Acle B.N.P.

[JennyMorgan]

52 minutes ago, marshman said:

"Some " people are reacting as they see fit PW - not sure if it is the majority!

I very much doubt that those involved in civil disobedience ever are in a majority, hence the term, 'quiet majority' and why I wrote 'some'.

French farmers seem to have perfected the art of civil disobedience, heaven forbid that our local worthies resort to emptying their muck spreaders and honey carts over the front door of Yare House but there is no doubt that such actions do reduce the understandable frustrations caused by implacable quangos. Back in time, as a part of the run up to the Broads Bill, the Little People threatened a blockade of Oulton Broad. It was no small threat either, it was supported by many members of the Brundall big boat community and local sailing clubs.  Okay, we won't put our pump out toilets into express emptying, we are too English to resort to such tactics but I do quietly admire the French farmers, on occasion! 

[JennyMorgan]

PS. The threatened blockade of Oulton Broad was in response to a clause in the Broads Bill that would have allowed the Authority to close the entire Broad as they, the Authority, deemed fit. The clause was subsequently dropped. 

PPS, in response to Marshman's comment I note that I didn't actually say 'some' although I could have done!

[marshman]

I hasten to say the "some" bit was me - having been corrected by ST, I will return to my revision of the use of quotes and perhaps apostrophes within the English language, although as far as the latter are concerned, I was interested to see that the bloke who ran "The Apostrophe Protection Society" has had to give up the unequal struggle and had to accept that people will never learn to use them properly!!!!

[Paladin]

12 minutes ago, marshman said:

I hasten to say the "some" bit was me - having been corrected by ST, I will return to my revision of the use of quotes and perhaps apostrophes within the English language, although as far as the latter are concerned, I was interested to see that the bloke who ran "The Apostrophe Protection Society" has had to give up the unequal struggle and had to accept that people will never learn to use them properly!!!!

Sorry, but that's just more fake news http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/

The "bloke who ran" it is now 96 years old. Not surprising he has handed over the reins.

[marshman]

Just shows how you can get two differing interpretations of the same thing - the founder on the site says the Society has closed,  but that the website will continue for "..reference and examples.." - you just don't know who to believe these days!

 

[marshman]

Hang on - I don't really care one way or the other and in any case, its off topic!!

[Vaughan]

43 minutes ago, marshman said:

I will return to my revision of the use of quotes and perhaps apostrophes within the English language,

Well, at least you didn't split the infinitive!

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

PS. The threatened blockade of Oulton Broad was in response to a clause in the Broads Bill that would have allowed the Authority to close the entire Broad as they, the Authority, deemed fit. The clause was subsequently dropped. 

 

Peter, why did they want to do that?

[JennyMorgan]

43 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Peter, why did they want to do that?

The ability to close the navigation was a control issue, an unnecessary reaction to the speedboat racing that has taken place, quite safely, for several generations. Beyond that it was thought that as the Broad offered good spectator access it would be good for suitable activities, as yet to be decided on but rowing and swimming were mentioned. Part of our objection was that Whitlingham Lakes already fulfilled that purpose. At that point in the Broads Bill's progress there was a clear demand by the BA that broads and rivers could be closed without good reason. It had also become quite clear that by giving an inch we were in danger of losing a mile. In the past the argument that so and so was agreed on at wherever thus we should also agree that the same should apply elsewhere had clearly become a JP tactic, if you get my drift. As for the closure  of the Broad, we have to remember that it is a part of the Lowestoft-Norwich Navigation, it provides access to the sea for the seagoing boats that are moored at Brundall. It is also a fact that Beccles is a port and that the Waveney is basically a natural river. We saw our rights as being gradually nibbled away.  Several hundred boat owners offered their active support should the closure clause not be dropped. A watered down Bill did go to Parliament so a number of us petitioned both Houses of Parliament and the remaining threats to our reasonable rights of navigation were rejected.  This might help explain the rejection by so many to the BNP title. The ONLY way that the control that was sought by the original Broads Bill can now be achieved is with the Sandford Principle that, despite protestations and denials, would come with NP designation under present legislation.  Hope that that helps.

[marshman]

Thats about it , in a nutshell! BUT there is no evidence, of course, they would seek to apply the Sandford Principle!

Now I will go back to trying to understand a much more current threat, that of split infinitives!!!!!!!!

[rightsaidfred]

 

6 minutes ago, marshman said:

Thats about it , in a nutshell! BUT there is no evidence, of course, they would seek to apply the Sandford Principle!

Now I will go back to trying to understand a much more current threat, that of split infinitives!!!!!!!!

According to Neville Chamberlin there was no evidence a dictator was going to invade Poland but he did, so much for peace in our time.

Fred

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

5 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

  It had also become quite clear that by giving an inch we were in danger of losing a mile. 

 

This might help explain the rejection by so many to the BNP title. The ONLY way that the control that was sought by the original Broads Bill can now be achieved is with the Sandford Principle that, despite protestations and denials, would come with NP designation under present legislation.  Hope that that helps.

