Acle B.N.P.

[Paladin]

14 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Just a thought, If the BA pay for repairing or replacing the signs, could that come out of the navigation kitty?

I add my voice to those saying this is a pointless act of vandalism, and one that says more about the perpetrator than the target.

Most emphatically NO. Dr Packman himself has said that the signs are to promote etc. No.2 of the BA’s duties. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘Protecting the interests of navigation’, no matter which way it is spun.

Pointless? Oh, I don’t think so. There is a very clear point being made. What it might say about the perpetrator depends rather on your view a) about the morality of direct action and b) about the behaviour of the BA. The camps are clearly divided

[MauriceMynah]

37 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Most emphatically NO. Dr Packman himself has said that the signs are to promote etc. No.2 of the BA’s duties. Nothing whatsoever to do with ‘Protecting the interests of navigation’, no matter which way it is spun.

And that will stop him ?

 

37 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Pointless? Oh, I don’t think so. There is a very clear point being made.

To whom ?

[Paladin]

11 hours ago, floydraser said:

 Any visitor to the area would be influenced as to the kind of area they are entering. May put holiday makers and tourists off, or is that part of the plan?

And what do you think Dr Packman’s plan is regarding the signs? It’s said to be “to raise the profile of the area’s special status both with residents and visitors and support the local tourism industry.” That is from Dr Packman himself.

I don't believe that for one second. His expansionist plans were revealed in the response to the Glover review. A response that was, I believe, only shown to the members of the Authority after it had been submitted. If you look at the positioning of the signs in some detail (as I have), you'll see a number of obvious anomilies.

Apart from which, the Broads Authority and the Norfolk County Council can't even agree among themselves what the purpose and legal status of the signs are. Dr Packman says they are, in effect, for marketing purpose (the only purpose for which the BNP expression may be used), while the Norfolk County Council says they are boundary signs (a status which the BA categorically denies), which adds fuel to the belief that Dr Packman will, eventually, make a land grab.

But by using the term Broads National Park on the signs, the status of the Broads is actually diminished. It has a special status precisely because of the existence of the navigation. That’s what makes it different from ordinary national parks and that’s what the rebranding operation seeks to deny.

I would have thought that, by the time they reach Acle or Martham or Horsey (to name just a few of the places the signs have appeared), tourists to the area have already made the decision to visit! To encourage people to come here, the promotion has to be in the places they live.

Aren’t you forgetting the effect this might have on the people who live in these town and villages? I can think of a few people in my village (not boaters, either) who are very anti-BA and if BNP signs were put up, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were returned to Yare House in little bits, with a (photo of) a severed horse’s head.

 

 

[Paladin]

2 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

To whom ?

Obviously not to you 

[marshman]

There is absolutely no place for condoning what is probably criminal damage.

And of course it is pointless - these silly actions do nothing to promote your "cause" especially when nothing has changed legally. You try to make people think that these signs have altered the legal status quo, but you know, as I do, that this is not the case. I agree that I have contributed to this "discussion" but has it achieved anything?

I suspect in real terms, not a lot!!

 

[Paladin]

37 minutes ago, marshman said:

There is absolutely no place for condoning what is probably criminal damage.

And of course it is pointless - these silly actions do nothing to promote your "cause" especially when nothing has changed legally. You try to make people think that these signs have altered the legal status quo, but you know, as I do, that this is not the case. I agree that I have contributed to this "discussion" but has it achieved anything?

I suspect in real terms, not a lot!!

 

I haven't read that anyone here is condoning it, but it has happened and it's perfectly valid to discuss it. But I think it is the BA who are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, not the other way around.

Here’s another thought to ponder. Up until now, the resistance against the BA has principally been from boaters. Dr Packman has, with a few notable exceptions, had the upper hand, as the battles have been fought within the corridors of power, away from public gaze.

Now, one tussle has come into the public domain and will involve not only those boaters with their entrenched views, but ordinary residents living outside the BA's executive area, to whom the Broads Authority is just a name. Residents who have something of a pride in their neighbourhood. Now, each time they return to their village, they see a despoiled sign, right below the name of their village. I’m sure quite a few of them will be wondering what it’s all about, and some might take the trouble to find out.

As far as I know, no parishioners were canvassed on their views about the signs. Those parish councils who ignored the BA’s letter about them have had signs installed anyway, even though the BA didn’t have their agreement.

