Acle B.N.P.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

6 minutes ago, marshman said:

Again, I must say, with a few minor exceptions, you seem to be the only one bothered by all of this. On balance I am sure most people would prefer to see council employees more gainfully employed!! Each to his own though, I accept!!

Yes, I WOULD rather see them more gainfully employed, doing something useful for tax payer, rather than waste money putting up signs advertising a lie, purely to satisfy a devious dictatorial beaurocrat. 

[Vaughan]

17 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Yes, I WOULD rather see them more gainfully employed, doing something useful for tax payer, rather than waste money putting up signs advertising a lie, purely to satisfy a devious dictatorial beaurocrat. 

I think that sums the whole thing up in one sentence!

 

[Paladin]

36 minutes ago, marshman said:

Again, I must say, with a few minor exceptions, you seem to be the only one bothered by all of this. On balance I am sure most people would prefer to see council employees more gainfully employed!! Each to his own though, I accept!!

Minor exceptions? Really? I have to wonder on what you have based that judgement. There are quite a few people who are following the subject, here and elsewhere. They may not have the knowledge on which to base any action and I would say that the majority of them aren't members here, or even read this forum. But, apart from derogatory comments, you don't appear to add much to the subject. That's your perogative, but such comments won't make the facts go away.

[johnb]

47 minutes ago, marshman said:

Again, I must say, with a few minor exceptions, you seem to be the only one bothered by all of this. On balance I am sure most people would prefer to see council employees more gainfully employed!! Each to his own though, I accept!!

During the dreaded brexit debate those who held my opinions were called all Kinds of things usuallly owing to my age about which I can do nothing. Now i am a ‘minor exception’. Sorry written at the same time as above. 

Edited February 4, 2020 by johnb

[marshman]

Two sides to every story - thats why the balance" is so very important!!!!

And Vaughan - good to see you around! Off topic I know but do you remember a guy called Paul Reynolds - he was around with Tim Whelpton and Crossbow? He is still about fiddling around with wooden boats, albeit slower!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

a few minor exceptions

And may I be so bold as to ask who the minor few might be?

That aside, either politicians are honest or they are not, no half measures, no half truths, no deceit, no manipulation. The same should apply to department heads and CEO's that act on behalf of those politicians. By and large trust in politicians has flown out of the window, just as has honesty.  If we can't trust the system on the less important issues then how can we trust them on the more important ones?

Without question these road signs are part and parcel of a bigger issue, one that has the potential to effect every last one of us, hardly an unimportant issue. THE BNP, with the potential of Sandford, are together an issue that should not be belittled.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

. . . . . purely to satisfy a devious dictatorial bureaucrat. 

Very recently had a discussion with a mere fifty year old, a man who does not do forums, nevertheless a dissatisfied individual. His appraisal of the situation was to compare the present leader with his predecessor. The Authority was initially driven by a man who was in it for the Broads rather than for himself,  that is clearly not the case now. 

[unclemike]

14 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

THE BNP, with the potential of Sandford, are together an issue that should not be belittled.

true, but , other than posting on here what are you guys doing constructively, where are your local action  groups  etc.any fool can post reams of words , actions speak louder than words, seems to be time to see some action. over to you locals.

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, chameleon said:

where are your local action  groups 

Quietly plodding away in the background! 

[unclemike]

15 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Quietly plodding away in the background! 

that  is ridiculous, action means standing out,  being noticed and being seen ,  not hiding away in the background not being noticed ,people cannot join an action group if it hides itself away.

what you describe is an inaction group.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Again, I must say, with a few minor exceptions, you seem to be the only one bothered by all of this. On balance I am sure most people would prefer to see council employees more gainfully employed!! Each to his own though, I accept!!

I don't understand why anyone would place any authority beyond question but that is your prerogative as is the right of others to question any shortcomings.

Personally I expect a certain level of professionalism from public bodies that seems to be lacking now days especially in their legal obligations, having spent sometime working in the finance department of my local authority it became all to clear that far to many individuals were employed because they met a certain criteria rather than their expertise, this is why we need to be vigilant and should be thankful that some people are prepared to question anomalies and in particular people like Paladin who apply the will and skill to do so.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Again, I must say, with a few minor exceptions, you seem to be the only one bothered by all of this. On balance I am sure most people would prefer to see council employees more gainfully employed!! Each to his own though, I accept!!

I don't understand why anyone would place any authority beyond question but that is your prerogative as is the right of others to question any shortcomings.

Personally I expect a certain level of professionalism from public bodies that seems to be lacking now days especially in their legal obligations, having spent sometime working in the finance department of my local authority it became all to clear that far to many individuals were employed because they met a certain criteria rather than their expertise, this is why we need to be vigilant and should be thankful that some people are prepared to question anomalies and in particular people like Paladin who apply the will and skill to do so.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

27 minutes ago, chameleon said:

that  is ridiculous, action means standing out,  being noticed and being seen ,  not hiding away in the background not being noticed ,people cannot join an action group if it hides itself away.

what you describe is an inaction group.

Afraid I can not agree, at least not entirely. We do know that the forums are being watched, apart from private FB groups that is. We were open and public with the Broads Bill, in doing so we lost, in part, the upper hand. Mind you I firmly believe that the BA's leadership completely underestimated the value of the web back then but this time around they appear to be fully alert to its potential. We are far from inactive, rest assured. 

