Jump to content
Print your own personalised forum logo

Arnchant

Bound2Please

By Bound2Please
in Broads Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bound2Please

Bound2Please

Posted
Posted

KingfishersTime

  • Full Member
  •  
  • KingfishersTime
  • Full Members
  • 219
  • 155 posts

I guess compliant with the terms of the injunction and any BA enforcement action!!

Like
  •  

KingfishersTime

  • Full Member
  •  
  • KingfishersTime
  • Full Members
  • 219
  • 155 posts

Katie

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Katie
  • Members
  • 107
  • 54 posts

Interesting to see if this results in any changes-- likely? 

Like
  •  

riyadhcrew

  • Moderator
  •  
  • riyadhcrew
  • Moderators
  • team_staff.png.857386435248c92931d314d63
  • 3,263
  • 1,995 posts
  • Location: Bali, Indonesia

That's worth a read. Just keep plenty of toilet paper handy. lol.

Boaters

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Boaters
  • Full Members
  • 249
  • 876 posts
  • Location: North Norfolk

In this article it includes an EDP poll ( following the  advert ) as  to should they be elected ,currently showing 90% voting YES for election ,makes .Interesting reading !

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-investigation-into-complaints-1-5191875

Poppy reacted to this
Like
  •  
 

Bound2Please

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Bound2Please
  • Moderators
  • team_staff.png.857386435248c92931d314d63
  • 3,747
  • 2,378 posts
  • Location: Clacton on Sea

Interesting read that

Charlie

 
  •  

Poppy

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Poppy
  • Full Members
  • 6,833
  • 3,177 posts
  • Location: Nr Norwich

I dare say the usual suspects will be along soon in their support. However the fact is that the BA exists on PUBLIC money, and acts in an undeniably undemocratic fashion !

JennyMorgan, Polly and Timbo reacted to this
Like
  •  

MauriceMynah

  • Full Member
  •  
  • MauriceMynah
  • Full Members
  • 6,198
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location: Sawbridgeworth

Why do I not trust an article that, on the face of it, is saying what I want to hear? I don't know, but trust it I don't. Has Archant fallen out with Dr Packman?, or is this the opening gambit of some new chess game they're playing.

The "investigation" lasted a whole two days, which is a massive amount of time for any journalist from that paper, at least fourty seven and a bit hours longer than any other article I've read there.  

But seriously, am I the only one here who is thinking "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"?

Edited to say... Poppy, I dare say you're right.   :) 

Now edited to change the above eddited to edited.

Timbo reacted to this
Like
  •  

w-album

  • Full Member
  •  
  • w-album
  • Full Members
  • 831
  • 643 posts
On 9/13/2017 at 09:31, MauriceMynah said:

 

The "investigation" lasted a whole two days, which is a massive amount of time for any journalist from that paper, at least fourty seven and a bit hours longer than any other article I've read there.  

 

It also concerned me that the investigation only took two days, it should have taken weeks if not months

addicted reacted to this
Like
  •  

NorfolkNog

  • Full Member
  •  
  • NorfolkNog
  • Full Members
  • 3,933
  • 3,239 posts
  • Location: Darkest Yorkshire

Interesting read indeed. Wonder why the Waveney MP seems at odds with the others? MP' s are possibly best placed to force change. 

Like
  •  

Timbo

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Timbo
  • Events and Promo Team
  • 6,053
  • 2,312 posts
  • Location: Lincolnshire
On 9/13/2017 at 09:31, MauriceMynah said:

Why do I not trust an article that, on the face of it, is saying what I want to hear? I don't know, but trust it I don't. Has Archant fallen out with Dr Packman?, or is this the opening gambit of some new chess game they're playing.

The "investigation" lasted a whole two days, which is a massive amount of time for any journalist from that paper, at least fourty seven and a bit hours longer than any other article I've read there.  

But seriously, am I the only one here who is thinking "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"?

Edited to say... Poppy, I dare say you're right.   :) 

Now edited to change the above eddited to edited.

Is it 'great minds' or 'fools seldom'? Which ever, I agree totally with MM on this one. Alarm bells started ringing as soon as I read the article.

Just like MM my very first reaction was 'who at Archant has fallen out with whom at the BA?'. I also chuckled at their in depth two-day investigation. Any journalist worth their salt would have been compiling snippets of information regarding BA shenanigans for years.

A couple of days ago I noticed something on Twitter. I don't have many 'followers' on TwitFace so it peeked my interest when I received a new one in the form of a Freelance Journalist for the EDP. May be coincidental but I did go all 'Poirot' and noticed several sign ups across quite a few social media platforms of several Broads based EDP journos.