Perhaps now, those with some civic pride will be lobbying their parish councillors to have the signs removed. The Police haven’t got the resources to closely monitor the signs. The signs add nothing to the lives of the villagers, yet they spoil the ‘kerb-side’ appeal for residents and visitors alike.

[marshman]

Just thought of another "excuse" to keep this in the public eye? I drive past the signs daily - doesn't spoil my appeal of the area other than the fact that some toerag has damaged them and someone will have to pay for them to be cleaned or replaced!!

 

[Paladin]

8 minutes ago, marshman said:

Just thought of another "excuse" to keep this in the public eye? drive past the signs daily - doesn't spoil my appeal of the area...

I'm trying to add to the debate. Someone said, very recently, that the defaced signs would have a detrimental affect on visitors' perceptions of the area.

Obviously there are some who would prefer this dies a death, but this is a discussion forum and without discussion it (the forum) will simply fade away. I choose to read, and contribute to, discussions that interest me. I ignore all the others.

[Tempest]

In my opinion a damaged or defaced sign by people who disagree with its message and / or it's placing causes more harm to visitor perception of a location than the sign itself

The majority go to the broads for the beautiful surroundings and don't expect or want to see graffiti on the signage.

I hope the police find the people who committed this criminal damage and with everyone carrying at least one CCTV system (phone/dashcam etc) it isn't beyond the realms of possibility



Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[JennyMorgan]

Criminal damage must not be encouraged but my gut feeling is that the perpetrators assumed that their spray would be wiped off with solvents or cleaned off with a pressure cleaner, as generally are road signs.  Don't suppose that they had considered the inexperience of the BA in regard to vandalism. 

As for being pointless, I don't agree, obviously. In practical terms the 'vandals' have bypassed JP and made their feelings clear to Authority members, the puppets in particular. JP would be a fool to think that the objectors will go away but equally I don't see JP backing down. 

It was JP that ramped up HIS BNP campaign, surely to goodness he doesn't see himself as being above public opinion?  

[MauriceMynah]

21 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I choose to read, and contribute to, discussions that interest me. I ignore all the others.

Given that pretty much every thread ends up banging on about JP, you might as well get on and read them all. :-)   

                     

[batrabill]

26 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Criminal damage must not be encouraged but my gut feeling is that the perpetrators assumed that their spray would be wiped off with solvents or cleaned off with a pressure cleaner, as generally are road signs.  Don't suppose that they had considered the inexperience of the BA in regard to vandalism. 

 

POST OF THE YEAR!

 

It's not the vandals that are at fault, no, no no, its the Broads Authority's "inexperience ... in regard to vandalism"

 

The poor vandals expected the BA to be better at dealing with criminal damage.

Simply breathtaking.

 

 

[Paladin]

18 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Given that pretty much every thread ends up banging on about JP, you might as well get on and read them all. :-)   

                     

Give me a few minutes and I try to see how JP can be blamed for a hole in someone's boat cover.   

[Tempest]

Jenny,

I was a police officer for 30 years and your reply does condone criminal damage by using the term "but my gut feeling..............." in an attempt to trivialise a criminal act and then you turn on the BA as if they are somehow the offenders which I find disappointing

I am sure we would all want the police to take action if the same criminal damage was caused to our property and I am sure if say it was our boats we wouldn't dismiss this by stating "my gut feeling is that the perpetrators assumed that their spray would be wiped off with solvents or cleaned off with a pressure cleaner..."

Then blame the incompetence of the owners for not knowing how to get it off!

Criminal damage must not be encouraged but my gut feeling is that the perpetrators assumed that their spray would be wiped off with solvents or cleaned off with a pressure cleaner, as generally are road signs.  Don't suppose that they had considered the inexperience of the BA in regard to vandalism. 
As for being pointless, I don't agree, obviously. In practical terms the 'vandals' have bypassed JP and made their feelings clear to Authority members, the puppets in particular. JP would be a fool to think that the objectors will go away but equally I don't see JP backing down. 
It was JP that ramped up HIS BNP campaign, surely to goodness he doesn't see himself as being above public opinion?  

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[Paladin]

25 minutes ago, Tempest said:

Jenny,

I was a police officer for 30 years and your reply does condone criminal damage by using the term "but my gut feeling..............." in an attempt to trivialise a criminal act and then you turn on the BA as if they are somehow the offenders which I find disappointing

I am sure we would all want the police to take action if the same criminal damage was caused to our property and I am sure if say it was our boats we wouldn't dismiss this by stating "my gut feeling is that the perpetrators assumed that their spray would be wiped off with solvents or cleaned off with a pressure cleaner..."

