The Sandford Myth

[JawsOrca]

I don't want to reopen a old post but am a bit bored so I thought I'd share my views as I don't want to put into a box or misrepresented by others.

Posts like this which (I trust and assume) intend to add arguments to a debate are really what broads forums should be about in my eyes and is really what I come to see on the NBN etc

Obviously what one reads on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt unless the poster has any attributes of accountability.  Indeed people "say" things for many reasons, arguably the main being for personal self gratification (I'll hopefully explain below my reasons for posting). 

The whole debate over the way BA manage, the CEO's position, the planning setup, the rebranding exercise to BNP, the concerns over rights of navigation impacting with nature (aka Sandford) is all very very complicated from my ill educated view, by all means I'm not going to pretend for one moment that I understand, nor I understand the politics of the minority individual's involved but certainly the more comments adding to the debate I believe enriches the debate and helps the majority understand.   

From what I read in the forums, facebook groups, newspapers, websites and hear on the ground, I am concerned, somethings not right, my view of the organisation isn't a positive one, here's what I understand;

The B.A got involved in a legal battle to remove a long term livaboard community from an area close to norfolk, yes there was planning issues, however the manner in which it was completed was questionable in my eyes.  The B.A got involved in long and expensive legal battle over this. The B.A undertook a rebranding exercise to National Park, when it was already (kinda) a member of and in my eyes this wasn't required as I believe the Broads are internationaly reconised as just that and then wasted lots of money going to court over this. Their are many stories over strange planning decisions, yet appear to do whatever they want when it's there own use, such as tent's on thier own land.  The B.A wasted lots of money on a boat used on Breydon water, yet it's too tall to go under the bridges at low water and isn't usable for recovery options on the mud flats. The B.A sold of patrol boats only to build new identical ones. The B.A consist of unelected officer's whom are not accountable to anyone.  The B.A remove officer's/staff etc whom appear to disagree with a certain view, the B.A then seem to public defame such individual and try to affect their businesses. The B.A in my eyes do not do enough dredging, they do not pay enough to retain moorings, they do not do enough to encourage tourism and help local companies, (neglecting the BNP situation).  The B.A do not engage with the community, they are not at any local event's. Engagement with the CEO on other forums have clearly been scripted and his response is avoiding answering concerns again and again. The B.A purchased a cafe at Acle and their plans to change are a waste of money in my eyes.   The B.A close down the Broads Forum over claims that they wasn't 

My positive view:

The broads is value for money, I believe the private tolls are affordable. The majority of public staff I have met have been professional; I've had long chats with Joel in the tolls departments. Most rangers give a friendly wave. One ranger was exceptional when we had an issue. 

Therefore my reaction to the BA is more negative than positive I am concerned about the way they way.  I would like to some type of public investigation. 

I think it does help though to understand posters background if they are putting evidence on the table.  I understand JennyMorgan's position and although perhaps may have a personal grief with the BA and DrP, I believe his facts are based from valid sources. Paldine always backs comments up with worthy references.  I am worried that those that are showing a positive B.A are working for the BA or have some other association, BatraBill are you associated to the BA in anyway? 

Once again, the more input the better. But I can't believe for a moment that the current BA can be described as a positive force.

 

[dnks34]

24 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

I don't want to reopen a old post but am a bit bored so I thought I'd share my views as I don't want to put into a box or misrepresented by others.

Posts like this which (I trust and assume) intend to add arguments to a debate are really what broads forums should be about in my eyes and is really what I come to see on the NBN etc

Obviously what one reads on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt unless the poster has any attributes of accountability.  Indeed people "say" things for many reasons, arguably the main being for personal self gratification (I'll hopefully explain below my reasons for posting). 

The whole debate over the way BA manage, the CEO's position, the planning setup, the rebranding exercise to BNP, the concerns over rights of navigation impacting with nature (aka Sandford) is all very very complicated from my ill educated view, by all means I'm not going to pretend for one moment that I understand, nor I understand the politics of the minority individual's involved but certainly the more comments adding to the debate I believe enriches the debate and helps the majority understand.   