Reading the comments under the article I was left thinking how many misguided posts were suddenly trying to push the NP angle. Yeah, yeah I know I'm anti-National Park for the Broads, but then I've worked with and on behalf of real ones around the world for some thirty years, so I tend to have a better idea of both their advantages, shortcomings and suitability for purpose in context.

Hmm waiting for the other shoe to drop I think! And in true Goon Show fashion, I think there might be three thumps!

 

Poppy, Polly and riyadhcrew reacted to this
Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad

Annoyingly I had posted this as a stand alone thread, grrrrrrr.

It is relevant and it is important as any outcome could affect us all whatever our allegiance or interest.

Someone fell out with the BA? Probably not, Archant has employed a new reporter, from South Africa apparently, who's investigative style of reporting is very much his trade mark so to speak. Long overdue at Archant in my sincere opinion.

Annoyingly Peter Aldous MP claims that he has never had a constituent make a complaint to him about the Authority. Mr Aldous is my local MP & I know damn well that he's had complaints, from me!   

 

ChrisB, addicted, Jonzo and 2 others reacted to this
Like
  •  

Poppy

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Poppy
  • Full Members
  • 6,833
  • 3,177 posts
  • Location: Nr Norwich
On 9/13/2017 at 12:45, JennyMorgan said:

Annoyingly I had posted this as a stand alone thread, grrrrrrr.

It is relevant and it is important as any outcome could affect us all whatever our allegiance or interest.

Someone fell out with the BA? Probably not, Archant has employed a new reporter, from South Africa apparently, who's investigative style of reporting is very much his trade mark so to speak. Long overdue at Archant in my sincere opinion.

Annoyingly Peter Aldous MP claims that he has never had a constituent make a complaint to him about the Authority. Mr Aldous is my local MP & I know damn well that he's had complaints, from me!   

 

One only has to look at his allegiance  and realise that his lips must have been moving when he spoke to the EDP.....:default_biggrin:

 

Edit - My MP, (Richard Bacon) hasn't been quoted. Wonder why......

Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad

I now know for a fact that Mr Aldous has had complaints from several people, even members of the Authority (now there's a clue!). 

The usual suspects will, I don't doubt, try and play this one down but the harsh reality is that this article from Archant is long overdue, especially after revelations regarding controls being exercised in regard to County Council representation on BA committees. 

Poppy and NorfolkNog reacted to this
Like
  •  

dnks34

  • Full Member
  •  
  • dnks34
  • Full Members
  • 778
  • 937 posts

Surely this subject warrants a thread all of its own and not lumped in with a thread that started about electricity!

JennyMorgan, Polly and Poppy reacted to this
Like
  •  

Boaters

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Boaters
  • Full Members
  • 249
  • 876 posts
  • Location: North Norfolk

dnks34  thats why I posted this under a " new topic " heading this morning as I felt it was important as it raised issues that I think many people were unaware of and would be interested in ,together with the ongoing poll showing the large number of people who are obviously against the present system .it will obviously not be read by that many being on page twelve of the existing thread covering other issues.:default_blink:

dnks34 and Poppy reacted to this
Like
  •  

Polly

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Polly
  • Events and Promo Team
  • 1,983
  • 2,392 posts

Yes your post got me here. I had stopped reading this thread.

My thought? We did an 'in depth investigation' so now let the little people feel say their piece and move on...'nothing to see here' 

Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad
18 hours ago, Boaters said:

dnks34  thats why I posted this under a " new topic " heading this morning as I felt it was important as it raised issues that I think many people were unaware of and would be interested in ,together with the ongoing poll showing the large number of people who are obviously against the present system .it will obviously not be read by that many being on page twelve of the existing thread covering other issues.:default_blink:

So that's two of us who posted this one as a 'new topic'. I don't often question the moderation on this forum but since this is obviously an important issue and any outcome is likely to impact on us all then, in my honest opinion, this topic deserved to be a stand alone one.

Poppy and dnks34 reacted to this
Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad

For those of you who haven't yet mastered the voting facility on the EDP web page at this very moment in time over 90% of 770 readers have voted in favour of elections at the Broads Authority. I don't know how voting will be achieved but it does appear that a lot of people are less than enchanted with the Authority as is. 