[Vaughan]

40 minutes ago, chameleon said:

that  is ridiculous, action means standing out,  being noticed and being seen ,  not hiding away in the background not being noticed ,people cannot join an action group if it hides itself away.

Which is why I lament the pathetic demise of the Broads Society.

[floydraser]

22 hours ago, Paladin said:

I have now had a reply from Suffolk County Council:

"The Safety and Speed Management team have advised that we have contacted Norfolk CC and are aware you have asked them the same questions. NCC is seeking approval from the Secretary of State for use of these signs (wording, colour and logo) which they expect to receive shortly. We will then be informed and can update you."

I'm sure the electorate of Suffolk will be heartened to know that their county council is now subservient to Norfolk County Council. It is apparent, from that reply, that the BNP signs required, but did not have, the approval of the Secretary of State.

Nor have Suffolk CC actually answered any of the questions I asked. Obviously, they don't know the answers, without asking Norfolk CC!

Please explain to me if I’m being a bit thick here, or provide further proof, but:

From up here on the fence it looks like someone wrote to a council and received a prompt, precise and full answer to his questions. No delay, sidestepping or other fudging to suggest the holding back of relevant information. One council openly admitted their consultations and acknowledged their knowledge of the questions to the first council; nothing hidden there then.

It looks like the councils were fully aware of the regulations and the scrutiny they would undoubtedly face, and worked in respect of both BEFORE erecting the signs. The key here is “in respect of”; they don’t appear to have flagrantly chucked the signs up and to hell with the consequences. Even if the Secretary of State turns them down I can’t see anyone losing their job over it. I don’t see anything to have Dr. John running for the hills just yet. The councils seem to display solidarity with no sign of fear. 

[grendel]

35 minutes ago, floydraser said:

It looks like the councils were fully aware of the regulations and the scrutiny they would undoubtedly face, and worked in respect of both BEFORE erecting the signs. The key here is “in respect of”; they don’t appear to have flagrantly chucked the signs up and to hell with the consequences. Even if the Secretary of State turns them down I can’t see anyone losing their job over it. I don’t see anything to have Dr. John running for the hills just yet. The councils seem to display solidarity with no sign of fear.

just one thought intrudes here, if the council had done their duty of care investigations into the legality of the signage, then how come they were erected before they consulted the secretary of state (or department of transport), so as such that belies your statement above as they would indeed appear to have chucked the signs up before  full consultation.

 

[floydraser]

5 minutes ago, grendel said:

just one thought intrudes here, if the council had done their duty of care investigations into the legality of the signage, then how come they were erected before they consulted the secretary of state (or department of transport), so as such that belies your statement above as they would indeed appear to have chucked the signs up before  full consultation.

 

Well it seems we don't have the answer to that just yet so why can't we have a neutral attitude towards it until we do? For instance, it could be they were looking for confirmation, or it could always have been part of the procedure and the question came in mid way through. I've seen quite a few premature "look, we've got 'em on the run" type inferrences on here. 

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Afraid I can not agree, at least not entirely. We do know that the forums are being watched, apart from private FB groups that is. We were open and public with the Broads Bill, in doing so we lost, in part, the upper hand. Mind you I firmly believe that the BA's leadership completely underestimated the value of the web back then but this time around they appear to be fully alert to its potential. We are far from inactive, rest assured. 

Wow, isn't it exciting? Reminds me of Citizen Smith and the Tooting Popular Front! Is there a code word to set everybody off in action? Is there an activist behind every bush along the Yare?

Sorry, but it is funny.

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Afraid I can not agree, at least not entirely. We do know that the forums are being watched, apart from private FB groups that is.

While forums are being watched, even openly joined, I understand that private FB groups are being infiltrated  by the BA.

[Paladin]

4 hours ago, chameleon said:

true, but , other than posting on here what are you guys doing constructively, where are your local action  groups  etc.any fool can post reams of words , actions speak louder than words, seems to be time to see some action. over to you locals.

I am aware of quite a bit of constructive activity, apart from the steps I am taking. But would it be a good strategy to lay it all out in the open for the 'opposition' to pore over? I don't think so.

[floydraser]

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I am aware of quite a bit of constructive activity, apart from the steps I am taking. But would it be a good strategy to lay it all out in the open for the 'opposition' to pore over? I don't think so.

Good strategy. I thought we established before that there was no strategy. 

[unclemike]

10 minutes ago, floydraser said:

But would it be a good strategy to lay it all out in the open for the 'opposition' to pore over? I don't think so.

so saying, all that seems to be happening is just that, reams and reams of it appear on here for perusal by the "opposition"

[JennyMorgan]

34 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I understand that private FB groups are being infiltrated  by the BA.

There has been a clear increase in interest by people wishing to join such groups but regretfully some have no obvious paper trail so are rejected. Such groups tend to restrict their membership to friends and known applicants. The control obsessed man at the top clearly learned a lesson after the Broads Bill. All a bit sad really. 

[Paladin]

5 minutes ago, chameleon said:

so saying, all that seems to be happening is just that, reams and reams of it appear on here for perusal by the "opposition"

Just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing I've posted is of any use to 'them'. They already knew it.

[floydraser]

53 minutes ago, chameleon said:

so saying, all that seems to be happening is just that, reams and reams of it appear on here for perusal by the "opposition"

That's a mis-quote somehow? That's Paladin's writing. I'm not offended, just setting the record straight.