JamesKnight

I agree, Paladin, that the expected response under the circumstances would be to resign. But if such a resignation is not forthcoming, then the law is clear - he carries on until the AGM. I can’t see how JP could circumvent that even if he wanted to.

However, see also 5.—(6) During his term of office the chairman shall continue to be a member of the Authority until the appointment of the next chairman at the next annual meeting of the Authority. The effect of this is to extend the Chairman's appointment as a member of the BA until the AGM, which is 26th July.

We’re pleased to announce that we're now offering Norfolk Broads Boating Holidays from Waveney River Centre! We'll be adding 8 Holiday Cruisers to our existing fleet of day cruisers - with the first of our Holiday Cruisers available to hire for holidays starting from Easter 2019. For those of you that haven't visited Waveney River Centre before, we're an award winning holiday park and marina nestled in a wonderful rural location on the River Waveney in Burgh St Peter. Making us a perfect starting destination for those who wish to explore the more tranquil and (in our opinion) more beautiful Southern Broads. We'll also be offering 'Surf and Turf' holidays, which will be a combination of a lodge holiday and a hire one of our new cruisers, for those who want to experience the best of both worlds. We've got some fantastic facilities at Waveney River Centre including the Waveney Inn Pub & Restaurant, Eddie's Swimming Pool, Wildlife Garden, Canoeing, Kayaking, a shop and much more! You can find details of our new holiday cruisers online here Waveney River Centre Norfolk Broads Boating Holidays (https://www.waveneyrivercentre.co.uk/stays-and-boat-hire/boat-hire/holiday-cruisers/). We hope you'll think of us when choosing your next Boating Holiday! All of the team @ Waveney River Centre

well, not really. If you want people on committees who have any knowledge or experience, you have to expect that they will be somehow involved in the Broads - either by being a toll payer, a business owner, an employee in a boatyard or whatever. As long as that interest is declared, and they don't go voting on projects in which they have a direct financial interest, then there's unlikely to be a conflict. But, they're all human, and although you would hope that they will say what they think, unfortunately there is a bit of a herd mentality which makes most people go with the flow and prevents them from sticking their necks right out. The BA is not unique in this respect!

Well, we're all different, and I've long since given up expecting everyone to behave like me :-) Everyone has their own priorities, and most of them are sensible enough not to do anything which might cause them problems in their other dealings with the Broads Authority. Such as planning. So, they beaver away behind the scenes, hoping that their contribution might help, or that they will achieve change from within. I've never known anyone to succeed in that quest.

Certainly I started the infamous pike - it was just intended as a bit of harmless satire really and I stopped writing it when I got appointed to the full Authority a few years ago and left it to a couple of others to play with. But the Chair & Chief Exec didn't believe me, and had me chucked off for allegedly writing an article about my own planning applications. Which obviously I didn't do. Interestingly, 3 members had a pop at me under the code of conduct for writing that article, and the monitoring officer found that there was no evidence that I'd written it, and even if I had it wouldn't have been a breach of the code. But they'd chucked me off by then! After that I started my own blog with my own name on it, so that nobody could accuse me of hiding behind a pseudonym. But obviously they didn't like that either, and hence started down the code of conduct route again, leading to the eventual final solution. As to the other members of nav com - Lana isn't on it, and most of the others might support me privately but will most likely keep their heads down, as they've seen what happens when you don't…

like you, I enjoy a good debate. But it's like trying to debate with a blancmange. You point to the words on a piece of paper and he says "well you might think it says that, but I disagree". In different circumstances, I would admire the skill.

He'll just refer back to the previous 2 reasons. They don't want to investigate, because they know they can't defend themselves against what I've said.

Thank you, grendel. Yes, I did report my concerns to the monitoring officer. He told me that: a) the chief executive had already investigated; b) it would be inappropriate for anyone other than the Chief Executive to investigate the officers' conduct because they were subject to employee protection; c) it would be inappropriate to investigate my allegations because it might prejudice the outcome of the code of conduct complaint. Good, isn't it?

