Another One Bites The Dust

[Maxwellian]

Happy for you to do so. You might find the official statement is all you get, but I would welcome his reply as long as we all promise to play nicely in any debate.

[MauriceMynah]

Sadly I doubt that the mighty doctor will grace our pages, and in fairness I don't blame him one iota. If he were so much as to make an opening post just saying "Hello" it would be torn to shreds, held up to ridicule and generally be shouted down.

As a forum, it is our Achilles heel that he is held ion such scant regard as to make any contribution by him pointless. He has tried elsewhere but to no avail.

I am no fan of the mighty doctor, but nor am I so naïve as to think he might have something to gain by posting here. He too will know this so why bother trying.

It will be many years before this forum evolved to a state where he might think otherwise. … and this is our fault, not his. Sorry folks but that's the way I read it.

[JennyMorgan]

John, Mr Mynah, I cannot agree that it is our Achilles heel that Dr Packman is held in such low regard. I do think that we, if indeed we do, need to ask ourselves why he is held in low regard. Is it our fault, or his? That it's seemingly all coming to a head due to the Acle Debacle and now Knight-Gate is neither our fault nor our Achilles Heel, it is simply the reality of a situation resulting from the actions of the Authority & its CEO.

[grendel]

56 minutes ago, JamesKnight said:

The barrister's investigations might be available in redacted form through an FOI, yes. But to be honest I'll be happy to share them with anyone who wants to see them, warts & all. 

As to the Chief Executive's alleged investigation, I would be very surprised if there is anything to show. He says he took 3 days to investigate but frankly all he had to do was to read the appeal inspectors' decisions (let's say half an hour each) and the injunction (5 minutes). Then there is the trail of paperwork with Norwich City Council in which the BA asked them to take action for trespass because it would be easier than them taking planning enforcement action, say another 20 minutes and listening to the recording of the meeting, 15 minutes. And then asking the officers if they'd told the truth and nodding when they said yes. I can't see 3 days there, and it's unlikely that any of it was documented beyond our email exchanges.

The planning committee papers - and all the correspondence between me and the Chief Executive - can be found here for anyone who's really interested!

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B7BJSW6gDi75ZU0zdGNPNTBQLWs?usp=sharing

Cheers!

I was always taught that if there is no paper trail, then it didnt happen, if after a FOI request the cannot prove that it ever happened then the statement they made to the investigation panel was false and the findings of that panel should be reversed. this should also add credence to your allegations.

I was reading the code of conduct document earlier did you report the allegations to the monitoring officer? if so and there is no paper trail then something is seriously wrong with their processes.

[JennyMorgan]

48 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Perhaps we should now invite Dr Packman to respond?

If nothing else it would only be fair to offer a right of reply, not that I would expect him to take advantage of that simple courtesy. However, I would welcome his participation.

[dnks34]

Didnt JP engaging with the other forum end up leading to some degree of mistrust amongst members there?

I would welcome his response on this forum but I think there is more chance of Lowestoft Town winning the FA cup. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

Didnt JP engaging with the other forum end up leading to some degree of mistrust amongst members there?

I would welcome his response on this forum but I think there is more chance of Lowestoft Town winning the FA cup. 

 

Change Lowestoft Town to Ipswich Town or Doncaster Rovers & you'll really be on the money!

[FairTmiddlin]

Sorry

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Change Lowestoft Town to Ipswich Town or Doncaster Rovers & you'll really be on the money!

Ipswich Town Won it in 78

And the Euafa cup

Bit more than the local cousins have

Oh sorry they won the Milk Cup didn't they?

I too Am grateful, that James has joined us to give his side of the story

[Guest]

I'm sure the beasts of the jungle welcomed the Christians into the arena at the colosseum, with such equanimity too... 

[Polly]

I think beasts and Christians were equally in a 'no-win' situation, and I think there are no winners in this situation either.

[JennyMorgan]

34 minutes ago, FairTmiddlin said:

Sorry

Ipswich Town Won it in 78

And the Euafa cup

Bit more than the local cousins have

Oh sorry they won the Milk Cup didn't they?

I too Am grateful, that James has joined us to give his side of the story

That was in 1978

[JamesKnight]

Thanks everyone for the supportive comments.

Everyone who is interested in regime change at the BA needs to be focused on that objective. By all means use my removal as the latest example of the control freakery at the heart of the BA, but getting involved in a debate with JP about it isn't going to take anyone anywhere. You all know what he's going to say anyway, and you'll just get bogged down in semantics and waste a lot of time doing it.

What needs to happen is for as many people as possible to write to their MP,  and keep it short and to the point. The key issues (as far as my removal is concerned) are these:

1. No independent investigation was ever carried out into the allegations which I made

2. The previous and current chairman, the chief executive and the monitoring officer all refused to discuss my concerns

3. There was no fair hearing - the complaint was made by the Broads Authority itself, which went on to judge its own complaint a year later

4. The recommendation of the independent barrister,  that there be an informal resolution, was ignored, and the complaints procedure was altered to prevent such a resolution from taking place.

5. The sanction (removal) exceeds the limits put in place by the Localism Act 2011, and is contrary to the provisions of the Broads Act which dictate how members are to be appointed and replaced. I believe they've acted ultra vires.

Don't go off at other tangents. MPs need to be hearing these key points, because they obviously amount to maladministration.

Next, you need to consider what you want your MP to do about it. They're not interested in moaning, they've got a heavy workload and people write to them all the time. They are not the Government, and they have less direct power than you might think. All they can do is refer the matter upwards. By all means come up with your own ideas, but I would suggest that they should be asking for an urgent and immediate review of the system of governance within the Broads Authority, for a system of direct elections, and a judicial review of the most recent decision. 

