Country File On The Broads

[JennyMorgan]

Apparently BBC's Countryfile is on the Broads next Sunday.

If you would like to inform the BBC that the Broads is NOT legally a national park then their contact e-mail address is:

countryfile@bbc.co.uk

[marshman]

Please PW, can we drop these silly games/? Do you really think Countryfile is going to bother to  try and explain the difference to its viewers?

It is what is and who really cares, other than a tiny handful what its called, especially when it cannot be a full NP without primary legislation. Surely its primarily about what the Broads offer?

But if it encourages others here and even the Courts do not disagree with the title, that must be a bonus. I have no objection to sharing the Broads I love, with those who may come here believing it to be a fully functioning NP - despite the fact I know it is not!

[JennyMorgan]

Sorry Marsh, I cannot accept that it is a silly game. In an ideal world Countryfile will pick up on a potential story, one that goes rather deeper than just the NP issue. Tens of thousands have been spent/wasted by the delusional doctor on his pursuit of his grail, and that alone is an issue well worth highlighting, given the opportunity. If they don't then at least several of us tried.

[addicted]

I don't think for one moment that the BBC will be remote!y interested in the subtle issue of what the Broads are called.Country file will only be interested in wild life  issues and as for anything remotely political the BBC has it's own agenda. Personally I think we could all benefit from the BBC being given a radical shake up and clear out

 

 

Carole

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Carol, hopefully the BBC will pick up on the obvious discontent of many in regard to the NP issue and the BA in general. It is, after all, a countryside issue, especially as the BBC have reported on NP discontent on previous programmes. We shall see, certainly won't be upset if the BBC ignores me or others but there is a story there.

Re the BBC, like the BA, a radical shake up wouldn't go amiss.

[ExMemberBobdog]

6 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

the obvious discontent of many in regard to the NP issue and the BA in general. 

One man and his dog you mean, the overwhelming majority of Broads locals and visitors really couldn't give a stuff.

[JennyMorgan]

37 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

One man and his dog you mean, the overwhelming majority of Broads locals and visitors really couldn't give a stuff.

You know that for a fact?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

You know that for a fact?

I doubt it !! 

[ExMemberBobdog]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

You know that for a fact?

You know it's true.

[JennyMorgan]

I do, just as you know darn well that a great deal more than just a few locals and boaters object to the current set up and the potential threat of Sandford. Deny it if you will but the reality is that I am far from alone in my concerns, and you know that is true 

[Stationerystill]

I agree with Jenny Morgan. There was nothing wrong with the slogan "Britains Magical Waterways" as a marketing tool. This change of name is a Trojan Horse to help usher in a full N.P. status.

[johnb]

By the time most people know or care, it may be too late!!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Stationerystill said:

I agree with Jenny Morgan. There was nothing wrong with the slogan "Britains Magical Waterways" as a marketing tool. This change of name is a Trojan Horse to help usher in a full N.P. status.

Thank you, Stationerystill, you have got it in one.

Along with that full status is the control that the executive craves, 

[JennyMorgan]

Back to Countryfile this Sunday:

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/news/bbc-countryfile-show-to-focus-on-new-broads-reserve-1-5009845

[JennyMorgan]

A friend of mine received this letter only the other day. It rather speaks for itself.

[quo vadis]

And 

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, quo vadis said:

And 

Just to prove a point, the legal status of the Broads is unchanged, it is not a national park. 

[ginbottle]

The fact that they have a pre-printed letter ready to send out to people regarding this certainly speaks volumes!

[ExMemberBobdog]

7 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just to prove a point, the legal status of the Broads is unchanged, it is not a national park. 

Nobody is suggesting otherwise, so what's your point?  The BA have said they want to use the term 'Broads National Park' for marketing purposes, the High Court have ruled they have the right to do so, and now the Secretary of State for the Environment has signed a letter to confirm that's what they are doing.