Ricardo, Poppy and NorfolkNog reacted to this
Like
  •  

NorfolkNog

  • Full Member
  •  
  • NorfolkNog
  • Full Members
  • 3,933
  • 3,239 posts
  • Location: Darkest Yorkshire

Yep, done it.

793 now.

This is the link to the page JM is referring to. The poll is about two thirds down. You don't need to register or log in, its very simple. Hope Mr Aldous reads it!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-investigation-into-complaints-1-5191875

 

JennyMorgan reacted to this
Like
  •  

batrabill

  • Full Member
  •  
  • batrabill
  • Full Members
  • 62
  • 59 posts

The outcry may be people shouting "shut up about your personal obsession with the Broads Authority"

 

Like
  •  

Timbo

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Timbo
  • Events and Promo Team
  • 6,053
  • 2,312 posts
  • Location: Lincolnshire

Please let's try and keep the thread friendly so that we can keep the discussion open? I know it's an emotive subject and one that concerns a lot of us personally, professionally and financially but I would like the opportunity to listen to reasoned argument, from all sides of the debate. 

You, Polly, stumpy and 4 others reacted to this
Thanks ×
  •  

Ricardo

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Ricardo
  • Full Members
  • 316
  • 261 posts
12 hours ago, Timbo said:

Please let's try and keep the thread friendly so that we can keep the discussion open? I know it's an emotive subject and one that concerns a lot of us personally, professionally and financially but I would like the opportunity to listen to reasoned argument, from all sides of the debate. 

Agreed , I really can't see that anyone who has any dealings with BA be they a supporter of BA or not can seriously think there isn't something very wrong at the moment , how deep it goes is anyone's guess but it does need sorting out one way or another .

You, Polly and Poppy reacted to this
Thanks ×
  •  

marshman

  • Full Member
  •  
  • marshman
  • Full Members
  • 895
  • 861 posts

Whats the point of even referring to a poll in the EDP when it is not at all representative as the majority of people voting will either have an axe to grind or agree that the BA should elected - the vast majority, like me, just will not bother!

If you think its bad now, just wait until it has direct elections and you see what happens then! I guarantee it will be worse - sadly!!!

And oh by the way, there are many , many people who DO NOT have issues with the BA - Ricardo that statement of yours is just so untrue! I deal with them on a regular basis and have a few niggles now and again but no major issues!

Like
  •  

MauriceMynah

  • Full Member
  •  
  • MauriceMynah
  • Full Members
  • 6,198
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location: Sawbridgeworth

Ooo, it looks like there's a "part two" in the EDP.  As with part one, I cannot stop the cynic in me wondering what's going on. Not with the BA but with Archant.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-row-over-tent-at-waveney-river-centre-1-5193537

Like
  •  

Poppy

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Poppy
  • Full Members
  • 6,833
  • 3,177 posts
  • Location: Nr Norwich
On 9/13/2017 at 09:31, MauriceMynah said:

Why do I not trust an article that, on the face of it, is saying what I want to hear? I don't know, but trust it I don't. Has Archant fallen out with Dr Packman?, or is this the opening gambit of some new chess game they're playing.

The "investigation" lasted a whole two days, which is a massive amount of time for any journalist from that paper, at least fourty seven and a bit hours longer than any other article I've read there.  

But seriously, am I the only one here who is thinking "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"?

Edited to say... Poppy, I dare say you're right.   :) 

Now edited to change the above eddited to edited.

It now appears that 'two days' refers to the time over which the story was to be published.

Here is 'chapter two'.   http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-row-over-tent-at-waveney-river-centre-1-5193537

 

 

Like
  •  

Poppy

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Poppy
  • Full Members
  • 6,833
  • 3,177 posts
  • Location: Nr Norwich
17 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

So that's two of us who posted this one as a 'new topic'. I don't often question the moderation on this forum but since this is obviously an important issue and any outcome is likely to impact on us all then, in my honest opinion, this topic deserved to be a stand alone one.

Fully agree JM ! I can't begin to understand what was in the mind of the mod who chose this course.

Like
  •  

MauriceMynah

  • Full Member
  •  
  • MauriceMynah
  • Full Members
  • 6,198
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location: Sawbridgeworth

Oh I can understand it, I'm just not sure I agree with it.  On the other hand, it's a bit "early days". I would suggest letting it run here and see how it goes before trying to get another thread established and approved.

