JennyMorgan

You woz done, 49p tops!

Whilst I agree in principle I will add that being stuck aboard a small boat for a week with someone with whom you are unable to form a bond is no great picnic. I used to skipper charter yachts and whilst the majority of trips were a great success I had one party of folk who had previously never met, one of whom was anti everybody but himself, that was an incredibly hard week!

Has anybody thought to p.m. Clive at Richardsons?

So why did he submit the Broads National Park Bill to Parliament then? Could he possibly have been unaware that Sandford was part and parcel of the National Parks legislation? Could he possibly be telling the truth? Answers on the back of a postage stamp and in no more than two letters.

Bill, you will be glad, indeed probably over the moon when I say that I am not going to regurgitate all the tired old arguments. However I will remind you about Hansard, the official record of Parliamentary affairs. In it you will find a verbatim record of minor matters such as the Broads National Park Bill and the Broads Bill. It really wasn't about safety, not really, more that it was about control and absolute authority. I heartily recommend that you read them. Vaughan, access, but nevertheless controlled. Whilst our public footpaths are protected our waterways, if the Doctor had had his way with the Broads Bill, would not have been. Both Houses agreed with the petitioners over this issue and the Bill was, thankfully, suitably amended.

Bill, yes, I'm convinced both by events and conversations with Satan himself that it is.

And maybe you'll need to appoint a new saint! In any case I would wish to see the Authority moving forward as it did under Dr Packman's predecessor, Prof Aitken Clark.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/lowestoft-holiday-firm-hoseasons-parent-company-wyndham-vacation-rentals-bought-in-1-3bn-deal-1-5396085

John, the problem is simple, and backed by history. Give an inch to the Doctor and he tends to take a mile. DEFRA quite reasonably allowed him to coin the phrase, a member of the National Parks Family. Not content with that the Doctor pushed still further. A rather illogical court judgement allowed him to use the BNP title for marketing purposes and he immediately pushes that. The pattern is clear and further good reason for not trusting the man.

T'other Peter is bang on the money here. This continuing failing to be open and truthful rather than bending and distorting is the absolute crux of the matter. Could we ever trust John Packman to make an open and truthful admission rather than promoting only a fraction of the truth? Well, do leopards change their spots? I do fear that his indoctrination will live on after his retirement. In my view whoever takes over, and who becomes the leader of the Authority, the Chairperson rather than the Chief Executive, are both going to have to choose very wisely as to what they distance themselves from and what they carry forward. No easy task.

Bill, the Broads is not a national park, please, get over it!

