Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

JennyMorgan

Acle B.N.P.

Recommended Posts

I thought that JP's response that Loddon's sign would be relocated was nothing less than petulant. In the meantime I hope that this encourages other Parish Councils to reject these misleading road-signs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Paladin said:

In response to the article a BA spokesman said, "The road sign aims to benefit the community by attracting visitors..."

Really? The sign is in Loddon. If someone can see it, they've already arrived! What utter nonsense.

Good heavens, I almost agree with you Mr P! It is indeed a poor choice of words but I think he meant the content of the road sign and not the actual sign itself. If only he had your excellent command of the launguage!:default_icon_e_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

Interesting to note that JP & Co have progressed, if that's the right word, from misleading road-signs to equally misleading pin badges!

BNP badges (2).jpg

Thank you for posting this Peter, it provides an interesting insight to the other side of the argument.

This is from a well run hotel business (the name of which is irrelevant, and I don't know it) who clearly have their finger on the pulse when it comes to publicity and the use of social media. It was posted on Wednesday this week(?) It has several hashtags referencing the business community and especially tourism.

So it's looking from here like local businesses who would benefit from more tourism are in support of the BNP brand. Just as the councils who replied to enquiries earlier in this thread, they don't appear to be in any way in fear of, or intimidated by, opposition to the BNP movement.

I wonder how many other members of local business groups are in favour of the BNP brand? I would guess therefore that JP is very popular among the business communities of East Anglia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I notice the comments below this article are about as split as they have been on this thread. I say have been as people have drifted away but there is clearly no overwhelming support either way on the surface of it. So Acle PC approve of the signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Good heavens, I almost agree with you Mr P! It is indeed a poor choice of words..

That seems to be the BA's forte at the moment, following on from the poor choice of words about the work on the (not so) new moorings at Acle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I notice the comments below this article are about as split as they have been on this thread. I say have been as people have drifted away but there is clearly no overwhelming support either way on the surface of it. So Acle PC approve of the signs.

But others certainly don't, Loddon pc has formerly requested they be removed immediately because NCC NEVER requested they be put there, and the residents and villagers voted against them at a meeting. I wonder how many others have not been formerly asked?.  I believe others have done the same, but am not sure on that, I think it may have been  posted on this thread somewhere?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking to a resident of Acle today. The resident informed me that the majority of residents are hopping mad about the National Park lying signs being displayed 

Griff

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I wonder how many other members of local business groups are in favour of the BNP brand? I would guess therefore that JP is very popular among the business communities of East Anglia?

We can only guess! I do know that a few years ago several boatyards and other outlets refused to distribute the BA's Broadsheet because of the BNP content. I am not convinced that that many boating businesses are exactly enraptured by the Authority, at least not the ones that I talk to! 

The hotel in question, I have to wonder just how well they were previously informed or have they solely relied on Yare House spin? I have no experience of the establishment or its management but it does appear to be a sound business. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

But others certainly don't, Loddon pc has formerly requested they be removed immediately because NCC NEVER requested they be put there, and the residents and villagers voted against them at a meeting. I wonder how many others have not been formerly asked?.  I believe others have done the same, but am not sure on that, I think it may have been  posted on this thread somewhere?.

Loddon PC said they didn't reply to the BA due to a vacancy I think. So someone left and all work stopped? Not too clever and ever so slightly lets the BA off, a bit. Did Loddon go to sleep or something? 

To be fair, Parish Councillors are only ordinary people who deserve respect for putting themselves forward in the first place. And they should be allowed to not get it right occasionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floydraser said:

Loddon PC said they didn't reply to the BA due to a vacancy I think. So someone left and all work stopped? Not too clever and ever so slightly lets the BA off, a bit. Did Loddon go to sleep or something? 

To be fair, Parish Councillors are only ordinary people who deserve respect for putting themselves forward in the first place. And they should be allowed to not get it right occasionally. 

The point is quite simple if you have to ask a council for authorisation then you do not do that work until you have authorisation .

I can't for the life in me see why loddon PC can possibly be responsible they said neither yes or no and in that case no work should have gone ahead until that was resolved .

Yes they are ordinary people who out themselves forward for the benefit of the village and they definitely deserve respect for doing that , but I don't see how anyone can blame them , the responsibility is on BA to get that permission before doing anything and they simply did not do that .

BA didn't do the work anyway the contracted that to NCC who also didn't have authorisation from loddon PC nor apparently even contact them .

This definitely poses the question of how many other times these signs that many people don't want have been placed without authorisation .

I wouldn't mind but what's the point in marketing and area to people be they locals or visitors that are actually in that area it's rediculous to say the least , proper marketing is carryed out in area much further away from the area or attraction being marketed .