It also gives us time to think of a title for the new thread. How about "Archant to divorce BA on grounds of mental cruelty" or "BA to divorce Archant on grounds of desertion"

DaveB, Polly and Timbo reacted to this
Like
  •  

Ricardo

  • Full Member
  •  
  • Ricardo
  • Full Members
  • 316
  • 261 posts
4 hours ago, marshman said:

Whats the point of even referring to a poll in the EDP when it is not at all representative as the majority of people voting will either have an axe to grind or agree that the BA should elected - the vast majority, like me, just will not bother!

If you think its bad now, just wait until it has direct elections and you see what happens then! I guarantee it will be worse - sadly!!!

And oh by the way, there are many , many people who DO NOT have issues with the BA - Ricardo that statement of yours is just so untrue! I deal with them on a regular basis and have a few niggles now and again but no major issues!

Marshman it could be untrue in your eyes but in many others it's not , just because things are all Rosie for one person doesn't mean that they are for everyone , hence the fact there is a problem at yare house  that needs sorting out .

Like
  •  

ranworthbreeze

  • Moderator
  •  
  • ranworthbreeze
  • Moderators
  • team_staff.png.857386435248c92931d314d63
  • 5,306
  • 6,980 posts
  • Location: Sheffield

Debate is good, but lets keep it friendly.

You, Timbo, Gracie and 1 other reacted to this
Thanks ×
  •  

MauriceMynah

  • Full Member
  •  
  • MauriceMynah
  • Full Members
  • 6,198
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location: Sawbridgeworth

It was ever thus. There is a problem so something has to change. No problem there, but what is it that has to change? I am reminded of that old adage "Be careful what you wish for"

Should the CEO of the BA be voted in? If so by whom? and how often?. 

If the CEO of the BA should not be voted in but some others should be, then in addition to the above questions add Which ones?

It is inevitable that the CEO of the BA will be unpopular with some people for some reasons but electing someone to the post is not the answer. Ensuring accountability is certainly one way forwards. Financial auditing and comparing that audit with the CEO's job description and the quango's role is another.

To do this means taking on Whitehall, and if you want to do that, watch Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister first. Dated but frightening none the less.

 

You, Timbo and JennyMorgan reacted to this
Thanks ×
  •  

 

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad
4 hours ago, marshman said:

Whats the point of even referring to a poll in the EDP when it is not at all representative as the majority of people voting will either have an axe to grind or agree that the BA should elected - the vast majority, like me, just will not bother!

If you think its bad now, just wait until it has direct elections and you see what happens then! I guarantee it will be worse - sadly!!!

And oh by the way, there are many , many people who DO NOT have issues with the BA - Ricardo that statement of yours is just so untrue! I deal with them on a regular basis and have a few niggles now and again but no major issues!

The poll is perfectly valid as everyone has a right to vote, irrespective of their feelings for the Authority, or at least for the way it appoints its committee members. 

 

Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad
4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Oh I can understand it, I'm just not sure I agree with it.  On the other hand, it's a bit "early days". I would suggest letting it run here and see how it goes before trying to get another thread established and approved.

It also gives us time to think of a title for the new thread. How about "Archant to divorce BA on grounds of mental cruelty" or "BA to divorce Archant on grounds of desertion"

We really don't have any option but to let it run! John and Poppy, I agree with both of you but not entirely hence no 'like'.

Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad
2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

It was ever thus. There is a problem so something has to change. No problem there, but what is it that has to change? I am reminded of that old adage "Be careful what you wish for"

Should the CEO of the BA be voted in? If so by whom? and how often?. 

If the CEO of the BA should not be voted in but some others should be, then in addition to the above questions add Which ones?

It is inevitable that the CEO of the BA will be unpopular with some people for some reasons but electing someone to the post is not the answer. Ensuring accountability is certainly one way forwards. Financial auditing and comparing that audit with the CEO's job description and the quango's role is another.

To do this means taking on Whitehall, and if you want to do that, watch Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister first. Dated but frightening none the less.

 

Not so sure that it's an issue of popularity, rather it's one of trust. In my eyes Dr Packman has accrued an excess of control and needs emasculation. Committee members have to be chosen by those that they represent rather than by the Authority or its CEO. This is a basic and right requirement, just how it could be achieved is the problem though!

Like
  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad

MauriceMynah

  • Full Member
  •  
  • MauriceMynah
  • Full Members
  • 6,198
  • 3,990 posts
  • Location: Sawbridgeworth

Peter, That link went up 10 posts back...twice... Mine and then Poppy's (who's linky worked unlike mine)

  •  

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad

JennyMorgan

  • The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!
  •  
  • JennyMorgan
  • Full Members
  • 11,014
  • 8,368 posts
  • Location: Oulton Broad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timbo

Timbo

Posted
Posted

I suppose like many people out there my direct contact with Broads Authority has been nothing but positive. The Rangers out on the water, the hero diving in to save the little girl, the guys in the tolls office who went the extra mile dealing with legalities after Uncle Albert passed. The Boots On The Ground.

