The Broads Is Not A National Park!

[JohnK]

JohnK, I think batrabill has just proved rightsaidfred's point. There have been numerous facts provided by one side, answered by sarcastic comments from the other. No contest.

In my opinion that’s unfair too.
Ok, Bill has come out with some sarcastic comments. He’s certainly not alone on this thread.
You don’t have to take my word for that, the evidence is there for all to see

[Vaughan]

Another wasted opportunity.

This forum has many members with experience and knowledge to offer, but it will never get its opinions heard and respected by those who matter in Broadland, if we allow our discussions to descend to the level of the kindergarten classroom.

[JohnK]

Another wasted opportunity.
This forum has many members with experience and knowledge to offer, but it will never get its opinions heard and respected by those who matter in Broadland, if we allow our discussions to descend to the level of the kindergarten classroom.

Couldn’t agree more.
The stupidest part is we largely all agree on what we want.
But we squabble over what one person is or isn’t trying to achieve. And whether promotion is the same as marketing.

JM has changed my mind on a lot of the past events through these discussions. But then the descent into personal insults (not by JM) makes me want to walk away from the discussion. I doubt very much I’m alone.

When you read this and think “yeah, but it’s only the other side that are doing it” you are absolutely wrong.

[Paladin]

13 minutes ago, JohnK said:

In my opinion that’s unfair too.
Ok, Bill has come out with some sarcastic comments. He’s certainly not alone on this thread.
You don’t have to take my word for that, the evidence is there for all to see

You are entitled to your opinion, but, in this case, it's not borne out by the facts. Only one person has tried to ridicule cogent argument with ridicule and sarcasm. But this is not what the thread is about and there appears to no point in further discussion at this stage. You can accept the facts that have been presented, go and research them for yourself, or just believe the BA can do no wrong. Your choice.

[JohnK]

You are entitled to your opinion, but, in this case, it's not borne out by the facts. Only one person has tried to ridicule cogent argument with ridicule and sarcasm. But this is not what the thread is about and there appears to no point in further discussion at this stage. You can accept the facts that have been presented, go and research them for yourself, or just believe the BA can do no wrong. Your choice.

Seriously?
You’re really claiming that in this thread nobody has tried to ridicule Bill?

[JohnK]

You can accept the facts that have been presented, go and research them for yourself, or just believe the BA can do no wrong. Your choice.

You made me think a bit with that part of your post.
I honestly thought no facts had been presented in this thread so I just reread it. I was wrong. There are lots of facts. But I also realised why I thought there were none. Every single fact was then followed up with spin. That negated the fact for me.

Just one point, I have never said the BA can do no wrong. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I disagree with what some of you think the BA are trying to do but that’s a long long way from believing the BA can do no wrong.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Another wasted opportunity.

This forum has many members with experience and knowledge to offer, but it will never get its opinions heard and respected by those who matter in Broadland, if we allow our discussions to descend to the level of the kindergarten classroom.

Well said , high time someone pointed that out .

[JennyMorgan]

By now we should all be able to judge for ourselves, both as to the reality of the BNP issues and to our fellow posters. I can understand the frustration and exasperation being experienced by those of us who feel that they are now bashing their heads against a brick wall but hey, that's life! Facts have been presented, can't really argue with them, although some insist on trying, but when it comes down to each other then that really does come down to opinion. In that respect can we all at least be nice to each other, please? 

[JohnK]

By now we should all be able to judge for ourselves, both as to the reality of the BNP issues and to our fellow posters. I can understand the frustration and exasperation being experienced by those of us who feel that they are now bashing their heads against a brick wall but hey, that's life! Facts have been presented, can't really argue with them, although some insist on trying, but when it comes down to each other then that really does come down to opinion. In that respect can we all at least be nice to each other, please? 

Well said.

Going back quite a long way ... am I right thinking you believe the BA over using the National Park name and getting it adopted elsewhere is them trying to get full NP status and Sanford?
If that’s right what do you see as the facts that prove that?

Genuine questions, not trying to provoke an argument.

My belief is that the Secretary of State and the high court have said the BA can use the term National Park so I see nothing wrong with them doing so.
What makes you think I’m wrong?

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, JohnK said:

Going back quite a long way ... am I right thinking you believe the BA over using the National Park name and getting it adopted elsewhere is them trying to get full NP status and Sanford?
If that’s right what do you see as the facts that prove that?

