Acle B.N.P.

[Paladin]

38 minutes ago, BigCheese said:

I'm no lawyer and have nothing like the understanding you clearly do. I've tried to read this paper: http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Cureent_Case_law.pdf , but my eyes quickly glaze over I'm afraid.

I shouldn't worry about it too much. Mr Biddulph is a very sincere man, but his ambition is, basically, to establish a right of navigation on all non-tidal rivers, in order to get access for his canoeing and kayaking chums. Nothing wrong in that, but the cases he cites have nothing to do with the rights pertaining to tidal waters.

You may find this less-emotive commentary easier to read and digest https://www.ealaw.co.uk/land-law-afloat/

[Paladin]

42 minutes ago, marshman said:

No PW it does not matter that possibly only the Scottish NP's have direct elections, but I was merely pointing out that you had to live in the Park to vote, thereby possibly disqualifying boat owners, should elections ever be called for here if the same rules applied - which they may not!!

As the Broads is, mainly, just wetlands, I would think one of the rules would be that you had to have webbed feet.

[MauriceMynah]

As I said before, don't demand an elected body unless you know who the electorate is.

[Paladin]

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

As I said before, don't demand an elected body unless you know who the electorate is.

As there are elected members already, but one step removed from direct election i.e. elected members of local district councils who are appointed as members of the BA by their council, it's not that much of a leap to allow the electorate of those council areas to directly elect the BA members. Or perhaps, as there seems to be an appetite to swallow up adjacent parish councils, the parish electorate could have a say. There are plenty of ideas around, but no willingness of central government to address the issue.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

No PW it does not matter that possibly only the Scottish NP's have direct elections, but I was merely pointing out that you had to live in the Park to vote, thereby possibly disqualifying boat owners, should elections ever be called for here if the same rules applied - which they may not!!

The issue of folk who live outside of the Authority's area of control is easily taken care of, it would also apply to anglers, bird watchers and walkers for example, they would be able to subscribe to their governing or representative bodies irrespective of their home address. The alternative is to restrict voting members to toll payers, riparian owners and local businesses. There is an answer out there, just got to find it!

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, BigCheese said:

However, having very recently tried to form a pressure group and failed miserably (for very good reasons), I've gone for this approach.

I have long thought that a formal 'ginger group' is long overdue. What won't and can't work is an angry replica of either the NSBA or the BS. With some boat owners, for example, living many miles from the Broads means that such members cannot become involved and that annual general meetings will be out of easy reach. 

The principle of a formal Broads Forum is, in my opinion, spot on. Web based is probably the way forward. We need facilitators rather than moderators. Open to all, BA infiltrators too!   A Broads Forum free of Authority control and constrictions has a lot to commend it. 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

With some boat owners, for example, living many miles from the Broads means that such members cannot become involved and that annual general meetings will be out of easy reach. 

Tell me about it!

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, Paladin said:

As the Broads is, mainly, just wetlands, I would think one of the rules would be that you had to have webbed feet.

And to go 'oooh arghhh' when one of those nasty, noisy flying doofers goes overhead!

[Woodie]

8 hours ago, Paladin said:

Thank you. I've read it now and the issue relates to the advice given to the committee, rather than the committee's failure correctly to consider Sandford.

Understood, and thanks for reading into it fully.

I took the Gazette article at face value, and it just made me aware that if Sandford was available to pressure groups, then I am sure some would use any means to get it applied to suit their goals.

Have to say, sometimes the WG have the same editorial prowess as EDP!

[MauriceMynah]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear !!!

17 hours ago, Paladin said:

As there are elected members already, but one step removed from direct election i.e. elected members of local district councils who are appointed as members of the BA by their council, it's not that much of a leap to allow the electorate of those council areas to directly elect the BA members. Or perhaps, as there seems to be an appetite to swallow up adjacent parish councils, the parish electorate could have a say. There are plenty of ideas around, but no willingness of central government to address the issue.

 

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

The issue of folk who live outside of the Authority's area of control is easily taken care of, it would also apply to anglers, bird watchers and walkers for example, they would be able to subscribe to their governing or representative bodies irrespective of their home address. The alternative is to restrict voting members to toll payers, riparian owners and local businesses. There is an answer out there, just got to find it!

To Paladin I ask And who selects the councillors to be on the BA?

To JM I say, Yes, there is an answer out there, in fact there are several answers out there, but who chooses the answer to be used? JP perhaps?

We go round and round in circles on this. 

