It's All True! Haydn Thirtle Is Out!!!

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.broadsnationalpike.com/2019/05/lame-turtle-staying-to-finish-job.html?fbclid=IwAR1S-un10d_zYNs05WrcwuGUeAQhlIHk87rEHQgaK68DrF42yjf9Nnvnoeo

[JennyMorgan]

Satire, maybe, but the underlying facts are there. As I suspect most of you know so for those who don't our local authorities are entitled to have their representatives on the Broads Authority, Haydn Thirtle being one of them. Haydn has proven himself a remarkably supportive & compliant fan of the Chief Executive. When Dr Packman submitted his response to the present NP & members thereof review he sought to rid the Authority of these local representatives and also to extend the BA's area of influence, effectively a land grab from neighbouring authorities. It appears that Thirtle's boss, so to speak, is of the opinion that Thirtle should have made a stand on behalf of at least Norfolk County Council. 

Now comes the thorny bit, JP is intent, so it appears, on Thirtle remaining as chairman, at least until the new intake of carefully selected members to the Authority are in place. What JP doesn't want is a chairman with a mind of his own just at this inconvenient moment in time. Effectively JP doesn't want to lose the control that he has tirelessly worked at to achieve. 

[Paladin]

I don't know the details of Mr Thirtle's position, but, if he is a local authority representative and that authority has given notice to the BA that he is no longer their representative, then he can only stay in post for one month after that notice was given.

Broads Act 1988:

Replacement of members
2.—(1) The appointment of a person to the Authority by a participating authority shall end if he ceases to be a member of the authority.
(2) The appointment to the Authority of a member of the Navigation Committee (under section l(3)(c) of this Act) shall end if he ceases to be a member of that Committee.
(3) Where a person's appointment ends by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the participating authority shall as soon as practicable give notice of that fact to the Authority.
(4) A participating authority may at any time end the appointment of a person appointed to the Authority by that participating authority and appoint another person in his place.
(5) Where a participating authority exercises its powers under sub-paragraph (4) above—
(a) it shall give notice of the ending of the appointment to the Authority; and
(b) the new appointment shall take effect, and the previous appointment end, at the end of the period of one month beginning with the date on which the notice is given.

[JamesKnight]

However, see also 5.—(6) During his term of office the chairman shall continue to be a member of the Authority until the appointment of the next chairman at the next annual meeting of the Authority.

The effect of this is to extend the Chairman's appointment as a member of the BA until the AGM, which is 26th July.

[Paladin]

Yes, I hadn’t spotted that. But I would have expected that anyone with the slightest degree of integrity, having so humiliatingly lost the confidence of their electorate and their participating Authority, to resign immediately. A forlorn expectation in this case, it appears. 

That the CEO of the BA hasn’t taken steps for his immediate replacement further erodes the remnants of public trust on the body, if any actually remains. My heart sincerely goes out to the honest, hardworking employees of the BA, who have to work in the shadow of such ... words fail me, or would be turn into *****

 

[JamesKnight]

I agree, Paladin, that the expected response under the circumstances would be to resign. 

But if such a resignation is not forthcoming, then the law is clear - he carries on until the AGM. I can’t see how JP could circumvent that even if he wanted to. 

[Meantime]

41 minutes ago, JamesKnight said:

I agree, Paladin, that the expected response under the circumstances would be to resign. 

But if such a resignation is not forthcoming, then the law is clear - he carries on until the AGM. I can’t see how JP could circumvent that even if he wanted to. 

Whilst it may be true that it is Haydn's choice whether to hang on or resign, surely it is up to JP whether he supports or distances himself from the actions of Haydn?

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JamesKnight said:

I agree, Paladin, that the expected response under the circumstances would be to resign. 

But if such a resignation is not forthcoming, then the law is clear - he carries on until the AGM. I can’t see how JP could circumvent that even if he wanted to. 

I haven't noticed that he is a stickler for observing the law, if it suits him not to. There have been two occasions when I've had to beat the BA over the head with a legal tome, to get them to comply. I'm quite sure he could do it if he really wanted to.

