Jump to content

Acle B.N.P.


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Far be it for taking issue with those with marketing knowledge, I recall not too long ago (by my standards! ) a poll of some Norfolk, or Suffolk, school children in the EDP,  and of those polled, well under 50%, knew what a Broad was!

 Perhaps we do need to start at home in this area!

From FarmingUK:

"The survey, by Cadbury's, also revealed that 1 in 8 children from London (12 per cent) don’t know that cows moo – with almost twice as many boys than girls being confused about what sound they make.

The research shows the bizarre beliefs many British children hold about food and farming.

Nearly one in five believe milk comes straight from the fridge or supermarket (18 per cent).

When it comes to their appearance, one in 10 believe that a cow is the size of a double decker bus and over 10 per cent think they’re as small as cats."

Perhaps it's the education system that needs looking at, rather than marketing. I would think that the vast majority of people living in Norfolk and Suffolk have little or no interest in the Broads, and that lack of interest is passed on to the children.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Yes, it’s quite infuriating that this is misrepresented. There is no pro “camp”. 

Personally I don’t care one way or another if the Broads is designated as a de facto NP as it is now, or made a “full” NP.

 

On 23/01/2020 at 08:23, batrabill said:

Is it possible you don't know what de facto means?

"existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right"

 

On 23/01/2020 at 09:44, Paladin said:

Defra has repeatedly confirmed that the Broads is not a national park, which takes care of the 'in fact' part of the definition.

The 1949 Act failed to designate the Broads as a National Park, which takes care of the 'legal right' bit.

Q.E.D (again)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re always proving what everyone knows to be true - that The Broads isn’t a full National Park. What you never address is that it shares the same purposes as the others, gets its funding from DEFRA, is in all the groups that deal with all the other parks.

It quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, can be referred to as a duck for marketing purposes, but has a lovely little duck hat with “navigation” written on it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, batrabill said:

This is from me in May 2018 in a thread which I called The Sandford Myth, which I also included in this thread. 

“Of course, Sandford doesn’t exist - it was replaced by the 1995 Environment Act:”

But you’ve just found out?

And then you go on to refer to Sandford a further 11 times in that same post. Evidently, you don't believe what you write.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, batrabill said:

You’re always proving what everyone knows to be true - that The Broads isn’t a full National Park. What you never address is that it shares the same purposes as the others, gets its funding from DEFRA, is in all the groups that deal with all the other parks.

It quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck, can be referred to as a duck for marketing purposes, but has a lovely little duck hat with “navigation” written on it. 

You do like to put words into my mouth. What I am always proving is that the Broads isn't a national park, full stop.

It shares some of the same purposes, but has different ones, as well.

There is still one person, at least, to convince that it isn't a national park http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4850052.stm

Groups? The National Parks Charity had to change their constitution to allow the Broads Authority to join, simply because the Broads isn't a national park.

If you want to find a duck that isn't really a duck, look up 'Muscovy Duck'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Paladin said:

And then you go on to refer to Sandford a further 11 times in that same post. Evidently, you don't believe what you write.

This is really too much Paladin.

I notice that my arguments have been repeatedly attacked on semantic grounds - this is just tedious distraction activity.

 

We all know that Sanford has moved on, but the 'principle' clearly remains within the current wording.

This is your pitch here, you have the numbers led by Jenny Morgan. YOU use Sandford constantly.

In fact without Sandford you really don't have an issue to attack, without Sandford you are just spouting hot air for no reason.

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It shares some of the same purposes, but has different ones, as well.

 

It shares ALL of the purposes of the other NPs, and has a responsibility for one navigation, which I have never seen anyone suggest will change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

You do like to put words into my mouth. 

Whatever next? He'll be twisting meanings round and throwing them back to suit his own agenda soon, I wonder where on Earth he would learn to do that?

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

 - this is just tedious distraction activity.

 

 

 

Thanks BB they are the words I've been searching for.:default_dry:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

This is really too much Paladin.

I notice that my arguments have been repeatedly attacked on semantic grounds - this is just tedious distraction activity.

We all know that Sanford has moved on, but the 'principle' clearly remains within the current wording.

This is your pitch here, you have the numbers led by Jenny Morgan. YOU use Sandford constantly.

In fact without Sandford you really don't have an issue to attack, without Sandford you are just spouting hot air for no reason.

It shares ALL of the purposes of the other NPs, and has a responsibility for one navigation, which I have never seen anyone suggest will change.

But you use semantics in your arguments frequently. OK for you and not for me?

I use Sandford constantly? I think not, unless I'm referring to someone else's comments.

The Broads Authority will continue to have a responsibility for the navigation while it is also a Harbour Authority and I haven't seen any recent suggestions that that will change. But the response by the Authority to the Glover Review included a suggestion to change the duty re the navigation to:

(c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required;

The 1988 Act says:

(c) protecting the interests of navigation.

The bits about maintenance etc., come later, in section 10.

On the face of it, all that would do is put the requirements into one sentence instead of three, but the exclusion of the “protecting the interests of navigation” is worrying.

The right of navigation doesn’t actually need the protection of the BA. There is already sufficient protection at common law. The right of navigation simply means the right to navigate from A to B to C etc., with a right to anchor in inclement weather or to await a favourable tide.

But the interests of navigation go far beyond the right of navigation. It would include things such as the provision of moorings, tree clearance, removal of obstructions, enforcing byelaws, providing Ranger services, etc.

So you see (I hope) that semantics play a very important part in this saga.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Paladin said:

(c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required;

"such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required;"

It doesn't take much imagination to realise just how such a clause could be misused. Alarm bells have to ring loud and very clearly. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

"such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required;"

It doesn't take much imagination to realise just how such a clause could be misused. Alarm bells have to ring loud and clearly. 

I didn't mean to cause alarm and dispondency but there is no need to fear. That phrase already appears in section 10 of the 1988 Act:

10 Functions of Authority and others in relation to the navigation area.

(1)The Authority shall—

(a)maintain the navigation area for the purposes of navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required; and

(b)take such steps to improve and develop it as it thinks fit.

It's the proposal to remove the protection of the interests of the navigation we should keep an eye on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I didn't mean to cause alarm and dispondency but there is no need to fear. That phrase already appears in section 10 of the 1988 Act:

I know that, but the wording is, in my view, a clear indicator of the questionable methodology in use at Yare House. That phrase might be reasonable in the right circumstance, as back in 1986), but nevertheless it is open to obvious re-interpretation. It should never have been allowed onto the statute books. Alarm bells do need ringing, and this is one of those occasions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, batrabill said:

On a scale of 1-10 how bored must everyone else be of this?

 

 

 

That depends on if they are interested in the future of the Broads and surrounding areas .

Note not one person has stated they are bored , so therefore I must conclude 0/10 .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, D46 said:

That depends on if they are interested in the future of the Broads and surrounding areas .

Note not one person has stated they are bored , so therefore I must conclude 0/10 .

Oh and D46 - I live here so I'm interested in the future of the Broads AND the surrounding areas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, D46 said:

Note not one person has stated they are bored , so therefore I must conclude 0/10 .

There is the possibility that there are some among us who just can't be bothered to argue the toss! I only read this thread every few days now as it is not at all difficult to predict what will be here! Bored? You bet I am!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hotel business is a 4 star and has joined most the local business community such as the chamber of commerce. I see it is also part of the English National Parks Experience which is promoted internationally. So trying to bring rich foreigners into the area to not only spend their money but may even go on to invest.

Answer: "What have rich foreigners got to do with the Broads? I've heard from a very relaible source of the bloke down the pub, that no-one goes on that experience!"

 I am bored.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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