BA Given Order Of The Boot!

[batrabill]

JM my personal opinion is that if you use the presence of the BA on this forum to fight your battles by challenging them to answer ANY question you see fit to ask:

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

thus a public statement should be no problem.

then they will go away again.

And I would not blame them.

 

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

JM my personal opinion is that if you use the presence of the BA on this forum to fight your battles by challenging them to answer ANY question you see fit to ask:

then they will go away again.

And I would not blame them.

 

I would...blame them, that is. If anyone makes a public statement, whether it be in the Press or on a forum, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to ask questions about that statement. Or are we expected blindly to accept such statements and move on?

As long as the questions are posed in a sensible and respectful manner, I would regard it as a cop-out if the BA withdrew from this forum, simply because the questions were too difficult to answer.

I have questioned many a statement made by JennyMorgan, but I note he is still around.

[BroadsAuthority]

Hello all,

To make the situation absolutely clear this is a decision that has been made by the Whitlingham Charitable Trust. The service level agreement (SLA) was coming to an end and of course it is within the interest of the Trust members to explore options that best suit their future strategy for the park.

It would really be up to the Trust to decide if they wish to communicate further detail regarding the reasons for their decision.

Furthermore, the process could not accurately be described as a negotiation or a 'disagreement' (to use Jenny Morgan's words) however, Broads Authority officers provided the Trust with a considerable body of detail to support a case for retaining the Authority as a partner up to this decision being made. 

There isn't a governance issue regarding this matter as this is not a Broads Authority decision. We communicated this decision as soon as we had enough detail to do so. If there are any ‘public interest’ matters concerning the ongoing provision of a country park, these should really be addressed to the Trust.

[batrabill]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

I would...blame them, that is. If anyone makes a public statement, whether it be in the Press or on a forum, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to ask questions about that statement. Or are we expected blindly to accept such statements and move on?

As long as the questions are posed in a sensible and respectful manner, I would regard it as a cop-out if the BA withdrew from this forum, simply because the questions were too difficult to answer.

I have questioned many a statement made by JennyMorgan, but I note he is still around.

I think you are being disingenuous. 

 

JM has made 19 contributions to a thread that he started. The question about Governance is a fishing expedition for dirt.

If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes delicious with an orange source it’s probably a duck. 

I think it’s a good thing that the BA contribute, not least to correct “errors” but I think it has to be accepted that they might go away if it’s endlessly treated as an opportunity to kick them under the guise of “we deserve an answer”

John  Packman used to contribute but he gave up because of what I think he described as abuse. I will check that if any pedants need confirmation. There is a line. 

[Paladin]

38 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I think you are being disingenuous. 

 

JM has made 19 contributions to a thread that he started. The question about Governance is a fishing expedition for dirt.

If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes delicious with an orange source it’s probably a duck. 

I think it’s a good thing that the BA contribute, not least to correct “errors” but I think it has to be accepted that they might go away if it’s endlessly treated as an opportunity to kick them under the guise of “we deserve an answer”

John  Packman used to contribute but he gave up because of what I think he described as abuse. I will check that if any pedants need confirmation. There is a line. 

I think BroadsAuthority has made  an acceptable response to reasonable questions (for which I thank him) and obviously doesn't need you to resort to insults in his defence.

As I understand the position, the decision to end the partnership was made, unilaterally, by the Trust, despite representations by the Authority. We may never know why that decision was taken, despite our natural curiosity, and any speculation is somewhat pointless IMO.

Although I have never been to Whitlingham as a visitor, I await their development plans with interest.

[grendel]

I believe you are thinking about a different forum that John Packman was a member of

[Paladin]

18 minutes ago, grendel said:

I believe you are thinking about a different forum that John Packman was a member of

I'm relying on memory now, so I could be mistaken, but I believe that John Packman was a member here many many years ago (before my time even), but was treated rather badly, with the result that he withdrew and issued an edict to his staff not to engage with forums. That edict still stands, I think, but JP did make another effort and joined another forum, but that didn't go down too well, and the regular Q&A sessions he held came to an end, although he still pops up from time to time on that forum. He certainly wasn't driven away by abuse.

