Jump to content

James Knight's Blog


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

I don't think I have ever seen a more concise and well reasoned summary of the problems facing the Broads these days, than this.

Those who have been pleased to criticise James's blogs over the last few months, should read this very carefully.

And then go back and read it again!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just read it through twice.  Concentrated more the second time round.  I would of thought I found fault or at least partially disagree with something he said - Failed spectacularly.

It is one of the most sensible pieces of writing on this particular topic I have ever read.  I just hope and pray that some big hitter somewhere high up the food chain reads and studies it properly, then maybe picks up his/her phone and starts to make a few subtle enquiries than starts to rattle cages - We can hope

In the meantime, much respect and a huge thanks to James Knight for taking the time and sharing with us

Griff

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! A superb critique of the present situation, a clear view of the way forwards and no direct criticism of any individual.  It could not have been stated more clearly and simply. Hats off to James, hope somebody is listening.

As a forum/individually do we need to be offering any support to James, should he need it, in the form of funding,verbal or written offerings? Just a thought.

Paul

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, scaniaman said:

As a forum/individually do we need to be offering any support to James, should he need it, in the form of funding,verbal or written offerings? Just a thought.

Providing links to relevant groups, organisations & individuals would, I know, be appreciated. Individuals might include MP's or local government people for example. James Knight is contactable via FaceBook.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even I agree with some of it - but equally disagree with other bits too. Neither do I think this Forum should offer formal support, or otherwise - you all know his address if you want to bung him a bob or two.

I merely wish James would concentrate on WRC simply because I think he would get more satisfaction - and reduce his stress levels!!! And be more successful!

It looks as though any discussion on this topic here might be a bit one sided and pointless - I will just read it and not join in if I may!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I merely wish James would concentrate on WRC simply because I think he would get more satisfaction - and reduce his stress levels!!! And be more successful!

I think it is essential that those who are in business on the Broads should wish to give something back to the place that they are making their living from and this is exactly what I did in the days when I was in business there. My father before me, was chairman of Blakes for 8 years in the 50s and 60s and did an enormous amount of voluntary work on this committee or that, to do his best for the Broads. He was a member of the body which drew up the first Broads Study and Plan for the management of Broadland and this still forms the basis of the administration of the Broads as we know them today.

I am glad to see James following this tradition and doing what he can for the Broads. He clearly knows that someone has got to! We can't all just read and not join in.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaughan - I would join in but I know I would be "shouted" down!! After all there is little or no support for any opposing view.

There are at least 3 major issues, probably more, where James knows he is wrong and that things are never as easy as he purports to suggest. I suspect you know that too!

As I said I do agree with some of the points but not others - lets leave it at that for the purposes of this discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, marshman said:

I would join in but I know I would be "shouted" down!! After all there is little or no support for any opposing view.

Very wise MM. It will not surprise you that on the whole I tend to believe there's a lot of substance in what J.K. has written, but I find trial by forum distasteful... however strongly the views are held. Because of that, I too am taking a back seat. 

When Madam Guillotine arrives, I shall not be taking my knitting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, marshman said:

Vaughan - I would join in but I know I would be "shouted" down!! After all there is little or no support for any opposing view.

There are at least 3 major issues, probably more, where James knows he is wrong and that things are never as easy as he purports to suggest. I suspect you know that too!

As I said I do agree with some of the points but not others - lets leave it at that for the purposes of this discussion

I don't want to shout you down and never have done. I know you are very capable of standing up for your own opinion! On the contrary I also enjoy a debate with you, so let's not hold back.

I don't know what your three issues are and did not recognise them in James's blog, so let's discuss them. In fact I could see other things that he has not mentioned, such as the measures (and errors) that have been made in flood alleviation, due in my view, to the closing off of washlands in the meadows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah But Vaughan, were the flood alleviation measures taken by the Broads Authority, or  some other August body, I seem to recall that it was the environment agency or some such that instigated these measures (I may well be wrong in this), but i wouldnt want to accuse the BA if they werent to blame.

