Jump to content

Another One Bites The Dust


Vaughan

Recommended Posts

Hi Bill, thank you for your input, pretty much word for word my thoughts too. Re the Broads National Pike, hardly 'quite recently'! Re mentioning other members by name, Bill has responded, he just needed a nudge! That aside he's a big boy, can look after himself and obviously taken my goading in the spirit in which it was intended. As for Marsh, he's never been afraid of going against the flow, don't think anything that I write will ever alter that!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

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?

In all honesty, John, such people do post here and do get, I think, a fair hearing. I've said it before, those who post on any forum need to have a thick skin in reserve. I don't think it unreasonable to suggest that, even when no one else agrees, that opposing opinions are at least accepted and generally in good spirit. Both of us sometimes put our heads above the parapet, hardly put off by the prospect of rejection, we are both still alive! One real plus about NBN is that lively debate is alive and well, and so is tolerance.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JamesKnight said:

Nobody, other than the Chief Executive, has ever made a judgement on the veracity of what I said.

I can though!

As it seems that this whole thing relates to what James said on the Broads Blog about Jenners basin back in 2016 (which I have just re-read in full this morning) and as I probably know as much about Thorpe Island and its history as anyone around here, I can state categorically that everything he said about the history of this affair is the straight and factual truth.

I am prepared to swear to that statement should it be necessary.

This sad saga, which involved both ends of the island and went on for 11 years of what I saw as deliberate persecution of the land owner, was most certainly not the BA's finest hour!

But just a minute! I seem to remember that James was sanctioned at the time for his use of social media and his signing of an on line petition. He was removed from the planning committee and he was not the only one, at that time. I seem to remember that he was vice chairman at the time, which meant that he could also no longer remain a member of the main authority.

So surely, he has already had his internal sanction for this so called offence? Meanwhile the disgusting remark by the then chairperson about feral people living in a shanty town, did not result in the immediate resignation that it surely merited!

So what has this got to do with the navigation committee?

Or is it that the internal procedures of the BA mean that you can be tried and convicted for the same "offence" twice?

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Or is it that the internal procedures of the BA mean that you can be tried and convicted for the same "offence" twice?

Or is it perhaps that the internal procedures are not being followed, from what I read about the code of conduct and the complaints process, it did not seem to me that the process had been followed, other than a superficial lip service maybe.

That aside, while we do I think give people a fair hearing on the forum, I will remind people that whilst you may wish to question the veracity of what someone has said, that you do it in a polite and civil manner, we have already lost several members from the forum due to their inability to keep things polite civil and within the terms of service, and usually it has been the more contentious subjects, the BA being one of them, it usually comes to a them and us argument - where in reality it really is just us, we are a group of people with a common interest, but we happen to disagree on some topics. - that is fine it would be a boring place if everyone thought the same. so please just give everyone the consideration you would like them to give you and keep it polite. its fine to disagree, just keep it friendly.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaughan, what you have just written quite simply reminds me of the targeted ambition that haunts Yare House. There is no time limit, whatever it takes, so long as it gets there eventually, witness the BNP obsession. In the case of Thorpe island it had long been decided that the marina/lagoon would be a nature reserve, that is on public record, and a nature reserve it is becoming.   As I say, whatever it takes, even if it destroys other folk's perfectly reasonable ambition.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, JamesKnight said:

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.

Time to react? We have read  both James's blog and subsequent postings, Andy has posted the 'official' response, presumably sanctioned by those in charge. We have had argument, debate and perhaps justification. Personally I cannot now see how anyone can possibly doubt that there is something fundamentally wrong at the sharp end. However, that is for you to decide.

May I now ask you all a favour? Please support James's recommendations and write to those that he has suggested

In the meantime things are happening locally but you can also do your bit. Please re-read what James has written and then write to those whom he suggests that you write to:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, batrabill said:

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?

Certainly I started the infamous pike - it was just intended as a bit of harmless satire really and I stopped writing it when I got appointed to the full Authority a few years ago and left it to a couple of others to play with. But the Chair & Chief Exec didn't believe me, and had me chucked off for allegedly writing an article about my own planning applications. Which obviously I didn't do.

Interestingly, 3 members had a pop at me under the code of conduct for writing that article, and the monitoring officer found that there was no evidence that I'd written it, and even if I had it wouldn't have been a breach of the code. But they'd chucked me off by then!

After that I started my own blog with my own name on it, so that nobody could accuse me of hiding behind a pseudonym. But obviously they didn't like that either, and hence started down the code of conduct route again, leading to the eventual final solution. 

As to the other members of nav com - Lana isn't on it, and most of the others might support me privately but will most likely keep their heads down, as they've seen what happens when you don't…

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, batrabill said:

So the situation is that “most” of the others support you but do nothing? 

That is worrying. Surely there is a point of principle here? 

Makes your fellow members sound a bit..... spineless?

Well, we're all different, and I've long since given up expecting everyone to behave like me :-)

Everyone has their own priorities, and most of them are sensible enough not to do anything which might cause them problems in their other dealings with the Broads Authority. Such as planning.

So, they beaver away behind the scenes, hoping that their contribution might help, or that they will achieve change from within.

I've never known anyone to succeed in that quest.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has their own priorities, and most of them are sensible enough not to do anything which might cause them problems in their other dealings with the Broads Authority. Such as planning.

sounds like a conflict of interests with the other members to me!!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, you may well be right. As you might remember I had four years on the Navigation Committee. In my time informal meetings took place in the car park and the little room where us fellows all hang out. We would all reach a broad agreement but come the time to speak out and vote much of what had been agreed would be forgotten, perhaps it was a case of platitudes and smooth talking winning the day. On another occasion myself and most of the Nav Com attended a formal Peer Review and, to put it bluntly, we ALL went for Dr Packman's jugular. However, by the time our submission had reached the report stage you would think that we were enthusiastically supportive, such is the way the truth is massaged and manipulated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Baitrunner said:

Everyone has their own priorities, and most of them are sensible enough not to do anything which might cause them problems in their other dealings with the Broads Authority. Such as planning.

sounds like a conflict of interests with the other members to me!!!!

well, not really. If you want people on committees who have any knowledge or experience, you have to expect that they will be somehow involved in the Broads - either by being a toll payer, a business owner, an employee in a boatyard or whatever. As long as that interest is declared, and they don't go voting on projects in which they have a direct financial interest, then there's unlikely to be a conflict. But, they're all human, and although you would hope that they will say what they think, unfortunately there is a bit of a herd mentality which makes most people go with the flow and prevents them from sticking their necks right out. The BA is not unique in this respect!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do sort of agree James and appreciate you sharing everything with us. And this is not aimed at yourself. 

But in many committees etc like that sometimes personal interest/greed can overcome doing the right thing or burning your bridges. 

I whole heartedly agree that the BA need an advisory panel made up of all Broads based interests. That way personal or business interests can be shared. But any committee that has any voting or say in BA policy should be made of a group of employees who can be held accountable. Now if you have a dictator in charge then you may as well save the time and money. 

it does also seem that to get on the committee you need to know the right people. So it becomes a bit of a cartel. Especially when they get rid of anyone who doesn't agree and stands their ground like James has. 

Just my opinion anyway. 

Ps. I have seen first hand what goes on in council planning committees so it's not just the BA who are like this. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.