 

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

I'm relying on memory now, so I could be mistaken, but I believe that John Packman was a member here many many years ago (before my time even), but was treated rather badly, with the result that he withdrew and issued an edict to his staff not to engage with forums. That edict still stands, I think, but JP did make another effort and joined another forum, but that didn't go down too well, and the regular Q&A sessions he held came to an end, although he still pops up from time to time on that forum. He certainly wasn't driven away by abuse.

 

I hope all contributors to this thread will remember that and think carefully before posting. That includes posting for the sole purpose of ‘stirring’ the pot. IMHO we are very lucky that the BA is participating in this forum and BA posts should be treated with respect, as should all posts. Challenge posts if you must but I think we will all benefit if views, opinions and thoughts are kept polite and respectful. Just  my opinion of course. 

[grendel]

Yes just remember that the BA are members and should be treated with the same respect as any other member.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

10 hours ago, marshman said:

Come on PW - you cannot really expect either the BA or the Charitable Trust to go further into what would have been private negotiations? You can argue all you like that a charity is "public" but would you really expect any Charity to go into  the details behind such a decision - can you expect to hear the National Trust, RNLI, or the RSPB go into details behind their decisions, especially ones that MAY have an element of controversy attached?. 

Being funded purely and simply by the public, why SHOULD`NT we expect them to publicise every detail?. 

EVERY charity, authority, council, or governing body is publicly funded, either by government funding, or charitable donation, that means it`s always OUR money, either via direct donations or taxation, which is being being spent, or even worse, squandered. That`s why we should expect all of these bodies to go into details, as we should have the rite to know OUR money is being used in a manner that is advertised. It seems to me, and possibly others marshman, that you don`t like it when people want to know what the BA are doing behind the scenes, why is that?.

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Tom, for your considered response. 

4 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

There isn't a governance issue regarding this matter as this is not a Broads Authority decision. We communicated this decision as soon as we had enough detail to do so. If there are any ‘public interest’ matters concerning the ongoing provision of a country park, these should really be addressed to the Trust.

I asked the question whether Authority members were aware of developments. I note that you have written that it was not a Broads Authority decision, by that I take it that the members were not kept informed of developments. If this is the case then I find that to be regrettable. Authority members might have had relevant and worthwhile advice, even useful friends in high places.  

[marshman]

I have done many charitable presentations in the past, to both retain existing business and to apply for new charitable business and you are right in that you never know the real reasons as to why they need to review existing arrangements, nor are you often told why you were successful, or indeed unsuccessful. It could be that as James Colman said, they felt that it was time for a change and that was all it was. It may also be be that the Whitlingham Trust were using other people to carry out this review and that the Trustees only acted on the recommendations made to them. 

Often a change of a Trustee would be sufficient for a review to be initiated and indeed IMHO it is incumbent on any Charity to keep these types of arrangement under review for whatever reason they feel appropriate. However it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to be included in discussions on behalf of the BA and they may well have been limited in the number of people directly involved in any meeting - I have even seen that sometimes. And perhaps however much one might wish to help, they could also hinder any discussion and certainly any attempt to influence as PW suggested, could have an entirely different and negative , effect.

But I don't know what occurred, nor will, I guess,  much posting here change what has happened, nor are we likely to get any closer to the real reasons - I doubt even whether the BA know the truth. What they do know is that they "lost" the contract and thats probably about it!

[Vaughan]

9 hours ago, marshman said:

But I don't know what occurred, nor will, I guess,  much posting here change what has happened, nor are we likely to get any closer to the real reasons - I doubt even whether the BA know the truth.

I suggest that the BA of today may not know the truth of the BA of 30 years ago when planning permission was put through for the exploitation of over 100 acres of beautiful wetland and grazing meadow for the open cast mining of sand and gravel. This was all dressed up for the public with the benevolent gesture by the landowner (also the owner of Eastern Counties Newspapers) of "donating" the resulting (and otherwise useless) pits to the BA for use as a new broad, and a bird reserve.

My hypothesis would be that the "donation" may have been a lease deal which has now run its course, after 25 years and the landowners have now found themselves legally able to retake the land and thus also take their own profit from it, as a now existing public attraction.

