Recent Poll Of National Parks

[MauriceMynah]

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Sorry. John. but that is nonsense. We either have boundaries or we don't. Since there are legislative issues in being a national park then we have to have such boundaries. The issue of planning policies immediately spring to mind. 

Actually, as I understand it, the Broads is not a national park... unless you know different :)

[Meantime]

8 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Actually, as I understand it, the Broads is not a national park... unless you know different :)

So just how do you market something that doesn't exist? Can anyone think of any other examples of marketing something that doesn't exist?

[Meantime]

18 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Sorry. John. but that is nonsense. We either have boundaries or we don't. Since there are legislative issues in being a national park then we have to have such boundaries. The issue of planning policies immediately spring to mind. 

You might be interested in the following communication from the ASA.  They obviously see it as a rebrand of the existing Broads area.

I understand you objected to these references of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads as the Broads National Park as they do not legally hold National Park status.  I appreciate your concerns here and I also understand that this is a somewhat controversial topic, however I should point out that we cannot comment on the general decision to rebrand the area- we can only make a decision of whether we consider the ad material is likely to detrimentally mislead consumers.

 

Whereas the rebrand decision was made by The Broads Authority, we noted that the Broads is listed on www.nationalparks.gov.uk, an official Government website, as having National Park status.  So whereas it is not necessarily legally a National Park, it appears to be generally accepted as having National Park status.  We considered that the references to the Broads National Park as seen on the Enjoy the Broads website were therefore unlikely to mislead consumers in a particularly detrimental manner.

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

You might be interested in the following communication from the ASA.  They obviously see it as a rebrand of the existing Broads area.

I understand you objected to these references of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads as the Broads National Park as they do not legally hold National Park status.  I appreciate your concerns here and I also understand that this is a somewhat controversial topic, however I should point out that we cannot comment on the general decision to rebrand the area- we can only make a decision of whether we consider the ad material is likely to detrimentally mislead consumers.

 

Whereas the rebrand decision was made by The Broads Authority, we noted that the Broads is listed on www.nationalparks.gov.uk, an official Government website, as having National Park status.  So whereas it is not necessarily legally a National Park, it appears to be generally accepted as having National Park status.  We considered that the references to the Broads National Park as seen on the Enjoy the Broads website were therefore unlikely to mislead consumers in a particularly detrimental manner.

Repeat a lie enough & it will eventually be accepted as the truth by some people. Me thinks that the ASA is taking the easy way out and that perhaps Packman got there first!

[JennyMorgan]

16 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

So just how do you market something that doesn't exist? Can anyone think of any other examples of marketing something that doesn't exist?

Only by shady characters!

[MauriceMynah]

23 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

So just how do you market something that doesn't exist? Can anyone think of any other examples of marketing something that doesn't exist?

They're not! As we all know, "the broads" does exist by one name or another. The BA are merely misrepresenting them in an attempt to increase footfall. This has been allowed by the ASA amongst others.. Let us not go into the definition of "existing" for god's sake!

[JennyMorgan]

The ASA response represents a very real problem, let me explain. I complain to the ASA, my local MP & even the PM who then forwards my complaint to Dr John for his response. Now, Dr John is no fool, indeed he is a very clever, very persuasive, smooth talking individual & in other circumstances I would probably admire him. Dr John's response will satisfy both MP , PM & ASA. job done. I'm afraid any complaints made to a government department will be handled in exactly the same, lazy, easy way out way. The system by which any of us complain is seriously flawed. It should not be up to the subject of our complaints to respond, it should be up to those to whom we complain to dig a little deeper, sometimes to even bypass the subject of the complaint although I accept that they should have a right to respond but don't let that response be the final word. Being up against a brick wall is a tricky place to be.

[batrabill]

Surely there is a very clear boundary? The line would be drawn around areas where planning issues are the responsibility of the BA. In my street the North side is North Norfolk and the South side is BA. 

The outline will inevitably be extremely complex and not lend itself to a map for general use. 

