.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
batrabill
-
Posts
724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by batrabill
-
-
Just not true.
Will need legislation.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
Desperation is clearly setting in! Self aggrandisement is aa strong driving force.
Lou, I mean you no disrespect but there really is no need for me to comment on what you have just written!
Desperation? You do live in a parallel universe don't you? This piece is "publicity" or "marketing".
And, frankly it does sound terribly like you do mean disrespect, if that was aimed at Smellyloo (the "Lou" is confusing).
I completely agree with Smellyloo, as do many others. To simply dismiss his point is a tacit admission you have lost the argument.
-
1
-
-
That’s a good question. Met a bloke from EA. He told me the EA budget is £1 billion.
The BA are a small fish. One of their vital roles is to balance these outside pressures.
Environment, business, boating.
I think they do ok.
-
21 hours ago, Philosophical said:
Not wishing to be difficult but how much the "NP half" is spent on navigational issues as opposed to National Park orientated issues?
Philosophical, the BA being a public body, publishes all its key docs.
The latest budget is here:http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/965886/Financial-Strategy-2016-17.pdf
-
1
-
-
What JohnK said.
Sorry I’ll stop now.
-
I will change my mind when I detect any evidence that there is any real threat.
-
What JohnK said.
-
Going round in circles, yes for years.
I thought the Broads were still called the Broads - or the Norfolk Broads - or the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Nothing has changed.
44 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:There just has to be an ulterior motive!
No there doesn't.
You will never change your mind - but you do change others, and if you try to convince people to do things which deliberately harm the Broads, like voting against it in a widely publicised bit of marketing fluff then we'll go round these circles again and again.
-
33 minutes ago, Baggywrinkle said:
Anyone who wishes to complain can do so to the National Parks, particularly those which aren't finalists and so might feel selecting the Broads is unfair on them. A list of contacts can be found on the web site. http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us
But,
-
43 minutes ago, Ricardo said:
Just how long do you think it will be before the full national park rules are thrust upon the broads if they continue to consider they are based purely on the fact they have permission to use the term for marketing only!
That's where we differ - never in my view.
-
I think you're just wrong.
The Scottish national Parks are not under the same legislation as the main block of NPs so perhaps we should all lobby to have them removed as well?
Perhaps we could have The Continuity NPs, and the Real NP's
Self-evidently the National Parks are a family who are not all the same - why is that such a problem?
By voting for another National Park in this event - which is what is being promoted here by JM - you are deliberately trying to damage Broads holiday businesses by denying them valuable marketing.
Can you possibly argue with that statement?
And how can you possibly justify that?
Have a look at Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park on Facebook for how some Broads holiday businesses feel about this idea. Comments section.
-
Surely, you can't help but notice that many of you are being backed into positions where you suggest things like:
voting against the Broads in a national competition,
trolling many people seeking publicity for the Broads by commenting in a negative way (when you must know this is precisely the thing that the Broads are allowed to do, use the NP status in marketing)
and coming up with negative scenarios like the above.
Is this really a good thing?
-
Much more likely that people visit, find out it's beautiful and fun, and come again.
-
If only there was some great publicity around how lovely the Norfolk Broads are, like a BBC-backed competition for the best NP.
That would surely increase bookings.
But since there isn't, never mind.
-
Philosophical
Legislation is required - not "pigeon holes" - that is just spin.
-
What JohnK said.
-
1
-
-
Well there you go - a concern about the erosion of what is allowed and a tightening of regulation is quite a sensible thing to worry about. I must admit I haven't noticed a concern about diesels in much that has appeared here - it is quite a recent phenomenon - but will increasingly come into play. But of course that isn't really a BA issue - unless you think they are hell-bent on eliminating boats.
Something which would be an odd thing for them to try since half their income comes from them.
-
Motes and beams....
-
Vaughan - we are all told every time we go on Social Media, or read the EDP that calling the Broads a National Park is a LIE!
