Anyone For Yoga?

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I won't attempt any position I can't spell.

And my father always told me never to drink anything you can't see through. This has held me in good stead all my life!

[dnks34]

What constantly springs to the forefront of my mind when reading about the latest initiative or fad the BA are involving themselves in is that they a not a local authority, village hall committee, health authority or whatever else they try to be they are a River Authority.  At every oppurtunity it appears the BA seek to move further and further from their actual purpose that when it comes down to it their fundamental reason for being seems more of an inconvenience to them than anything else. 

Nothing about that view point makes me or anyone else anti BA.  

If they concentrated dilligantly on the actual Job in hand rather than putting all their energies into crackpot vanity projects, planning disputes and other events that have absolutely no relevance to their remit who could or would complain.

I wonder how much they spend on rope each year as they are forever using it to dangle themselves on!

[grendel]

apparently today in Yoga I was fully relaxed - and snoring.

[Paladin]

15 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

So that looks like the BA is involved with organising it. The article was simply a mild err-hem, naughty word, ****-take that a publicly funded body should be running yoga events instead of doing its statutory duties. We're not anti-yoga here at the Broads National Pike!

 

On 04/08/2018 at 15:35, JennyMorgan said:

Should the Authority be organising events that have absolutely no relevance to the Broads? Should a private individual wish to organise such events then so be it, all power to their elbow, but for it to come under the BA's banner, and expense, has to be questionable. Personally I see it as further evidence that the Authority has lost its way.

 

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I have absolutely no objection to health fads, e.g. yoga, being practised at Whitlingham. Indeed public use is a large part of the justification for Whitlingham Country Park and that should be supported. My grouse is the association by the Authority and the probable officer time wasted. A small issue perhaps but nevertheless it suggests a questionable and unhealthy shift away from Broads related issues. 

I would like to see evidence to support any (preferably all) of the suppositions and innuendos that I have emboldened. This is exactly why people are being turned off from the relentless campaign against the BA. Too many insinuations, too few facts.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, dnks34 said:

What constantly springs to the forefront of my mind when reading about the latest initiative or fad the BA are involving themselves in is that they a not a local authority, village hall committee, health authority or whatever else they try to be they are a River Authority.

I like your post but I would like to develop your argument a bit further, if I may?

Before the BA, the River Commissioners were the river authority. What happened in the land around the rivers was down to the local councils - parish, borough, rural and county. This sounds top heavy but in fact it worked very well in practice, especially as the commissioners always knew that the whole lowland area depended on the rivers, not just for navigation, but for maintaining the balance of the whole eco-system, which is almost all reclaimed land.

The BA was created as an area authority as this should be a better way of doing it - In theory.  Their area of responsibility is exactly the same as that laid down by the original Broads Study and Plan, and by the Broads Joint Advisory Planning Committee, in the 1960s. As a lowland area, its boundaries are still the same as those which were believed to have formed the "Great Estuary" in Roman times.

Sorry Timbo, but that at least, is a fact!

So we now have an authority, responsible for all this area, and for whom navigation is only  one of its four corner stones. This should be a very good way of doing it but what do we see in practice? Other factions such as NSPB and NWT seem to be calling a very loud tune and we also have the EA - whatever that is. Wasn't that English Nature a while ago, or am I still thinking of the CPRE? They all change titles so fast. Does the authority maintain its position among all this, or does it just bow to them in preference to the overall vision of something more "national"?

I could cite several mistakes that the BA has made which have seriously affected the evolution of the Broads as we know them now but I won't bore you with them here - they are all around you! They have made almost all of these mistakes by not listening to the opinion of the local people who are concerned by their decisions. 

Now, they seem to be making the same mistakes. This scheme for a visitor centre, in a place that no-one visits except passing through, by road or by water, is ill conceived and it is quite clear that no private company or home owner would ever get planning permission for it, according to their own planning guidelines. So are the affairs of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads safe in their un-elected hands? Their track record to date, does not convince me.

Excuse me for rambling on a bit but for other reasons, this may be the last chance I get to make a contribution on here, for a while at least.

 

[Polly]

I think that you have got a main point across Vaughan. Listen!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, dnks34 said:

What constantly springs to the forefront of my mind when reading about the latest initiative or fad the BA are involving themselves in is that they a not a local authority, village hall committee, health authority or whatever else they try to be they are a River Authority.

 

The 'Broads Authority' are not and never have been the 'River Authority'. That responsibility lies with the 'Environment Agency' and prior to that, the 'N.R.A.' (National Rivers Authority) and before that, the 'East Suffolk & Norfolk Rivers Authority'. But, never the Broads Authority...