From what I read in the forums, facebook groups, newspapers, websites and hear on the ground, I am concerned, somethings not right, my view of the organisation isn't a positive one, here's what I understand;

The B.A got involved in a legal battle to remove a long term livaboard community from an area close to norfolk, yes there was planning issues, however the manner in which it was completed was questionable in my eyes.  The B.A got involved in long and expensive legal battle over this. The B.A undertook a rebranding exercise to National Park, when it was already (kinda) a member of and in my eyes this wasn't required as I believe the Broads are internationaly reconised as just that and then wasted lots of money going to court over this. Their are many stories over strange planning decisions, yet appear to do whatever they want when it's there own use, such as tent's on thier own land.  The B.A wasted lots of money on a boat used on Breydon water, yet it's too tall to go under the bridges at low water and isn't usable for recovery options on the mud flats. The B.A sold of patrol boats only to build new identical ones. The B.A consist of unelected officer's whom are not accountable to anyone.  The B.A remove officer's/staff etc whom appear to disagree with a certain view, the B.A then seem to public defame such individual and try to affect their businesses. The B.A in my eyes do not do enough dredging, they do not pay enough to retain moorings, they do not do enough to encourage tourism and help local companies, (neglecting the BNP situation).  The B.A do not engage with the community, they are not at any local event's. Engagement with the CEO on other forums have clearly been scripted and his response is avoiding answering concerns again and again. The B.A purchased a cafe at Acle and their plans to change are a waste of money in my eyes.   The B.A close down the Broads Forum over claims that they wasn't 

My positive view:

The broads is value for money, I believe the private tolls are affordable. The majority of public staff I have met have been professional; I've had long chats with Joel in the tolls departments. Most rangers give a friendly wave. One ranger was exceptional when we had an issue. 

Therefore my reaction to the BA is more negative than positive I am concerned about the way they way.  I would like to some type of public investigation. 

I think it does help though to understand posters background if they are putting evidence on the table.  I understand JennyMorgan's position and although perhaps may have a personal grief with the BA and DrP, I believe his facts are based from valid sources. Paldine always backs comments up with worthy references.  I am worried that those that are showing a positive B.A are working for the BA or have some other association, BatraBill are you associated to the BA in anyway? 

Once again, the more input the better. But I can't believe for a moment that the current BA can be described as a positive force.

 

Apart from affordable Tolls I agree entirely with your post, it’s exactly how I would put it. 

Personally I felt Dr Ps engagement with another forum did nothing for his image and in my mind mudied waters further.  

Pro BA members (whom may well have their own agenda) can bang on about how good he is all they like they wont brainwash me. 

Its not the BA thats the concern, its him. 

Wrong man for the Job dont trust him one bit. His track record speaks for itself.

 

 

[batrabill]

42 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

I don't want to reopen a old post but am a bit bored so I thought I'd share my views as I don't want to put into a box or misrepresented by others.

Posts like this which (I trust and assume) intend to add arguments to a debate are really what broads forums should be about in my eyes and is really what I come to see on the NBN etc

Obviously what one reads on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt unless the poster has any attributes of accountability.  Indeed people "say" things for many reasons, arguably the main being for personal self gratification (I'll hopefully explain below my reasons for posting). 

The whole debate over the way BA manage, the CEO's position, the planning setup, the rebranding exercise to BNP, the concerns over rights of navigation impacting with nature (aka Sandford) is all very very complicated from my ill educated view, by all means I'm not going to pretend for one moment that I understand, nor I understand the politics of the minority individual's involved but certainly the more comments adding to the debate I believe enriches the debate and helps the majority understand.   

From what I read in the forums, facebook groups, newspapers, websites and hear on the ground, I am concerned, somethings not right, my view of the organisation isn't a positive one, here's what I understand;

The B.A got involved in a legal battle to remove a long term livaboard community from an area close to norfolk, yes there was planning issues, however the manner in which it was completed was questionable in my eyes.  The B.A got involved in long and expensive legal battle over this. The B.A undertook a rebranding exercise to National Park, when it was already (kinda) a member of and in my eyes this wasn't required as I believe the Broads are internationaly reconised as just that and then wasted lots of money going to court over this. Their are many stories over strange planning decisions, yet appear to do whatever they want when it's there own use, such as tent's on thier own land.  The B.A wasted lots of money on a boat used on Breydon water, yet it's too tall to go under the bridges at low water and isn't usable for recovery options on the mud flats. The B.A sold of patrol boats only to build new identical ones. The B.A consist of unelected officer's whom are not accountable to anyone.  The B.A remove officer's/staff etc whom appear to disagree with a certain view, the B.A then seem to public defame such individual and try to affect their businesses. The B.A in my eyes do not do enough dredging, they do not pay enough to retain moorings, they do not do enough to encourage tourism and help local companies, (neglecting the BNP situation).  The B.A do not engage with the community, they are not at any local event's. Engagement with the CEO on other forums have clearly been scripted and his response is avoiding answering concerns again and again. The B.A purchased a cafe at Acle and their plans to change are a waste of money in my eyes.   The B.A close down the Broads Forum over claims that they wasn't 