You could also write to Michael Gove - he won't reply to you directly, but a sufficient volume of correspondence on the same subject might be noticed. The same is true of Lord Gardiner, the minister for National Parks. What we need here is a large volume of succinct emails, rather than a small number of very long ones.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you need any more background information.

[JamesKnight]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I was always taught that if there is no paper trail, then it didnt happen, if after a FOI request the cannot prove that it ever happened then the statement they made to the investigation panel was false and the findings of that panel should be reversed. this should also add credence to your allegations.

I was reading the code of conduct document earlier did you report the allegations to the monitoring officer? if so and there is no paper trail then something is seriously wrong with their processes.

Thank you, grendel.

Yes, I did report my concerns to the monitoring officer. He told me that:

a) the chief executive had already investigated;

b) it would be inappropriate for anyone other than the Chief Executive to investigate the officers' conduct because they were subject to employee protection;

c) it would be inappropriate to investigate my allegations because it might prejudice the outcome of the code of conduct complaint.

Good, isn't it?

[grendel]

9 minutes ago, JamesKnight said:

c) it would be inappropriate to investigate my allegations because it might prejudice the outcome of the code of conduct complaint.

well now the outcome has been decided, can he now investigate the allegations?

[JamesKnight]

15 minutes ago, grendel said:

well now the outcome has been decided, can he now investigate the allegations?

He'll just refer back to the previous 2 reasons. They don't want to investigate, because they know they can't defend themselves against what I've said.

[JennyMorgan]

JP is either incredibly arrogant or unsurprisingly confidant that he can cover his back-side.  The only acceptable outcome that I can see would be an independent judicial review.

[Maxwellian]

1 hour ago, JamesKnight said:

but getting involved in a debate with JP about it isn't going to take anyone anywhere. You all know what he's going to say anyway, and you'll just get bogged down in semantics and waste a lot of time doing it.

I would still welcome his input if he wishes to make it. I would welcome the opportunity for a two sided debate.

[Paul]

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

this is our fault, not his.

Sorry but I cannot accept that. If it were just here that he was held in "such scant regard" then I could accept your argument. But it is not. It is in other places too, with different membership. To me that suggests that the fault lies squarely in the office of the Blessed Authority's CEO.

 

[JamesKnight]

1 minute ago, Maxwellian said:

I would still welcome his input if he wishes to make it. I would welcome the opportunity for a two sided debate.

like you, I enjoy a good debate. But it's like trying to debate with a blancmange. You point to the words on a piece of paper and he says "well you might think it says that, but I disagree". In different circumstances, I would admire the skill.

[BroadAmbition]

Sorry but I cannot accept that. If it were just here that he was held in "such scant regard" then I could accept your argument. But it is not. It is in other places too, with different membership. To me that suggests that the fault lies squarely in the office of the Blessed Authority's CEO.

I agree with your post Paul I can back it up too, not just on other forums but also on the actual river banks  / workplaces and the like.  I talk to a fair few folk that live and work in and around the rivers, the good Dr from my own findings is indeed held in scant regard.  The nickname for Yare house of 'Tampax Towers' is also well known.  However the majority have nothing but respect for those at the actual coal face

James Knight - Welcome onboard - And about time too.  Good to have you here and for what it's worth you have my support.  From what you have previously posted, even with the most biased eyes I could muster, I cannot in all fairness come to any other conclusion but to believe your statements 100%

Griff

P.S  Marshy has gone a tad quiet eh?

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Not only 'Marshy', where is the indomitable 'Batra Bill' on this one?

Perhaps people will believe me now, there really is a foul stench over Yare House.

Like Griff I too talk to people along the bank, same feedback, same conclusion. 

[ChrisB]

I thought this was a friendly arena.

We are now slanging off other members because in the main they are supportive of the BA.

Perhaps some members prefer not to take sides in what has been spun away from James's original stand point based on how the BA conducts itself,to personalities, percieved conduct etc. 

Personally I think the Broads Authority have handed the whole affair in a very amateur fashion, which is very regretable and worrying. 

But let us keep to the matter in hand and not make people feel that they are banished because they are not one of the anti-BA clique.

Again on a personal note I think if this forum becomes a pressure group it could have a very negative outcome.

 

[MauriceMynah]

14 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

John, Mr Mynah, I cannot agree that it is our Achilles heel that Dr Packman is held in such low regard.

That was not what I said. That sentence needed to be read as a whole, not just the first half of it.

Your point however does illustrate what that sentence meant. I posted something that could be construed as a defence of the doctor. What I said was then misquoted and used to undermine my  post.

If Packman were to post here, are you suggesting anything other than the above would happen? I would ask the same if Marshy or Batra were to post, backing up the doctor, but I don't have to, Their silence speaks volumes to me. 

So, in short, if a person who holds views or acts in a way that is disagreed with by the majority of this forum, were to post on this forum, what sort of reception could he expect?

If Packman were to post here just the weords "The Norfolk and Suffolk broads are beautiful" My guess (and I suspect his too) would be that the reply would be  "Then why are you trying to destroy it" where if anyone else were to make that post the response would be total agreement.

[Polly]

Yes, it isn’t a good idea to challenge other members by calling on them by name, I think it devalues the whole debate. 

If I were JP there is no way I’d engage with this thread either. 

[batrabill]

I’m working in Bristol so a bit busy but always glad to help. I’m broadly on Mr Knights side. 

My questions: where are the other members of the Navigation Committee? If he’s right then I’d expect some to back him up? Perhaps the indominitable Lana Hempsell? 

and, Mr Knight, didn’t you write the Broads National Pike until quite recently? Perhaps that has had some effect on how you are perceived?