 

[batrabill]

I’m enjoying the “It doesn’t exist” argument. Tying yourself in knots. I suspect the ASA go to the National Parks website and see the Broads listed as a National Park. 

If you’re ever going to convince the world st large that it’s not a National Park you really have start with the NP authority. Only then will your argument get traction. 

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I’m enjoying the “It doesn’t exist” argument. Tying yourself in knots. I suspect the ASA go to the National Parks website and see the Broads listed as a National Park. 

If you’re ever going to convince the world st large that it’s not a National Park you really have start with the NP authority. Only then will your argument get traction. 

But if you look at the ASA response, they acknowledge that it has the status, but not necessarily legally a National Park. It is a rebranding marketing exercise.

we noted that the Broads is listed on www.nationalparks.gov.uk, an official Government website, as having National Park status.  So whereas it is not necessarily legally a National Park, it appears to be generally accepted as having National Park status.

[batrabill]

So about 100 million words discussing the meaning of the word ‘status’?

Or is it the meaning of the word ‘is’?

 

[Wussername]

Give it all to The National Trust I say, and be done with it.

By the way members get free car parking, we would therefore get free moorings and they also do jolly good muffins.

Wussername.

[ChrisB]

1 hour ago, Wussername said:

Give it all to The National Trust I say, and be done with it.

By the way members get free car parking, we would therefore get free moorings and they also do jolly good muffins.

Wussername.

I like their cream teas. Sometimes I walk right round Sheringham Park then undo all the good by pigging a cream tea!

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

I’m enjoying the “It doesn’t exist” argument. Tying yourself in knots. I suspect the ASA go to the National Parks website and see the Broads listed as a National Park. 

If you’re ever going to convince the world st large that it’s not a National Park you really have start with the NP authority. Only then will your argument get traction. 

Quite true but hasn't the good Doctor managed to ensconce himself into a position of some power within the corridors of power at NP Towers, at least for this year?  

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

But if you look at the ASA response, they acknowledge that it has the status, but not necessarily legally a National Park. It is a rebranding marketing exercise.

we noted that the Broads is listed on www.nationalparks.gov.uk, an official Government website, as having National Park status.  So whereas it is not necessarily legally a National Park, it appears to be generally accepted as having National Park status.

If it had national park status then it would be one but it hasn't therefor it isn't!  Like the good Doctor I too can play with words but the legal reality is perfectly clear.

[Guest]

I'm so glad that I don't care one way or the other, whether the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads is, or isn't a National Park. I don't think I could stand the boredom of spending all day discussing the lexical semantics of it's status or even it's existence...

Sh!t... I've just wasted two minutes thinking about it and another minute typing this, I really do need to get a life...

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, kingfisher666 said:

I'm so glad that I don't care one way or the other, whether the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads is, or isn't a National Park. I don't think I could stand the boredom of spending all day discussing the lexical semantics of it's status or even it's existence...

Sh!t... I've just wasted two minutes thinking about it and another minute typing this, I really do need to get a life...

Then you have just wasted three minutes mocking what so far has been a reasonable debate for those who are interested. There are other threads to read if you're not interested in this one!

[dnks34]

1 hour ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Then you have just wasted three minutes mocking what so far has been a reasonable debate for those who are interested. There are other threads to read if you're not interested in this one!

I totally agree with you and couldnt have put it better myself

[MauriceMynah]

Kingfisher666, I attempt to answer your post in the spirit of this forum.

There are 3 or 4 closely related issues. Firstly whether or not the broads should become a National park. This is surprisingly important issue and worthy of reasoned debate (which it has had on many occasions).

The second issue is whether or not the broads should be called a National Park even though it isn't one. This is less important, but equally frequently talked about.

Thirdly we have … Is Dr Packman still trying to cause the broads to become a National Park? Here things get rather more sticky. He say's he isn't but a significant number of people think he is being "Economical with the truth" and don't believe him. This naturally leads us into the fourth issue, "Is Dr Packman to be trusted to run the BA?"