Then blame the incompetence of the owners for not knowing how to get it off!

How on earth can trying to put oneself into the mind of the person responsible for a crime be interpreted as condoning that crime? As a police officer, surely you were doing that all the time, trying to judge motive and get some idea of where the next crime might occur (in the case of serial offences). If JM had said, 'my gut feeling was that the person responsible intended to damage the sign permanently', would that be 'condoning' it?

In fairness to the BA, the signs may have been 'cleaned' by a well-meaning, but misguided, member of the community. I would have thought the BA would first contact the manufacturer of the signs for advice, before making any attempt at cleaning.

Just a minor point, while the BA has paid for the purchase, erection and maintenance of the signs, property in them remains with the County Council that authorised them (according to the County Council, anyway).

[JennyMorgan]

Tempest, let me put it another way, I doubt that the perpetrators actually realised that their protest would end in irreparable criminal damage. We can only guess at the actual intention but I doubt that destruction was the intended end result. I bow to your thirty years experience as a police officer but I really do doubt that the intention was to do anymore than to protest.

[batrabill]

When you're in a hole - stop digging.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, Tempest said:

I hope the police find the people who committed this criminal damage and with everyone carrying at least one CCTV system (phone/dashcam etc) it isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
 

I would suggest that the police would have to act very, very cautiously, unless of course, the perpetrator was actually filmed in the act of spraying the sign. I have been taking close-up photos of a number of the BNP signs. My vehicle has been parked close by and I wear a hi-vis jacket. I have been taking part in a perfectly innocent activity. If the police wanted to try to accuse me of a crime, where no evidence exists, they could find themselves in a bit of bother.

[MauriceMynah]

Ok, enough is enough. I doubt anybody intended to condone the act, even if such condoning was inferred. How about getting back to whether the signs are legal.

[Paladin]

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Ok, enough is enough. I doubt anybody intended to condone the act, even if such condoning was inferred. How about getting back to whether the signs are legal.

Which legislation would you like us to consider?

 

[JennyMorgan]

23 minutes ago, batrabill said:

When you're in a hole - stop digging.

Who is in a hole? 

In the meantime the digging goes on. Quite surprising what we are finding between us!!

[grendel]

Has anyone thought to submit an FOI to the councils concerned asking for copies of the correspondance where these signs were authorised for use, to see whether they have followed their own guidelines for signage?, as at the least in Suffolk the guidelines exclude the usage for national parks in the wording of the guidance.

it would seem to me that if the councils are in breach of their guidelines in this regard, then there must be a record of where it was agreed that they would waive the guidelines for this instance. After all they must have had some motivation to allow them.

[Tempest]

It's still criminal damage as the cost of sending staff to clean it and the cost of the equipment used to do so would be the value of the damage in any court proceedings as such it is not relevant if it's repairable or not.

Tempest, let me put it another way, I doubt that the perpetrators actually realised that their protest would end in irreparable criminal damage. We can only guess at the actual intention but I doubt that destruction was the intended end result. I bow to your thirty years experience as a police officer but I really do doubt that the intention was to do anymore than to protest.

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

Has anyone thought to submit an FOI to the councils concerned asking for copies of the correspondance where these signs were authorised for use, to see whether they have followed their own guidelines for signage?, as at the least in Suffolk the guidelines exclude the usage for national parks in the wording of the guidance.

it would seem to me that if the councils are in breach of their guidelines in this regard, then there must be a record of where it was agreed that they would waive the guidelines for this instance. After all they must have had some motivation to allow them.

The Suffolk CC guidelines say:  National Parks and collective areas such as AONB will not be signed unless traffic is routed to a permanently established tourist information facility with good access and parking and toilets, and the name appears on maps/atlases and has signed boundaries. It should be noted that boundary signs for geographical areas are not covered by TSR&GD and would therefore require special authorisation.

I know that Norfolk CC has classified the signs as boundary signs. I don't know if anyone has written to Suffolk CC, to ask for clarification, so perhaps I'll get on and do that now. But that doesn't stop anyone else writing to them.

[marshman]

Well - lets guess who will be writing??? Anyone else interested enough to.....????