BA Positives

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1117788/Broad-Sheet-FEB-2018.pdf

[grendel]

they even got it right at the beginning of the clothing article.

[Hockham Admiral]

An interesting read, thank you, Peter.     

[Meantime]

Particularly the bottom of the last page. Apart from naming them, the BA have done everything else to point people in the right direction!!

[JohnK]

I’ve got a positive too ....
I paid my tolls on my three little boats early.
I then realised my dinghy needs replacing as some of the cracks in the GRP are worse than I thought.
Contacted the tolls office and thought the response would be “you’ll have to pay another toll” (because that’s the rules). But no, if I register another boat before 1/4 and let them know I’ve disposed of the old one they’ll transfer the toll.
It’s only £50 (electric outboard) but I’m still very happy with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Islander]

Is this one of their rules they don't tell us about. Last year my neighbour paid the toll on his dinghy early but then decided to scrap it. The BA refunded the toll as he scraped it before the 1st of April. I do wonder if there are any other little known rules out there!

Colin

[JohnK]

I think they were just trying to do the right thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnb]

"Broads National Park to help regulate global climate change" If they mean global warming, it seems they have been very effective already!!

[JohnK]

they even got it right at the beginning of the clothing article.

Well not really. They said the BA and the 14 NP authorities. I thought you might like that.
But do we have to do this every single time?

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JohnK said:

 

Well not really. They said the BA and the 14 NP authorities. I thought you might like that.
But do we have to do this every single time?

Yes, at least, yes, until John Packman stops trying to promote the Broads National Park.

Of course, you don't have to read it every single time

[JohnK]

Yes, at least, yes, until John Packman stops trying to promote the Broads National Park.
Of course, you don't have to read it every single time

BUT THEY WEREN’T
In this case they excluded themselves.
I get that you want to raise it. But every thread?

[Paladin]

4 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

BUT THEY WEREN’T
In this case they excluded themselves.
I get that you want to raise it. But every thread?

It wasn't me who raised it, though, was it. You appear to be wanting to introduce censorship here. As long as it is within the ToS anyone can post anything. There is an ignore button and, of course, the choice not to read what is of no interest to you. Simples

[grendel]

Well I wasnt going to say anything, but there were refreshingly few references to the Broads national Park in the issue. that was my oblique way of saying that without raising the whole issue again. whilst congratulating them for making the distinction that they were not a NP authority.

[JohnK]

It wasn't me who raised it, though, was it. You appear to be wanting to introduce censorship here. As long as it is within the ToS anyone can post anything. There is an ignore button and, of course, the choice not to read what is of no interest to you. Simples

I know it wasn’t you that raised it.
I’m definitely not asking for censorship.
The point I’m trying to make is if those of us that see it differently posted how great it is the BA is calling the Broads a National Park on every single thread do you think it might get on your nerves after a while?
One group of people could post how bad it is, another group could post how good it is. Might not be very interesting I would suggest.

[batrabill]

Frankly, if you are obsessed with something you will be the last to see it. 

[Paladin]

There are a number of threads on here that hold very little interest for me, so I don't read them. Other people may well find them interesting. This is the case for every forum to which I belong. But I don't try to influence anyone not to post on them, or suggest how they may otherwise modify their on-forum behaviour. I read the content I want to read and ignore the rest.

[JohnK]

Well I wasnt going to say anything, but there were refreshingly few references to the Broads national Park in the issue. that was my oblique way of saying that without raising the whole issue again. whilst congratulating them for making the distinction that they were not a NP authority.

I just reread what you first wrote and realise I misunderstood it the first time.
Genuinely sorry.

[MauriceMynah]

This kind of thing crops up from time to time, the "do we have to go into NP debate on every thread" and JohnK, I do sympathise with you here.

I put my points in from time to time, but not every time. Sometimes I too have a genuine question on the subject, so I ask it, on other occasions I have nothing to add,,, so I don't add it!.

Also please bare in mind that there will be new members who are unaware of the potentials, which is where 'The old guard' show their value... On both sides of the debate. you were indeed in that situation yourself not so very long ago..

This debate will run and run, until such time as when we feel we can all believe what we are being told and that the NP question has gone away.

So, my genuine question...

We know he won't resign so barring that option, What can Dr Packman possibly do to convince us that the NP question has gone away for ever, and what can he do to get us to trust him?

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

We know he won't resign so barring that option, What can Dr Packman possibly do to convince us that the NP question has gone away for ever, and what can he do to get us to trust him?

 

 

Honest questions deserve an honest answer!

I don't know that he can. Regretfully there are now sides and both sides are now deeply entrenched. Dr Packman has dug his hole and I don't see a way out. I mean the man no disrespect but his flag has been firmly nailed to his mast. Whatever he has done in the past has always been done for good reason, in his books, and for the cause. In many respects I can only admire the man for his tenacity. Trouble is, how does he step back from the brim? Whatever the bloke does will now be viewed with suspicion. Even if he announces, with suitable fanfares, that the Broads is NOT a national park there will be people, including myself, who will regard his announcement with suspicion, what is he hoping to gain, what will be his next move? In my honest opinion there is much to like and admire in John Packman but equally I feel deeply suspicious of the man. So back to the question, what can he do? Well, it must be obvious, I would like to wish him well in his forthcoming retirement. Mind you, there will be something of a task in realigning the Authority after his passing. New blood will have to distance itself from an unfortunate, sometimes unhelpful culture yet retaining much that is good.

I think that the question goes somewhat deeper than 'what can Dr Packman do'?  It really does go down to 'what can the Authority do?' For a kick-off they can take back control.

Sorry, John, you have to go, walk away with pride but it's time for a change.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

So, my genuine question...

We know he won't resign so barring that option, What can Dr Packman possibly do to convince us that the NP question has gone away for ever, and what can he do to get us to trust him?

 

 

Not an easy one to answer, a good starting point would be to drop all reference to the Broads as a NP and return to its proper title the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads,  after that allowing a more open  organisation where its people can just get on with doing what they are employed for without interference from the top, it will  be a long process restoring peoples faith if at all possible while the current regime at the top not just JP remain in office.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Fred is quite right and he makes a valid point in regard to the regime at the top. By that I assume that he means Mrs Burgess, the Authority's chairwoman. There appears to be an unfortunate and not always helpful  link to the University of East Anglia, I really do think that an investigation is long overdue in that regard. 

[rightsaidfred]

Yes JM the Broads Authority is not a commercial business or Politically elected body, its definition and field of responsibilities are clearly defined by Act of Parliament and as such the CEO and Chairperson should be there to guide and oversee its operation within those parameters not dictate policy or divert expenditure of public monies for a personal agenda.

Fred

[MauriceMynah]

IF IT WERE POSSIBLE...

I'd be content with the title "Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, part of the National Parks Family" or even shortened to "Broadland National Parks" if there could be guarantees that this is where the process halted.

However, that is the problem, I cannot see how such guarantees can be given as "set in stone".

 

[JennyMorgan]

The Broads has been promoted as The Broads, and sometimes Broadland, since about 1900. Done quite well out of it too, witness the crowded '60's. The Broads, a member of the national park's family, says it all really.

 

[marshman]

And there was I thinking that because of the title to this post that we were not going to subject to the same old, same old!!

Didn't take long did it!!!!