Jump to content
  • Announcements

    PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NBN MOBILE APP IS CURRENTLY NOT WORKING

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, batrabill said:

Here in the Broads the story which is promoted by a very vocal group of people is that National Parks are a BAD thing. Specifically for boaters.

 

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

The promotion in the Broads by that vocal group is that the Broads becoming a national park (as defined) is a BAD, BAD thing, not that national parks themselves are a bad thing.

 

 

53 minutes ago, batrabill said:

That is proven wrong on this very thread. The behaviour of NPs is used repeatedly to demonstrate how things will be worse if the Broads were a full NP.  The fact that there is b****** all evidence is exactly my point. 

 

Can you please point me towards any posts on this thread that say that NPs are intrinsically bad? I've looked back at the 270+ posts and can't find a single one. Even JM supports the principle of NPs.

Of course there can be no evidence produced to demonstrate how things would be worse if the Broads were to become a designated NP, because that hasn't happened yet, and there is no NP that is directly comparable to the Broads. In the same way, there can be no evidence of a crime until the crime has been committed.

But what there IS evidence of is the willingness of the BA to use 'creative interpretation' of the legislation to serve its own purposes, regardless of the wishes of parliament (which can be established by reference to Hansard and other sources). It doesn't even interpret its own byelaws in a correct manner. Which all comes back to the question of trust, something that appears to be noticably lacking.

Remember the old saying, "would you buy a used car from this man?" Not if he was trying to persuade me that the Mondeo on the forecourt was actually a Bentley.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Reading this thread really does get me down. I love the broads, the boats, the people, the area and most importantly those who wish to discuss or post photos or videos I subscribe to a numbe

I think perhaps I ought to explain myself, as I would certainly not wish to cause any mis-understanding.  As this thread is already in the new Speakers' Corner, maybe I can have my say here, without f

right - I think we have argued this one to death now, and things are starting to stray into the realms of the personal, so before we get any further into infringements of the TOS than we have already,

Posted Images

54 minutes ago, Paladin said:

True story - my daughter lives in a national park. Her neighbour  wanted to build a house for himself. The planning authority imposed conditions that it could only be later sold to either a resident of the NP, or a member of such a resident's family and that the purchaser must work within the planning authority's area. Which rather reduces the number of potential buyers. Had the neighbour built the house, literally, on the other side of the street, those restrictions would not have been imposed, as the NP boundary runs down the middle of the street.

Also true of a number of locations in Broadland that I am aware of. Thanks for highlighting this.

Of course we don't have a national park boundary for the Broads, a fact acknowledged by the CEO of the Campaign for National Parks, but we do have the BA legislative area that is similarly illogical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, marshman said:

Sorry ST - guess again as to my thoughts!! ( I actually do not ever recall supporting a NP per se for this area, although I might have pointed out that legislation is required for that purpose, rather than the appearance of a road sign. Equally neither Clive's brochure nor the OS publications actually make it one either! )

Just having a bit of fun mm, no offence intended.

Re Clives brochure, you are 100% wrong on that score. Only yesterday i protested on their facebook advert where they state the Broads are a National Park. I asked them to STOP advertising the Broads as a NP as it is`nt one, and got a limp response all but backing the claim it was. I then stated that if the Broads DID become a full NP, sandford WILL apply, and that might, and i say MIGHT spell the end of boating on the Broads. I`ve yet to have a response.

I`ve got a great idea, why don`t we go and stick Rolls Royce badges on the back of packmans Range Rover (or whatever he drives) and tell him he will have to pay more for his insurance because he owns a Roller?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2020 at 21:29, grendel said:

a post to consider - the response in another National park to the prospect of 10 recreational cruisers on the lake.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/allan-bank-and-grasmere/features/our-response-recreational-boats-grasmere-?fbclid=IwAR1GSZq__Ie13vECVDLKudPD97YmDJ9HnBw3HuNuKabEw0cL2Utpsm1JkFE

to those that say it could never happen - take note.

Heavens, this looks like a warning of what happens in “another National Park” that is, “bad things”

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

I`ve got a great idea, why don`t we go and stick Rolls Royce badges on the back of packmans Range Rover (or whatever he drives) and tell him he will have to pay more for his insurance because he owns a Roller?.

He is a keen cyclist! Often see him on two wheels around the byways & highways of North Suffolk. Could always stick a Riva badge on his kayak though.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Heavens, this looks like a warning of what happens in “another National Park” that is, “bad things”

Let me remind you of what you said..."Here in the Broads the story which is promoted by a very vocal group of people is that National Parks are a BAD thing. Specifically for boaters."

grendel's post didn't say that National Parks are a bad thing, but was drawing attention to the National Trust's opinion (note, it was the National Trust, not the NPA) that the provision of these particular boats was not acceptable.