 

John, this has all been answered before and in quite some depth so I'll try and be brief.

The precursor to the relatively recent Broads Bill was in fact an attempt to have the Broads named as the BNP. Paladin has gone into this one in some depth, explaining the detail, sufficient to satisfy the most curious of minds. On top of that we have the Broads Plan, 2015 I think it was, in which there is a clear policy statement explaining the Authority's ambition to be a national park. We then have a recent court decision where the BA makes a policy change, it tends to do that, where it will no longer seek to be an NP in return for being able to use the BNP tag, allegedly for marketing purposes. Anyway, a clear admission that it once sought to be a fully fledged National Park. Just one small detail, that policy will be reviewed in twelve years time, the Authority has said so, it's in writing. Nothing here that isn't in the public domain. History and written evidence is clear, the BA has sought to be a national park. Its recent policy change, I suggest, is simply expedient to its stated quest that by 2030 the Broads will be a national park, complete with Sandford and the repugnant control that that entails. 

If I have my facts right, and I think that I have, the Secretary of State did not allow the BA to use the BA tag, rather that it allowed the Authority to decide for itself whether it could use the BNP term,  only for marketing purposes you'll understand. 

Gaining acceptance by the public of the BNP title, some might argue, is at least half the battle in gaining NP designation.

There is obviously more to it than just the above, plenty of history, plenty of documentation, bit of opinion too, but DEFRA, BA and now the CNP have all admitted that the Broads is NOT a national park. We can't argue with that, although seemingly some insist on trying!  I hope that this goes some way to answering your questions. 

[batrabill]

So in summary. 

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are not a Full NP. 

However, when they were set up under the most recent legislation they took the NP principles and added the need to protect navigation. 

Currently they are perfectly entitled to use the NP title  in Marketing to fulfill their remit of promoting the Broads to the general public. 

Even the most crazed accept that the very first opportunity for this simple state of affairs to change is 12 years from now. 

 

I am tingling with excitement for those12 years to pass. Don’t forget to text me in 2030  

 

Enough facts for you ?

 

You gang up and insult but I don’t really care. 

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, I respectfully refer you to the last paragraph in my last posting.

[batrabill]

I respectfully refer you to the first sentanc of mine. 

[grendel]

Mod Hat on

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Even the most crazed accept that the

careful, getting very close to breaking the TOS

[JohnK]

John, this has all been answered before and in quite some depth so I'll try and be brief.

 

......

 

Now the CNP have all admitted that the Broads is NOT a national park. We can't argue with that, although seemingly some insist on trying!  I hope that this goes some way to answering your questions. 

 

Thanks JM, I appreciate you taking the time to write that. I know it had been said before but I was really interested to hear the way YOU saw it. I’m not going over it again but I don’t accept the conclusions drawn by some of the others.

With one exception (I’ll come to that) I accept what you posted above as good evidence. But only evidence that they were once trying to get full NP status, not that they still are.

I can see why some people would make the link between the two things but surely you can accept that others don’t?

That’s exactly my position, I accept what you and some of the other less crazed (joke!) say was happening in the past, I just don’t accept that’s proof that it’s still happening.

 

The exception: Do you not think it’s a bit too far to go from what one person linked to the CNP said in an email to “the CNP have all admitted....”? Or have they now gone further which I haven’t seen?

 

Was my earlier statement wrong about the Secretary of State and the high court approving the use of the National Park term? If I am wrong I’d like to know because that’s a big part of my internal debate (I’m not sure what having an internal debate tells you about me ) But if that’s right that’s why I have no problem with the BA calling the Broads a National Park. And I really don’t care whether that’s for marketing or promotion or something else.

 

In my opinion (that’s worth almost nothing) I think if we’re to avoid these debates descending into abuse we should avoid spinning them whether or not we feel the BA is. As an example the new fleeces (deliberately chosen as an example because it wasn’t discussed here) ....

The BA puts out a press release that National Parks is getting new fleeces with NP on them and the BA are getting some. A debate over whether that’s a good idea, whether they should have been sourced from the UK, whether they should be high vis etc would have been great.

But to take that as proof of the BA trying to get Sanford in makes no more sense than me taking it as proof they’re not because it doesn’t have Sanford in big letters on the back does it? That sort of spinning is only going to end badly isn’t it?