My positive view:

The broads is value for money, I believe the private tolls are affordable. The majority of public staff I have met have been professional; I've had long chats with Joel in the tolls departments. Most rangers give a friendly wave. One ranger was exceptional when we had an issue. 

Therefore my reaction to the BA is more negative than positive I am concerned about the way they way.  I would like to some type of public investigation. 

I think it does help though to understand posters background if they are putting evidence on the table.  I understand JennyMorgan's position and although perhaps may have a personal grief with the BA and DrP, I believe his facts are based from valid sources. Paldine always backs comments up with worthy references.  I am worried that those that are showing a positive B.A are working for the BA or have some other association, BatraBill are you associated to the BA in anyway? 

Once again, the more input the better. But I can't believe for a moment that the current BA can be described as a positive force.

 

BA? No, not in any way. Or anyone associated with them, whatever falsehoods and innuendo are being spread by some. 

Let’s start with you end line. “Can’t be described as a positive force”

I think I would say that it’s effect is in many senses “neutral”. They do some things right and some things  wrong. Bit like every other organisation on the planet ???

I think many of your negatives you list are right, although you have presented them in fairly negative terms. It is pointless debating each one but, as an example, individuals with deep pockets took the BA to court, over the branding,something that few would have predicted. 

There are actually 2 quite distinct issues here: firstly the NP /Sanford stuff. I think what we hear repeatedly is simple b*******s.

It’s not really an issue at all - it’s the boogeyman and if you take that away you can then focus on the second issue, the conduct of the authority - case by case.

What you must accept is that the current climate means anything the Authority does is viewed through the negative prism of the whole “full NP means restricting the rights of boaters”

I looked back to the reaction of the NBN to the acquisition of the Acle moorings. I think BA paid a bit over £100k for them. Seems like a bargain and something most people wanted. Have a look what people said “it’s not really new mooring” “not as good as the pontoons were meant to get at Thurne mouth”

Some did welcome it but does this sound like a balanced debate to you?

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JawsOrca said:

I don't want to reopen a old post but am a bit bored so I thought I'd share my views as I don't want to put into a box or misrepresented by others.

Posts like this which (I trust and assume) intend to add arguments to a debate are really what broads forums should be about in my eyes and is really what I come to see on the NBN etc

Obviously what one reads on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt unless the poster has any attributes of accountability.  Indeed people "say" things for many reasons, arguably the main being for personal self gratification (I'll hopefully explain below my reasons for posting). 

The whole debate over the way BA manage, the CEO's position, the planning setup, the rebranding exercise to BNP, the concerns over rights of navigation impacting with nature (aka Sandford) is all very very complicated from my ill educated view, by all means I'm not going to pretend for one moment that I understand, nor I understand the politics of the minority individual's involved but certainly the more comments adding to the debate I believe enriches the debate and helps the majority understand.   

From what I read in the forums, facebook groups, newspapers, websites and hear on the ground, I am concerned, somethings not right, my view of the organisation isn't a positive one, here's what I understand;

The B.A got involved in a legal battle to remove a long term livaboard community from an area close to norfolk, yes there was planning issues, however the manner in which it was completed was questionable in my eyes.  The B.A got involved in long and expensive legal battle over this. The B.A undertook a rebranding exercise to National Park, when it was already (kinda) a member of and in my eyes this wasn't required as I believe the Broads are internationaly reconised as just that and then wasted lots of money going to court over this. Their are many stories over strange planning decisions, yet appear to do whatever they want when it's there own use, such as tent's on thier own land.  The B.A wasted lots of money on a boat used on Breydon water, yet it's too tall to go under the bridges at low water and isn't usable for recovery options on the mud flats. The B.A sold of patrol boats only to build new identical ones. The B.A consist of unelected officer's whom are not accountable to anyone.  The B.A remove officer's/staff etc whom appear to disagree with a certain view, the B.A then seem to public defame such individual and try to affect their businesses. The B.A in my eyes do not do enough dredging, they do not pay enough to retain moorings, they do not do enough to encourage tourism and help local companies, (neglecting the BNP situation).  The B.A do not engage with the community, they are not at any local event's. Engagement with the CEO on other forums have clearly been scripted and his response is avoiding answering concerns again and again. The B.A purchased a cafe at Acle and their plans to change are a waste of money in my eyes.   The B.A close down the Broads Forum over claims that they wasn't 