As for the debate than as long as matters dont get out of hand and personal comments are not thrown around, then that is what the forum is here for, I for one am always willing to change my views if a strong enough argument can be put forward, I do fear that marshman's view may not be as well supported, but do admire him for sticking to his guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, grendel said:

Ah But Vaughan, were the flood alleviation measures taken by the Broads Authority, or  some other August body,

James's reply was to a report about the running of national parks (or members of their family) and was not just about the Broads Authority.

Excuse me, but I am going out to take Susie for an X ray, so we can continue this in the evening perhaps?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share Marshy's caution on these issues even though I also agree with some of the issues raised in Mr Knights summary. What bothers me most is a single person being seen as some sort of crusader and feted as such in the way he appears to be on here. I much prefer to see issues as big and serious as this being dealt with or campaigned for by an identified grouping so as to not to set an individual up for the attention that will inevitably come from both the media and the originating body of the contended proposals and policies. I am aware that there are and have been efforts via the Broads Society for example that have not been particularly successful or well supported. The Broads Society though is an example of the vehicle I prefer to see co-ordinating a campaign or pressure group. Finally, at risk of incurring even more derision and criticism, I really don't like the "superstar" image being generated for one individual as it appears to be here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it may be too late for that advice VC, Mr Knight has already got a big target painted on his back as far as the BA seems to be concerned. and while yes it would be good to see such an action group, there are not many individuals who would willingly stick their heads above the parapet. 

While the forum is a good place to raise the awareness and discuss these types of issue, it would be against its interests to actively support (as an entity) the actions of any group, even with the full support of all members (which we probably wouldnt get) it is not our place to campaign - I believe Tim explained all of this when we were discussing the future of the forum last year.

It is a good sounding board though to see how public opinion is currently running ( which is why we do like to see contrary views and arguments expressed (in a friendly manner)) 

Now I had better shut up before I get told off by the chairman for saying the wrong thing, as moderator I just enforce the policies of the committee. (and tell them when they are wrong) but I do have my own opinions and respect everyone else's right to hold theirs too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fb group ‘Protect the Broads, we are not a National Park’ (JM knows it well). Now the members of that group all sing from the same song sheet so are able to campaign if they so wish on that issue. This forum has a variety of topics which some agree with and others don’t, there will seldom be (if ever!) full agreement on anything. If there are a number of like-minded individuals who feel strongly enough, and courageous enough, to speak out in favour of James Knight, surely a fb group or something similar would be the way forward? I feel sure there would be a lot of forum members keen to lend support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve read the blog a couple of times now and I think there is much that is sensible and good. 

However, I think these are the main points 

1. The BA should lose planning responsibility and it should go back to local authorities  

 

Maybe, but that means there is no consistency across the Broads area. This is a possible source of future conflict and one that should be carefully considered  

 

2. The BA should be an elected body  

 

Sorry, but this is never going to happen 

There is no clear constituency - and never will be  

This is the weakest part  

 

3. The rivers should return to a Harbour Aurhority

 

So what remains? This new elected body is in charge of what? The moorings? DEFRA will fine the National Park Grant of £3 million to a body that mows a few moorings and patrols???

 

This last suggestion doesnt chime with the others  

Only 1 is workable 

 

I think this is a proposal to get rid of the BA. But when do Governments dismantle something that works fine for something much more complicated???

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, batrabill said:

1. The BA should lose planning responsibility and it should go back to local authorities  Maybe, but that means there is no consistency across the Broads area. This is a possible source of future conflict and one that should be carefully considered  

If we take Horning Street as an example then the BA is responsible for one side whilst the local council is responsible for the other. This has already resulted in a lack of consistency from one side of the street to the other. That is just one example, there's plenty more. . 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, and I said I thought that was workable.

But, that would mean that there was no single body responsible for planning all over the Broads. I struggle to see why that is a necessarily better?

I also note that you have addresses the point I mostly agree with and ignored the 2 main points which I think are completely wrong???

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.