That is where the aircon units get very dirty.

So, Each of us in our own sweet way have to decide firstly where we sit on these questions, and secondly how much time are we prepared to spend typing out our standpoints.

[smellyloo]

The more frequent these debates are regurgitated (which seems to be almost as frequent as Brexit debates on the tele) the more people get bored with the subject and want to move on to something more interesting.

 

[Meantime]

17 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

The more frequent these debates are regurgitated (which seems to be almost as frequent as Brexit debates on the tele) the more people get bored with the subject and want to move on to something more interesting.

 

To a degree I agree with you, although absolutely no one is forced to read a thread that doesn't interest them, however as the person who started this thread, I did so because there was new information to add debate to the discussion. That meant it was worthy of restarting an old debate in a slightly new context. If the results of the poll I started this thread with had shown The Broads to be the most, or second most visited National Park, then people would surely have to question their position and wonder if The BA had got it right in attempting to market The Broads as a National Park. As it is I happen to think the results of the poll are vindication to some degree for those who oppose it.

As and when new aspects arise it will be worth bringing them into the debate and people may or may not change their viewpoint, and off course there will be the usual few who read something they are not interested in, or bored with and then mock it. One thing that won't change is that those with a genuine interest will still keep an eye on the subject and debate it when they want within terms of the forum and decency.

[batrabill]

8 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

As it is I happen to think the results of the poll are vindication to some degree for those who oppose it.

I’m confused. I assumed from the outset that it wasn’t a poll, that is, a survey of opinions, but a measure of visitor numbers?

So how can these numbers reveal anything at all? The only meaningful comparison is change in visitor numbers.

A single figure has no meaning at all. Btw would you link to the “poll”?

[Meantime]

Poll may have been the wrong term, it was a national survey of National Parks that people had visited. The results are on the first post on this thread. It came from John Packmans October briefing. 

[Vaughan]

I am going to throw a bit of a spanner in the works now!

Susie and I have just got back from a lovely week in a hire boat on the Thames. I have known this river ever since I was at school at Pangbourne and I worked there in Staines 25 years ago. As far as I can see, it hasn't changed much!

It has style, atmosphere and hundreds of years of history. Traditionally appointed the Queen's Highway. That was Good Queen Bess, by the way! It was always run by the Thames Conservancy, who were similar to the Broads Commissioners. It then became part of the National Rivers Authority and it is now wholly controlled by the Environment Agency, who are responsible for maintenance as well as navigation.

Unlike the Broads, it is an alluvial river which is made navigable by weirs and locks, so there is a lot more maintenance, more actual land ownership and a lot more manpower requirement.

Goring lock and weir

Temple Island, at the start of the Henley regatta course.

The Thames Valley is not a National Park and has no need to be. As it has a tow path it can offer many other activities to the public, on the Thames Path, where you can walk or cycle the whole way from London to Oxford, through some of the most beautiful countryside in the south of England.

Private boats, and marinas abound, with river tolls paid to the EA.

So my obvious question is :

If the EA can be in sole charge of all this, and make such an overall good job of it, what do we need the Broads Authority for, when the EA seem to be doing a great deal of work on the Broads anyway? Are the BA just an expensive overlap of extra bureaucracy?

An old Broads river inspector's launch, spotted on a mooring outside the Angel at Henley.

 

[Meantime]

A good question. I guess the main difference is that the EA have no responsibility for promoting the area, or acting as the local planning authority for the area. It concentrates on doing what it does best, maintaining the navigation and infrastructure that supports that navigation.

So I guess another question would be, would people be more supportive of an organisation, (that could be the BA, or the EA, or sub department of the EA) who's sole remit was the maintenance of the rivers and broads, immediate river banks and moorings. With planning handed back to the local councils, and tourism being promoted by the county councils?

I don't remember the Harbour commissioners being responsible for planning or tourism?