One of the reasons given by the National Trust is that the area is a UNESCO World Heritage site, a designation that doesn't apply to the Broads.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Paladin said:

One of the reasons given by the National Trust is that the area is a UNESCO World Heritage site, a designation that doesn't apply to the Broads.

So here's another true comparison. The Canal du Midi in south France, is a UNESCO World Heritage site and it is accepted by all the local and national authorities, that it would never have achieved that status if it were not for the success of the boat hiring industry and all the tourism revenue that it brings to the area.

Historically that success is put down to Blue Line, who introduced boat hiring to the French Canals in the late 60s and who came from The Norfolk Broads, where F.B. Wilds built all their boats. If it were not for that, then when the commercial barge traffic stopped, the canal would have become disused, dried up and grown over.

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Paladin said:

One of the reasons given by the National Trust is that the area is a UNESCO World Heritage site, a designation that doesn't apply to the Broads.

The Authority did try!! 

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-loses-out-in-bid-to-join-world-heritage-sites-1-839392

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Good luck with proving there in no “anti-NP” spin from many on here. 

See Fred above with the old Sandford stuff. 

Sorry thats not old its part of NP statute, you can adopt two attitudes you can be a Chameberlist and adopt the 3 wise monkey or brass  monkey approach or a Churchwillian and sort out the mess of the first approach, unfortunately history teaches us the consequence of the first mentality.

Fred

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Good luck with proving there in no “anti-NP” spin from many on here. 

See Fred above with the old Sandford stuff. 

That presupposes that you have established there IS anti-NP spin (which you haven't). Anti-NP spin would involve telling untruths (a bit like calling the Broads a national park). Pointing out factual matters, that may put certain national parks in a less-than-favourable light to some, isn't spin.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cambridge Dictionary

Spin: a particular way of representing an event or situation to the public so that it will be understood in a way that you want it to be understood

 

Spin isn't untruths, it's presenting things in a way that supports your case.

 

Like talking about the speed restrictions and not mentioning that Sandford wasn't invoked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you just employ spin?

Wiki ... "In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through knowingly providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to influence public opinion about some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may manage their presentation of facts, "spin" often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and manipulative tactics."

Please note the last five words.

Spin Doctor: a person responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.

Remind you of anyone?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Please keep it friendly.

To avoid any misunderstanding, my reference to Spin Doctor was not a reference to any NBN member. The definition quoted refers to a person responsible for etc

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Cambridge Dictionary

Spin: a particular way of representing an event or situation to the public so that it will be understood in a way that you want it to be understood

 

Spin isn't untruths, it's presenting things in a way that supports your case.

 

Like talking about the speed restrictions and not mentioning that Sandford wasn't invoked.

 

So you have finally caught on to JPs use of the NP branding well done.

Fred

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

So you have finally caught on to JPs use of the NP branding well done.

Fred

Absolutely the BA, not JP, (another "spin" is "it's all one man, the people on the frontline are great") are Spinners. So is every single institution  in the world...

To accuse the BA of presenting the facts to suit them is to be a child - of course they do.

But there is a ton of spin on here. If you cant see it it may be that you are suffering from confirmation bias.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Absolutely the BA, not JP, (another "spin" is "it's all one man, the people on the frontline are great") are Spinners. So is every single institution  in the world...

To accuse the BA of presenting the facts to suit them is to be a child - of course they do.

But there is a ton of spin on here. If you cant see it it may be that you are suffering from confirmation bias.

When I first entered the world of Broads forums, I read the comments that were negative towards the Broads Authority and looked for some independent evidence that would support those comments, as I thought that quite a few were somewhat far-fetched. I had no bias, confirmation or otherwise. From what I realise now was a position of some ignorance, I would defend the Authority against adverse opinions, and try to provide positive arguments in their favour.

However, the more I delved into the activities and processes of the Authority, the more I realised that those adverse comments contained more than a grain of truth. I then had several personal engagements with the Authority, which only served to confirm to me that many of those adverse comments were warranted.

I doubt that I am alone in this and to try to dismiss genuinely-held opinions, often formed through personal experience, as confirmation bias is simply ducking the issues. But I would rather have a discussion with someone with confirmation bias, to whom I could point out opposing information and facts, than someone suffering from belief perseverance, who cannot recognise when their beliefs have been proven to be false.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn’t really make sense Paladin(e). What you have said there is ‘I’m happy with my prejudices, and I don’t like the fact you don’t agree with me’

Didnt your attitude to the BA change greatly when your tolls went up a couple of years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paladin said:

Spin Doctor: a person responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.

Remind you of anyone?

Got me absolutely stumped, has that one! Just can't imagine . . . . . . . . . . . .  :default_biggrin:?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Maxwellian changed the title to Acle B.N.P.
  • grendel locked this topic
  • grendel unlocked this topic

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.

  • NBN Mobile App


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.