JennyMorgan

I read this elsewhere, I think it worth repeating within the context of this thread: First it (the Broads) is not, by statute, a national park. The Broads were specifically excluded from the 1949 Act creating the true NPs with their two purposes. The Broads Act created a separate entity that had three purposes: the true NP ones plus navigation and its protection. Later legislation imposed the Sanford Principle on the true NPs but not the Broads because primacy of conservation could not overrule the established navigation rights. The BA CEO tried to rename the Broads in a Bill but was quickly told by Defra to desist: his first draft of the eventual Broads Act 2009 was changed. The CEO hasn’t given up: under the guise of “branding“ the BNP lie is being promoted, his hope being that in time people will assume that the Broads should be a true NP including Sandford from which point closure of the navigation becomes easier according to conservationists. If you value the right of navigation you cannot accept the lie that the area is, or may legally become, a true national park.

Bill, I was not going to be drawn into answering your predictably provocative comments but since you seem intent on arguing with the decision of our democratically elected Parliament then answer I will. Parliament is elected, it answers to the electorate, unlike the unaccountable, unelected quango that is the Broads Authority. At no point in its history has the Authority consulted on whether the Broads should be a national park or not, effectively that decision was taken away from the very people that the BA purports to serve. That aside, Parliament had the wisdom to turn down the Broads National Park bill because it was decided that the Broads Act as is offers suitable and adequate protection for the Broads whilst the National Parks Act does not. That is because the Broads is a harbour, a navigation and a tidal water, factors that must be protected. Like many I wish to see our rights of access and navigation protected, and that really is it in a nutshell. If you wish to put those rights at risk then that is your right, but personally I would rather safeguard them hence my stance against the Broads being a national park, one that would be managed by an unaccountable, unelected quango. The powers that come with being a national park must not to be entrusted to a quango such as the present incumbents of Yare House. Obviously my own personal opinion. Over to you, Bill.

Extreme extremist American lobby group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The counter lobby group is also PETA, People Eat Tasty Animals.

I shall be voting for Snowdonia, may I suggest that others do too.

https://us16.campaign-archive.com/?e=259d8798cf&u=b957c2a429d58a35f9137b9c7&id=cc801ccf41

Nor me, she was tied up! We are talking Archant though.

Best not go fishing on Breydon, what with all those bling boat hooligans haring about the place! P.S. I comment in jest, I think!

Outside Sonia's?

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/news/picture-of-the-week-1-5359443 Nor exactly a major achievement but still nice to share!

Maybe it was being driven by a member of PETA!

A case for speed-limits? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-42739941/fishermen-escape-crash-by-split-second

A step in the right direction!

There are quite a few berks up here and a pub in Oulton Broad called the Wolf Inn but that doesn't have a bushy tail & four legs,

This could be a new, stealth approach by the planning department As for my green house, just a little bigger than your shed, the frame is just a bit bent and my neighbour has just returned the canopy. Amazing thing was that it had flown against the general wind direction and over a six foot high fence. Living in Potter I would be inclined to look in the river. If it is in there then best retrieve it before you get a toll demand.

That seems fair from thirty miles away!

I've just realised that my poly-tunnel/green house is now in the past tense, poor thing!

Obviously doesn't know what he's missing! As the man that matters in the shed owners association he should know. Decent bloke. I've long forgotten my password for the other place, also lost David's e-mail address, but I'm sure that someone here could p.m. him.

But just maybe the girl friend!

A working staithe, agreed but maybe too many folk use it as a car park? A draconian response by the BA, maybe, but perhaps one forced upon them because of complaints. Has anyone asked the BA why? As for allowing more riverside accommodation, sounds like a great idea but I don't see it happening any time soon, not with the present incumbents at Yare House. Affordable housing, easy, houseboats, which takes us back to Thorpe Island and Jenner's Basin for the quick answer to that one! The BA as a modern progressive, caring organisation, I don't think so .

A real blast was she, Charlie?

I can only guess but I suspect that contractor's vehicles have been hogging the staithe during the day rather than parking elsewhere thus there have been complaints. A problem easily solved by introducing parking restrictions. Okay, so I am only guessing!

The worst appears to be over, my trees are now back to being pretty much upright! The last hour has been pretty rough.

I was well and truly rogered, as they say in Norfolk, at about seven o'clock this morning as a severe squall, Roger's Blast, slammed into our house. It's continued pretty much the same ever since.

The BA is on record as having had the desire to eventually remove the 'sheds' from the Thurne. I say 'had', which might still be the case, but maybe by making things difficult for owners a new campaign is starting. I hope not because I rather like Potter as it is.