[Paladin]

25 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

To Paladin I ask And who selects the councillors to be on the BA?

If you read my post again, you’ll see the answer is there. The answer to your question of who selects them at the moment and the next question of how they could be selected in the future.

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

JP perhaps?

, perhaps not! The bloke is the problem rather than the solution 

[Maxwellian]

Just to say that the NBN does not condone or encourage illegal activities. Any member doing so on this forum or our face ache pages will find themselves banned. I will be amending the TOS soon to reflect this!

[Paladin]

35 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

Just to say that the NBN does not condone or encourage illegal activities. Any member doing so on this forum or our face ache pages will find themselves banned. I will be amending the TOS soon to reflect this!

The wording of the amended ToS might be interesting. What are "illegal activities"? That, surely, would be decided by a court, not the forum moderators. "Potentially illegal activities" might be a better description.

A Norfolk police officer has just been acquitted of driving at up to 120mph in a 30mph zone, on a private journey. Something that the majority of people, and even his own Force, would consider to be illegal. He convinced the court otherwise.

Would discussing, without expressing an opinion for or against, the illegal activities of others be considered to be condoning or encouraging them?

Genuine questions.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Maxwellian said:

Just to say that the NBN does not condone or encourage illegal activities. Any member doing so on this forum or our face ache pages will find themselves banned. I will be amending the TOS soon to reflect this!

Excuse me, but what have we done wrong now? 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Maxwellian said:

Just to say that the NBN does not condone or encourage illegal activities. Any member doing so on this forum or our face ache pages will find themselves banned. I will be amending the TOS soon to reflect this!

Would you please explain, especially in the context of this thread.

[Maxwellian]

Paladin, thank you for the advice I will certainly consider it.

Vaughan, no not yet :)

Peter, no

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

Peter, no

Unreasonable question?

[Maxwellian]

Peter

Possibly not, but I answered your question. You read too much from a simple mind. My statement stands for all who sail close to the wind, especially when I Take Paladin’s comments into account.

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

 

Would discussing, without expressing an opinion for or against, the illegal activities of others be considered to be condoning or encouraging them?

 

On this question I admire the lead shown by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ahern who refused to use the name of the gunman in the mass shooting last year (I think). Any mention keeps the issue in the public eye which in itself could be interpreted by the perpetrator(s) as encouragement, whether or not that was the intention of the contributor to the discussion.

[Maxwellian]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

 

Would discussing, without expressing an opinion for or against, the illegal activities of others be considered to be condoning or encouraging them?

Paladin

Generally I think not. A good open discussion is great. My worry is when people become polarised and then starts to stray into opinions. 
 

I encourage open minded discussions.

 

[D46]

I really can't see how the forum  could be implemented if any action was taken against any individual as there's already a disclaimer regarding that in TOS for speakers corner .

Nor do I see any good reason that something in the public eye can't be discussed , to threaten banning an individual is madness and contravenes TOS procedure regarding breaking of TOS .

Before long TOS will be longer than any thread if this continues as there have been several revamps in a short length of time .

I fully agree with paladin regarding possible  illegal acts as in it's the Court's that decide that not a public forum , and I certainly don't believe that discussion of such acts actually either condones or encourages such acts , this is after all in the public eye and of public interest .

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, D46 said:

 

I fully agree with paladin regarding possible  illegal acts as in it's the Court's that decide that not a public forum , and I certainly don't believe that discussion of such acts actually either condones or encourages such acts , this is after all in the public eye and of public interest .

I think most of us know what is or isn't an illegal act. Ignorance of the law is no defence in court so I don't see the relevance here. No one is questioning the right or justification of discussion, it's whether or not it is the responsible thing to do.

[D46]

1 minute ago, floydraser said:

I think most of us know what is or isn't an illegal act. Ignorance of the law is no defence in court so I don't see the relevance here. No one is questioning the right or justification of discussion, it's whether or not it is the responsible thing to do.

But for the fact on several occasions you yourself have surgested that discussion should not be happening regarding the fate of these signs as it encourages such acts .

[Maxwellian]

1 hour ago, D46 said:

Before long TOS will be longer than any thread if this continues as there have been several revamps in a short length of time .

TOS has not been updated since the updates for GDPR to my knowledge. That is the only update since Jonzo moved on. They are not long at all.

i will be amending them, laws and rules change. As a result of the update the proposed action will be within the TOS. This will not be open for discussion D46. Test me and see!