Acle B.N.P.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Yes they do and yes there is. Someone also has to be paid to clean up the streets when rubbish is strewn around (perhaps wind-blown rather than littered), and sweep the leaves up in the autumn. There is a statue of a venerable judge in the centre of Chelmsford, for example, that is often to be seen wearing a traffic cone on its head, particularly at weekends. Someone has to come along with a ladder to climb up and remove it.

Jolly japes indeed. If we don't have a sense of humour, we turn into Victor Meldrews.

I would have thought you were in favour of not wasting your toll and Council tax money. I think saying its a joke is a bit thin...

[Paladin]

14 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I would have thought you were in favour of not wasting your toll and Council tax money. I think saying its a joke is a bit thin...

??? I thought it was you who refer to "jolly japes". I simply repeated the phrase. I certainly didn't say it's a joke. This is a very serious matter.

I really do hope that the cost of the signs hasn't been met from the tolls money. They have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the interests of the navigation. Council tax money? I don't pay council tax to the Broads Authority, who have paid for the installation of the signs. I doubt if the County Council will be sending anyone out to remove any coverings.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

And what happens then?

 

Someone has to go and remove the "bit of plastic". That someone has to be paid.

There's a cost to jolly japes.

 

 

There is a cost to everything and wasting public money is no joke, unfortunately its something the BA seem accomplished at not just in the cost of road signs proclaiming something that is untrue in areas outside their jurisdiction, or the cost of signwriting on the authorities vehicles and boats etc proclaiming the same but in the past with new signage trying to enforce double mooring that they then had to climb down over as it was unenforceable, I will let others come up with how many other instances there have been.

Fred

 

[D46]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

There is a cost to everything and wasting public money is no joke, unfortunately its something the BA seem accomplished at not just in the cost of road signs proclaiming something that is untrue in areas outside their jurisdiction, or the cost of signwriting on the authorities vehicles and boats etc proclaiming the same but in the past with new signage trying to enforce double mooring that they then had to climb down over as it was unenforceable, I will let others come up with how many other instances there have been.

Fred

 

Don't forget the rangers uniforms they too have the same statement on them these days .

[Paladin]

Ah, the good old straw man argument. 

[ModeratorTeam]

Direct attacks on members are against TOS cool down please.

[Paladin]

I note that the three current threads related to the Broads Authority have been removed from public view to the Members’ Chat Area. As a matter of personal policy, I do not subscribe to discussions behind closed doors, so I will absent myself from those debates.

[BroadAmbition]

I note that the three current threads related to the Broads Authority have been removed from public view to the Members’ Chat Area. As a matter of personal policy, I do not subscribe to discussions behind closed doors, so I will absent myself from those debates.

 

Hmmm, why have they been moved into the members chat area?

Without Paladin's input they will be much poorer threads imho

Griff

 

 

[Vaughan]

So yet another important subject concerning the future of the Broads is now to be held behind closed doors.

Surely the whole point of discussions like this is that we would hope to get our voice heard where it matters? This forum is supposed to have about 3000 members if I remember rightly, but now it is to be restricted to an audience of about 40.

I too, will not bother to make contributions to a subject that cannot be seen by the membership as a whole.

Personally I have no fear of stating my honest opinion but I fear this forum has become rather too risk averse.

[NorfolkNog]

I don't have the depth of knowledge of other respected members but it does seem a bit odd. Perhaps the Mods could explain the rationale behind the decision? I'm not a legal expert either but has anything libelous been posted? 

[Smoggy]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Personally I have no fear of stating my honest opinion but I fear this forum has become rather too risk averse.

My thoughts entirely, the signs have not been hidden from public view so neither should the discussion, come on mods stop stiffleing genuine concerns of broads users, it looks cowardly.

[JanetAnne]

1 hour ago, NorfolkNog said:

 Perhaps the Mods could explain the rationale behind the decision?

Yes please

[vanessan]

1 minute ago, JanetAnne said:

Yes please

Ditto

[rightsaidfred]

10 hours ago, Paladin said:

I note that the three current threads related to the Broads Authority have been removed from public view to the Members’ Chat Area. As a matter of personal policy, I do not subscribe to discussions behind closed doors, so I will absent myself from those debates.

I fully agree with your sentiment sadly this will now do what the mods seemed to be trying to achieve shut down the debate.

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

So yet another important subject concerning the future of the Broads is now to be held behind closed doors.

Surely the whole point of discussions like this is that we would hope to get our voice heard where it matters? This forum is supposed to have about 3000 members if I remember rightly, but now it is to be restricted to an audience of about 40.

I too, will not bother to make contributions to a subject that cannot be seen by the membership as a whole.

Personally I have no fear of stating my honest opinion but I fear this forum has become rather too risk averse.

