[Coronavirus And The Broads]

35 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I have just returned from my shed, after a good ponder and enjoying the sound of silence. Not absolute silence though, those blessed bees and cooing pigeons were quite noisy, plus the whistle of the boiling kettle!  

I'm not writing this seeking argument, although I don't doubt that the usual combatants will respond but hey-ho, that's forum life.

As one who can no longer walk any distance in reasonable comfort I am seeking an alternative form of exercise, considering either rowing or 'paddling my canoe/kayak'. Only I can't, the BA says so. I could go running, walking or get my bike out, the government says that I can, but physically I can't. Now, just in case anyone misunderstands me, I am totally supportive of social distancing. I have a daughter that is directly involved with treating Covid 19 patients thus I do have every sympathy with the NHS and the risks that we are all faced with. No, my issue isn't so much now, it's tomorrow and the days after.

So, why am I worried? In a nutshell it is the slowly changing face of the Authority. Make no mistake, I totally agree with & support the dissemination of advice and information but we are now being told that if we are naughty boys and girls the Rangers will report us to the Police. Some of you will probably think or say, why not? To be honest, I wouldn't blame them but I still feel uneasy about this change of roles. We have certainly witnessed a creeping and sometimes unwelcome change of ethos at BA Towers.

It is not the role of the Rangers for one thing although it's arguably reasonable. I've long regarded the Inspectorate/Rangers as my friends, having been on first name terms with many of them over the years. Decent people, generally fairly laid back but there if and when I have needed them. Directives have been issued in the past frowning on fraternisation but largely these have pretty quickly been forgotten, at least seemingly so, friendships have continued. The Rangers are the face of the Authority, and largely the friends of the boating community. Advise us, yes, perfectly reasonable but reporting us to the Police, not so sure. An unwelcome change of ethos, possibly? 

I well remember the debates at the time of the creation of the Authority, questions being asked about the title. Authority in name but how far should that role go? I don't know about you but I always feel a degree of unease/distrust when talking to police officers, don't know why, but I do. I should hate to feel that way when talking to a Ranger.

This is very much a personal response. Very clearly the present situation will change our country, I do have my concerns. I would like to see the Broads at least return to its old self as soon as possible. I just don't want to see the Ranger/Public relationship being damaged. 

Argue if you must, but that is NOT the purpose of this posting. I just hope that the Authority takes heed and questions its role, just how far should it go?

I would hate to witness the historical repore between the Rangers and stakeholders being damaged.  The Rangers themselves are a pretty wise bunch, not so sure about their boss though! At the moment it does seem that there is a determination by the Executive to further distance itself from us 'Little People'.  Got that off my chest, enjoy your Easter.

Vaughan, wonderful post, thank you. 

Daffodils

[Broads Briefing April 2020 (c-virus Update)]

Farcical 

[Broads Briefing April 2020 (c-virus Update)]

So it’s ok as long as no one points out “they” are allowed to spew the usual Daffodils?

[Acle B.N.P.]

3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Funnily enough I have never been banned from anywhere or reprimanded but that is beside the point.

 

Reporting on something especially when it is already in the public domain and then discussing it is hardly lobbying, what happens elsewhere is nothing to do with what happens here whether or not some respondents post in more than one place.

Fred

Except JM is happy to admit he's campaigning, not reporting ....

[Acle B.N.P.]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Anyone else who feels the same could you please send an email to the Stalham parish clerk,

Campaigning

[Acle B.N.P.]

Since we're really getting into this...

 

If you have a look at "the other place" you will see the same people making the same points, only the names seem to have changed.

If you go to Facebook and look at Norfolk Broads News, you will find its administered by the people who administer Protect the Broads We are Not a Blah Blah.

I got banned from Norfolk Broads News for arguing with them.

Nowhere is safe!

[Acle B.N.P.]

1 minute ago, ChrisB said:

Hells Bells and tinsel Fred, you remember The System 64 or abouts, yon Grockles un Emmets! Took over Purbic unTorbay, then Wealas done Kernow. All tarred the same. Yus do want blood for yus drachmas. No different for Northfolk, bets yer symposium un snap comes on yer cart. 

That's easy for you to say

[Acle B.N.P.]

7 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Call to arms! The Stalham parish Council will be having a meeting in March and an email stating objection to the road sign addition will be on the agenda. Anyone else who feels the same could you please send an email to the Stalham parish clerk, the more objections they receive may help in getting the signs removed. 

clerk@stalhamtowncouncil.org

 

 

I'm curious if other members think that using the NBN for campaigning is a good or bad thing. Genuinely interested.

[Acle B.N.P.]

1 minute ago, rightsaidfred said:

While I accept that your view is and may possibly be right in that NP status  is a storm in a teacup how do you justify all the waisted resourses being used to promote it as something it is not

Fred

Don’t at all. I wish JP would shut up about it because the Broads are a de facto NP already but the signs are a waste of money. 

 

But I’m not going out with with spray paint or trolling hotels because, as I have said above the signs in my view are both  pointless and utterly harmless. 

[Acle B.N.P.]

JM. You are the master of Spin!

 

In just a short time you have suggested I’m flogging a dead horse,  being boring, and now fighting a rear guard action!

