National Park? Does It Matter?

[marshman]

Pete - perhaps he was just winding you up a bit like others do but you have to understand what Batrabill is saying in his last point?? I do not have the info available but just for example, could you even hazard a guess at the value of Clives waterborne business or Barbara Greasleys?? Perhaps a word in someones ear could add them to the list of industries to be nationalised and then the taxpayer could foot the bill?

I would not accuse you of lying but even you have to be a bit sceptical of the value of his comments given your knowledge of the Broads and associated industries and the value thereof! 

But Charlie, I really do take issue with you on your point - I know nothing of your past but if you were around in the late 1960's and early 70's you would NOT have posted that - effectively the Broads were "dead" and the change to todays position has not occurred by nature alone but by action to rid the rivers of human effluent, not just from boats but from raw sewage being discharged. The Broads have changed for the better by leaps and bounds but that was not a natural change - they just had to do what they did or today it would still have been an open cesspit!!

 

[Gracie]

2 hours ago, Bound2Please said:

All who support these bans, for their only their own benefit, peace and comfort. Who dont have to earn a living from the area, are in fact killing off generations of hard work, that has kept people employed and with  roofs over their heads.

So its ok to break up communities, families and in fact any thing that doesn't effect you YET, as long as wildlife gets nice easy life. Well I was brought up in urban countryside, we had woods dense woods scrub land parks with deer running wild, in fact they still are, the woods are smaller. But the wildlife is as abundant if not more than in the 50's and 60's.

So my view is leave the broads real national parks to get along as they dis 50 years ago. Where did this country go so wrong. Ah yes I remember to many university bods that think they know better than the folks that have looked after nature side by side with getting on with their lives for 100's of years.

Conclusion Mother nature has her own way of righting wrongs, dont interfere with her let just do her own thing PLEASE.

May the broads be the magical experience they was when I was kid and my parents were kids, and for my great great grandkids.

Charlie

So very well put Charlie, I couldn't agree more with every word you've said, wise words indeed 

Leave our Broads alone

Grace

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

2. There are hundreds (thousands) of boats on Windermere - so to extrapolate from this example to a total ban of boats on the Broads is absurd - some would say a falsehood - or some might say a lie.

 So what would you say to a new Broads NP legislation that decided to ban internal combustion engines from the Broads? After all, the Government have recently announced their intention to ban them from the roads?

 I am rather tired of those who wander into this forum occasionally when nothing much is happening on "the other side of the river", and wish to provoke dispute by suggesting that those who are offering informed debate, based on a lifetime of experience, are liars.

If you have nothing better to offer than that, please keep it yourself, or confine it to the "south bank".

By the way Marshman, if you want to suggest that the Broads in the 1960s were a cess-pit created by the over-use of boats, then start up another thread and I will discuss it with you.

 

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

I just wish that I could like Vaughan's last post several times or more.

Re that cesspool allegation, in many respects the Broads is a great deal 'cleaner' than in 1960 but we have little to thank the Authority for in that regard, in truth the Environment Agency and local drainage boards are the folk to praise, 'tis them wot done it!

[batrabill]

59 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

 So what would you say to a new Broads NP legislation that decided to ban internal combustion engines from the Broads? After all, the Government have recently announced their intention to ban them from the roads?

 I am rather tired of those who wander into this forum occasionally when nothing much is happening on "the other side of the river", and wish to provoke dispute by suggesting that those who are offering informed debate, based on a lifetime of experience, are liars.

If you have nothing better to offer than that, please keep it yourself, or confine it to the "south bank".

By the way Marshman, if you want to suggest that the Broads in the 1960s were a cess-pit created by the over-use of boats, then start up another thread and I will discuss it with you.

 

 

 

You have always struck me as a very knowledgeable and very likeable character Vaughan, but on this I think you are adopting an attitude which is quite unreasonable.

You, and others, get quite cross when the "orthodoxy" of this website is challenged. Your experience makes you knowledgeable but it does not necessarily make you right.

Like many, I read much more than I post. I post when I see something which I think is wrong being unchallenged quite substantially because people know the story of response they will get.

I dislike bullying and orthodoxy - it prevents real debate.