Where I have a problem personally and professionally is with executive processes. Personally, I don't like the way in which the legislation which governs the Authority is being illegally redefined (legislation is legally defined in the enactment and the guidance issued by Parliament on that legislation) by the Authority. The massaging of committees, removal of members who disagree with the executive, the 'packing' of committees with 'yes' men and women is something that I'm familiar with (it's third rate Polytechnic Council politics) but find distasteful.

Hovering in the back of my mind, just like MM, is the question 'what's happened between the BA Executive and Archant'? The EDP has always paid 'lip service' to the Authority. Something has changed. We have all known for a very long time that some members of the BA, some locals and visitors have not been happy with the current administration. The incidents reported in the articles are not 'news' to any of us really. No matter which side of the fence regarding National Park status you sit on, we all know that the waters are troubled.

To me, there seems to be an attempt to polarise stake holders in the Broads. If you are a boater then you can't be a conservationist, if you are a conservationist then you can't be interested in the promotion of the tourist industry. In an economic climate where we are about to lose a hell of a lot of funding from Europe, we need strong leadership, a leadership that will combine all of the stakeholders in one common interest which is the preservation of The Broads.

Professionally, I find the whole executive mess to be amateurish at best, at worst I suspect a concerted effort to undermine the legislation covering the Broads. I note in the comments below the repeated calls from a few misguided souls for putting the Broads under full National Park status using the NP legislation to protect 'conservation'. I use those words carefully. I suppose it's my thirty years of experience in precious and protected landscapes working with NP's in various corners of the world that gives me a unique perspective. The tools for correct and safe management of Broadland do not exist within the NP framework. However, the Broads Act contains the exact framework, legislative, administrative and enforcement tools, if used as intended, for correct and safe governance.

It's not just the Broads Authority that seems to be coming adrift at the seams. Conservationists don't have a clue as to the differences between conservation, preservation and reconstruction. Boaters are divided over tolls, moorings, navigation. Anglers are trapped between the BA and the EA. Locals and businesses are caught in limbo between local councils and the BA. We should all be working together towards one goal....The Broads.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Poppy

Poppy

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Timbo said:

I suppose like many people out there my direct contact with Broads Authority has been nothing but positive. The Rangers out on the water, the hero diving in to save the little girl, the guys in the tolls office who went the extra mile dealing with legalities after Uncle Albert passed. The Boots On The Ground.

Where I have a problem personally and professionally is with executive processes. Personally, I don't like the way in which the legislation which governs the Authority is being illegally redefined (legislation is legally defined in the enactment and the guidance issued by Parliament on that legislation) by the Authority. The massaging of committees, removal of members who disagree with the executive, the 'packing' of committees with 'yes' men and women is something that I'm familiar with (it's third rate Polytechnic Council politics) but find distasteful.

Hovering in the back of my mind, just like MM, is the question 'what's happened between the BA Executive and Archant'? The EDP has always paid 'lip service' to the Authority. Something has changed. We have all known for a very long time that some members of the BA, some locals and visitors have not been happy with the current administration. The incidents reported in the articles are not 'news' to any of us really. No matter which side of the fence regarding National Park status you sit on, we all know that the waters are troubled.

To me, there seems to be an attempt to polarise stake holders in the Broads. If you are a boater then you can't be a conservationist, if you are a conservationist then you can't be interested in the promotion of the tourist industry. In an economic climate where we are about to lose a hell of a lot of funding from Europe, we need strong leadership, a leadership that will combine all of the stakeholders in one common interest which is the preservation of The Broads.

Professionally, I find the whole executive mess to be amateurish at best, at worst I suspect a concerted effort to undermine the legislation covering the Broads. I note in the comments below the repeated calls from a few misguided souls for putting the Broads under full National Park status using the NP legislation to protect 'conservation'. I use those words carefully. I suppose it's my thirty years of experience in precious and protected landscapes working with NP's in various corners of the world that gives me a unique perspective. The tools for correct and safe management of Broadland do not exist within the NP framework. However, the Broads Act contains the exact framework, legislative, administrative and enforcement tools, if used as intended, for correct and safe governance.