 

[JennyMorgan]

On 07/08/2018 at 14:04, Paladin said:

I would like to see evidence to support any (preferably all) of the suppositions and innuendos that I have emboldened. This is exactly why people are being turned off from the relentless campaign against the BA. Too many insinuations, too few facts.

Please show me that what I have suggested is not feasible, for example that officer time was not involved. By the way, Paladin, what is highlighted in green is, as I pointed out, a quote from the National Pike him/herself. The second point that you highligted was a question, not a statement of fact.

[Timbo]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Sorry Timbo, but that at least, is a fact

You are going to have to do better than that young fellow me lad! 
The Broads Executive area follows the contours of the modern floodplains which have shifted quite markedly from the Roman era. I will make an archaeologist of you yet! Although we both have a long way to go to catch up @Wussername , who I'm lead to believe was a drinking buddy with Marcus Antonius!

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, kingfisher666 said:

The 'Broads Authority' are not and never have been the 'River Authority'. That responsibility lies with the 'Environment Agency' and prior to that, the 'N.R.A.' (National Rivers Authority) and before that, the 'East Suffolk & Norfolk Rivers Authority'. But, never the Broads Authority...

 

The Broads Authority is indeed the Harbour Authority, their area of responsibility being the rivers and broads of the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads. Not the River Authority, in that I agree, but nevertheless an Authority with designated responsibilities in regard to our rivers. The Broads Authority rather than the River Authority, I suspect that most of us realised what 'dnks ' meant.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Broads Authority is indeed the Harbour Authority, their area of responsibility being the rivers and broads of the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads. Not the River Authority, in that I agree, but nevertheless an Authority with designated responsibilities in regard to our rivers. The Broads Authority rather than the River Authority, I suspect that most of us realised what 'dnks ' meant.

If you're going to criticise the 'Broads Authority', for any tenuous reason, then at least be sure that you get your facts right. I'm sure you would agree with that?...

[Paladin]

21 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Please show me that what I have suggested is not feasible, for example that officer time was not involved. By the way, Paladin, what is highlighted in green is, as I pointed out, a quote from the National Pike him/herself. The second point that you highligted was a question, not a statement of fact.

So no facts to back up the allegations then.

The second question is in the ‘loaded question’ format. It presupposes that the BA is involved in organising events that have nothing to do with the Broads. Another oft-quoted example is “When did you stop beating your wife”?

Give me some facts, pleeeeze!

[dnks34]

1 hour ago, kingfisher666 said:

If you're going to criticise the 'Broads Authority', for any tenuous reason, then at least be sure that you get your facts right. I'm sure you would agree with that?...

Its absolutely nothing to do with facts its called splitting hairs!

[Paladin]

8 hours ago, dnks34 said:

Its absolutely nothing to do with facts its called splitting hairs!

I don’t agree that differentiating between a “River Authority” (which the BA isn’t) and a “Harbour Authority” (which the BA is) is splitting hairs. Each has their own different legislation and duties. 

The same logic applies to the discussion on whether or not the Broads is a national park or not. Or perhaps that’s just splitting hairs, as well.

IMO, it’s most important to keep the facts straight, otherwise myth becomes opinion, and opinion becomes fact.

[Cockatoo]

22 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Anyone else having visions of Maurice doing the praying mantis

I think Yoga and Yoda confusing he is.

[MauriceMynah]

SteveDuk , You I thank.

[dnks34]

4 hours ago, Paladin said:

I don’t agree that differentiating between a “River Authority” (which the BA isn’t) and a “Harbour Authority” (which the BA is) is splitting hairs. Each has their own different legislation and duties. 

The same logic applies to the discussion on whether or not the Broads is a national park or not. Or perhaps that’s just splitting hairs, as well.

IMO, it’s most important to keep the facts straight, otherwise myth becomes opinion, and opinion becomes fact.

Do the Broads Authority hold “Authority” on the rivers and waterways of the  Norfolk & Suffolk Broads?  

I pay them a river Toll, they can prosecute me for speeding I would say they are the Authority and no matter how you try to play on words the end result is basically the same thing.

 

[Paladin]

4 hours ago, dnks34 said:

Do the Broads Authority hold “Authority” on the rivers and waterways of the  Norfolk & Suffolk Broads?  

I pay them a river Toll, they can prosecute me for speeding I would say they are the Authority and no matter how you try to play on words the end result is basically the same thing.

 

There appears to be conflation here between having authority and being an Authority. In the legal sense, these are two completely different things.