My positive view:

The broads is value for money, I believe the private tolls are affordable. The majority of public staff I have met have been professional; I've had long chats with Joel in the tolls departments. Most rangers give a friendly wave. One ranger was exceptional when we had an issue. 

Therefore my reaction to the BA is more negative than positive I am concerned about the way they way.  I would like to some type of public investigation. 

I think it does help though to understand posters background if they are putting evidence on the table.  I understand JennyMorgan's position and although perhaps may have a personal grief with the BA and DrP, I believe his facts are based from valid sources. Paldine always backs comments up with worthy references.  I am worried that those that are showing a positive B.A are working for the BA or have some other association, BatraBill are you associated to the BA in anyway? 

Once again, the more input the better. But I can't believe for a moment that the current BA can be described as a positive force.

 

Absolutely the nail on the head , my thoughts entirely , accurate , well written ( better than i could do for sure ) , its exactly the  reason quangos want kicking into touch ie their lack of accountably of spending other peoples money .

The people in BA at the sharp end ie those in the office and patrols etc do sterling work in my view , those higher up however are in it for themselves and that's why we see such monumental stupid decisions being made , if BA were a company standing on it's own 2 feet of would have gone under urs ago , bit the thing that keeps it going is tolls , without that income it's really stuffed , and yet it intends spending thousands on pipe dreams. Just as it has in the past , and as long as it exist It will no doubt carry on doing .much of the same as and expecting others to pay for their ridiculous games.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, batrabill said:

BA? No, not in any way. Or anyone associated with them, whatever falsehoods and innuendo are being spread by some. 

Let’s start with you end line. “Can’t be described as a positive force”

I think I would say that it’s effect is in many senses “neutral”. They do some things right and some things  wrong. Bit like every other organisation on the planet ???

I think many of your negatives you list are right, although you have presented them in fairly negative terms. It is pointless debating each one but, as an example, individuals with deep pockets took the BA to court, over the branding,something that few would have predicted. 

There are actually 2 quite distinct issues here: firstly the NP /Sanford stuff. I think what we hear repeatedly is simple b*******s.

It’s not really an issue at all - it’s the boogeyman and if you take that away you can then focus on the second issue, the conduct of the authority - case by case.

What you must accept is that the current climate means anything the Authority does is viewed through the negative prism of the whole “full NP means restricting the rights of boaters”

I looked back to the reaction of the NBN to the acquisition of the Acle moorings. I think BA paid a bit over £100k for them. Seems like a bargain and something most people wanted. Have a look what people said “it’s not really new mooring” “not as good as the pontoons were meant to get at Thurne mouth”

Some did welcome it but does this sound like a balanced debate to you

Had BA not bought acle moorings they would have ended up as wild moorings anyway until someone purchased them , BA I believe stated they paid , double the £100k mentioned , trust me I used to think BA were brilliant compared to the now defunct British waterways , but believe me if you have to deal with them on a day to day basis there's no difference .

BA ignore the obvious , take for ex? ample the fact there's a sunken boat at beccles on a BA mooring fotr over a month now , only 2x 30' boats can technically moor there without addition restrictions , why hasn't a craine been deployed obviously by river because of the location to remove this boat ? That is where BA fail the end user and there are plenty of other examples .

Stuff the stupid landmark building acle and get the basics right first .

Ie walk before you run .

[dnks34]

Its not only the BA I say this about but its all well and good having Professors and University Educated so called professionals leading some of these organisations but if they haven’t got a basic grasp of good sense it’s absolutely meaningless. 

With the amount of money some of these “people” are paid there should be no question that they are doing the most appropriate thing but most clearly live in some kind of fantasy world and are only out to feather their own nest.

[Maxwellian]

I reiterate again. The forum is an excellent place for debate, ecveryone is entitled  to their opinions and ideas. It is wrong to expect everyone to agree with you though and it does not make someone a trouble maker or bad person for doing so. We should all be considerate of others and defend their right to say it. 