This is not the first time I have been criticised for arguing (I apologise if your remarks were not aimed at me - blame my arrogance) - a certain Jenny Morgan has previously commented that I was "pointlessly arguing", I forget the subject but I suspect it was the same one.

Another way of putting it is YOU DON'T TOLERATE PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH YOU.

[Vaughan]

11 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Your experience makes you knowledgeable but it does not necessarily make you right.

I thoroughly agree with you.

That is what a discussion forum is for.

But you will never get your point across by accusing others of being liars.

[marshman]

Vaughan - I love exaggeration to try and prove a point - as do others!

Indeed the Broads were NOT akin to a cesspit but they were in a pretty torrid state - my sister and I used to have a "game" of counting the condoms to be seen! Sad I know but with no internet what else was there to do. Fishing as I recall was pretty poor too - or was that me??

But you know have introduced the spectre of another Broads Bill - noone has ever suggested that and I am sure the powers that be are plenty busy enough especially as they keep saying the the Broads are not, and will not be, a National Park BUT can be called one. Can the detractors not spot the difference?

I will readily join the "anti" brigade when that changes and not until!

[batrabill]

Vaughan - we are all told every time we go on Social Media, or read the EDP that calling the Broads a National Park is a LIE!

However, the National Parks calls it a National Park. It is legally allowed to call itself a National Park, and is quite obviously a de facto National Park - but different from the others.

So I think you should understand that I am using the tactic "your side" themselves use.

I could put at the bottom of my posts - The Norfolk Broads are legally allowed to call themselves a National Park in marketing material - if you are reading it on the internet then it is marketing - anything else is a LIE!

But I don't.

Can I suggest, since you have made a personal criticism of me above :

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

If you have nothing better to offer than that, please keep it yourself, or confine it to the "south bank".

can I in return suggest you get your sense of humour back.

 

 

Oh and another thing, you may or may not know that The South Bank was the main home of many on NBN until the great Falling Out

[JennyMorgan]

51 minutes ago, batrabill said:

You have always struck me as a very knowledgeable and very likeable character Vaughan, but on this I think you are adopting an attitude which is quite unreasonable.

You, and others, get quite cross when the "orthodoxy" of this website is challenged. Your experience makes you knowledgeable but it does not necessarily make you right.

Like many, I read much more than I post. I post when I see something which I think is wrong being unchallenged quite substantially because people know the story of response they will get.

I dislike bullying and orthodoxy - it prevents real debate.

This is not the first time I have been criticised for arguing (I apologise if your remarks were not aimed at me - blame my arrogance) - a certain Jenny Morgan has previously commented that I was "pointlessly arguing", I forget the subject but I suspect it was the same one.

Another way of putting it is YOU DON'T TOLERATE PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH YOU.

Frying pans, kettles, calling and black are words that immediately spring to mind here. 

[batrabill]

Motes and beams....

[JennyMorgan]

Just for the record I don't see an outright ban on boats on the Broads. Nevertheless I do see draconian controls being inflicted upon us. I am mindful of the RSPB's plan for Broadland, that the Broads Authority sold the land that would have eventually allowed boating up to Bungay, that the Authority had to be pushed kicking and screaming into dredging Heigham Sound, that the Authority has not sought to re-open the closed Broads to navigation, that the Broads Bill contained clauses that would have allowed them unbridled control over whether a water should be closed or not, that the Authority threatened £20,000.00 fines in order to close Horsey Mere, that the BA managed to conveniently lose the moorings at Jenner's Basin,  that the BA would, if it could, resort to double yellow lines . 

However I do see, as does Vaughan, the phasing out of 'dirty' engines. To that I must add exclusion of boats that don't meet various design criteria. Yes, we will be able to go boating, but it will eventually be excessively controlled and you and I won't be able to do a darned thing about it. Not in my lifetime but if the Broads does adopt Sandford then in my children's lifetime, of that I am convinced.  

[batrabill]

Well there you go - a concern about the erosion of what is allowed and a tightening of regulation is quite a sensible thing to worry about. I must admit I haven't noticed a concern about diesels in much that has appeared here - it is quite a recent phenomenon - but will increasingly come into play. But of course that isn't really a BA issue - unless you think they are hell-bent on eliminating boats.

Something which would be an odd thing for them to try since half their income comes from them.

