A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[Maxwellian]

Shamelessly copied to save having to type it all:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces alwayscome in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs. 

Newton’s third law.

why post this? Because the moment people stop looking and stop questioning the force to maintain a position has gone. In this case Mr P could then have a field day!

[BuffaloBill]

Oooo my head hurts....

[JennyMorgan]

23 minutes ago, JohnK said:

At some point don’t you give up arguing with people whose counter argument seems to be “you’re lying”?

He’s said clearly he’ll never support Sanford but we don’t accept that.

He’s said clearly he doesn’t want full legal NP status but we don’t accept that.

He must realise that there’s not a single thing he could say to convince some of you mustn’t he? At that point do you continue trying? I love a good argument but I wouldn’t.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Fair comment, John, but the well researched and presented evidence is that he has actually sought Sandford, that he has actually sought full NP status. The evidence produced has been linked to Authority agenda and policy documents by someone who only ever makes a statement that can be substantiated. He doesn't state opinion or guesswork, he only does fact. I could, if you wish, copy and paste, on the other hand you could (please) just accept that there is clear, sustainable evidence to support these assertions.  I've got to say it, in my opinion JP has put himself in a corner. 

[JohnK]

Fair comment, John, but the well researched and presented evidence is that he has actually sought Sandford, that he has actually sought full NP status. The evidence produced has all been linked to Authority agenda and policy documents by someone who only ever makes a statement that can be substantiated. He doesn't state opinion or guesswork, he only does fact. I could, if you wish copy and paste, on the other hand you could (please) just accept that there is clear evidence to support these assertions.  I've got to say it, in my opinion JP has put himself in a corner. 

I do accept that I think. To be clear ... has sort Sanford or has sought full NP with an assumption that would invoke Sanford?

If (and I realise this is a big if) he has changed his view and no longer wants full NP status and Sanford are we giving him chance to prove it?

I do think that every announcement the BA ever make is going to include the NP badge (because the BA believe they have a right to use it) and the constant “you’re not an NP” isn’t helpful to either side. I could be swayed either way in this debate (it doesn’t look that way here because I’m the kind of idiot that tends to challenge commonly held views) but the “you’re not an NP” chant is likely to make me walk away and I doubt I’m alone in that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

Believe me, the 'you're not an NP' chant is wholly dependent on the 'we are an NP' chant. One doesn't come without the other!

The whole sad saga is of one man's making, it never reared its head under his predecessor. The BA only have a right to use the NP term for marketing, absolutely no other reason. Regretfully its use by the BA has caused confusion and contradiction.

Thankfully it does appear to be coming to a head although I can see it running for a while yet.

[JennyMorgan]

20 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

To be clear ... has sort Sanford or has sought full NP with an assumption that would invoke Sanford?
 

 

John, one doesn't come without the other. Not an assumption, a fact, one that has been made abundantly clear both by DEFRA & relevant secretaries of state. In fairness to JP he might have assumed and wished otherwise but I'm unable to substantiate that. 

[batrabill]

So JM, you are arguing about what happened in the past, yet, here now, in the present, the BA have publicly said “no full NP” and “no Sandford”. 

Lets recap then: 

The BA have said repeatedly they will not seek full NP status  

There is no pathway to Full NP status - requires act of Parliament - so it is literally inconceivable that The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads could become a Full National Park

Most people think National Parks are a marvellous thing. 

The BA think using the NP tag in marketing (note: according to people who teach Marketing, Promotion is a subset of Marketing) Promoting the Broads is a function of the remit  

 

You are fighting a battle you’ve already won  

The only way you can continue the fight is by ignoring the real evidence in front of you and concentrating on what happened in the past. 

But as others have pointed out - you pick over every word said in the past as if it is holy writ, and then say “you can’t believe a word he says “ about what is said now  Odd  

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, I would love to think that you are right. However, the clear policy change that the BA no longer seeks full NP status only applies to the life of the present Broads Plan, their words not mine. Regretfully policy changes, mid term, are not unknown, all a matter of expediency.  All a matter of trust.

[batrabill]

That’s “The sky MIGHT fall in “ argument. 

Always impossible to disprove. The fight goes on!