Thanks everyone for the supportive comments. Everyone who is interested in regime change at the BA needs to be focused on that objective. By all means use my removal as the latest example of the control freakery at the heart of the BA, but getting involved in a debate with JP about it isn't going to take anyone anywhere. You all know what he's going to say anyway, and you'll just get bogged down in semantics and waste a lot of time doing it. What needs to happen is for as many people as possible to write to their MP, and keep it short and to the point. The key issues (as far as my removal is concerned) are these: 1. No independent investigation was ever carried out into the allegations which I made 2. The previous and current chairman, the chief executive and the monitoring officer all refused to discuss my concerns 3. There was no fair hearing - the complaint was made by the Broads Authority itself, which went on to judge its own complaint a year later 4. The recommendation of the independent barrister, that there be an informal resolution, was ignored, and the complaints procedure was altered to prevent such a resolution from taking place. 5. The sanction (removal) exceeds the limits put in place by the Localism Act 2011, and is contrary to the provisions of the Broads Act which dictate how members are to be appointed and replaced. I believe they've acted ultra vires. Don't go off at other tangents. MPs need to be hearing these key points, because they obviously amount to maladministration. Next, you need to consider what you want your MP to do about it. They're not interested in moaning, they've got a heavy workload and people write to them all the time. They are not the Government, and they have less direct power than you might think. All they can do is refer the matter upwards. By all means come up with your own ideas, but I would suggest that they should be asking for an urgent and immediate review of the system of governance within the Broads Authority, for a system of direct elections, and a judicial review of the most recent decision. You could also write to Michael Gove - he won't reply to you directly, but a sufficient volume of correspondence on the same subject might be noticed. The same is true of Lord Gardiner, the minister for National Parks. What we need here is a large volume of succinct emails, rather than a small number of very long ones. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you need any more background information.

The barrister's investigations might be available in redacted form through an FOI, yes. But to be honest I'll be happy to share them with anyone who wants to see them, warts & all. As to the Chief Executive's alleged investigation, I would be very surprised if there is anything to show. He says he took 3 days to investigate but frankly all he had to do was to read the appeal inspectors' decisions (let's say half an hour each) and the injunction (5 minutes). Then there is the trail of paperwork with Norwich City Council in which the BA asked them to take action for trespass because it would be easier than them taking planning enforcement action, say another 20 minutes and listening to the recording of the meeting, 15 minutes. And then asking the officers if they'd told the truth and nodding when they said yes. I can't see 3 days there, and it's unlikely that any of it was documented beyond our email exchanges. The planning committee papers - and all the correspondence between me and the Chief Executive - can be found here for anyone who's really interested! https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7BJSW6gDi75ZU0zdGNPNTBQLWs?usp=sharing Cheers!

Thank you to all who have supported the stand I've taken - both on this forum and elsewhere. Thanks also to those who haven't simply believed me, but have asked questions. It's a shame that more members of the Broads Authority don't do the same. But sadly, most of them just believe what they're told, without asking the probing questions or checking the facts. If that were true, I would have long since apologised and probably resigned for having made wrongful allegations. The fact is that the allegations were never investigated. The independent barrister was asked to investigate whether, by making the allegations, I had breached the code of conduct. My position was that telling the truth could surely not be a breach of the code. But the scope of the investigation specifically excluded considering whether what I'd said was true. Nobody, other than the Chief Executive, has ever made a judgement on the veracity of what I said. And he simply declared my allegations to be false - and refused to meet me to discuss them. Because he's the Chief Executive, he only has to tell members that he's investigated, and they believe him. He claims to have spent 3 days doing this, but was unable to tell the hearings committee what form his 3 day investigation took. The Authority's own solicitor conceded last month at the Local Plan Examination that the planning appeals and injunction at Thorpe Island did not relate to the river bank, and did not confirm the abandonment of moorings there. This is the exact opposite of what members were told last year and confirms two of my key points - yet the Chief Executive continues to say that there was no truth in my allegations. The barrister was quite clear that the sensible way forward was an informal resolution. This advice was roundly ignored by the hearings panel and, in turn, the full Authority. They even altered the procedure part-way through to remove the possibility of an informal resolution, and refused to meet me. Ultimately this isn't about me. I've never been a member of the navigation committee or the Broads Authority for my own benefit - in fact it has made my life much more difficult. Especially when it comes to dealing with the planners! So I take my removal on the chin, and accept it as a consequence of standing up for the truth. The only harm is to the toll payers and stakeholders who've lost a voice. But more importantly, at what point does someone in government realise that the BA is out of control, and take decisive action? Direct elections have never been more relevant or urgent.