Acle B.N.P.

[Vaughan]

I guess that tells me where to get off, then.

[vanessan]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I guess that tells me where to get off, then.

I sincerely hope not!

[NorfolkNog]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

'Do not stray from the topic discussed.'

Now that will be a novelty!!!  

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, NorfolkNog said:

Now that will be a novelty!!!  

Speaking of the Acle B.N.P you're going to have to explain your avatar to me Mr Nog 

[vanessan]

10 minutes ago, NorfolkNog said:

Now that will be a novelty!!!  

Not to mention an impossibility!!! 

[NorfolkNog]

I'll do it on your thread Mr Fire sir. Not gonna disrupt this one!!!!

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, vanessan said:

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I guess that tells me where to get off, then.

I sincerely hope not!

I am very sorry but I am afraid it does.

[JennyMorgan]

No more letters from France, that is sad, really sad!

[grendel]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I guess that tells me where to get off, then.

did you not notice the smiley, 

[rightsaidfred]

8 minutes ago, grendel said:

did you not notice the smiley, 

What smiley I don't see one

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

Sorry thought you was referring to Vaughan`s post

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Back to reality, 

I have been in correspondence with the CEO of the Campaign For National Parks. I won't bother you with the debate but I have now received confirmation that the Broads is NOT a national park!!!!

Dear Mr Waller

You are of course right, it isn’t a Park but for shorthand we, and others, refer to it as being part of the National Parks family. Apologies. I appreciate the decision by the Broads Authority to refer to it as a Park was and is controversial.

As you say, there is no legal boundary of the Broads NP as it isn’t a National Park as set out in the 1949 Act. But there is a legal boundary to the Broads and the protections set out in the 1988 legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework apply to it.

Best wishes

Fiona

If anyone has any doubts about the NP status of the Broads then perhaps this will help convince them.

[JennyMorgan]

Interesting response from the BA!

Dear Parish Clerk,

As I am sure you are aware Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils have been installing the Broads National Park signs that we previously wrote to you about last year.

We have only proceeded with signs where the appropriate Parish Council welcomed the initiative, or where no objections were raised following our emails in April and May 2019.

Whilst many people have reacted positively we are aware that a group of individuals are actively trying to discredit the project claiming that the signs are illegal, dishonest or part of some ulterior motive to change the legal status or boundary of the Broads Authority. None of which are true. We are legally entitled to promote the area in this way and our applications to Norfolk and Suffolk County councils satisfied the requirements of their respective application process. There are no ulterior motives and our intentions with this project are entirely positive.

We would reiterate that the signs are not intended to accurately mark the boundaries of the Broads Authority Executive area. Instead we hope to highlight iconic Broads locations associated with the Broads National Park brand which in turn provides many benefits, not least to support local businesses and the visitor economy which is worth £633m and supports over 7,000 jobs. Being legally able to promote the area using the term Broads National Park is important as National Park is an internationally recognised term that people both know and respect. Being part of the family of 15 National Parks in the UK helps us to inspire people to care about the Broads.

We have also seen calls to inflict criminal damage, deface or cover the signs or add additional signs with their own messages. Sadly we have already had to react to some vandalism. We have of course alerted the police to this activity and would urge parish councils to report any such activity around the signs to us or to the police.

Please do let me know if you need any support in dealing with such issues or correspondence from these individuals.

Many thanks in advance for your ongoing support for this initiative.

Regards
Rob

Rob Leigh

Head of Communications

[Paladin]

35 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Interesting response from the BA!

Dear Parish Clerk,

As I am sure you are aware Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils have been installing the Broads National Park signs that we previously wrote to you about last year...

..Please do let me know if you need any support in dealing with such issues or correspondence from these individuals.

Many thanks in advance for your ongoing support for this initiative.

Regards
Rob

Rob Leigh

Head of Communications

See previous post for full letter.

Comments, with my emphases throughout:

“…or where no objections were raised following our emails in April and May 2019.”

How arrogant is that? Did they not consider that a parish council did not reply (I guess that is what they actually mean) because the PC didn’t want to engage with the BA? If I ignored a letter which said someone wanted to put up a sign in my garden, I would be livid if it was put up without my express consent. OK, so the PCs don’t own the verge, but it’s a similar principle.

“We are legally entitled to promote the area in this way”.

That is highly questionable. It was a decision they took upon themselves. No one has actually given them permission to promote the area in this way, certainly not Lord de Mauley, who simply left the decision to the BA and certainly not the High Court judge. I note that Lord De Mauley said, in his letter to the BA chairman, Dr Johnson: “You have asked me for my view on your proposal to adopt the national park brand on the authority’s promotional material.”

And what the judge said was:

“This issue therefore depends upon whether the mere use of the phrase “Broads National Park” in promotional literature would mislead a reasonable member of the public into thinking that the Sandford Principle is applicable within the Broads.”

“No reasonable member of the public would see the use of the words “Broads National Park” in promotional literature as referring to the specific legal regimes governing either the Broads or National Parks in the UK.”