[JohnK]

John, one doesn't come without the other. Not an assumption, a fact, one that has been made abundantly clear both by DEFRA & relevant secretaries of state. In fairness to JP he might have assumed and wished otherwise but I'm unable to substantiate that. 

Ah ok. So it’s fair to say the BA has sought NP status and we’re assuming that can’t be separated from Sanford?
Perhaps you’re right, perhaps JP and the BA did want Sanford or perhaps they were hoping to change the rules. Perhaps it wouldn’t have been possible but we’re making a few assumptions to say JP wanted Sanford aren’t we?
I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the “you’re not an NP” chant.
Perhaps I’m drawing false conclusions but when a post on Facebook that the BA are selling fleeces with NP on them being considered to be “proof” that Sanford is actively being pursued seems a step too far to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MauriceMynah]

18 minutes ago, batrabill said:

There is no pathway to Full NP status - requires act of Parliament - so it is literally inconceivable that The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads could become a Full National Park

I have to say that it is the above statement that I disagree with.

Just how difficult would it be to obtain that act of parliament? How would we know if such an act was on the cards? and finally can we trust the words of a politician?

[Paladin]

37 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The whole sad saga is of one man's making, it never reared its head under his predecessor. The BA only have a right to use the NP term for marketing, absolutely no other reason. Regretfully its use by the BA has caused confusion and contradiction.

JM, please do not perpetuate this misapprehension. They have no legal right to use the term. They simpy gave themselves permission. Although the case of Harris v Broads Authority is trotted out to suggest the use of the term is legal, the Harris' actually want Sandford to apply to the Broads and their case was argued with that in mind. The judgement was on their arguments, which the Judge found to be flawed.

[JennyMorgan]

John, he couldn't have one without the other, sorry and all that but that is a provable fact, the documentation is out there. If he wanted one then he had to have the other. For him to have thought otherwise would have been incredibly naive. Now I am concluding , I admit that, that he must have therefore have wanted Sandford. There are others though that are stating it as a matter of fact and claiming that it can be substantiated, history at least suggests to me that they are right. To be honest whether he did or did not is immaterial, that the BA sought full NP accreditation is clearly stated in the Broads plan. 

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Paladin said:

JM, please do not perpetuate this misapprehension. They have no legal right to use the term. They simpy gave themselves permission. Although the case of Harris v Broads Authority is trotted out to suggest the use of the term is legal, the Harris' actually want Sandford to apply to the Broads and their case was argued with that in mind. The judgement was on their arguments, which the Judge found to be flawed.

Thank you, Paladin, for clearing that one up.

If I remember correctly the Harris argument was something on the lines that the Authority were not acting as they, Mr & Mrs Harris, expected a national park authority to act thus they should not be entitled to use the term. 

[Paladin]

40 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Ah ok. So it’s fair to say the BA has sought NP status and we’re assuming that can’t be separated from Sanford?
Perhaps you’re right, perhaps JP and the BA did want Sanford or perhaps they were hoping to change the rules. Perhaps it wouldn’t have been possible but we’re making a few assumptions to say JP wanted Sanford aren’t we?
I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the “you’re not an NP” chant.
Perhaps I’m drawing false conclusions but when a post on Facebook that the BA are selling fleeces with NP on them being considered to be “proof” that Sanford is actively being pursued seems a step too far to me.

JohnK, I have read your posts with interest. It appears that you have come to this debate rather late and are playing 'catch-up'. Forgive me if I have misread your situation. You will not get all the answers to this, simply by reading the discussion on here and asking questions. The debate about whether or not the Broads can be a national park goes back decades. It isn't a national park, for the reasons that have been explained.

There were no attempts to push through any change in the legal situation until after John Packman was appointed CEO in 2001. In order to fully understand how we have arrived at today's situation of calling the Broads something it is not, and the palpable mistrust of the Broads Authority in general, and its CEO in particular, that exists among many (not all) boaters and boating organisations, it really is necessary to go back to historic documents, such as Defra publications, Hansard, letters from Ministers, minutes of meetings of Broads Authority committees.

I'm sorry that there is no shortcut. It's not just about one side calling Yah-boo sucks at the other. It is a serious matter, which could have serious implications for the future of boating on the Broads.