Personally I see this as one person in the authority making a statement of " look what I've achieved" not that he's achieved anything , don't believe me then ask someone in the marketing business  what they think  millions every yr is spent by areas marketing tourism and I can't think of one that does it on its own doorstep .

Then again is it actual marketing or is it a statement saying you have arrived in a location ? And I'm fairly sure BA don't have permission to make statements like that as that is not marketing and that's the only permission they have to use the BNP brand .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, D46 said:

...Then again is it actual marketing or is it a statement saying you have arrived in a location ? And I'm fairly sure BA don't have permission to make statements like that as that is not marketing and that's the only permission they have to use the BNP brand .

The only “permission” they have is that which they gave themselves at the BA meeting in January 2015.

Defra didn’t give them permission. Lord De Mauley, Defra Under Secretary of State, in his letter to the then chairman, Dr Johnson, said that the rebranding consultation was a matter for the Authority.

The High Court didn’t give them permission. Mr Justice Holgate confined his deliberations to the Harris’ claim that the rebranding was unlawful, misleading and ultra vires. He found it was none of these, but he didn’t give, nor did the BA ask for, his permission to use the expression.

In fact, he only referred to the expression not being misleading as to the legal status of the Broads when used in “promotional literature”. A comment the BA conveniently and studiously ignores.

And as for Lord Justice Simon, he was simply assessing the Harris’ application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which he refused. He wasn’t asked to give any sort of permission to the Broads Authority, only to judge the likely outcome of an appeal.

So let’s stop contributing to the BA’s misleading claim that the court gave them “permission”, shall we, and understand that NO-ONE gave the BA any permission.

The restriction on the BNP expression that it is to be used for marketing purposes only was self-imposed by the BA. But Dr Packman has got round that by regarding ANY public-facing communication as being a marketing opportunity. So, apart from legal documents, nothing is out-of-bounds as far as he is concerned.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, floydraser said:

Loddon PC said they didn't reply to the BA due to a vacancy I think. So someone left and all work stopped? Not too clever and ever so slightly lets the BA off, a bit. Did Loddon go to sleep or something? 

The fact remains that when the council did get the chance to discuss it, they voted unanimously to reject the signs. So it is safe to assume they would have refused them in the first place if they had got the message in the first place.

The BA meantime, assumed that no reply meant yes and quite clearly they were wrong.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I say again: If the main recommendations of the Glover Report are enacted and a strengthened Sandford Principle is applied not only within National Parks but all Areas of Outstanding Beauty as well, then all this hot air regarding signs will be academic. There would not be a valid argument against "The Broads National Park" with it's Navigation clearly defined by Charter. 

I assume that those members who feel so strongly about keeping the status quo have read the document that sets out The National Landscape vision, potentially the largest shakeup of countryside and nature for many years, if not I urge to do so.

I really think that the present level of activity aimed at the BA and it's CEO in particular is like mischief playing on the line as the London to Glasgow Express gets closer at 125mph.

landscapes-review-final-report.pdf

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Paladin said:

The only “permission” they have is that which they gave themselves at the BA meeting in January 2015.

Defra didn’t give them permission. Lord De Mauley, Defra Under Secretary of State, in his letter to the then chairman, Dr Johnson, said that the rebranding consultation was a matter for the Authority.

The High Court didn’t give them permission. Mr Justice Holgate confined his deliberations to the Harris’ claim that the rebranding was unlawful, misleading and ultra vires. He found it was none of these, but he didn’t give, nor did the BA ask for, his permission to use the expression.

In fact, he only referred to the expression not being misleading as to the legal status of the Broads when used in “promotional literature”. A comment the BA conveniently and studiously ignores.

And as for Lord Justice Simon, he was simply assessing the Harris’ application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which he refused. He wasn’t asked to give any sort of permission to the Broads Authority, only to judge the likely outcome of an appeal.

So let’s stop contributing to the BA’s misleading claim that the court gave them “permission”, shall we, and understand that NO-ONE gave the BA any permission.

The restriction on the BNP expression that it is to be used for marketing purposes only was self-imposed by the BA. But Dr Packman has got round that by regarding ANY public-facing communication as being a marketing opportunity. So, apart from legal documents, nothing is out-of-bounds as far as he is concerned.

To be fair I never said the Court's had sanctioned the approval of using the term BNP for marketing .

But the fact remains road signs in loddon and elsewhere around the broads are not marketing nor are they wanted by the residents or seaming the PC's , my appolgises for my slightly misleading post .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, D46 said:

To be fair I never said the Court's had sanctioned the approval of using the term BNP for marketing .

But the fact remains road signs in loddon and elsewhere around the broads are not marketing nor are they wanted by the residents or seaming the PC's , my appolgises for my slightly misleading post .

