Jump to content

batrabill

Full Members
  • Content Count

    408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

batrabill last won the day on November 8 2018

batrabill had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

335 Excellent

About batrabill

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1909

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,237 profile views
  1. batrabill

    James Knight's Blog

    How do these elections work ?
  2. batrabill

    James Knight's Blog

    How do these elections work ?
  3. batrabill

    James Knight's Blog

    ????
  4. batrabill

    James Knight's Blog

    Agreed, and I said I thought that was workable. But, that would mean that there was no single body responsible for planning all over the Broads. I struggle to see why that is a necessarily better? I also note that you have addresses the point I mostly agree with and ignored the 2 main points which I think are completely wrong???
  5. batrabill

    James Knight's Blog

    It was my impression that lots of people were agreeing with everything.James Kmights said?
  6. batrabill

    James Knight's Blog

    I’ve read the blog a couple of times now and I think there is much that is sensible and good. However, I think these are the main points 1. The BA should lose planning responsibility and it should go back to local authorities Maybe, but that means there is no consistency across the Broads area. This is a possible source of future conflict and one that should be carefully considered 2. The BA should be an elected body Sorry, but this is never going to happen There is no clear constituency - and never will be This is the weakest part 3. The rivers should return to a Harbour Aurhority So what remains? This new elected body is in charge of what? The moorings? DEFRA will fine the National Park Grant of £3 million to a body that mows a few moorings and patrols??? This last suggestion doesnt chime with the others Only 1 is workable I think this is a proposal to get rid of the BA. But when do Governments dismantle something that works fine for something much more complicated???
  7. batrabill

    The Authority's Response To The Glover Report.

    For the first time??? After all the warnings that have been posted here, now you are worried??? Or, to put it another way, nothing has changed, the rivers are still beautiful, there are plentiful moorings and all the hire boats are hidden away.
  8. batrabill

    The Authority's Response To The Glover Report.

    I think you have to accept that john Packman’s plan is so cunning and so secret he doesn’t even understand it himself.
  9. batrabill

    The Authority's Response To The Glover Report.

    Re-framing to balance a quite deliberate spin.
  10. batrabill

    The Authority's Response To The Glover Report.

    Let’s call a spade a spade. What JM does incredibly successfully is what phsychologists call ‘framing’. By representing the debate in the most extreme terms the debate is framed about how wicked JP is. This phrase being debated seems fairly innocuous to me, but now the debate is all about closing the navigation for hidden reasons. As young people would say what the flip? This is paranoia based on mischief making. My personal concern is about the composition of the authority. I think that is worth worrying about. James Knight has made himself as unpopular as he can be so it’s hard to have much sympathy. But the composition of the authority is concerning. However, it does not mean that the authority is plotting the end of boating. That is loony tunes.
  11. batrabill

    Southern Broads Extremely Low :o

    As it says above, that is just dredging on the lower Bure..... which is what we are discussing.
  12. batrabill

    Southern Broads Extremely Low :o

    Are you claiming the BA does no dredging? 2018/19 – 14,000m3 removed from Lower Bure 2017/18 – 5,000m3 Bure Loop 2017/18 – 5,820m3 removed from lower Bure 2015/16 – 12,500m3 removed from Bure at Stokesby. 
  13. batrabill

    Southern Broads Extremely Low :o

    Really unnecessary. This doesn’t need to be an adversarial debate. No one doubts that the river system is different to how it was in the past. The debate is over the consequence of 1) much dredging at Bure mouth and 2) much more dredging of the entire system. Since 2 is going to cost many millions it isn’t even a possibility. So will more dredging in the Lower Bure have the effect some claim? Ie lowering the average level in the northern system. BESL seem to suggest not. Also, what other consequences will that have. Would running aground at Hickling be an acceptable consequence of lowering the average level at Potter?
  14. batrabill

    Southern Broads Extremely Low :o

    Yes, you may be right
  15. batrabill

    Southern Broads Extremely Low :o

    To me it looks like Potter and Repps (perhaps not just the bridge but the whole section) are a bottleneck??? It would be lovely if someone who really understands this stuff would contribute. BESL??
×

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.