I hope you have read the email exchange between John Packman and me. Doesn't the fact that he hasn't responded to any of the points I put to him (and Fergus Collins) tell you something?

[Paladin]

10 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Thank you, Paladin, for clearing that one up.

If I remember correctly the Harris argument was something on the lines that the Authority were not acting as they, Mr & Mrs Harris, expected a national park authority to act thus they should not be entitled to use the term. 

That's about it, in a very small nut shell

[finny]

50 shades of gray springs to mind ................not the pleasure type either ?

finny 

[JohnK]

JM, I’ll accept that (not that it really makes any difference whether I believe it or not ) that in the past JP / BA have tried to get Sanford adopted. But I’m yet to be convinced they still are.

JohnK, I have read your posts with interest. It appears that you have come to this debate rather late and are playing 'catch-up'. Forgive me if I have misread your situation.

You haven’t misread my situation at all, you’re absolutely right.

You will not get all the answers to this, simply by reading the discussion on here and asking questions. The debate about whether or not the Broads can be a national park goes back decades.

I get that (and the following bits I haven’t quoted) and I’m far from arrogant enough to believe I can come along late, understand everything and solve the problem.
However, as a newcomer at the moment some of the arguments feel like the emperors new clothes. Because a lot of people believe it, state it regularly and loudly doesn’t make it true.
Personally, I have to be convinced by evidence rather than someone saying “this is how it is” when other parties are telling me “actually, he’s wrong, really it’s like this”.
My position at the moment is I’m convinced (mainly by JM) that in the past the BA has tried to do some stuff that we as boaters / Broads users almost certainly wouldn’t like the outcome of. But I’m far from convinced they’re still trying to do it.

I hope you have read the email exchange between John Packman and me. Doesn't the fact that he hasn't responded to any of the points I put to him (and Fergus Collins) tell you something?

I did read the email exchange and found it very interesting. Some good points were made on both sides. However, I have to say I wouldn’t have replied in JPs shoes either when a big part of the argument is whether marketing and promotion are the same thing. I make no claim to be an English scholar (despite being English and once going to school) but I think they’re very very close to the same thing.

I hope I’m not coming over as confrontational here, I’m trying very hard to be open minded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marshman]

Keep going like this John and you will be fully converted!!!

Don't let the b*****s grind you down!! I quite enjoyed your posts but I can see they are slowly slowly getting to you and you are now more uncertain and hopping from one foot to the other!

Ah well it was nice to have had you on board for a bit!! They still havent by any means convinced me - must be made of tougher stuff!!!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Keep going like this John and you will be fully converted!!!

Don't let the b*****s grind you down!! I quite enjoyed your posts but I can see they are slowly slowly getting to you and you are now more uncertain and hopping from one foot to the other!

Ah well it was nice to have had you on board for a bit!! They still havent by any means convinced me - must be made of tougher stuff!!!

Marsh, that challenging comment almost deserves a suitable response.  Yes, I am tempted, very tempted. Almost too good to miss!

[JohnK]

Keep going like this John and you will be fully converted!!!
Don't let the b*****s grind you down!!

Haha, never.
We need a swingometer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MauriceMynah]

Marshman, please correct me if I'm wrong but I take it that your standpoint is that you do not wish to see the broads become a full national park. That even if by some miracle it did, that the Sandford Principle would not be applied to the area and that even if by some further miracle the Sandford principle was applied, it would not be done anywhere where it would significantly effect tourism.

I further get the feeling that you believe Dr Packman's assertion when he says his views are much the same as the above.

If I have misrepresented you here, please do say, as if I'm correct all we are actually debating is one man, his integrity and his objectives.

I say "All we ate debating", that's a bit of an understatement given his position, his responsibilities and his ambitions.

I suppose that although I address this to you Marshman, the same question also applies to Batrabill.

[smellyloo]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I suppose that although I address this to you Marshman, the same question also applies to Batrabill.

And I suspect many others who really can't see what all the fuss is about.

[JohnK]

It’s gone very quiet.
Have you all realised the errors of your ways?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JohnK said:

It’s gone very quiet.
Have you all realised the errors of your ways?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone has passed out after receiving their broads toll.