That could lead me back to the title of this thread but no

 

[edit], sorry, just saw you did confirm the secretary of said said what I thought they’d said.

[JennyMorgan]

John, I really can't be asked to go through it all again, surely!? 

I shall resort to opinion and speculation and end with some questions.

I take it that you accept that Dr John has repeatedly sought national park status in the past but that you now accept his word that he no longer seeks it.

I would suggest that that withdrawal of intent was simply expedient to being able to use the BNP term for marketing, that being a step in the desired direction. I can not prove that but past behavioural patterns suggest that he is playing it like a game of chess, so to speak, thus we need to stay one step ahead. I've used the phrase before, gently, gently, catch the monkey, I stand by that. 

Dr John has changed Broads Plan policy in the past, might he not change it again, if the opportunity arises? 

At every given opportunity Dr John rams home the BNP catch phrase, why? He doesn't justify it, he just does it, an opportunity to educate the unquestioning masses perhaps?

I'll remind you that you have accepted that Dr John has sought NP designation in the past. He has done so with great tenacity, I'm sure that you will agree. There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package. There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill. John, I ask you one final, pertinent  question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt,  that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal?

Grendel, no problem with the 'crazed' accolade, provided I can refer to clowns!!

[batrabill]

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

John, I really can't be asked to go through it all again, surely!? 

I shall resort to opinion and speculation and end with some questions.

I take it that you accept that Dr John has repeatedly sought national park status in the past but that you now accept his word that he no longer seeks it.

I would suggest that that withdrawal of intent was simply expedient to being able to use the BNP term for marketing, that being a step in the desired direction. I can not prove that but past behavioural patterns suggest that he is playing it like a game of chess, so to speak, thus we need to stay one step ahead. I've used the phrase before, gently, gently, catch the monkey, I stand by that. 

Dr John has changed Broads Plan policy in the past, might he not change it again, if the opportunity arises? 

At every given opportunity Dr John rams home the BNP catch phrase, why? He doesn't justify it, he just does it, an opportunity to educate the unquestioning masses perhaps?

I'll remind you that you have accepted that Dr John has sought NP designation in the past. He has done so with great tenacity, I'm sure that you will agree. There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package. There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill. John, I ask you one final, pertinent  question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt,  that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal?

Grendel, no problem with the 'crazed' accolade, provided I can refer to clowns!!

So rather than facts, it comes down to an assertion which is unprovable either way  

You can’t prove he will and you can’t prove he won’t  

An opinion on the depth of dishonesty  of John Packman and the organisation he represents.  Don’t forget they have the statement on their website they won’t seek NP status or apply Sandford. In the real world an organisation that went back on that would quite rightly be ridiculed. 

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, they already have gone back on their Broads Plan policy statement by dropping their NP status quest. You can't have it both ways!

[JohnK]

John, I really can't be asked to go through it all again, surely!? 

You can be asked but not expected to. I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to respond but if you choose not to that’s entirely your choice.  

 

 

I shall resort to opinion and speculation and end with some questions. I take it that you accept that Dr John has repeatedly sought national park status in the past but that you now accept his word that he no longer seeks it.

 

I do accept he’s tried to adopt full NP status in the past. I partly accept his word (because he’s done nothing to me to make me distrust him) that he no longer seeks it but it’s mainly about me seeing no evidence that he’s currently trying to seek it.

 

 

 

I would suggest that that withdrawal of intent was simply expedient to being able to use the BNP term for marketing, that being a step in the desired direction. I can not prove that but past behavioural patterns suggest that he is playing it like a game of chess, so to speak, thus we need to stay one step ahead. I've used the phrase before, gently, gently, catch the monkey, I stand by that. 

I agree, he probably changed direction to get agreement to use of the NP badge. He may be intending to seek full NP status and if I saw any evidence of that I would jump straight on your bandwagon.

 

 

 

Dr John has changed Broads Plan policy in the past, might he not change it again, if the opportunity arises?  

 

Yes, he might and if he does I’ll be 100% behind you. But he might not.  

 

 

At every given opportunity Dr John rams home the BNP catch phrase, why? He doesn't justify it, he just does it, an opportunity to educate the unquestioning masses perhaps? 

