Acle B.N.P.

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I saw a report on Sky News this morning about a row going on in the Lake District between the NP authority and the local residents, about works being done at enormous expense to "open up the area to a wider public". Where have we heard that before?

In the Lake District a few years ago. And in the Lake District a few years before that. They do this every so often to tick boxes to say they are actually doing something for their fat salaries. It never works. I remember an article on TV a few years ago, probably Countryfile, where they took a group of the aforementioned "minorities" around the Lake District and they all said how great it was and they'll be giving it a try. They clearly didn't.

We all like to holiday with our own kind of people and changing the culture is just as likely to drive people away, as improve things. Too late for political correctness then.

[JennyMorgan]

31 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Ah, I see. For one minute I thought you were pleased that the RSPB drew in so much support and were ‘criticising’ my comment. It seems the Society has lost a lot of support in recent years for one reason or another (mine included) yet still manages to outdo most wildlife organisations. 

I firmly believe that this report lost the RSPB a goodly number of Broads based supporters: http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf

I don't think that I am alone in wishing that the RSPB was politically less active.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I can't resist this!

I saw a report on Sky News this morning about a row going on in the Lake District between the NP authority and the local residents, about works being done at enormous expense to "open up the area to a wider public". Where have we heard that before?

The CEO of the Lake District NP is quoted as saying "We are deficient in terms of young people; we are deficient in terms of black and minority ethnic communities and we are not particularly well visited by those who are less able in terms of their mobility". He has noticed, it seems, that you can't get up Scaffel Pike in a wheelchair.

There is an article about it on the Daily Mail website and if someone would be kind enough to link it here (I don't know how) you might find it interesting reading.

Is this what might be coming to the Broads, as a member of the "the national park family"?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7834365/Lake-District-National-Park-boss-says-destinations-rugged-landscape-excludes-people.html

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I firmly believe that this report lost the RSPB a goodly number of Broads based supporters: http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf

Having reread the report I note the following, largely self explanatory and worrying  paragraph:

"Debating point: should those living and working in the Broads accept the Sandford Principle? In 2006, the Government rejected the idea of the Broads being called a National Park. All other National Parks are signed up to the ‘Sandford Principle’ – see above – whereby in the event of an irreconcilable conflict of interest, conserving our natural environment is the first priority. The Broads could be a National Park by adopting this same principle as the other National Parks."

Perhaps people will now better understand why so many folk are opposed to the mythical BNP and the constantly repeated lies surrounding the use of that tag. 

There is also a suggestion that at least 50% of Broads boats should be oar, paddle or sail powered, how's yours powered? Would you continue to navigate the Broads if you were barred from using an engine? 

[JennyMorgan]

5 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

. . . . . . . . any political entity would have to be publicly accountable via election.  Imagine how far the headmasters face would drop if that were to become law?. 

The pinnacle of unelected power has so far managed to avoid any meaningful accountability or democracy in general. There is an unattractive culture of excessive, executive control within Yare House, I don't see that being abandoned any day soon.

[Vaughan]

On 28/12/2019 at 18:50, JennyMorgan said:

 

I have been thinking overnight about the principle of "marketing purposes only".

This sign, placed as it is on another which welcomes you to Acle, is quite clearly telling you that you are entering a National Park.

In which case the sign is false and arguably, illegal.

This is what I call "pushing the boundaries" too far.

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

This is what I call "pushing the boundaries" too far.

Apparently a mile and a quarter in the case of Acle! 

I have no doubt that it's a cynical, executive decision to push the boundaries knowing full well that the BA is unlikely to be challenged in Court on this one.  In my opinion it is a morally dishonest methodology.                                                                                                                                                                   

[rightsaidfred]

7 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Apparently a mile and a quarter in the case of Acle! 

I have no doubt that it's a cynical, executive decision to push the boundaries knowing full well that the BA is unlikely to be challenged in Court on this one.  In my opinion it is a morally dishonest methodology.                                                                                                                                                                   

As both the main sign and land don't belong to the BA could their one just not be removed without the need for any other proceedings.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

It will be interesting to see if and how BA Tom responds to this topic. It would be better though if JP himself would respond and clarify the legal position of the Authority in regard to the use of the BNP tag. The Authority has chosen to ignore repeated Government dictates in regard to the use of the BNP title and also appears to have forgotten the three failed attempts to gain formal, national park status within Parliament.

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

As both the main sign and land don't belong to the BA could their one just not be removed without the need for any other proceedings.

Fred

I suspect, Fred, that it is not as simple as that. The local authority responsible for road signs has apparently agreed that the BA can be erected as it has been. That authority has been informed of the dishonesty of the sign but has nevertheless it chose to ignore it. 

[marshman]

If Tom has any sense he would not even bother to comment - it is just a few people regurgitating an age old argument that just goes on, and on and on....!!

It IS'NT a National Park, just called one, and we all know what is required for it to become one - IMHO that is not likely to happen at this time so lets all save our breath until then - as I have said time and time again, this "ranting"  by some people over and over again, loses its impact after a while.

[rightsaidfred]

6 minutes ago, marshman said:

It IS'NT a National Park, just called one, and we all know what is required for it to become one - IMHO that is not likely to happen at this time so lets all save our breath until then - as I have said time and time again, this "ranting"  by some people over and over again, loses its impact after a while.