I am not necessarily saying I dis-approve of this chain of events but as JM rightly says, there is a need for transparency. After all, the BA have spent 25 years of work and investment to make the pits into what they are today. So are they simply to give it all up now, and let others take the profits?

[marshman]

Perhaps the need for transparency would be better if it came from the Trustees - although I doubt you will get that in full.

As far as the BA are concerned, they "lost" the contract to manage the area further - what more is there to know? They have already told us that and given the circumstances, perhaps we should be extending our sympathies to those directly involved? There is no need to gloat over the loss, nor much need to criticise the BA further. If anyone owes anything to anyone, perhaps it is the Trustees who should be questioned further - after all it was they who finished the contract for some reason, and they certainly know the truth.

I guess Vaughan may be closest to the truth, but I perhaps like many changes in the world it may be harder to get hold of the real facts, other than it was felt that a change was needed to look at differing ways to proceed for the future.

[batrabill]

15 hours ago, Paladin said:

I'm relying on memory now, so I could be mistaken, but I believe that John Packman was a member here many many years ago (before my time even), but was treated rather badly, with the result that he withdrew and issued an edict to his staff not to engage with forums. That edict still stands, I think, but JP did make another effort and joined another forum, but that didn't go down too well, and the regular Q&A sessions he held came to an end, although he still pops up from time to time on that forum. He certainly wasn't driven away by abuse.

 

John Packman was a member here and was insulted a fair bit. In the past I have searched back and read the posts from the time. Can’t be bothered to do it again  

I have messaged him directly and suggested he engage with this forum, last year I think, and at that time he wasn’t sure as he hadn’t forgotten....

I’m really glad the the BA have re-engaged and I think we are all better off with them posting here but it is still my opinion that they will not continue if they are constantly met by hostility. 

I’m sure that someone will say “where is the hostility?”

but, exactly as on the other place, demanding answers to questions, while justifying it as “a right to know” is a DELIBERATELY hostile attitude by some members. 

That is exactly what happened on the other place. Can anyone guess who I am thinking of?

If you demand answers from the BA there are official ways of doing that. 

This, this is a discussion forum which is better off with the BA representing itself here. 

[Paladin]

27 minutes ago, batrabill said:

John Packman was a member here and was insulted a fair bit. In the past I have searched back and read the posts from the time. Can’t be bothered to do it again  

I have messaged him directly and suggested he engage with this forum, last year I think, and at that time he wasn’t sure as he hadn’t forgotten....

I’m really glad the the BA have re-engaged and I think we are all better off with them posting here but it is still my opinion that they will not continue if they are constantly met by hostility. 

I’m sure that someone will say “where is the hostility?”

but, exactly as on the other place, demanding answers to questions, while justifying it as “a right to know” is a DELIBERATELY hostile attitude by some members. 

That is exactly what happened on the other place. Can anyone guess who I am thinking of?

If you demand answers from the BA there are official ways of doing that. 

This, this is a discussion forum which is better off with the BA representing itself here. 

As has been rightly pointed out, all members should be treated with respect. But that does not mean that some should be treated with more respect than others. I have often taken JennyMorgan (and others) to task over statements they have made. That is the point of discussion, is it not? I can see no reason why statements made by BroadsAuthority should not also be subjected to similar scrutiny and question.

As with any public discussion forum, members have a choice, to stay or to go. It is a matter for the moderators to decide what is, or isn't acceptable.

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

I’m sure that someone will say “where is the hostility?”

Yep, couldn't agree more.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

John Packman was a member here and was insulted a fair bit. In the past I have searched back and read the posts from the time. Can’t be bothered to do it again  

I have messaged him directly and suggested he engage with this forum, last year I think, and at that time he wasn’t sure as he hadn’t forgotten....

I’m really glad the the BA have re-engaged and I think we are all better off with them posting here but it is still my opinion that they will not continue if they are constantly met by hostility. 

I’m sure that someone will say “where is the hostility?”

but, exactly as on the other place, demanding answers to questions, while justifying it as “a right to know” is a DELIBERATELY hostile attitude by some members. 

