JohnK

Thanks Fred, genuinely appreciated. I guess we differ on what we see the use of the NP term as. I don’t see it as misrepresentation at all. I see it as marketing which I believe the BA has in its remit. I’m not claiming to be right and I can 100% see why other people would have a different view. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks JM, That clarifies it for me and I’ll accept full NP without Sanford (or updated equivalent) isn’t an option. There are still too many leaps of faith for me to believe that’s the BA’s intention though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can be asked but not expected to. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to respond but if you choose not to that’s entirely your choice. I do accept he’s tried to adopt full NP status in the past. I partly accept his word (because he’s done nothing to me to make me distrust him) that he no longer seeks it but it’s mainly about me seeing no evidence that he’s currently trying to seek it. I agree, he probably changed direction to get agreement to use of the NP badge. He may be intending to seek full NP status and if I saw any evidence of that I would jump straight on your bandwagon. Yes, he might and if he does I’ll be 100% behind you. But he might not. Or he’s using a term which he believes helps him promote the Broads (which he believes he’s allowed to do) in a way he believes the Secretary of State and the high court have told him he can. I do agree 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 even if the Broads became a full NP? Not that I think it will become a full NP. The powers yes but with an intent to use them? Have other NPs excluded all boaters from their waterways? Nope, can you prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that not only does he not only retain the desire but also has the intent? Sorry for the long post but I wanted to include all of your points, not just pick the easy ones. [edit] I made a couple of changes to improve my English!

Thanks JM, I appreciate you taking the time to write that. I know it had been said before but I was really interested to hear the way YOU saw it. I’m not going over it again but I don’t accept the conclusions drawn by some of the others. With one exception (I’ll come to that) I accept what you posted above as good evidence. But only evidence that they were once trying to get full NP status, not that they still are. I can see why some people would make the link between the two things but surely you can accept that others don’t? That’s exactly my position, I accept what you and some of the other less crazed (joke!) say was happening in the past, I just don’t accept that’s proof that it’s still happening. The exception: Do you not think it’s a bit too far to go from what one person linked to the CNP said in an email to “the CNP have all admitted....”? Or have they now gone further which I haven’t seen? Was my earlier statement wrong about the Secretary of State and the high court approving the use of the National Park term? If I am wrong I’d like to know because that’s a big part of my internal debate (I’m not sure what having an internal debate tells you about me [emoji57]) But if that’s right that’s why I have no problem with the BA calling the Broads a National Park. And I really don’t care whether that’s for marketing or promotion or something else. In my opinion (that’s worth almost nothing) I think if we’re to avoid these debates descending into abuse we should avoid spinning them whether or not we feel the BA is. As an example the new fleeces (deliberately chosen as an example because it wasn’t discussed here) .... The BA puts out a press release that National Parks is getting new fleeces with NP on them and the BA are getting some. A debate over whether that’s a good idea, whether they should have been sourced from the UK, whether they should be high vis etc would have been great. But to take that as proof of the BA trying to get Sanford in makes no more sense than me taking it as proof they’re not because it doesn’t have Sanford in big letters on the back does it? That sort of spinning is only going to end badly isn’t it? That could lead me back to the title of this thread but no [emoji57] [edit], sorry, just saw you did confirm the secretary of said said what I thought they’d said.

Well said. Going back quite a long way ... am I right thinking you believe the BA over using the National Park name and getting it adopted elsewhere is them trying to get full NP status and Sanford? If that’s right what do you see as the facts that prove that? Genuine questions, not trying to provoke an argument. My belief is that the Secretary of State and the high court have said the BA can use the term National Park so I see nothing wrong with them doing so. What makes you think I’m wrong?

You made me think a bit with that part of your post. I honestly thought no facts had been presented in this thread so I just reread it. I was wrong. There are lots of facts. But I also realised why I thought there were none. Every single fact was then followed up with spin. That negated the fact for me. Just one point, I have never said the BA can do no wrong. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I disagree with what some of you think the BA are trying to do but that’s a long long way from believing the BA can do no wrong.

Seriously? You’re really claiming that in this thread nobody has tried to ridicule Bill?