 

I think the quote here is from our Lord Jesus about Motes and Planks!

[Acle B.N.P.]

I understand what you are saying, but accept this: if the Broads are doing fine, then on some level the BA must be doing OK.

If the BA are doing a terrible job there must be something wrong? 

 

You also have to accept that the anti group, and there is a group who all have the same aims, talk a lot about how terrible the Broads are under the BA, and how they (he mostly) is determined to become a       NP in order to reduce/ban/ eliminate/prevent boating. 

 

You may say that is not your belief, but it is of that group of people, some of whom are active members here and who you are passively or actively supporting.

 

I’ll put it the other way round, I get on my boat, which I did yesterday, and I go out to unrivalled beauty in a landscape which seems very well cared for. Whats the beef?

 

The most common beef is the NP sideshow, and the great thing about that is that claiming the sky is going to fall in can  never be proved wrong. 

 

Challenging the BA is quite right and proper, but be honest, for some it is an obsession that is played out here. 

 

As a last point, our local councils are probably equally important to the daily life of the Broads, but I don’t see the same obsessive poring over every document, committee meeting, public statement, and purchasing decision here, and I would comfortably bet my house they are as capable of waste, lunacy and general mismanagement as anyone. 

[Acle B.N.P.]

I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way.

From my perspective, I open the site, which I enjoy being a member of, and I see threads which are framed in entirely negative ways about the Broads.

I see lots of people agreeing with that, and I and the few remaining posters who don't agree feel we are required to put some balance. Things can get a bit heated, but hey ho, that's life.

 

I would much rather that the many negative threads started by those who campaign against the BA, and specifically it CEO, did not even appear here, but were confined to campaigning sites like Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park.

 

I'm sorry, but the nub of this is a rather childish, but unfortunately accurate, "He started it Miss"

 

If this site is used as a vehicle to campaign, then there will always be push back.

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

Vaughan, I think that is a very sensible and reasonable. 

Where the disagreement is, is if the sword of Damocles even exists.

 

I think you are entirely accurate in pointing out that environmental issues are always to the fore these days. 

And crucially, that is exactly the same in National Parks.

I don't believe that there is any real difference between where we are now and where the 14 NP are.

 

Who is right will probably never be known, but all good fun discussing it.

[Acle B.N.P.]

5 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

We all know that advertisers use poetic license when promoting a product that doesn't mean they can do so and then remain above being taken to task over it, stick to the truth and no one will question it stray from it for what ever reason and you leave yourself open to criticism.

Fred

Mr Richardson is a member here. Are you going to take him to task?

[Acle B.N.P.]

Gawd, I can’t be bothered to even get into a discussion on the definition of trolling, shall we just stick with “unpleasant”?

 

And Chrisb, I was wondering if anyone here, or on Protect The Broads we are not a National Park has the courage to take on Richardsons. 

My prediction - not a chance. But some hotel they don’t go to? Pile on! 

[Acle B.N.P.]

I’m afraid I can’t agree that the unpleasant trolling of a local hotel is off topic at all. 

It’s the same issue as the signs. 

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

No I was afraid EVERYONE else was.

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

5 minutes ago, D46 said:

That depends on if they are interested in the future of the Broads and surrounding areas .

Note not one person has stated they are bored , so therefore I must conclude 0/10 .

Oh and D46 - I live here so I'm interested in the future of the Broads AND the surrounding areas.

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

Great.

Lets carry on then.

 

Watch how a local business is trolled for trying a bit of promotion

 

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

On a scale of 1-10 how bored must everyone else be of this?

 

 

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

3 hours ago, Bayleaf said:

 

Bartrabill. Do you believe in democracy?

 

Yes.

 

Next question.

[Acle B.N.P.]

20 minutes ago, Paladin said:

And then you go on to refer to Sandford a further 11 times in that same post. Evidently, you don't believe what you write.

This is really too much Paladin.

I notice that my arguments have been repeatedly attacked on semantic grounds - this is just tedious distraction activity.

 

We all know that Sanford has moved on, but the 'principle' clearly remains within the current wording.

This is your pitch here, you have the numbers led by Jenny Morgan. YOU use Sandford constantly.

In fact without Sandford you really don't have an issue to attack, without Sandford you are just spouting hot air for no reason.

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It shares some of the same purposes, but has different ones, as well.

 

It shares ALL of the purposes of the other NPs, and has a responsibility for one navigation, which I have never seen anyone suggest will change.

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

You’re always proving what everyone knows to be true - that The Broads isn’t a full National Park. What you never address is that it shares the same purposes as the others, gets its funding from DEFRA, is in all the groups that deal with all the other parks.

It quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, can be referred to as a duck for marketing purposes, but has a lovely little duck hat with “navigation” written on it. 

[Acle B.N.P.]

This is from me in May 2018 in a thread which I called The Sandford Myth, which I also included in this thread. 

“Of course, Sandford doesn’t exist - it was replaced by the 1995 Environment Act:”

But you’ve just found out?

[Acle B.N.P.]

JennyMorgan said: 

, I'm sure that you will agree. There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package. There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill. John, I ask you one final, pertinent  question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt,  that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal?

This is from JM in Feb 2018.