And that above explains in a nutshell why a so many of us, and there are, are so mistrustful of Packman and his "harmless"  BNP signs and promotion. If we don`t fight the signs and promotion "inch", then the Broads becoming a full NP will become Packmans "mile". 

We`ve all been warned, so let`s not be apathetic about an inch, and then blame everybody else for the final mile when it`s too late.

[Vaughan]

57 minutes ago, marshman said:

Now I will go back to trying to understand a much more current threat, that of split infinitives!!!!!!!!

Don't worry, you weren't guilty!  Now everyone else can look back, and see if they were. . .   

[Ray]

Isn't all the debate still ignoring Timbo's elephant?

If Glover is accepted and enacted The Broads will become a National Landscape as will all current National Parks and AONBs. Sandford will apply to them all, the Broads is specified in my earlier extract from the report.

Everyone who is for the Broads being a National Park and everyone against it will be circumvented. All the BNP branding will have been a waste and all the objections rendered pointless.

It would seem and this is only a guess that Dr Packman's assumed vision will be complete and delivered as a fait acompli.

[grendel]

it just seems that if this is the case, why the big rush to get the bnp signs up, or is it a case of we ordered them, best get some use out of them before they are redundant.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Thats about it , in a nutshell! BUT there is no evidence, of course, they would seek to apply the Sandford Principle!

Equally, of course, there no binding evidence whatsoever to suggest that they wouldn't seek to apply the Sandford Principle, despite current protestations. Indeed, if we take the clear evidence that the Authority attempted to close large swaths of Hickling over the issue of a particular weed and Horsey during the winter, then I reckon it's safe to assume that Sandford would be applied. Some folk will promise the earth if it's the means of achieving their agenda, yes, the thorny issue of trust. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/rare-plants-explosive-growth-chokes-the-jewel-of-the-broads-1100118.html

[floydraser]

4 hours ago, Ray said:

Isn't all the debate still ignoring Timbo's elephant?

If Glover is accepted and enacted The Broads will become a National Landscape as will all current National Parks and AONBs. Sandford will apply to them all, the Broads is specified in my earlier extract from the report.

 

I read about Sandford and the year 1974, and just about everything has changed since then. Among a lot of other things Glover seems to hint at bringing in younger and more diverse folk to run these National Landscapes, and centralisation. Could it be that Dr JP senses his own demise in a dramatic restructuring? Could this BNP thing be him putting himself forward for some kind of top job?

Anyone want to bet the new bodies will be called Boris-scapes?

[batrabill]

Timbo seems to have gone AWOL. I look forward to his opinion on whether Glover is going to happen. 

 

Just for the sake of reasonableness and balance - there is absolutely no reason that under a new National Landscapes organisation the Broads cannot have an extra purpose of maintaining the navigation exactly as they do now. 

Despite what some people say, I have never seen anything approaching evidence that anyone at the Broads Authority has ever wanted to grossly curtail boating activity. 

But, then I would say that wouldn’t I?

[batrabill]

Oh, and for those recently joining this conversation who are told that if the Broads become a full NP then Sandford will apply, try asking for examples of where Sandford has been invoked in all the other NPs?

Usually the speed restriction on Windermere is invoked at this point - but Sandford was never mentioned in the judgements. 

Sandford is the boogie man. Used to scare but not really real. 

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Despite what some people say, I have never seen anything approaching evidence that anyone at the Broads Authority has ever wanted to grossly curtail boating activity. 

Nor have I and why would they, they need our money! The issue has long been the threat of excess control and the subsequent inability to navigate freely as and where we are accustomed. 

[JennyMorgan]

5 minutes ago, batrabill said:

try asking for examples of where Sandford has been invoked in all the other NPs?

The Broads is unlike other NP's, the requirements and conditions are largely unique to the Broads. There is also the CEO factor to consider! It's how Sandford could be invoked, not how it has.

[Ray]

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, floydraser said:

Could it be that Dr JP senses his own demise in a dramatic restructuring? Could this BNP thing be him putting himself forward for some kind of top job?

Food for thought! Yes, JP could be putting himself forward for some kind of top job, that had crossed my mind too.

[MauriceMynah]

15 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Timbo seems to have gone AWOL. I look forward to his opinion on whether Glover is going to happen. 

 

Just for the sake of reasonableness and balance - there is absolutely no reason that under a new National Landscapes organisation the Broads cannot have an extra purpose of maintaining the navigation exactly as they do now. 

Despite what some people say, I have never seen anything approaching evidence that anyone at the Broads Authority has ever wanted to grossly curtail boating activity. 

But, then I would say that wouldn’t I?

Oddly enough I tend to agree with you there (and I was highly unlikely to say that) though I would have liked to have read "Duty" rather than "purpose" but then it would have to read "exactly as they should now"

[Ray]

From Glover...

"
Where there is a conflict between any 
of the three purposes, and the further 
navigation purpose assigned to the 
Broads, then greater weight must be 
given to the first of these purposes 
under an updated ‘Sandford Principle’ 
that applies to all our national 
landscapes and not just to National 
Parks as it does currently.
These strengthened purposes will 
help underpin consequently stronger... "