Friends Of The Broads.

[Vaughan]

I notice no-one picked up on an article on EDP24 this morning, about a new chairman for the Broads Society. Now that I look it up again, it is no longer there. Maybe someone pulled it?

I didn't make notes, so I will recount what I remember.

The new chairman is something or other on the Broadland DC and is also a member of the BA planning committee. He states that he looks forward to continuing to work with "our dear friends" the Broads Authority.

Conversely, he is proposing to change their name to "The Friends of the Broads" as this is more modern and avoids confusion, since he reckons that people often think that the Society is actually the Authority. His words, folks, not mine.

He proposes the introduction of "junior rangers" who apparently will patrol around the place, trying to encourage younger people to the Broads. Other than that he doesn't seem to propose much at all.

Having been a committee member myself I cannot see how the chairman can represent possible objection by society members, to planning proposals announced by the BA, when he is himself, a member of the planning committee?

For me, this tells me all I need to know about the sad remains of the Broads Society.

[JennyMorgan]

I don't know the man but I do know folk who do, however, in my opinion only time will tell. 

[JennyMorgan]

Vaughan, that link:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/name_change_guided_tours_and_junior_rangers_are_priorities_for_new_broads_society_chairman_1_4801732

[Poppy]

Meanwhile they are worried that they are not attracting new members.......

[JennyMorgan]

I can just picture some precocious twelve year old telling a 'yellow top' full of boozed up 'lads' to slow down! 'Mummy, a nasty man told me to do all sorts of strange things, what did he mean?'

[Vaughan]

I thought I may as well get this off my chest, for what it is worth.

I am aware that I have mentioned the forum in the text of this letter, although I don't think it could be said that I am "representing" members' opinions. I will therefore with-hold posting it, by internet scan, until Sunday evening, to give any members who may object, the opportunity to say so.

This letter is from me personally but I felt it was also worth  mentioning the general opinion of this forum. After all the Broads Society are supposed to be representing us, aren't they?

They always used to.

 

[Poppy]

Vaughan, I doubt that you will receive a supportive reply, sadly. 

[Vaughan]

News update.

I have just had a PM to tell me that the long term future of Thorpe Green may not be as black as I have painted it. 

This of course is good news, so I shall leave out that paragraph, except perhaps to emphasise that, for whatever reason, we cannot give up the right to an ancient, common law, public staithe.

Depending on what other comments I may get this evening,   I shall post a revised version of the letter tomorrow morning, for your kind consideration!

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Vaughan, you might find this link interesting:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/785936721494266/permalink/1187048868049714/

In it you will read that the new chairman has been asked whether the previous coziness between the BS & the BA is to continue. At this point in time no firm assertion has been made either way. 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

Vaughan, you might find this link interesting:

 

Thank you for that Peter.

I hope that this shows the difference, in the letter that I am writing. I am asking the Society, through its new chairman, whether it is now prepared to stand up for the same principles that I know it supported so successfully years ago.

A few weeks ago on a different thread, I told a little story - in reply to a question from you - about how Standley Bushell and I persuaded Andrew Lees of the FOE that we were actually all on the same side, and that this went on to be instrumental in saving the Halvergate marshes from deep-dyke digging.

What I didn't mention was that this took place in public meeting, called by the Lord Mayor of Norwich, and that Standley and I were attending, and speaking, as representatives of the Broads Society. He on behalf of private owners and myself on behalf of hire boats. One of the spin-offs of this meeting was that Lord Buxton, the owner of Anglia Television, called in all copies of the film "No Lullaby for Broadland" and had them destroyed.

This was the sort of influence, and respect, that the Broads Society commanded in those days.

I shall be interested to see by their reply - if any - to my letter, whether they still hold a position of influence in Broads matters, nowadays, or whether they have become ineffectual.

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Under 800 members in 2015, the vast majority being from outside the area. Hardly a mandate for influence. At one time membership of the Society read like a who's who of the Broads, not now, regretfully.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

Under 800 members in 2015, the vast majority being from outside the area. Hardly a mandate for influence. At one time membership of the Society read like a who's who of the Broads, not now, regretfully.

 

I have been fascinated to read posts from Robin and others, on a different thread, about the modern use of social media. So are you suggesting that, with its membership, this forum may be able to get its voice heard, by these means, in a more effective way than the Broads Society?

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I have been fascinated to read posts from Robin and others, on a different thread, about the modern use of social media. So are you suggesting that, with its membership, this forum may be able to get its voice heard, by these means, in a more effective way than the Broads Society?

I really don't know the answer to that one. What I do know is that both major forums, plus the one I linked you too, are well read by folk along the rhonds. There can't be much doubt that the internet was an unexpected thorn in the sides of the Authority during the passage of the Broads Bill. It was certainly a useful weapon. Without the forums I firmly believe that the Broads Bill would have been a much more objectionable piece of legislation than it is. We did manage to get eight important clauses either modified or dropped. 

[Poppy]

11 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I have been fascinated to read posts from Robin and others, on a different thread, about the modern use of social media. So are you suggesting that, with its membership, this forum may be able to get its voice heard, by these means, in a more effective way than the Broads Society?

The Broads Society had a member's forum. It was closed, as officers disliked some of the opinions being posted.....

[JennyMorgan]

Poppy is quite right, moderation on the Society's forum was in complete contrast to that of the dear Pesky!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 03 December 2016 at 11:05 PM, Vaughan said:

I have been fascinated to read posts from Robin and others, on a different thread, about the modern use of social media. So are you suggesting that, with its membership, this forum may be able to get its voice heard, by these means, in a more effective way than the Broads Society?

Hi Vaughn,

many people flatly refuse to use social media such as faceache, but they are now in the minority. The GOOD thing about faceache is that it is a completely open forum available to millions. Maybe a social media based society is the way forward, as it has little chance of being interfered with by dictatorial authority?.

 

Vaughn, I've long thought that the BA should be run buy peple such as yourself, and others, some who are members of this forum, who actually live or make their living from our waterway, maybe a new social media based society, preferably called a society, should be run by your good self, and others, such as Peter ( jm ), and others like you. At least we will all know that there will be a society whicvh is standing up, representing us, and looking out for our best interests.