That is exactly what happened on the other place. Can anyone guess who I am thinking of?

If you demand answers from the BA there are official ways of doing that. 

This, this is a discussion forum which is better off with the BA representing itself here. 

Sorry but I totally disagree, as a discussion forum any member is entitled to raise and debate any topic within the TOS and as many of us are stakeholders either through the payment of tolls, as residents  or property owners that includes questioning some or all of the actions of the BA.

Unlike most other public bodies they are unaccountable to the very people that fund them and on who`s behalf they are supposed to work and given that the government department responsible for overseeing them is totally dis-interested and how much is done behind closed doors the forums are the main means we have of knowing about  and questioning the actions of the BA which directly or indirectly affect us all.

With regard to JP he has the choice of whether to interact with us or not but as the appointed Executive of the BA he should expect to face and respond to criticism on public forums after all he is not slow in using various forms of the media to promote his achievements.

Fred

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

It should also be remembered that Tom in his new member post said if we have any questions, he will put those questions to the relevant department. I completely disagree with the comment about our RIGHT TO KNOW being a hostile attitude, it IS a right to know, meaning we are asking important questions for which the BA (not necessarily Tom) are obliged to answer. Had people been using words like "I demand", and verbal accusations, then yes, he would (very wrongfully) facing hostility, but to imply hostility at a probing question is a bit naughty. 

 

[marshman]

And if the BA don't know why?

Ask the Trustees who do know - but they will probably ignore you as you have no right to know that information, despite views to the contrary.

[JennyMorgan]

BatraBill, regarding hostility, kettles, frying pans and black immediately spring to mind.

Despite what Tom has said I do think that there is a public interest on this one. I am quite certain the Authority knows exactly why the management agreement has been terminated and it is only natural us 'little people' are at least curious. I actually messaged Tom, in my own name. I don't see my questions as hostile but yes, I would like to know exactly went wrong, if it did. I'm not convinced that it was entirely an amicable parting of the ways.Time will tell, I have no doubt that the truth will filter down to and along the rhond telegraph sooner or later, it usually does. On a personal level my feeling is that the Authority did a generally good job at Whitlingham, no obvious reason for the parting of the ways.

[MauriceMynah]

Peter, I'm sorry but this has to be said. This entire thread was started as another opportunity to go BA bashing, or at least Packman bashing. He is in a no win situation. When he gets it right, you are silent, when wrong you crucify him. I see no reason why he should raise his head over the parapet just to get it shot at.

If he were to post here you would be demanding he resigns. If he doesn't post here you ask him why not. If he were to give you the transparency you demand, you would argue with him on any footing you could think of. So, No! he doesn't post here, and nor would I in his shoes.

You constantly refer to the Acle project as "his vanity project". Not exactly an open minded view.

it is rare that I disagree with your outlook so strongly, but in this case you are totally, completely and utterly wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that he, or the BA are wrong in their actions leading up to the loss of this partnership, and the fact that you are trying to lay the blame at his doorstep does little to strengthen your valid arguments NP wise.

Sorry but I really felt this needed saying.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

You constantly refer to the Acle project as "his vanity project". Not exactly an open minded view.

Well? John personally showed me some of his plans for Acle a year or two back and having sat on the Nav Com for four years I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what makes the man tick.

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

On a personal level my feeling is that the Authority did a generally good job at Whitlingham, no obvious reason for the parting of the ways.

 

[JennyMorgan]

A very cautious comment from the Trustees as to the future of Whitlingham:

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/whitlingham-country-park-management-change-latest-1-6330189

[MauriceMynah]

Hmmm, the sceptic in me isn't convinced!! What do they mean by "No significant plans."? Do they have plans (significant or otherwise) to build an office block and multi storey carpark? No, I'm sure they haven't so why not list all the things they don't have plans for?

They may or may not have plans for entrance fees and opening times, but they will have plans for something and I wonder if they would not be able to progress these plans with a planning authority on their team.

Whatever plans they do have I reckon the BA would oppose them, otherwise the partnership would have continued. Just my opinion for what it's worth.