A well structured discussion adds to the forum. Dummy tossing and name calling detracts from what it stands for. I am not accusing anyone on this either.

please play nicely on all threads and be considerate to each other.

:)

[NorfolkNog]

I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It

Voltaire? François-Marie Arouet? S. G. Tallentyre? Evelyn Beatrice Hall? Ignazio Silone? Douglas Young? Norbert Guterman?

[MauriceMynah]

I disagree with what you say and therefore you are wrong.

My Father.

[Vaughan]

Batrabill, I think your first post on this thread, as the OP, was a well reasoned and concise argument.

I have however, been reading back over a thread called "The Broads is not a national park" started by JM only 2 months ago and where, over the course of 7 pages, the main contributors - and debaters - were yourself and JohnK.

So you have already had a full opportunity to have "your money's worth" on a thread started by JM. It is therefore unfair to accuse him of backing out now, as I don't blame him! You have already had your time "in the ring" with him.

In which case, I am not sure of your motive for "dredging" all this up again, only a few weeks later, and without any provocation?

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

this has been an amazing read, and I agree with all those that said Alans (Jaws Orca) post is spot on. Whenever we've spoken to any of the rangers, they have always been great, and we have had had waves and smiles, and thumbs up from most, but not all.

If like most, if not all authorities, the hierachy are mostly liying devious underhanded crooks who have goy the positions by the old boy network, or they went to the right university or public school. We have the same sort of thing where I work, those that are now in charge were bloody useless at building the product to CAA regulations, but now in charge continuously push the guys on the bench to diregard regulations to get things done quickly to get them out of the door, and only to make themselves look good in the MDs eyes.

Unfortunately, nothing will change, because if management DO have a dramatic change of policy, that in itself is a recognition that THEY have been in the wrong.

The people who I think that should be heading the BA are people that have lived and worked on the broads for most of their lives, People like Jenny Morgan, Vaughn, and others like them, as they are the sort of people that genuinely know what is right and of prime importance to not only the navigation, but also to business and the good of the environment too.

Don't worry Howard (Norfolk Nog), you will be in charge of promoting Broadland pubs.

[JennyMorgan]

The Broads is really quite a small world in some respects, fair chance that someone knows someone else and so on. In my case such a trail lead to an outspoken supporter of all things BA. I am assured by my informant that said pro BA spokesman has actually been known to criticise the good Doctor and has something of a reputation amongst those who know him for his often contrary opinion and argument. I happen to trust my informant and find his comments both revealing AND amusing.

Yes, Sandford as such as been superseded  by other, similar powers, at least that is my understanding. The principle remains, that of excessive and potentially unbridled control should the Broads become a 'real' national park. As I have said before, the intentions are clear, just read the Broads Bill, leopards don't change their spots, witness his tenacity in regard to the Broads national park saga. 

Has Sandford actually been dropped from the National Parks Act? I don't believe that it has, unless someone knows better.

 

[Paladin]

46 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Has Sandford actually been dropped from the National Parks Act? I don't believe that it has, unless someone knows better.

 

JM, are you referring to the 1949 Act?

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

I`ve said this before on other posts re National Parks,  We live just outside the New Forest National Park, and having worked with, and spoken to several other people who live in the bounds of the New Forest NP, i can safely say that the restrictions imposed on homes, businesses, and life in general can be very frustrating. The NP authority have made people completely re-thatch houses because they have NOT used the correct thatch, stating Norfolk reed is not correct, made people change recently replaced windows because they`re not made from the correct material, made people re-paint cottages from the ground up, because they`ve used the wrong type of paint, and non allowed colours, the list goes on and on. There are countless numbers of people who have bought homes in this NP, but have soon sold up, and vowed NEVER to buy homes in NPs again.  

Now, i DO understand the necessity of regulation, i work in the aircraft industry, so i know regulation is vital in certain circumstances, but some of these restrictions are purely and simply ridiculous, and drive people away. If National Parks are there for OUR benefit, why do they make life so difficult for those that choose to live there, only to have them move out not long after?.

So if people REALLY think they`re better off living, or owning a business in a National Park, don`t come running to those who have advised against it and complaining.