There is absolutely no need to apologise. It is a trap that many people fall into. The BA says it’s got permission from the courts and most people find it too difficult to wade through all the legal arguments in the judgements to check, so accept it. But then, shouldn’t we be able to trust our local authorities to tell us the truth?

The crux of the BNP signs issue is legality, as much as anything else. When it come to the law, accuracy is everything, which is why I think using loose phraseology plays into Dr Packman’s hands. 

“Sandford” is another example. That was replaced (and altered) by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995. Yes, 25 years ago, but we still refer to it. It’s less of a mouthful, but those principles no longer apply.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, I think the worrying part of this report in my eyes is this

Quote

1.
Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity and natural capital, and cultural heritage.
2.
Actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing.
3.
Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes.


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.

the bold is my highlighting.

the above will be the culmination of most of our fears under the national park adoption i believe.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Paladin said:

“Sandford” is another example. That was replaced (and altered) by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995. Yes, 25 years ago, but we still refer to it. It’s less of a mouthful, but those principles no longer apply.

Paladin, from my reading of the report mentioned above, it seems that even the authorities are still under the belief that the sandford principle still applies (it does mention it was encompassed into section 62 as a very small footnote to the page)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

May I say again: If the main recommendations of the Glover Report are enacted and a strengthened Sandford Principle is applied not only within National Parks but all Areas of Outstanding Beauty as well, then all this hot air regarding signs will be academic. There would not be a valid argument against "The Broads National Park" with it's Navigation clearly defined by Charter. 

I assume that those members who feel so strongly about keeping the status quo have read the document that sets out The National Landscape vision, potentially the largest shakeup of countryside and nature for many years, if not I urge to do so.

I really think that the present level of activity aimed at the BA and it's CEO in particular is like mischief playing on the line as the London to Glasgow Express gets closer at 125mph.

landscapes-review-final-report.pdf 6.3 MB · 2 downloads

I’ve embolden that sentence, because I really don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. The navigation is defined by statute, not charter.

The reason the Broads isn’t a national park is precisely because of the navigation. That hasn’t changed, so I don’t believe the legislative changes proposed by Glover will come about. If the lawyers weren’t able to square that circle for the past how many decades, I can’t see them be able to do it now.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, grendel said:

Paladin, from my reading of the report mentioned above, it seems that even the authorities are still under the belief that the sandford principle still applies (it does mention it was encompassed into section 62 as a very small footnote to the page)

If that’s the case, it makes my point. It’s a bit like BNP. Say it often enough and people believe it. It wasn’t simply encompassed into section 62, it was codified and amended by that section. Do these people really know what they’re doing?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

I really think that the present level of activity aimed at the BA and it's CEO in particular is like mischief playing on the line as the London to Glasgow Express gets closer at 125mph.

landscapes-review-final-report.pdf 6.3 MB · 2 downloads

I prefer to see it as a working party, making efforts to repair the track to stop a train-wreck, with lookouts posted to warn of the train’s approach.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must agree to differ because I believe given the shift in emphasis over the last seventy years from the "spirit of Kinder Scout" through a bit of elitism to "Wellbeing for all peoples of the UK" will embrace Glover and it' National Landscape.

If you look at most National Park Societies and the NP themselves they consider the 1995 Act did not replace but enshrined Sandford. Example from SNPS (I think). The last paragraph in bold is an area that Glover wishes to strengthen in extending Sandford to cover not only NPs but all AONBs.

 

615992381_Screenshot_20200215-081109_AdobeAcrobat.thumb.jpg.439cd765ed9ec7fa72ba70072f19599f.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i see it despite the broads authorities insistence that they dont intend to bring in Sandford, as soon as the authority becomes the responsible authority for a national park, (or AONB if the report goes through) then section 62 will apply, which as Paladin so adroitly points out replaced the sandford principle,

putting it forward in these terms infers some very careful sidestepping around the issue, they wont be implementing sandford, they will be implementing section 62 of the environment act.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Norfolk has always been famous for its directions - you just have to ask the locals.

Like the time a gentlemen motorist from London stops to ask the way, of an old boy coming out of a village pub :

"Excuse me, I am trying to get to Potter Heigham".

"Ooo.  Well if yew was wontin' ter git ter Potta,  yew wouldn't wanta start from hair".

"So you don't know the way there?"

"Well yis, that oi dew an' all. But not from hairabouts".

"Don't yew even know where you are?"

"Will now, not so's you'd notice. But thin agin, that int me woss lorst!"

 

:default_coat:

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

If you look at most National Park Societies and the NP themselves they consider the 1995 Act did not replace but enshrined Sandford. 

Surely not, they can’t be so ignorant, can they? I think it’s more likely that that is what they want the general public to believe. The same as the Broads being a national park - NOT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.