Acle B.N.P.

[Paladin]

21 minutes ago, marshman said:

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

Probably not you 

[rightsaidfred]

On 20/01/2020 at 17:07, MauriceMynah said:

I don't know if this route has been explored, but the BA are allowed to use the term "Broads National Park" for marketing.

Are official road signs allowed to carry marketing signs ?

Good question although I am sure 1 or 2 

[Paladin]

15 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Good question although I am sure 1 or 2 

That is a somewhat mute point, as Norfolk County Council has classified them as boundary signs, a decision that has been challenged. Further installation of the signs has been halted while NCC consult the Department for Transport.

[rightsaidfred]

Please ignore last post the folly of trying to use phone with poor signal.

While no one can condone vandalism it would appear that those offended by the apparent misuse of public funds promoting something that isnt goes beyond the so called BA knockers on here given how widespread these signs are, hopefully someone in authority will note the amount of discontent that exists.

Fred*

[Turnoar]

See in the local rag that a graffiti artist or artists have put their stamp on one of the new Stadler trains in the MNR sidings near Wymondham. Hope they track down the culprits! Putting their own lives at risk potentially as could be the NP sign striker... I wonder if the new BNP signs should be “bagged” for the time being whilst the legalities are proven. Dydl are doing 20 black refuse sacks for only 79p this weekend. The mystery of what’s being covered up may even draw people to the area and give a boost at what is traditionally the doldrums for the broads tourism calendar.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Personally, i think the authorities would see money better spent by cutting back overgrown foliage covering road sign, especially speed limit signs. Also mend all the potholes in the roads.

[floydraser]

11 hours ago, Paladin said:

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. 

Well now, who should I believe?

All I know about Dr Packman has been learned from these two threads on this forum, and the same goes for you Paladin. From where I sit up here on the fence I can see that Dr Packman is an extremely clever chap who is a darned sight better at what he does than I am at what I do. He is also clearly so far, a darned sight better at it than anyone trying to oppose him. 

 

[floydraser]

11 hours ago, Paladin said:

 

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.

 

The logic there is almost on the level of you're mate's recent effort. So if you visited a place where the locals were smashing the place up for some reason (a reason you may well consider to be not your problem and besides, you're trying to relax not looking for a cause.. well most people) you would gladly return for another visit?

[floydraser]

8 hours 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?

And I note that the immediate reply to this is yet another which lacks any intent to actually do something.

 

[JennyMorgan]

In the meantime the contractors installing the signs have been told to desist for the time being. I wonder why, perhaps it is because an individual, or maybe several, have taken it upon themselves to actually do something. Clearly JP has overstepped the mark this time. I wonder what else is going on behind drawn curtains  ? 

[floydraser]

27 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

In the meantime the contractors installing the signs have been told to desist for the time being. I wonder why, perhaps it is because an individual, or maybe several, have taken it upon themselves to actually do something. Clearly JP has overstepped the mark this time. I wonder what else is going on behind drawn curtains  ? 

Are you hinting at some kind of victory on the back of vandalism? That would be a seriously bad precedent to set wouldn't it? So every time someone disagrees with a decision made involving local authorities, just go out and spray something and get it overturned. What a place to live in!

Imagine someone wanting to move house to this area and on the way to the viewing they see a defaced sign or two. And what about the seller, could they expect the best price? But on the upside, plenty of "affordable" housing in the area!

[JennyMorgan]

15 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Are you hinting at some kind of victory on the back of vandalism?

No, that had not even entered my mind. If this is on the back of anything then it is on the rightness of the points being raised with the various, relevant authorities. 

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, floydraser said:

Well now, who should I believe?

All I know about Dr Packman has been learned from these two threads on this forum, and the same goes for you Paladin. From where I sit up here on the fence I can see that Dr Packman is an extremely clever chap who is a darned sight better at what he does than I am at what I do. He is also clearly so far, a darned sight better at it than anyone trying to oppose him.

Then, with the greatest respect, you know very little, really, either about Dr Packman or me. If you think he is all-powerful, may I suggest you start by researching the ill-fated Broads National Park Authority Bill, that Dr Packman tried (and failed) to get through parliament in 2006.

He wanted to change the name of the Authority to the Broads National Park Authority, and the name of the Broads to the Broads National Park. A small number of local people petitioned parliament, objecting to this move. You can find out a great deal about the arguments by searching Hansard. The Defra Head of National Parks Branch, John Kilner, wrote to Dr Packman and told him explicitly that he (JP) could not use the title "National Park", or "National Park Authority".

Yet here we are, with Broads National Parks road signs. But please don't think he has won. Those "little people" who presented opposition then will continue today.

If you compare the resources Dr Packman has at his disposal compared to the total lack of resources available to his opponents, I would say he hasn't done too well in his 20 years of being chief executive in trying to achieve his ambition of the Broads becoming a National Park. Incidentally, he was forced to abandon that notion, in order to get the NSBA and RYA to drop their opposition to the rebranding, but did he really mean what he said?

I've attached a draft copy of the Bill and the Kilner letter, but this only just scratches the surface, so I think it is early days for you to pass any judgement on him, or me.

Second_Draft_of_Bill.pdf

[Paladin]

14 hours ago, Paladin said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, floydraser said:

The logic there is almost on the level of you're mate's recent effort. So if you visited a place where the locals were smashing the place up for some reason (a reason you may well consider to be not your problem and besides, you're trying to relax not looking for a cause.. well most people) you would gladly return for another visit?

What on earth are you on about? My point (which you have totally missed) is that if you are trying to promote an area, to get more people to visit, you don't wait until the visitors arrive there. You go to where they live, whether in this country or abroad, and tell them how wonderful the area is and why don't you come and visit.

Sorry, but I missed the report that said something was being smashed up.