[Vaughan]

I also, wish that I could "like" Peter's post several times!

This is where those of us who remember a bit of history can see where mistakes have been made over the years and seem likely to be made, in future.

I agree that no great change may be seen in the rest of my lifetime but I greatly wish that my grandchildren may grow up to enjoy the Norfolk Broads that I have loved all my life.

 

[Gracie]

Sorry, a tad off topic but what a totally delightful picture, those children are sooo cute

Grace

[grendel]

9 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I have just lifted this off the National Park website so it is an exact copy of what is written, no meddling or judicious editing on my part, they are not my words. Amongst others this advice is offered to students.

The aims and purposes of national parks are laid out by law. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, was a law made by parliament that set out what our national parks would be like.

There are slightly different aims and purposes for the national parks in Scotland and for the Broads National Park, compared to other national parks in England and Wales. When the aims and purposes conflict with each other, then the Sandford Principle should be used to give more weight to conservation of the environment.

An interesting comment, especially as the Broads is NOT actually covered by the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, nevertheless the doctrine is clear.

I think we should be paying more attention to this statement JM lifted off the national park website, rather than bickering amongst ourselves, after all it is a statement in writing that they think that despite the fact there are different aims and purposes - they are stating that the Sandford Principle should be applied where there is conflict, if the rest of the national parks already think this, how long will it be before sombody tries to enforce it, with the backing of the other national parks,

the more something like this is publicised and spread around the internet the more it will be believed, until eventually at some point in the future it will be accepted as a fact - this is what is being fought here. and this just backs up the comments I made earlier:-

On 1/21/2018 at 16:54, grendel said:

I would surmise that once Sandford got in - any complaint would be too late as it would override any objections

 

[JohnK]

Is this a reasonable summary?

The Broads isn’t a National Park in the normal way.
The Broads can call itself a National Park.
The BA head honcho may be trying to get the Broads turned into an NP but there’s no recent evidence of this. There is evidence that he was trying in the past.
If the Broads did become a full NP the Sanford Principal could be applied which may be used to restrict or remove boats from the Broads.

If that’s something close to reality we’re all on the same side here aren’t we?

Isn’t it just a matter of deciding where individuals draw the “that’ll never happen” line? And therefore what we should object to?

Personally, I think my line is I’m happy to hear the BA call the Broads an NP but if I see anything beyond that I’ll be marching on Yare House (so to speak).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest]

Absolutely and shamelessly off topic but can the mods explain how when a thread hasn't got half a heated as this they have stepped in with " calm down peeps" ??? .

Obviously this is a heated discussion and given the importance of the issue then its bound to be but I can see plenty of previous threads that have had introversion to calm down that in my mind at least didn't deserve it .

[Maxwellian]

R. I am not a moderator so cannot really answer your question but I see no reasonable need to make the statement on this thread. I would consider a PM to  one of the Forum Mods to ask a question like this. 

[finny]

for my money the Mods have done the right thing ...........nothing to Mod Here 

 

Finny

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, finny said:

for my money the Mods have done the right thing ...........nothing to Mod Here 

 

Finny

I completely agree n there was nothing to mod on other threads either and that the point .

[finny]

I take each Thread on it own Merits Ric 

Finny

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

R. I am not a moderator so cannot really answer your question but I see no reasonable need to make the statement on this thread. I would consider a PM to  one of the Forum Mods to ask a question like this. 

Actually my name is Ricardo or Richard if you prefer , shortening it to a single letter could be construed as not friendly or even hostile , I thought only one person did that , not that I wish be seen as hostel myself but when addressing someone its rather better to use their name either forum or real life . PMs to individual mods I'm sure have been asked for to be sent to the entire mod team , therefore just as easy to place it on forum as one is always present . 

[batrabill]

What JohnK said. 

[Maxwellian]

R. Thanks for you quick reply. You seem to have missed the Point. I fail to understand your need to try and stir up trouble when there is abosolutly no need.   Why can you just not play nicely like most civilised humans manage to do!

There was absolutely no need to post as you did.

as you stated it was absolutely and shamelessly off topic

if the mods are learning from experience it is a good thing, no need to rub their noses in it or try and provoke / raise trouble

I

[finny]

not hostile in any way ......but i wont let me edit your name in my last post

 

finny