To save people from searching FaceBook I have lifted the following. It is a copy of a letter sent to the the editor of Countryfile magazine. People know my views so I am not going to repeat myself but I post this as being someone else's take on the same problem, that of setting the record straight. Dear Mr Collins, I write with reference to the inclusion of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads in the Countryfile Magazine’s competition for national parks. I know the fact that the Broads are NOT a national park has been drawn to your attention and that you have consulted National Parks UK, who have told you that the Broads ARE a national park. While it is true to say that certain sections of a limited number of enactments have been applied to the Broads as if they were a national park (such as planning laws), no legislation has ever designated the Broads as a national park. Scottish national parks have been designated as such under Scottish legislation, as the Scottish government has devolved powers, so any comparison with those parks is meaningless. I have attached some documents, which, if you take the time to read them, will prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Broads have NEVER been designated as a national park. I realise that admitting that fact will be uncomfortable for you and your magazine, but the truth must be told. As you know, or should know by now, national parks are designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are empowered and controlled by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads 1988 Act. The Broads could not, and cannot, be designated as a national park, as the duties of the Broads Authority are different from those of a national park authority. You will note that is it the Broads Authority, not the Broads National Park Authority. They cannot be a National Park Authority, because the Broads are not a national park. The first document I would like you to look at is Branding-the-Broads-ba230115.pdf This is the report to the Broads Authority by the Chief Executive and Solicitor of the Broads Authority in 2015 regarding the rebranding (i.e. renaming) of the Broads as the Broads National Park. Please note paragraph B, which says … “The Authority…Resolves … not to pursue the ambition in the Broads Plan for the Broads to become a national park in law.” Then, at paragraph 5.5 it says… “The relationship with our Minister and Defra is crucial to the Authority and it is apparent from Lord de Mauley’s letter (See Appendix F) to the Chairman of the Authority that Ministers are clear that, regardless of brand, the Broads is not legally a National Park…” If you then go to the very foot of the report, you will see a copy of a letter from the then-Under Secretary of State for Defra to the then-chairman of the Broads Authority, in which he writes … “In terms of government policy, the Broads is treated as a member of the national parks family although its statutory basis is quite separate and it is not legally a national park. We do not propose to change this position…” I rather think that the advice of a government minister carries greater weight than that of an organisation with a vested interest in increasing its membership. Next, please read the document Branding the Broads Minutes BA-Minutes-230115_confirmed.pdf This is a copy of the minutes of the Broads Authority meeting in 2015, at which it was resolved to re-brand the Broads as the Broads National Park. Scroll down to paragraph 4/9, where again you will see the statement “…that if the Authority agreed to accepting the use of the brand Broads National Park, that it would no longer pursue the ambition stated within the Broads Plan for the Broads Authority to become a national park in law” And … “…dropping the aspiration to become a national park in law was an important concomitant to the branding principle.” Also … ”In reaching their decision Members had to be satisfied that the Broads National Park Brand would be adopted for marketing related purposes and that the ambition to become a National Park in law … would no longer be pursued.” And … ”in accepting the above, the Authority also … resolved … not to pursue the ambition in the Broads Plan 2011 for the Broads to become a national park in law…” It is abundantly clear that the Broads Authority themselves do not consider the Broads to be legally a national park. The third document I have attached is the transcript of the handed-down judgement of the High Court in the case of Harris, Harris and the Broads Authority, which revolved around the rebranding. I draw your attention to paragraph 90, in which the inclusion of the Broads as a national park on the web site of National Parks UK was acknowledged by the court as an error. “The Claimants also rely upon extracts from the National Parks UK site as showing that the Broads has wrongly been presented as a statutory National Park and subject to the Sandford Principle. To some extent this has happened because of the way in which links have been created within the website. But the website has been produced by a separate organisation and they have been requested by the Authority to make changes. There should be no difficulty in these changes being made. In any event whether or not the Authority has power to use the Broads National Park as a marketing brand cannot depend upon errors of this kind on the website of a third party.” I could also direct you to Hansard, which shows that a succession of ministers have confirmed that the Broads is not, and will not be, a national park, but I think I have made my case well enough already. If you are still in doubt, ask the Broads CEO, John Packman, whether the Broads are LEGALLY a national park. I’d be very interested in his reply. You may regard the inclusion of the Broads in your competition as justified, as it just might come under the heading of ‘marketing’. However, if the competition was for classic Jaguar motor cars, would my immaculate Concours d'Elegance-winning 1953 Ford Popular be accepted, just because I had replaced the Ford badge on the radiator with a silver leaping Jaguar mascot? After all, it’s got four wheels and an engine. I await your response,

We don't, regretfully, do links to other Broads related forums but there is a news related FaceBook page out there where a gentleman with obvious legal expertise has posted relevant copies of government rulings, BA publications/press releases/officer reports/agenda and minutes and the like. Interesting and revealing reading and all of which makes the legal case abundantly clear. In a nutshell it makes the Authority's justification of itself and it's self awarded NP accreditation to be, I'll be generous, highly questionable.

She rode that sea well, must have been exciting being aboard. There have been suggestions elsewhere that she'd benefit from having stabilisers fitted, not with the evidence of this video. Well done Indy! Wish that I'd been there!

I love the Geldeston Locks with a passion but I do not love scraping the dog mess off my shoes or off the clothes of my grandchild. In that regard nil points to The Locks.

She should cope with Breydon then!

With a name like Miss Whiplash I wonder if our Gracie now has some serious competition!!

Thank you, Griff, an acceptable response from Peel Ports in my opinion. Hopefully Peel Ports will now sharpen up their repore with pleasure boaters. I have a sea trip, Oulton Broad to Oulton Broad via Yarmouth planned for later this year so I shall see for myself!

But couldn't they be?

The only bullying I have seen has been of Robin, who of his own admission is a bit down in the dumps. Anyway, the next chapter in Robin's boating affairs, soon please.

If he were then he wouldn't!

Perhaps, but giving Robin a chance, the benefit of the doubt, would do you considerable credit.

Please, Mr B, there is positively no need for continuing in this vain, especially that last sentence. Personally I welcome your input, in general, but that sour unpleasantness was uncalled for.

Some sense in what you say, Ricardo, but banter between the services is as old as Noah himself! As for using terms or language that others don't or won't understand, common courtesy suggests that our threads should be all inclusive but it is as much a boating as it is a Broads forum. Inevitably there will be boating terms that are a puzzle to some whilst being in everyday use by others. To a degree I think that if someone is unfamiliar with a term such as starboard then Google is a good friend, on the other hand if the term was the now rarely used 'larboard' then I'd suggest that an explanation should be offered. For example 'larboard', still in use when I was a kid, is/was boat talk for the left side of a boat when looking towards the front! All a question of degree as well as courtesy.

True, but there are those that think that Hickling is deteriorating, perhaps they are right. Got to admit that I tend to trust the NWT plus it is their broad!