 

Or he’s using a term which he believes helps him promote the Broads (which he believes he’s allowed to do) in a way he believes the Secretary of State and the high court have told him he can.  

 

 

I'll remind you that you have accepted that Dr John has sought NP designation in the past. He has done so with great tenacity, I'm sure that you will agree.

I do agree 

 

 

There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package.

There is no doubt the full NPs have it now. Or at least I don’t think there is. But if a change in legislation would be required to make the broads an NP why not change the current rules to exclude the broads from Sanford even if the Broads became a full NP? Not that I think it will become a full NP.  

 

 

There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill.

The powers yes but with an intent to use them? Have other NPs excluded all boaters from their waterways?

 

 

 

John, I ask you one final, pertinent  question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt,  that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal?

Nope, can you prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that not only does he not only retain the desire but also has the intent? 

 

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to include all of your points, not just pick the easy ones.

 

[edit] I made a couple of changes to improve my English!

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

  Quote

There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package.

There is no doubt the full NPs have it now. Or at least I don’t think there is. But if a change in legislation would be required to make the broads an NP why not change the current rules to exclude the broads from Sanford?

 

John, the above came up in the House of Lords when I and others petitioned in the House of Lords and also in correspondence with DEFRA. It was made abundantly clear that all English national parks would have to operate under the same legislation and that there would be no exception. To do otherwise, being able to pick and choose in regard to Sandford, would be unfair on other parks. However I do agree that it might have been a reasonable solution but it was made clear that it is not an option. 

[rightsaidfred]

JohnK

I had given up on this last night but as you have now explained your standpoint in a constructive manner I will try and explain mine.

In simple terms for anyone or any organisation to call itself something it is not is misrepresentation and as the Broads are not a National Park then referring to them as such is misrepresentation regardless of the High Court ruling that referred to its use for marketing purposes only and as the BA remit does not included the role of Tourist Board that in itself makes its use invalid.

I have not got involved in the Sandford or full NP side of the debate preferring to leave that to those far more adapt than I am, what I will say is that the prime function of the BA as laid down in the relevant acts is the administration and maintenance of the area within its boundaries as a  navigation and as a conservation area and public utility, it is not a commercial or for profit organisation and is funded by public money and our tolls and as such should be held to account for how it conducts those duties and spends those funds.

The majority of members on here have either spent a lifetime living in the area or a large part of their lives enjoying the area, while we all come for our own reasons be it boating, angling, the wildlife or its heritage or usually a combination of some or all of these things I am not aware of anyone who came because its supposedly a national park,  all of us that have been associated with the Broads for any length of time are aware of the different attempts by the BA to rebrand the area each instance involving expenditure and the use of resources that should have been used for more important projects and this is just another case, as for promoting the Broads they have in the recent past closed several information centres and reduced the number of Rangers for cost cutting purposes whilst wasting money on promoting itself and masquerading as something it is not.

Regarding  your reference to spin I cannot see a lot of evidence of that and I am sure we all know that Politicians with a small or large P and the marketing industry are the past masters.

Fred

[ranworthbreeze]

15 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Have other NPs excluded all boaters from the waterways?

Hello John,

The qango (yet again another unelected administration) that governs the Lake District has restricted access to many of its lakes, we tend to only hear of Lake Windermere with its speed ban.

Regards

Alan 

[JohnK]

John, the above came up in the House of Lords when I and others petitioned in the House of Lords and also in correspondence with DEFRA. It was made abundantly clear that all English national parks would have to operate under the same legislation and that there would be no exception. To do otherwise, being able to pick and choose in regard to Sandford, would be unfair on other parks. However I do agree that it might have been a reasonable solution but it was made clear that it is not an option. 

Thanks JM,
That clarifies it for me and I’ll accept full NP without Sanford (or updated equivalent) isn’t an option.
There are still too many leaps of faith for me to believe that’s the BA’s intention though.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnK]

JohnK
I had given up on this last night but as you have now explained your standpoint in a constructive manner I will try and explain mine.

Thanks Fred, genuinely appreciated.
I guess we differ on what we see the use of the NP term as.
I don’t see it as misrepresentation at all. I see it as marketing which I believe the BA has in its remit.
I’m not claiming to be right and I can 100% see why other people would have a different view.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

For marketing purposes my Skoda is a Rolls Royce!