[Paladin]

11 hours 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.

 

3 hours ago, floydraser said:

And I note that the immediate reply to this is yet another which lacks any intent to actually do something.

You really don't read the posts properly, do you? My reply to grendel's question was, "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."

Did that not convey to you that there was an intent to do something? For the avoidance of any further doubt in your mind, that clarification has been sought and a reply awaited.

 

[floydraser]

11 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Then, with the greatest respect, you know very little, really, either about Dr Packman or me. If you think he is all-powerful, may I suggest you start by researching the ill-fated Broads National Park Authority Bill, that Dr Packman tried (and failed) to get through parliament in 2006.

He wanted to change the name of the Authority to the Broads National Park Authority, and the name of the Broads to the Broads National Park. A small number of local people petitioned parliament, objecting to this move. You can find out a great deal about the arguments by searching Hansard. The Defra Head of National Parks Branch, John Kilner, wrote to Dr Packman and told him explicitly that he (JP) could not use the title "National Park", or "National Park Authority".

Yet here we are, with Broads National Parks road signs. But please don't think he has won. Those "little people" who presented opposition then will continue today.

If you compare the resources Dr Packman has at his disposal compared to the total lack of resources available to his opponents, I would say he hasn't done too well in his 20 years of being chief executive in trying to achieve his ambition of the Broads becoming a National Park. Incidentally, he was forced to abandon that notion, in order to get the NSBA and RYA to drop their opposition to the rebranding, but did he really mean what he said?

I've attached a draft copy of the Bill and the Kilner letter, but this only just scratches the surface, so I think it is early days for you to pass any judgement on him, or me.

 

I never said I know a lot about you or Dr Packman. I don't think he's all powerfull and never hinted that I thought so. But the fact that he's been in the job for twenty years and you have failed to knock him off his perch backs up what I did say thanks.

To get the better of him someone has to have a better strategy than he does. Futile bickering on a minor forum, drowning in bitterness and predjudice is just that: futile. You and others appear to be just waiting around for him to trip over something. It reminds me a lot of a Ms Sturgeon and a Mr Corbyn who said something about another bloke being unfit to lead, would crash out without a deal and be a Trump Puppet. They're still waiting in hope too.

Just in case you're struggling with that; my point is that this thread is a futile waste of everyone's time. Saved you asking.

[floydraser]

11 minutes ago, Paladin said:

 

You really don't read the posts properly, do you? My reply to grendel's question was, "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."

Did that not convey to you that there was an intent to do something? For the avoidance of any further doubt in your mind, that clarification has been sought and a reply awaited.

 

Here's the reply. We were typing at the same time. I'm finished here, it's all your thread.

[Paladin]

1 minute ago, floydraser said:

Here's the reply. We were typing at the same time. I'm finished here, it's all your thread.

That's very gracious of you. But I'll miss your contributions.

[marshman]

So once again we are possibly seeing yet another departure from the Forum as a result of the attitude of a few who have long held prejudices against almost every BA decision - cannot be bothered to see how many have been lost as a result of this campaign in this thread alone as I just cannot be bothered to go back and count, but one thing I am absolutely sure of, is that the Forum is in a worse place as a result!

Carry on like this and there will not be anyone to argue with - or to try and impose your view upon!!

[Poppy]

22 hours 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.

Road signs being cleaned in Norfolk would be a novelty

[Smoggy]

10 minutes ago, marshman said:

So once again we are possibly seeing yet another departure from the Forum as a result of the attitude of a few who have long held prejudices against almost every BA decision - cannot be bothered to see how many have been lost as a result of this campaign in this thread alone as I just cannot be bothered to go back and count, but one thing I am absolutely sure of, is that the Forum is in a worse place as a result!

Carry on like this and there will not be anyone to argue with - or to try and impose your view upon!!

So it's wrong to discuss something in case someone gets offended, that's how issues get ignored till it's too late.

Anyone not happy with a thread is always able to ignore it and we can't all be expected to agree with each other just to keep the peace.

[JennyMorgan]

32 minutes ago, marshman said:

Carry on like this and there will not be anyone to argue with - or to try and impose your view upon!!

Marshman, please do me a favour, stand in front of a mirror and take a close look at what you see.

[batrabill]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Marshman, please do me a favour, stand in front of a mirror and take a close look at what you see.

 

Unnecessary 

[Paladin]

49 minutes ago, marshman said:

So once again we are possibly seeing yet another departure from the Forum as a result of the attitude of a few who have long held prejudices against almost every BA decision - cannot be bothered to see how many have been lost as a result of this campaign in this thread alone as I just cannot be bothered to go back and count, but one thing I am absolutely sure of, is that the Forum is in a worse place as a result!

Carry on like this and there will not be anyone to argue with - or to try and impose your view upon!!

The Broads has got plenty of molehills, and no mountains. I see no need to try to change that situation.

To put some perspective into this, one person, ChrisB, has withdrawn from discussions because of the nature of the debates on the BA threads. Another has left this thread, but not the forum, having totally misread, or misunderstood, several posts – he is still actively posting on other threads. I note, on a  different thread, that someone else has just said they’re leaving altogether, having got upset for a reason that is nothing to do with these discussion. It happens with forums.

Prejudice - preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. I can’t think of any critic of the Broads Authority, here or elsewhere, who has not had actual experiences of the Authority that have coloured their opinions.

Trying to close down discussion is a negative approach, which simply won’t make the problems (as some see them) go away. If a genuine reasoned argument is put forward, which defeats the “little people”, so be it, but I haven’t seen much of that on here lately.

[grendel]

52 minutes ago, marshman said:

Carry on like this and there will not be anyone to argue with - or to try and impose your view upon!!

I am sure you (and others) will always be there to provide a balanced view to JM's views