Couldn’t agree more. The stupidest part is we largely all agree on what we want. But we squabble over what one person is or isn’t trying to achieve. And whether promotion is the same as marketing. JM has changed my mind on a lot of the past events through these discussions. But then the descent into personal insults (not by JM) makes me want to walk away from the discussion. I doubt very much I’m alone. When you read this and think “yeah, but it’s only the other side that are doing it” you are absolutely wrong.

In my opinion that’s unfair too. Ok, Bill has come out with some sarcastic comments. He’s certainly not alone on this thread. You don’t have to take my word for that, the evidence is there for all to see [emoji6]

I’d say that’s quite unfair in this thread. There’s been a lot of “you’ll have to take my word for it” on both sides. I can’t comment on anything said elsewhere.

Has Bill done something wrong other than disagree? I know I said I’d leave this debate but I feel quite guilty now because Bill stepped in to defend me, I walk away and he seems to be getting quite a hard time. Do Bill and I need to check the forum approved list of opinions? (Joke!) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough. Sorry.

I’d argue I’m wasting my breath because I think every response I’ve had is why I’m wrong. It’s absolutely fair enough for that to be people’s opinion, I just see no point in me keep saying the same thing and getting the same response. I can honestly see no reason why the BA wouldn’t or shouldn’t promote itself using the term Broads National Park. But you know I think that. I know you won’t agree so we’re just back to the start.

As far as I can tell the Secretary of State and the high court says they can use the term for marketing / promotion. You could argue every press release is marketing / promotion. If the BA believes the above why wouldn’t they call the Broads a National Park in every press release? In the words of Homer Simpson “I tried, I failed, the lesson is never try” I’ve tried to put forward the point of view of a neutral but I realise nobody’s interested so I’ll leave you to it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you’ve convinced me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s a fair point but I’m not complaining about threads talking about whether it’s an NP or not, I’m complaining about how every press release by the BA shared descends into “it’s not a National Park” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If people believe that’s happening I can see why they would too. But as someone who’s undecided the constant “its not a National Park” makes me want to turn off every forum and facebook group where it’s posted over and over again on everything about the BA. We never get to talk about what the BA or anyone else is doing, we just talk about how they’re calling the Broads a National Park again. If other people feel the same as me I guess the problem is when nobody who hasn’t already decided you’re right is listening anymore. For me, the scary part is if I do leave the forums etc the only place I’m left with to get Broads news from is the BA and I don’t like single sources of information.

I’m with MM, couldn’t live without my smartphone. Across four email accounts (some work, some not) I probably get two or three hundred emails a day, thirty or forty of those I need to read and I probably send a similar number. Plus the texts, Facebook, forum stuff etc. Just to add to the buzzing I’m type one diabetic and have a sensor that alerts me via my smartphone if my blood sugar goes high or low. Today I’ve been in a meeting most of the day and it will take at least an hour to catch up on what I’ve ignored (some work, some not). I don’t find it intrusive, it’s just become a way of life. A lot of people probably contact me electronically because I’m not very nice to talk to ☹️ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that “member of the national parks family” seems reasonable but I have seen people objecting to that too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m going to assume the silence means “bugger, I hadn’t thought of that” [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A tradesman once asked me in front of my wife if he could borrow the hoover. I turned to my wife and asked her if that was the one that made clothes flat. The bruises went away eventually. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not even close. Merry go rounds stop eventually [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some of that is fair and perhaps the funding argument is a step too far but I think my question about what we expect CNP to do is fair and still awaiting an answer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, I’m not going to go back over it again. I’ll rephrase the last question. If CNP officially and publicly accept that the Broads isn’t a National Park what do you expect to happen? Do they rename themselves the Campaign for National Parks and the Broads or stop campaigning for the Broads or something else? I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you wouldn’t want the Campaign for National Parks campaigning for something that isn’t a National Park would you? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite a few questions have been ignored here but I’d like to go back to one about the CNP as that’s where this thread started. So let’s say you get the CNP to officially acknowledge the Broads isn’t an NP (rather than one person saying it in an email). What happens then? Do you know for a fact they won’t just drop support for the Broads? Would it be ok if they do? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk