Acle B.N.P.

[marshman]

It's hardly the "friendly" Forum anymore - unless of course you want to join in knocking the BA !

The trouble is that when they do something worth knocking, no one will take any real notice then either! Reminds me a bloke called Prokofiev....!!

 

[Paladin]

26 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Paladin, why are you going on about facebook? 

My general observations are nothing to do with face book or what others have posted except for the comments about a business that is proud to use the NP logo for marketing and promotion.

There was a time when this sort of nasty, unhelpful dialogue was the preserve of "The Official" Broads outlet and this was a "Friendly" group of boaters. 

Sadly with Speakers Corner this is no longer the case, which, I for one find regrettable.

I hope that makes it clear, except for you I am pretty sure everyone else got it.

That is it, as far as I am concerned.

 

Simply because of your comments about snide comment and members on here commenting about a business. The only business that had been mentioned up to that time was the one on Facebook to which batrabill had posted a link and a comment. I apologise if I interpreted that wrongly, but you haven't given any other explanation.

Yes, I totally agree that expressions such as 'snide', 'making mischief' and 'if the cap fits' are nasty and unhelpful, which is why I avoid using them.

Perhaps we can now get back to the topic, when there is something else about it to discuss.

[JennyMorgan]

11 minutes ago, marshman said:

 - - - - - - unless of course you want to join in knocking the BA !

 

[ModeratorTeam]

Please keep it civil people, and on topic.

[Vaughan]

5 hours ago, ChrisB said:

There was a time when this sort of nasty, unhelpful dialogue was the preserve of "The Official" Broads outlet and this was a "Friendly" group of boaters. 

Sadly with Speakers Corner this is no longer the case, which, I for one find regrettable.

I can't help agreeing with that.

But then, speakers' corner was a moderator decision. 

 

 

[Vaughan]

4 hours ago, ModeratorTeam said:

Please keep it civil people, and on topic.

But we are on topic!

The BA opened this discussion by putting up provocative signs announcing a national park whilst being clearly aware that there was serious local opposition to the concept.

They have therefore thrown themselves open to whatever criticism social media may wish to chuck at them!

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

They have therefore thrown themselves open to whatever criticism social media may wish to chuck at them!

And so they have!

I've been reliably informed that the 'official' reaction to the public's less than charitable response has been somewhat clouded by a dense, red mist! Granted that it probably won't make a blind bit of difference, if history is anything to go by,  but at least the message has been received, even if somewhat ungraciously.

Best go and tuck that horse up in its stable, again!

 

[Vaughan]

Remember the first page of this thread?

A red rag to a bull!  That is the real topic of the thread as I see it.

On looking back, it is now over 40 years that those of us who love the Broads that we live in, work in and visit for our holidays, have had the continual threat of surrender to a national park quangocracy being held over our heads like the sword of Damocles.  And don't forget the likes of Griff, Speedtriple, Norfolk Nog, Broads 01 and all the rest of you.  You may not live on the Broads but you are just as important stake-holders as anyone else, with every bit as much right to have your voice heard, but certainly no hope of a vote on it!

I think Marshman is quite right when he asks who are the usual "Pro" suspects?  In the last 40 years I don't think I have met or spoken to anyone who wants to see a Broads N. P., or maybe they have preferred not to say so?  At the risk of getting personal, I do get the feeling that the "pro lobby" is being driven by only one voice.  But a very big voice, with un-elected and un-accountable influence.

Why do I fear a national park?  I think a good example, if you read the EDP, is Chris Packham, who has now decided to tell us to stop building the rest of the NDR because of a handful of some rare species of bat.  The cynic in me wonders whether the furtherance of his TV career has equal importance with the safety of the bats.  And anyway, what are those very expensive bat bridges supposed to  be for?   Work on the Acle Straight is still held back after 4 years while what PW calls the "floppy hats" are busy re - locating a colony of snails.  I read recently that they were not sure if this has been successful as the last time they looked they couldn't find the damned things!  Dead or alive!  Meantime the motoring public are still dying, day and night, on the outdated and unsafe infrastructure of one of our main trunk roads.

Maybe off topic, you think?  But not in a national park.  We can already see on the Broads that there are too many un - elected bodies and highly profitable charities which have assumed an all - powerful influence.  If anyone can realistically stop navigation it will be the RSPB and I fear that NP status will give free rein to their visions of "un - dredged, reed fringed rivers" populated by flat bottomed electric wherries.  They may assure us that the right of navigation will be "preserved" but what will a Broads cruise be like in future, and how much of it will be left?  In the years to come, I don't want to set off on holiday in my boat, only to have Chris Packham leap out from behind a tree and tell me I can't moor at St Benets any longer, in case I tread on a Little Whirlpool Rams-horn snail.  These critters are, I gather, about the size of a grain of wheat.

I seriously suggest that if the BA want to successfully "market" their vision, they should do so by engaging far more with the local public in open and honest explanation of what they are trying to achieve and why they feel it would be better for us. They should also listen to, and answer, our questions and concerns.

Personally I don't really care whether or not these signs have been erected within the letter of highways law (and nor, apparently, do the BA) but I see them, after all these years of wrangling, as a deliberate antagonism of the local people.  And just for once, it seems the locals are answering back!

 

[batrabill]

Vaughan, I think that is a very sensible and reasonable. 

Where the disagreement is, is if the sword of Damocles even exists.

 

I think you are entirely accurate in pointing out that environmental issues are always to the fore these days. 

And crucially, that is exactly the same in National Parks.

I don't believe that there is any real difference between where we are now and where the 14 NP are.

 

Who is right will probably never be known, but all good fun discussing it.

[Wussername]

11 minutes ago, batrabill said:

13 minutes ago, batrabill said:

 

Who is right will probably never be known, but all good fun discussing it.

I fail to see the "good fun" where there is this constant need for character assassination. 

Andrew

 

[batrabill]

I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way.

From my perspective, I open the site, which I enjoy being a member of, and I see threads which are framed in entirely negative ways about the Broads.

I see lots of people agreeing with that, and I and the few remaining posters who don't agree feel we are required to put some balance. Things can get a bit heated, but hey ho, that's life.

 

I would much rather that the many negative threads started by those who campaign against the BA, and specifically it CEO, did not even appear here, but were confined to campaigning sites like Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park.

 

I'm sorry, but the nub of this is a rather childish, but unfortunately accurate, "He started it Miss"

 

If this site is used as a vehicle to campaign, then there will always be push back.

 

[rightsaidfred]

4 hours ago, batrabill said:

I think it's unfortunate that you see it that way.

From my perspective, I open the site, which I enjoy being a member of, and I see threads which are framed in entirely negative ways about the Broads.

I see lots of people agreeing with that, and I and the few remaining posters who don't agree feel we are required to put some balance. Things can get a bit heated, but hey ho, that's life.

 

I would much rather that the many negative threads started by those who campaign against the BA, and specifically it CEO, did not even appear here, but were confined to campaigning sites like Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park.

 

I'm sorry, but the nub of this is a rather childish, but unfortunately accurate, "He started it Miss"

 

If this site is used as a vehicle to campaign, then there will always be push back.

 

But that is where you seem to have a problem, none of us are negative about the Broads we love them that is why we are so passionate about defending them for what they are and always have been, we appreciate the hard work that goes into maintaining them and have great respect for those that do so, that is why it galls to see resources (time, energy & money) wasted on unnecessary and pointless exercises that could be better spent on the infrastructure.

I take the liberty of speaking for others when I say that most of us  live in a world that revolves around truth and fact not one of promotional videos and documentaries with a viewpoint that goes unchallenged.

Fred

[batrabill]

I understand what you are saying, but accept this: if the Broads are doing fine, then on some level the BA must be doing OK.

If the BA are doing a terrible job there must be something wrong? 

 

You also have to accept that the anti group, and there is a group who all have the same aims, talk a lot about how terrible the Broads are under the BA, and how they (he mostly) is determined to become a       NP in order to reduce/ban/ eliminate/prevent boating. 

 

You may say that is not your belief, but it is of that group of people, some of whom are active members here and who you are passively or actively supporting.

 

I’ll put it the other way round, I get on my boat, which I did yesterday, and I go out to unrivalled beauty in a landscape which seems very well cared for. Whats the beef?

 

The most common beef is the NP sideshow, and the great thing about that is that claiming the sky is going to fall in can  never be proved wrong. 

 

Challenging the BA is quite right and proper, but be honest, for some it is an obsession that is played out here. 