[Malanka]

Pally mate your sentiments here I believe are in complete concurrence with the sentiments of not sticking to the law highlighted in the Rangers Purge thread. 

Compliance to the law when convenient otherwise, well just overlay our own guidance documents to suit our already made decisions.

 

I have seen this personally in many business instances of dealing with people who don’t expect and don’t really know how to deal with people who say NO you’re wrong. The usual appeals to pseudo authority follow, followed by bluster and threats implied or inferred then complete silence after referring back to head office to be told or reminded that guidance is non enforceable  and that they’re wrong. Even if that’s not what they were told five hours before when they left home base. 

Electric posts anyone? 

 

M

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, JamesKnight said:

I agree, Paladin, that the expected response under the circumstances would be to resign. 

But if such a resignation is not forthcoming, then the law is clear - he carries on until the AGM. I can’t see how JP could circumvent that even if he wanted to. 

I suspect that Norfolk County Council has a part to play in this one. It strikes me that when the Broads Act was drawn up that no consideration was given to such a situation as we now find ourselves. As for JP I have no doubt that he will choose whichever clause in the Act best suits his agenda. Got to say that I don't see this as being quite as black and white as James has suggested but then I do tend to be the eternal optimist. As a matter of principle I concur with Paladin's conclusion on this one but regretfully we are seemingly not dealing with people of principle.

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/haydn-thirtle-deselected-from-broads-authority-1-6049372

[Burghman]

came across this and was surprised to see JennyMorgan stating the Broads are not a national park -  I thought it is - how do i find out for sure please?

[grendel]

well there is a long answer, or just the standard short one that is the Norfolk broads can be referred to as a national park for advertising and publicity purposes. at the end of the day it all comes down to the fact that unlike other national parks the broads Authority have an additional purpose of maintaining the navigation, and the conflicts of interests where this purpose comes into conflict with the purposes of a national park.

[grendel]

if you wish for more in depth answer, here is a thread discussing it

this thread does go on for a few pages, so I suggest a cup of cocoa and bedroom slippers might be a good start before sitting down to reading it. (oh and some blood pressure pills if you are easily upset)

[rightsaidfred]

And there in lies one of the biggest problems today with public misconception, if you repeat a fiction or half truth often enough it becomes fact.

Fred

[addicted]

While watching The Chase on ITV  I've noticed  three times in recent episodes the Broads have been referred to as a National Park! Isn't it time they were disavowed of their misapprehension?

 

 

Carole

[JennyMorgan]

The BBC, Country File, featured the Broads a while back. All mention of the BNP was edited out following clarification by members of the 'awquad squad' and other malcontents from along the rhond.

[JennyMorgan]

8 hours ago, Burghman said:

came across this and was surprised to see JennyMorgan stating the Broads are not a national park -  I thought it is - how do i find out for sure please?

Thank you for reigniting this topic for us, Burghman. The BNP tag line was created  and promoted by one particular, delusional individual at the Broads Authority,  it has never been formally adopted nor authorised by Parliament. 

[Vaughan]

13 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Thank you for reigniting this topic for us, Burghman.

Now look what you've done!!

   

[marshman]

Burghman - as you might have seen already, its a tad touchy! To some!!

PW is correct  - it is not a National Park quite like the others. Technically it is different and it can only become one, by Act of Parliament, or so they tell me.Many locals don't want a NP here for lots of reasons but the BA are entitled to call it one "for marketing purposes". As a result some think it could creep in by the backdoor - but I think it unlikely!! Thats about it really but there are many tens of thousands of words scattered around the internet on the topic and here, people have become a little entrenched in their views!

But is regarded by many as a member of the National Parks  "family" so whilst it is called one, and can be called one, it isnt one!!

Got it it - cos I am not saying anymore as they might let ST loose again!!!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

48 minutes ago, marshman said:

people have become a little entrenched in their views!

Yes, they have!!