However, the National Parks calls it a National Park. It is legally allowed to call itself a National Park, and is quite obviously a de facto National Park - but different from the others.
So I think you should understand that I am using the tactic "your side" themselves use.
I could put at the bottom of my posts - The Norfolk Broads are legally allowed to call themselves a National Park in marketing material - if you are reading it on the internet then it is marketing - anything else is a LIE!
But I don't.
Can I suggest, since you have made a personal criticism of me above :
1 hour ago, Vaughan said:If you have nothing better to offer than that, please keep it yourself, or confine it to the "south bank".
can I in return suggest you get your sense of humour back.
Oh and another thing, you may or may not know that The South Bank was the main home of many on NBN until the great Falling Out
-
59 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
So what would you say to a new Broads NP legislation that decided to ban internal combustion engines from the Broads? After all, the Government have recently announced their intention to ban them from the roads?
I am rather tired of those who wander into this forum occasionally when nothing much is happening on "the other side of the river", and wish to provoke dispute by suggesting that those who are offering informed debate, based on a lifetime of experience, are liars.
If you have nothing better to offer than that, please keep it yourself, or confine it to the "south bank".
By the way Marshman, if you want to suggest that the Broads in the 1960s were a cess-pit created by the over-use of boats, then start up another thread and I will discuss it with you.
You have always struck me as a very knowledgeable and very likeable character Vaughan, but on this I think you are adopting an attitude which is quite unreasonable.
You, and others, get quite cross when the "orthodoxy" of this website is challenged. Your experience makes you knowledgeable but it does not necessarily make you right.
Like many, I read much more than I post. I post when I see something which I think is wrong being unchallenged quite substantially because people know the story of response they will get.
I dislike bullying and orthodoxy - it prevents real debate.
This is not the first time I have been criticised for arguing (I apologise if your remarks were not aimed at me - blame my arrogance) - a certain Jenny Morgan has previously commented that I was "pointlessly arguing", I forget the subject but I suspect it was the same one.
Another way of putting it is YOU DON'T TOLERATE PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH YOU.
-
6 hours ago, ChrisB said:
I have to say that back in 2005 when the Lake District NP introduced a speed limit my wife and I were regular Whammel sailors on Windermere and we supported the speed limit.
To put it into context for those who are not familiar with the lakes the speed limit is 10 knots or 11.5 mph, the lake is 11.23 miles in length.
It can be argued that some boats make a greater wash at that speed but then I have never seen the need for a 38ft Sealine on what in European wide terms is a bit of a pond when compared with those in Switzerland, Germany and Italy.
In any case event organisers can apply for exemptions, I think there was something to do with float planes to mark a 100th anniversary not long ago.
I, and many others, completely agree with this. Waterskiing is totally inappropriate on Windermere and I agree with the ban.
2 things worth noting:
1. This is the "go to" example of the Sandford principle.
2. There are hundreds (thousands) of boats on Windermere - so to extrapolate from this example to a total ban of boats on the Broads is absurd - some would say a falsehood - or some might say a lie.
-
Also, what is the mechanism? It needs legislation. There’s going to be quite a lot of that to take up Parliament’s time in the next few years.
A private members bill? Staggeringly unlikely.
Michael Gove? Mad as a box of frogs so perhaps the most likely.
But can you imagine the opposition if this was a possibility?
Every broads business. Every boater. The vast majority of people who live here.
It’s not going to happen.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Vaughan said:
I can give you detailed and historical reasons why I am against NP status, which go back to well before the Broads Authority was ever created.
In view of your obvious intent to provoke dispute however, I will not bother to do so here.
Not dispute - just not a blind acceptance of the spin that the most vocal members put on this subject. I am not alone in this view.
-
1
-
-
Ah, fullness....
A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority
in Norfolk Broads News
Posted
Well I for one am quite content that your vigilance will alert us all to anyone trying to “sneak through” legislation.
Would be nice in the meantime if you could just shut up about it a bit, and specifically stop trolling any reference on the internet to the NP.
Thanking you in advance.