It's not just the Broads Authority that seems to be coming adrift at the seams. Conservationists don't have a clue as to the differences between conservation, preservation and reconstruction. Boaters are divided over tolls, moorings, navigation. Anglers are trapped between the BA and the EA. Locals and businesses are caught in limbo between local councils and the BA. We should all be working together towards one goal....The Broads.

Very well put Timbo! Exactly, divide and seperate is the plan !

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JennyMorgan

JennyMorgan

Posted
Posted

To muddy the water further another interesting ARCHANT revelation:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-spends-thousands-in-row-over-boat-toll-adjo-1-5194361?utm_medium=email&utm_source=eshot&utm_campaign=newsletterlink

What does pee me off is that one individual has cost toll payers £30,000 plus but then I ask myself what I would do if I were in the same position and I know the answer, I would do the same. However, on this one I do appreciate the Authority's actions. If they were to win this latest case would they then be able to reclaim all their legal costs? For both sides it is obviously a point of principle but it is costing us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dnks34

dnks34

Posted
Posted

When all said and done his boat never leaves the basin,  I fully support him.

If the Authority learned to use discretion where its appropriate to do so rather than consistantly act with such petulance they wouldnt have wasted any money on it, if the barge owner had been professionally represented it may have stopped them in their tracks long ago.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JennyMorgan

JennyMorgan

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Me simple, Me no understand... ^^^

Understandable, and I mean no disrespect by that, it's not clear cut by any stretch of the imagination. 

Dnks, the barge never leaves the moorings, but it could. Nevertheless I do know of other instances where the Authority does appear to have looked the other way, boats on Hoveton Great Broad for example.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrewcook

Andrewcook

Posted
Posted

As I don't live any where near the Norfolk Broads but want it preserved for the future.  I do have ben Interested in what B A and Parliament have achieved sweet nothing and that Packman needs to go  and put some in Charge who can get the whole thing sorted out with the Legist ration also  that MP he should have helped things but all he wants to do is further his nest while in Parliament since I've Voted out of the E U what was what was it like before we went in to the E U that is what I want to know?

Andrew Cook  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JennyMorgan

JennyMorgan

Posted
Posted

Andrew, before we went into the EU the Broads was a vibrant holiday resort and something of an open sewer. That it is no longer either is probably not down to any one organisation but under its first chief executive the Authority did, along with the Environment Agency, do some stirling work for which we must be grateful. I too voted for out of the EU but whilst it may have come up with some Tom Foolery it has also funded a number of worthwhile projects within The Broads. Actually I'm not convinced that what happened in the past is entirely relevant. What is relevant is that the present CEO has manouvered himself into a position of excess control and authority. I agree with you in that the Broads needs either a group or individual who can extract the Broads and the Authority from the unfortunate position that both are in right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul

Paul

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dnks34 said:

What I find most worrying is how long his reign has continued,  I sincerely hope the end is in sight.

Whatever your opinion of the Authority or the man the point is a good one. Should the head of a National Park Authority, or even the Authority governing a member of the National Park Family (get that in before Jenny tells me off!) serve a maximum term? Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JennyMorgan

JennyMorgan

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Paul said:

Whatever your opinion of the Authority or the man the point is a good one. Should the head of a National Park Authority, or even the Authority governing a member of the National Park Family (get that in before Jenny tells me off!) serve a maximum term? Thoughts?

I sincerely doubt that Dr Packman will go unwillingly whilst the threat of a huge compo claim must surely provide him with a high degree of security. However, perhaps his successor's contract could allow termination should The Authority members pass a unanimous vote to that effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dnks34

dnks34

Posted
Posted

Why would there be threat of a compensation claim? 

If a review uncovered wrong doing on his part he wouldnt have grounds for unfair dismissal in that sense or have I missed something. 

The press has states that certain members were removed due to their actions being damaging to the Authority.

It seems to me the damage to the Authority is mostly caused by Dr Packman himself. 

Is it not about this time of year we all start waiting to hear about the latest toll increase, would he dare?! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JennyMorgan

JennyMorgan

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

Why would there be threat of a compensation claim? 

If a review uncovered wrong doing on his part he wouldnt have grounds for unfair dismissal in that sense or have I missed something. 

The press has states that certain members were removed due to their actions being damaging to the Authority.

It seems to me the damage to the Authority is mostly caused by Dr Packman himself. 

Is it not about this time of year we all start waiting to hear about the latest toll increase, would he dare?! 

 

Quite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Sponsors

    Norfolk Broads Network is run by volunteers - You can help us run it by making a donation

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.

  I accept