[MauriceMynah]

I don't believe this!!! Yes we know what the situation IS. Dr Packman knows what the situation IS, Defra knows what the situation IS.

Where the problem lies is "Who wants the situation to be something else in the future?"

Now, at the risk of irritating Marshman (other members with his views are available), I freely admit that I agree with Peter W, in that this ambition is still on the doctor's mind, and that he will use whatever methods he can to achieve this.

If the whole world (apart from us) thinks the Broads is already a National Park, and have little or no knowledge of the ramifications of it becoming one, then how difficult would it be for the Broads Act to be repealed, especially if the nation is thinking about something 'more important' like Brexit for example?

I fully accept that becoming a National Park will not necessarily mean the end of navigation rights   but I too believe it is a distinct possibility that navigational restrictions will come in, lead by the RSPB.

Are we attributing too much power to the Doctor? Maybe, but as is often said, "it is better to weigh the opposition greater that it is."

When the Dr Packman retires, there is nothing to say that this ambition will not be carried by any future leader of the BA. The 'National Park' issue must never be forgotten nor those 'banging on' about it become complacent.

[Polly]

Given that style is frequently presented as, and eventually becomes substance in today's battles for public opinion; and that the Broads NP is firmly based on style; there is every reason to be concerned that the Dr's vanity/legacy project will succeed in becoming a 'fact'.

[JennyMorgan]

Without wishing to give away a confidentiality I have seen evidence that Dr Packman is still pursuing his 'national park vision'.

John, MM, and Polly, wise words. 

[marshman]

Why do I get a sense of deja vu yet again?  When, and if, the shadows become reality, then  I agree you will have been justified in continually banging on , as they say, but I do not see that as a real concern as yet. I think there are better things to worry about, or not as the case may be.

Just two observations.  Am I right therefore in assuming that navigation has been banned in other National parks and secondly whilst you make a great deal of the association between the RSPB and the BA, I think that is based on assumption , rather than fact!  In my experience the BA work closely with the NWT, but much much less so, if at all, with the RSPB.

The NWT seem have a much more relaxed attitude to boating it seems as is evidenced by, to my knowledge, been little or no pressure by them to ban boating on the parts of Hickling they already control? Or have they?

[Timbo]

47 minutes ago, marshman said:

RSPB and the BA, I think that is based on assumption

As part of research in support of an academic paper I had a little look into 'associations' between protagonists. I like to know 'who's doing the talking' in any paper I read.

Interestingly I discovered quite a trail of links professionally and financially between three organisations. The RSPB is a 'collaborator' and Sponsor (their words) of the UEA's via all of their environmental sciences departments...who in turn collaborate with the BA...and of course the BA has a chairman sitting at the RSPB sponsored School of Environmental Sciences at the UEA.

The corporate sponsorship of academia is nothing unusual. Pressure groups, government departments and businesses sponsor universities and doctoral students globally. My own research has in turn been sponsored by various concerns...all have an axe to grind. It runs something like this...'we will sponsor you, here's the money, your research will look into '...' along these '...' lines and just to help out here's your tutor, who we also sponsor, who will guide you in your research. The RSPB spends quite a large amount at the UEA along with several other universities. As I say the corporate sponsorship of further education is nothing new... just extraordinarily 'cosy' in Norfolk, uncomfortably so.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Natural England deserves to be considered too. I have heard it asked by an academic of some repute as to who actually pulls the Doctors strings, I think a not unrealistic question.

As for the shadows becoming reality, I rather thank that they nearly did. Doubters only have to look into Hansard, the in depth record of Parliamentary proceedings, and search out the Broads Bill and the Broads National Park Bill to realise just what the Doctors intentions were at the time. Go further than that and dig out the relevant consultation papers, interesting reading. In my opinion the bloke is a control freak. He has sought out whether the Broads are man-made and whether rights of passage exist over such water. He has argued the toss over whether the Broads is tidal for exactly the same reason. The man's agenda is abundantly clear, if folk can be bothered to search.