So why does JP persist in promoting it as one with the unnecessary expense involved.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, your continued support of dishonesty does you little credit! 

7 minutes ago, marshman said:

It IS'NT a National Park, just called one,

We agree on that one! But why the lie, exemplified by these misleading road signs?

[Lulu]

23 minutes ago, marshman said:

It IS'NT a National Park, just called one,

Then there shouldn’t be any misleading reference that it is one, it’s that simple 

 

 

 

 

[Bytheriver]

Of course we need to remember the CEOs of the NPs including of course BA meet together on a regular basis and of course participated in the Landscape Review (Glover) and as the new Government formulate their parliamentary timetable which could well include the proposed NP/AONB formula now is the time for them to wave their flags & singing from the same hymn sheet could well sway MPs especially with many of all parties being new to Parliament now is the time to make sure they are well informed of what the population think (Lessons could well have been learned from the recent election) 

[JennyMorgan]

Bytheriver, local MP's are being kept informed although, regretfully, one of the new intake has already been nobbled /got at. This new chapter, the road signs, could well be the tipping point, or not. 

[MauriceMynah]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

If Tom has any sense he would not even bother to comment -

That is why your post had a "like" from me.

What on earth do members think that Tom could say irrespective of any personal beliefs he may have on the subject?

Even mentioning his name may have put him in an insidious position of "Back my boss or lose my job" 

To Tom I say, Back up your boss right or wrong in this thread or I shall have to recommend the moderators to lock this thread forthwith  to deny you the opportunity to do so or save you the ignominy of trying. 

[Bytheriver]

17 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I firmly believe that this report lost the RSPB a goodly number of Broads based supporters: http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf

I don't think that I am alone in wishing that the RSPB was politically less active.

Is this one and the same Mike Barnes (page 12) appointed to BA this year (Details of who are still not on the BA website)

Incidentally what was the date of the RSPB report 

Read recently that RSPB has more members than Tory, Labour & Lib Dems combined ( 1.2m against around 781,000) Its quite hard to find an up to date number for RSPB

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

What on earth do members think that Tom could say irrespective of any personal beliefs he may have on the subject?

I am genuinely interested in Dr John Packman's reasoning and justification, at least for the erection of these road signs. It is only fair that the Authority has the ability to justify itself and I would appreciate it if they would. I don't expect anything other than utter loyalty from Tom, he comes over as a thoroughly decent type, but nevertheless I would appreciate detailed clarification of the party line on this one. Indeed I think that the Authority owes it to us, its customers, to take this opportunity to present its case and defend its position both in regard to the BNP & these road signs in particular. There is public interest, a clear response would be appreciated.

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

Is this one and the same Mike Barnes (page 12) appointed to BA this year (Details of who are still not on the BA website)

An interesting question, I shall ask around.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

An interesting question, I shall ask around.

I have asked. just waiting for a response. As for the RSPB report, a few years old now but don't know when.

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

I am genuinely interested in Dr John Packman's reasoning and justification, at least for the erection of these road signs.

Of that I have no doubt.

 

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

It is only fair that the Authority has the ability to justify itself

It does have that ability, but perhaps chooses not to. Having the ability to is not the same as having the  obligation to.

Just my take on it. I must add that I agree with your general view of the situation but not your route to the discussion.

[JennyMorgan]

You may not like my route to the discussion but we do know that JP is aware of this forum and that Tom, brave man that he is, is the public voice of the Authority. For far too long there has been supposition, assumption and just plain guesswork both here and elsewhere. It really is time to clear the air, put this all to bed, although I doubt that it will be once and for all though!  It really is a case of 'over to you, Tom, have a natter with John (JP) and, as Delilah Smith once famously said, let's be 'aving you'!  JP has preached transparency in the past, may that be the Authority's New Year's Resolution.

[MauriceMynah]

"Route to the discussion" was not the best way I could have phrased it. It is my belief that whilst you are correct in your aim, your method of gunning for the doctor, will not work. You have been hammering the man at every opportunity  but this has born no fruit. Would it not be more effective to try a different approach. 

Remember your primary objective is not necessarily achieved by removing the boss but changing his reasoning. To do that we not only need to understand his objectives, but also how he arrived at them. I have now had too much beer for reasoning, so I retreat from this thread till later. 🙂

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

4 hours ago, marshman said:

If Tom has any sense he would not even bother to comment - it is just a few people regurgitating an age old argument that just goes on, and on and on....!!

It IS'NT a National Park, just called one, and we all know what is required for it to become one - IMHO that is not likely to happen at this time so lets all save our breath until then - as I have said time and time again, this "ranting"  by some people over and over again, loses its impact after a while.

First, I think it rude to question whether  any member of this forum has any sense, so an apology wouldn't go amiss. 

No, the Broads is NOT an NP, so why continue to trade under that blatant lie?. Also Marshy, I find your comment "IMHO that is not going to happen at this time" possibly a bit of a giveaway. The words "AT THIS TIME" say a lot more than you think. Does this mean you know through your relationship with the BA you know, or have been lead to believe, the BA will in the near future be perusing FULL NP status, which is pretty obviously your personal preference?. And if that Is the case, then the Sandford Principle WILL apply.