“In my judgment the branding decision taken by the Authority cannot be regarded as having any misleading effect as to the statutory functions of either the Broads or the Authority and no abuse of power has occurred.”

So the judge, in the current context, only considered:

a. The use of the BNP expression in promotional literature – which would cover the posters at railway stations, but not road signs, or even on uniforms.

b. Whether the BNP use was misleading regarding the statutory functions of the Authority.

What the judge did NOT do was to consider whether the use of BNP was misleading to the general public per se, nor did he give any approval, consent or authorisation to the BA to use the BNP expression. The case was centred on the very specific three grounds of the complaint. This is another case of deliberate misinterpretation and exaggeration by the BA. The BA can only act in accordance with the governing legislation – THAT is what gives them their legal entitlement to act in certain ways.

But no legislation or court has specifically authorised the use of the BNP expression, so they are NOT legally entitled…although they probably rely on that section of the Local Government Act 1972 which allows a local authority discharging any of the functions of a local authority to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of those functions.

But I think it could be argued that promoting the Broads is not a function of the Authority acting as a local authority under the Local Government Act, but a function of the Authority exercising its powers under the Broads Acts. Pedantic perhaps, but it is on details like this that cases are won and lost.

“Sadly we have already had to react to some vandalism.”

More exaggeration

Vandalism - "action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property".

Have any signs been damaged? Moving a sign to the bottom of the supports, or covering it with a strip of plastic isn’t vandalism (provided no glue or nails were used).

Project fear, stage 1?

[Paladin]

An addendum to my post above:

I have heard elsewhere, from a reliable source (and my lips are sealed), that damage has been caused by a sticker which couldn't be removed without causing damage, so the sign was replaced. I certainly don’t condone that conduct.

But it made me think about ‘interference with road signs’.  I’m putting this up for general information, as it’s not something you come across too often.

There is an offence under Section 22A Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing danger to road-users by interfering directly or indirectly with traffic equipment...

“traffic equipment” means - anything lawfully placed on or near a road by a highway authority...(lawfulness is presumed unless proved otherwise).

The full offence can be read here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/22A

[JennyMorgan]

Rob Leigh would do well if he were to research the outcome of the failed Broads National Park Bill.  

[ChrisB]

Maybe some of the "Posts" could fall under the "Law of Incitement" futhermore scrutiny and accountability of an organisation is one thing but the constant targeting of an individual within said organisation with accusations that have a basis in personal opinion not fact could be construde as harassment.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

Maybe some of the "Posts" could fall under the "Law of Incitement" futhermore scrutiny and accountability of an organisation is one thing but the constant targeting of an individual within said organisation with accusations that have a basis in personal opinion not fact could be construde as harassment.

"Law of incitement"?, hardly, due to no suggestion or encouragement of taking any form of vandalism by any member of this discussion, I certainly have'nt haven't read of any. 

"Constant targeting", well, if the UNELECTED head of a lawful authority continues to endulge or promote activities and systems which are completely bogus, then said head MUST expect ongoing criticism. 

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, ChrisB said:

Maybe some of the "Posts" could fall under the "Law of Incitement" futhermore scrutiny and accountability of an organisation is one thing but the constant targeting of an individual within said organisation with accusations that have a basis in personal opinion not fact could be construde as harassment.

The common law offence of incitement was repealed in 2008 by the Serious Crime Act 2007, which, I suggest, you might like to take a look at, with particular reference to Sections 44 - 50. The idea that anything that has been posted on here could get anywhere near to being considered for prosecution under that Act is quite remarkable.

 

[Poppy]

20 hours ago, Maxwellian said:

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.

It would appear ( as far as I can tell) that Tom is not  a 'Full member. Therefore he will be unable to see posts on this thread, now it is in  full members only.  Unless of course he has been granted exemption from '50 posts'.

[Timbo]

5 minutes ago, Poppy said:

It would appear ( as far as I can tell) that Tom is not  a 'Full member. Therefore he will be unable to see posts on this thread, now it is in  full members only.  Unless of course he has been granted exemption from '50 posts'.

Speakers' Corner is in the main forum Poppy.

[Poppy]

1 minute ago, Timbo said:

Speakers' Corner is in the main forum Poppy.

Were we not previously told that this thread had been moved to 'members only', while the mods considered it ? Has it now been returned to the main forum ? If so, I've missed any notification to that effect .

It's getting more and more confusing !

 

[MauriceMynah]

Poppy, May I direct you to a thread called "Speakers Corner - Read this before you post here"

[Timbo]

2 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Were we not previously told that this thread had been moved to 'members only', while the mods considered it ?

I like to keep the mod and tech teams on their toes and they worked through the night and lunch breaks to get things going again as fast as they could for which I am very grateful. 

[Poppy]

37 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Poppy, May I direct you to a thread called "Speakers Corner - Read this before you post here"

So is that 'Members only' - or not ?