Fully agree, despite the warnings from the mod team I can`t find any breach of the TOS or any abuse of forum members, all the main points of these discussions are validated by official documentation that can be accessed by any member of the public if they so choose so their is no breach of confidentiality or any libellous comments.

If there is no forthcoming explanation as to why these threads have been moved then we will all draw our own conclusions as to what pressure has been applied and from where, sadly I can only think of one.

Fred

 

[JanetAnne]

4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

 

If there is no forthcoming explanation as to why these threads have been moved then we will all draw our own conclusions as to what pressure has been applied and from where, sadly I can only think of one.

Fred

 

I am quite sure there will be a well worded explanation in due course, there normally is, I am not sure that baiting the mods team will speed that process.

Moderation on this forum is usually second to none and BA bashing the local sport. Allowing the forum time to consider it's position would be prudent. Asking ourselves individually whether we would have contributed in a different way had the affected threads been started in the members only section may be wise.

[rightsaidfred]

Just now, JanetAnne said:

I am quite sure there will be a well worded explanation in due course, there normally is, I am not sure that baiting the mods team will speed that process.

Moderation on this forum is usually second to none and BA bashing the local sport. Allowing the forum time to consider it's position would be prudent. Asking ourselves individually whether we would have contributed in a different way had the affected threads been started in the members only section may be wise.

Sorry if you think I was baiting the team that is not a level I would sink to but like others I am distressed that important open debate is being stifled again.

As for my posts there is nothing I have said or wouldn't say again in open forum, I don't like and don't involve myself in topics hidden from public view and I am sure that applies to others as  well.

Fred

[Poppy]

20 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I fully agree with your sentiment sadly this will now do what the mods seemed to be trying to achieve shut down the debate.

Fully agree, despite the warnings from the mod team I can`t find any breach of the TOS or any abuse of forum members, all the main points of these discussions are validated by official documentation that can be accessed by any member of the public if they so choose so their is no breach of confidentiality or any libellous comments.

If there is no forthcoming explanation as to why these threads have been moved then we will all draw our own conclusions as to what pressure has been applied and from where, sadly I can only think of one.

Fred

 

I have just revisited every post on this thread and also am unable to detect the slightest hint of a breach of TOS or abuse .  I can only conclude that the majority of the views expressed run contrary in some way to those of the Moderation team or that pressure has been applied rfom somewhere else.

In either case it's regrettable at best.

[ModeratorTeam]

The threads have been moved to the members area while the moderator team and committee investigate the potential implications of some of the comments for the forum, it was thought better to move them than just lock them, once a decision has been arrived at we will announce it. meanwhile we ask for your continued patience while we discuss the matter.

[ModeratorTeam]

most breaches of TOS have been hidden, so you would not be able to see any

[rightsaidfred]

12 minutes ago, ModeratorTeam said:

The threads have been moved to the members area while the moderator team and committee investigate the potential implications of some of the comments for the forum, it was thought better to move them than just lock them, once a decision has been arrived at we will announce it. meanwhile we ask for your continued patience while we discuss the matter.

Thank You

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

I just hope that the welcome presence of BA Tom on the forum is in any way a gag on members comments or opinions. Some of us are indeed less than complimentary towards the BA's top end but surely no one has been less than civil to Tom. Facts have been unearthed and published that substantiate suggestions of shortcomings, surely that is to be encouraged. I note Poppy's comment regarding outside influences. 

[Maxwellian]

Toms input is more than welcomed by myself as I feel we need all sides of a discussion. I do think we can keep these civil whilst making points. We also do not need to ask Tom to comment..... I am sure he sees all and will comment when he feels appropriate.

The Team show no favouritism to anyone. High integrity and honourable.

[Vaughan]

5 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I can`t find any breach of the TOS or any abuse of forum members, all the main points of these discussions are validated by official documentation that can be accessed by any member of the public if they so choose so their is no breach of confidentiality or any libellous comments.

I thoroughly agree.

 

5 hours ago, ModeratorTeam said:

most breaches of TOS have been hidden, so you would not be able to see any

In which case, they have been moderated! This must be why the rest of us are left wondering who did what, who called who a liar, etc., but it also leaves no reason in my view, why these threads should have been shifted to members only.

So now we have a new Speakers' Corner, which I can only assume means "If you are bashing the BA then put your comments here". 

And since we are told there is an "important difference", we need a forum definition, please, between freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as I for one, don't know the difference. I do know, that I have suggested more than once on this forum that there is a difference between moderation and the suppression of free speech.

 

 

[grendel]

"The United Kingdom is a signatory to various international obligations which secure freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights maintains that "everyone has the right to freedom of expression" and that that right may only be qualified in narrowly limited circumstances. Those circumstances include national security, public safety, the protection of morals, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others".

[grendel]

and meanwhile I would remind you of the stickied "read this before posting" which states 'Do not stray from the topic discussed.' amongst other things.

which now applies.