Guest Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said: It would take an Act of Parliament to undo the Broads Act. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this on the agenda, unlike the Doctor's well documented quest for the Broads to be designated as a national park which would inevitably include the Sandford burden. Yes, changing primary legislation is hard. Much like making the Broads a full NP. Particularly when the Broads Authority say they don’t want that. How on earth could that come about then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, JohnK said: I just had a quick scan through Hansard and whilst I agree 100% the 1988 Broads act didn’t make the Broads a National Park it links it very closely to them. Personally, I’d be extremely worried that the outcome of the “its not a National Park” chant is complete disassociation from National Parks and the support they get including funding. In a couple of places in Hansard they even talk about Broads funding being the same as National Parks funding. As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Perhaps the outcome of this is in ten years time nobody calls the Broads a National Park because it isn’t fit to be called a National Park. Would that be a win? You can’t use the “that won’t happen” argument unless I’m allowed to use it for Sanford You need to do more than a quick scan. This from Hansard in 1952, from the MP for Lowestoft, "Some years ago, when the National Parks Bill was going through the House, it was my privilege to put the case for the Broads, as I had done previously on an Adjournment debate a little earlier, on which occasion I was able to put into the Library about 50 photographs showing the terrible deterioration which was taking place in the Broads owing to the fact that there was not sufficient interest or money or drive to save this glorious playground not only for the British people but for the many thousands of visitors who patronise the Broads every year." It was the continued deterioration after that that led to the 1988 Act and the creation of today's Broads Authority. 30 years on, there have been great improvements, without any mention of 'Broads National Park'. None of the fancy names the BA has cooked up for 'marketing' has been successful, which is why they keep changing them. Dropping the BNP tag won't harm the area one little bit. It would even unite the pro and anti lobbies in supporting the Broads, which I'm sure we all want to do. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Paladin, be realistic. For some people on here, if John Packman started blowing £10 notes through their letterbox with a leaf blower they would have him arrested for littering. Night everyone. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are one of the many things that make this a great part of the known universe. I know we all care about them and I am confident in a very short time these spats will be forgotten by all of us. Good luck all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 13 minutes ago, batrabill said: Paladine, after proving that Marketing and Promotion are not related even though they are, you are now proving that The Broads National Park Grant isn’t a National Park Grant? Next prove that the Minister responsible for the 1988 legislation didn’t say in the house The Broads had equivalent status to the other NPs when he commended the legislation to the house. batrabill, I know you got confused with who posted what, but I'll respond anyway. I never said the marketing and promotion were not related. But the BA has a legal duty to promoted understanding etc, but doesn't have any responsibility for marketing the Broads. Section 15 of the 1988 Act says..."The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants to the Authority for such purposes, and on such terms and conditions, as he thinks fit." That section makes no mention of national parks or status equivalent etc. The Minister's words, as recorded in Hansard, were "status equivalent to a national park", as I said earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Quite a few questions have been ignored here but I’d like to go back to one about the CNP as that’s where this thread started. So let’s say you get the CNP to officially acknowledge the Broads isn’t an NP (rather than one person saying it in an email). What happens then?Do you know for a fact they won’t just drop support for the Broads?Would it be ok if they do?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 hours ago, JohnK said: Quite a few questions have been ignored here but I’d like to go back to one about the CNP as that’s where this thread started. So let’s say you get the CNP to officially acknowledge the Broads isn’t an NP (rather than one person saying it in an email). What happens then? Do you know for a fact they won’t just drop support for the Broads? Would it be ok if they do? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I can't see any questions that have been ignored. The ones posed have been answered fully. Perhaps you're thinking of the ones you haven't asked yet. You seem to be thinking up quite a few very hypothetical ones, rather than adding to the debate. You are asking for opinions to be presented as facts. Unless and until CNP makes a statement to the effect that they are withdrawing support for the Broads to become a national park, that fact cannot be known. As they have been supporting that aim for decades, despite a succession of government ministers saying that the Broads are not, and will not be, a national park, my opinion is that they will continue so to do. You have found your way into Hansard, so it should be easy for you to delve into the minutes and reports of the Broads Authority. You may well find the answers to your questions there, as have so many of us. I'll leave you to get on with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Ok, I’m not going to go back over it again. I’ll rephrase the last question. If CNP officially and publicly accept that the Broads isn’t a National Park what do you expect to happen? Do they rename themselves the Campaign for National Parks and the Broads or stop campaigning for the Broads or something else?I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you wouldn’t want the Campaign for National Parks campaigning for something that isn’t a National Park would you? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaughan Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 John, I think this debate risks descending into an exchange of semantics. Personally I have no fear that there would still be government money available for the upkeep of Broadland as a whole and for all the other forms of tourism it attracts. There would have to be. According to a previous and knowledgeable post by Timbo, it is not a NP grant anyway - it is simply administered like that for government accounting purposes. And another opinion of mine : why does the BA have to "market" the Broads? They are there to administer it. It is up to the Tourist Boards and the tourism businesses to do the marketing. I don't remember the River Commissioners ever getting involved in that. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Paladin said: You seem to be thinking up quite a few very hypothetical ones, rather than adding to the debate. That's a bit rich! This whole debate is based on a hypothetical - that there is some nefarious purpose in rebranding as a National Park! So perhaps its you that aren't adding to the debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 As a matter of common courtesy, and with a tad of intent, I have replied to and thanked the very splendid Fiona at the CNP. My e-mail went thus: Dear Fiona. I would like to repeat my BIG thank you of yesterday for confirming the reality that the Broads is not a national park. There is absolutely no legislation to suggest that it is even a member of the national parks family although this is widely accepted both by DEFRA and the wider Broads community as being a welcome compromise, indeed something of an accolade. The Broads is quite unique within Gt Britain and its legislation wisely accommodates that fact. I know that I speak for many when I say that our greatest wish is in being able to conserve and promote the Broads as the Broads, as the unique waterway that it is. It has its heritage, its culture and its ethos, something that many of us consider, with much conviction, has been overlooked by the Broads Authority and its executive. In recent months Dr Packman at the Authority has confirmed, as you just have, that the Broads has not been designated as a national park. It has also been stated by DEFRA that the the Broads is not a national park. With this in mind would you please consider making this fact clear on the CNP website. There is also much obfuscation on the Broads Authority website thus I suggest that a clear statement from CNP to Doctor Packman would not go amiss. The Broads, as a wide community, is I'm quite sure, proud to be a member of the national parks family but a national park we are not. We rather enjoy our unique status, it suits our character. I thank you for your honesty in confirming what we all knew already, however wider clarification would be much appreciated. Regards and thanks, yours sincerely, Peter Waller. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 John, I think this debate risks descending into an exchange of semantics. Personally I have no fear that there would still be government money available for the upkeep of Broadland as a whole and for all the other forms of tourism it attracts.Some of that is fair and perhaps the funding argument is a step too far but I think my question about what we expect CNP to do is fair and still awaiting an answer. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Labrador Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Talk about a merry go round. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheQ Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 what where? are merry go rounds permitted in Not a National Park? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Talk about a merry go round.Not even close. Merry go rounds stop eventually Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadAmbition Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 permitted in 'Not a National Park'? As said in a Grand Tour Jeremy Clarkson voice - Like it Griff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 If CNP officially and publicly accept that the Broads isn’t a National Park what do you expect to happen? Do they rename themselves the Campaign for National Parks and the Broads or stop campaigning for the Broads or something else?I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you wouldn’t want the Campaign for National Parks campaigning for something that isn’t a National Park would you? I’m going to assume the silence means “bugger, I hadn’t thought of that” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaughan Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, JohnK said: I’m going to assume the silence means “bugger, I hadn’t thought of that” You assume wrong. It's just exhaustion, in my case. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rightsaidfred Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 I have tried to remain detached while following this thread as there are good and bad aspects of every organisation and unfortunately its the bad rather than the good that attracts most attention, there are a lot of very good things and people within the BA but there is also a minority with their own objectives this being one of them. As the BA is not a marketing authority and has no responsibilities as such there can be no justification for using the NP status in its various signage and communications, apart from the obvious conclusion that it can only be a means to an end in my opinion it is also misrepresentation from a public office and I am sure we are all aware that this wouldn't be the first case of this occurring from public bodies with an agenda. Fred 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 Fred, I really thought that there was nothing more to be said on this issue but, and with respect, you have managed it! Very astute, wise words, thank you. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 4 hours ago, JohnK said: I’m going to assume the silence means “bugger, I hadn’t thought of that” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk John, there are entries on the CNP website, as we have already seen, where the CNP refers to members of the national parks family. Whilst there is no legislative justification for this it has generally been deemed as an acceptable compromise by even the staunchest objector to the BNP tag. Where it went wrong was when Packman used the family connection as a justification for his BNP usage, something that was not intended by DEFRA.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 On 2/20/2018 at 23:11, batrabill said: Yes, changing primary legislation is hard. Much like making the Broads a full NP. Particularly when the Broads Authority say they don’t want that. How on earth could that come about then? Bill, it would come about just as the previous Broads Bill did. Some of us, with considerable justification, are well aware that the BA is prone to changing their minds and policies to suit whatever policy is flavour of the day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 John, there are entries on the CNP website, as we have already seen, where the CNP refers to members of the national parks family. Whilst there is no legislative justification for this it has generally been deemed as an acceptable compromise by even the staunchest objector to the BNP tag. Where it went wrong was when Packman used the family connection as a justification for his BNP usage, something that was not intended by DEFRA.. I agree that “member of the national parks family” seems reasonable but I have seen people objecting to that too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 44 minutes ago, JohnK said: I agree that “member of the national parks family” seems reasonable but I have seen people objecting to that too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I can quite understand why people are or have objected, witness the 'gently, gently, catch the monkey' approach to the BNP title as exemplified by Dr Packman. Why settle for an inch when you can take a yard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Labrador Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Surely being an area associated with other outstanding parts of the best country in the world is a gem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnK Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 I can quite understand why people are or have objected, witness the 'gently, gently, catch the monkey' approach to the BNP title as exemplified by Dr Packman. Why settle for an inch when you can take a yard?If people believe that’s happening I can see why they would too. But as someone who’s undecided the constant “its not a National Park” makes me want to turn off every forum and facebook group where it’s posted over and over again on everything about the BA. We never get to talk about what the BA or anyone else is doing, we just talk about how they’re calling the Broads a National Park again. If other people feel the same as me I guess the problem is when nobody who hasn’t already decided you’re right is listening anymore. For me, the scary part is if I do leave the forums etc the only place I’m left with to get Broads news from is the BA and I don’t like single sources of information. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.