Also, if people think the Broads will never be a full NP, why all the BNP status nonsense if can never be one, and when it DOES become a full NP, and Sandford IS installed, you also WON`T complain when all deisel engines are banned, Powerboat racing, water skiing, and pwerboats in general are all banned, because that`s what has happpened on Windemere and others in the Lake District National Park. And certain businesses and industries have suffered severely as a result.

[Paul]

I would take a few issues with the original post, based purely on what I have witnessed or learned from a lifetime of visiting the Broads and fifteen years or so of presence of forums such as this one.

I have not detected any personal animosity towards the Chief Executive of the Authority, in fact quite the opposite, some of the Authorities most vocal critics have made clear that they find him a pleasant, learned and reasonable individual. Their frustration from what I have seen is based on a difference of opinion rather than any personal dislike.

I have seen the pro NP lobby trying to dismiss the Sandford Principle (regardless of what name you choose to apply to it) using the argument that it has been very rarely used in other National Parks, and whilst that is true those NP's are very different to the Broads which would pose a different set of pressures for which Sandford might well be the final judgement. In such cases it is not only navigation that would lose out, but many other activities, not least angling. 

[batrabill]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Batrabill, I think your first post on this thread, as the OP, was a well reasoned and concise argument.

I have however, been reading back over a thread called "The Broads is not a national park" started by JM only 2 months ago and where, over the course of 7 pages, the main contributors - and debaters - were yourself and JohnK.

So you have already had a full opportunity to have "your money's worth" on a thread started by JM. It is therefore unfair to accuse him of backing out now, as I don't blame him! You have already had your time "in the ring" with him.

In which case, I am not sure of your motive for "dredging" all this up again, only a few weeks later, and without any provocation?

I’m not sure, Vaughan, I need to prove a ‘motive’. My post was created in response to a moderators comment that reasoned argument was welcomed here. 

One of the things that is really obvious to the few who argue against the orthodoxy is that,  I am “pointlessly arguing” and “being deliberately provocative” and “creating conflict “ and “derailing sensible debate”. 

You, whoever you are, are “offering constructive criticism” “just stating the facts” and “educating the naive”.

I’m pleased that JM has discovered that life isn’t too short to respond. What a difference a day makes. 

[JennyMorgan]

33 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I’m pleased that JM has discovered that life isn’t too short to respond. What a difference a day makes. 

Don't flatter yourself, Bill, I was not responding to your goodself, rather the wider membership, sorry and all that.

I too am not above a spot of sarchasm!

[batrabill]

I don’t remember taking credit. 

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

The Broads is really quite a small world in some respects, fair chance that someone knows someone else and so on. In my case such a trail lead to an outspoken supporter of all things BA. I am assured by my informant that said pro BA spokesman has actually been known to criticise the good Doctor and has something of a reputation amongst those who know him for his often contrary opinion and argument. I happen to trust my informant and find his comments both revealing AND amusing.

 

Does anyone have any idea what this means? It appears to be gibberish. Perhaps you can explain?

[VetChugger]

That damned fish again Bill! Time it was filleted!

 

[JennyMorgan]

Now't to do with that blessed fish! 

Bill, you may interpret my inane gibberish just as you wish.

[JawsOrca]

9 hours ago, batrabill said:

I don’t remember taking credit. 

Does anyone have any idea what this means? It appears to be gibberish. Perhaps you can explain?

Shame to see your post has descended beyond civil debate and thus indicate some other motive thus my views of the are strengthened more toward the negative of the subject.

[batrabill]

5 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

Shame to see your post has descended beyond civil debate and thus indicate some other motive thus my views of the are strengthened more toward the negative of the subject.

JO I thought it was all going rather well. But I agree it’s tak n a turn for the worse. 

[MauriceMynah]

9 hours ago, batrabill said:

Does anyone have any idea what this means? It appears to be gibberish. Perhaps you can explain?

I think that was unreasonably phrased Bill, but I have to admit I too don't understand the contents of the post to which the comment is aimed.

[Vaughan]

I guess what JM was trying to say was that, like it or not, he knows that what the fish was saying this last time is true. I know this as well but like JM, would not wish to reveal my sources.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I guess what JM was trying to say was that, like it or not, he knows that what the fish was saying this last time is true. I know this as well but like JM, would not wish to reveal my sources.

Perhaps I was! However I have a sneaking suspicion the target of my ire knows damn well to whom I was aluding! 

Yes, that fish is quite right.