any new members who are unaware! Perhaps some of us are equally jarred off with every BA press release promoting the BNP.

John, you asked the question! Anyway, that aside, no reason why there shouldn't be a a link to all that is good about the BA! https://mailchi.mp/d38efb72185f/broads-briefing-february-345063?e=[UNIQID&utm_content=buffer818ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bufferapp.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I can quite understand why people are or have objected, witness the 'gently, gently, catch the monkey' approach to the BNP title as exemplified by Dr Packman. Why settle for an inch when you can take a yard?

Brick acid/patio cleaner and a pressure cleaner, job done!