Rnli Safety Initiative

[JennyMorgan]

This looks good!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/rnli-appeal-for-waterside-volunteers-to-help-save-lives-on-norfolk-and-suffolk-broads-waterways-1-5103671

However 'tis marred by a comment from Yare House, grrrrrr.

I quote Dr Packman of the Broads Authority: 
Broads Authority Chief Executive John Packman welcomed the initiative and said: “We want everyone to enjoy the waterways within our national park safely.”
Our national park, Dr Packman? For a kick off the Broads is not legally a national park, secondly the Broads is NOT bloody well yours.

[HemsbyPie]

Not sure if this is a post congratulating the RNLI for their attempts to help save lives on the Broads or just another excuse to moan bout the Broads not being a national part 

[JennyMorgan]

27 minutes ago, HemsbyPie said:

Not sure if this is a post congratulating the RNLI for their attempts to help save lives on the Broads or just another excuse to moan bout the Broads not being a national part 

Perhaps both

Actually not moaning about the Broads not being a national park, I rather like it that way!

[Gallipoli]

It looks like a good initiative, kudos to the RNLI, and can we put the national park thing to rest? We all know it isn't.

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[JennyMorgan]

All credit to the RNLI. It is just a shame that Dr Packman has ridden on the back of a perfectly good initiative in order to pump out his propaganda. Hopefully the BA will also put it to rest, only we know that they won't. In my opinion it was a crass attempt to further promote his vision/agenda, had it not been made then it would not have been made an issue, plain and simple. 

[merlin65uk]

Please...

As a new member to this forum, can I ask that the 'debate' about national park status be put to bed?

Jenny we all know how you feel by your signature, why drag it into so many posts about other things..

I'm trying to be polite here.

[ExMemberBobdog]

Hey JM, here's an idea.  How about you let 'us' enjoy 'our' national park, and you enjoy whatever it is you enjoy; assuming you enjoy anything but banging on about this now very tired old theme on every thread you think you can establish a tenuous link on.

[JennyMorgan]

Here's the deal, folks, ensure that Dr Packman  refrains from pushing his uncalled for agenda at every given opportunity, plain & simple.

[batrabill]

Perfectly reasonable to have a debate about NP status. It's dragging it into other subjects where it is, at best tangential to the real subject. Please stop. 

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2017-07-14/staff-on-norfolk-broads-offered-free-training-to-prevent-drowning/

[Vaughan]

It's debatable, isn't it? I have just read the article and there is nothing wrong with it, until that last, leaden sentence.

This is an RNLI initiative, nothing to do with the BA, and so why does Packman have to grab the little national park opportunity? Why does he even have to be quoted on it? Or was it also the EDP that was grabbing the opportunity? I notice it is not mentioned in the second, ITV piece that Peter quotes.

I would ask you, Bobdog, are you, or have you ever been, a member of the BA? I ask this because Peter has, so I, for one, trust him to know what he is talking about. I also respect his passion for "his" Norfolk Broads. And mine.

18 hours ago, Bobdog said:

Hey JM, here's an idea.  How about you let 'us' enjoy 'our' national park, and you enjoy whatever it is you enjoy; assuming you enjoy anything but banging on about this now very tired old theme on every thread you think you can establish a tenuous link on.

Meantime, I think your post, that I quote, comes too close to "flaming" and "trolling" which does not conform to guidelines, at least not on this forum.

[merlin65uk]

Just now, Vaughan said:

It's debatable, isn't it? I have just read the article and there is nothing wrong with it, until that last, leaden sentence.

This is an RNLI initiative, nothing to do with the BA, and so why does Packman have to grab the little national park opportunity? Why does he even have to be quoted on it? Or was it also the EDP that was grabbing the opportunity? I notice it is not mentioned in the second, ITV piece that Peter quotes.

I would ask you, Bobdog, are you, or have you ever been, a member of the BA? I ask this because Peter has, so I, for one, trust him to know what he is talking about. I also respect his passion for "his" Norfolk Broads. And mine.

Meantime, I think your post, that I quote, comes too close to "flaming" and "trolling" which does not conform to guidelines, at least not on this forum.

It appears to me Bobdog, that us 'relative newbies' here are not allowed to voice our opinion on any subject, well debated on this forum.

Being accused of "trolling" because we want less biased views and much less hijacking other members valuable posts.

As for "flaming" I can see nothing in your post that even comes close to it.

Please JennyMorgan & Vaughan accept that other members on here will have different views and ideas to yourselves and as an open (Non subscription) forum, we all have a right to express our thoughts.

Can we get this post back to it's original, well intentioned subject?

[Vaughan]

Just now, merlin65uk said:

Can we get this post back to it's original, well intentioned subject?

As you are new to the forum I would point out that Peter is the "OP". Original poster. So this is his thread and his subject.

As For Bobdog's remarks, they add nothing to the subject being discussed and are simply a personal attack against Peter himself, which is not acceptable.

If you have something apposite to discuss on this thread, you are more than welcome!

[riyadhcrew]

Gentlemen, please turn the thermostat down on this one. This is an open forum and we pride ourselves at allowing open discussions and sometimes ''heated'' debates.

However, there is a limit and you are very close to that limit. Please understand that there is absolutely no favoritism on the forum and everyone  will be treated the same. 

[JennyMorgan]

By the way, Merlin, welcome to this forum and to this thread. I'm afraid that there are two very distinct schools of thought on the national park's issue both here and elsewhere. I don't intend to dig up all the various threads that have reared their head since Dr Packman embarked on his national park vision but if you feel the need to be informed then I'd be only too happy to fill in the details! In the meantime enjoy the forum and just ignore me when I'm on my high horse. Hopefully we can now revert to the friendly forum that we normally are.

[grendel]

I always think the good thing about this forum is we can all generally agree to disagree and leave it at that.