 

As a last point, our local councils are probably equally important to the daily life of the Broads, but I don’t see the same obsessive poring over every document, committee meeting, public statement, and purchasing decision here, and I would comfortably bet my house they are as capable of waste, lunacy and general mismanagement as anyone. 

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, you are now fighting a rearguard action, and quite likely a pointless one at that. 

As for local councils, not sure that Acle has come out of this smelling entirely of roses, nevertheless I can't agree that their importance to the Broads matches that of the Broads Authority. Granted that there is an overlap, refuse collection for example, but then that is governed by Central Government.

Beyond I have to echo what Fred has just written, namely:

58 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I take the liberty of speaking for others when I say that most of us  live in a world that revolves around truth and fact not one of promotional videos and documentaries with a viewpoint that goes unchallenged.

I would love to live in an ideal world where trust in government agencies, quangos too, would be sacrosanct, that truth, and destination signs, could be taken for granted. Seemingly we are expected, by some at least, to simply sit back and except lies and misleading spin without comment or complaint, hardly ideal.  

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

But that is where you seem to have a problem, none of us are negative about the Broads we love them that is why we are so passionate about defending them for what they are and always have been, we appreciate the hard work that goes into maintaining them and have great respect for those that do so, that is why it galls to see resources (time, energy & money) wasted on unnecessary and pointless exercises that could be better spent on the infrastructure.

I take the liberty of speaking for others when I say that most of us  live in a world that revolves around truth and fact not one of promotional videos and documentaries with a viewpoint that goes unchallenged.

Fred

I wanted to 'Like' this post more than once, but I can't.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

I’ll put it the other way round, I get on my boat, which I did yesterday, and I go out to unrivaled beauty in a landscape which seems very well cared for. Whats the beef?

That's the issue, Bill.

Long may you and I,  my children and their children too, be free to roam the Broads as we both did yesterday.

[Maxwellian]

Message for all of you on both sides of the discussion. ;)

Noli pati a scelestis opprimi.

 

[ChrisB]

Noli sinere pessimi nequissimique te tristificare!

[marshman]

Bill - methinks its not you fighting a rearguard action nor a pointless one! More power to your elbow.....! ( Whats the Latin for that please??? )

Happy to help you on your way when necessary...!!!!!! Balance must, and will, prevail.....!!!!!

[batrabill]

JM. You are the master of Spin!

 

In just a short time you have suggested I’m flogging a dead horse,  being boring, and now fighting a rear guard action!

 

I think the quote here is from our Lord Jesus about Motes and Planks!

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

I understand what you are saying, but accept this: if the Broads are doing fine, then on some level the BA must be doing OK.

If the BA are doing a terrible job there must be something wrong? 

 

You also have to accept that the anti group, and there is a group who all have the same aims, talk a lot about how terrible the Broads are under the BA, and how they (he mostly) is determined to become a       NP in order to reduce/ban/ eliminate/prevent boating. 

 

You may say that is not your belief, but it is of that group of people, some of whom are active members here and who you are passively or actively supporting.

 

I’ll put it the other way round, I get on my boat, which I did yesterday, and I go out to unrivalled beauty in a landscape which seems very well cared for. Whats the beef?

 

The most common beef is the NP sideshow, and the great thing about that is that claiming the sky is going to fall in can  never be proved wrong. 

 

Challenging the BA is quite right and proper, but be honest, for some it is an obsession that is played out here. 

 

As a last point, our local councils are probably equally important to the daily life of the Broads, but I don’t see the same obsessive poring over every document, committee meeting, public statement, and purchasing decision here, and I would comfortably bet my house they are as capable of waste, lunacy and general mismanagement as anyone. 

You remind me of someone else I know who only hears what they want to hear, if you look back I am sure you will find many complaints by numerous members about dredging, moorings etc etc. far more people than the so called gang of knockers on this topic.

As for local councils as a toll payer my concern is with the navigation, local residents are the ones to take their local authority to task those that also pay tolls have an interest in both, the big difference is that the local residents have recourse through the ballot box toll payers dont.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

32 minutes ago, marshman said:

Bill - methinks its not you fighting a rearguard action nor a pointless one! More power to your elbow.....! ( Whats the Latin for that please??? )

Happy to help you on your way when necessary...!!!!!! Balance must, and will, prevail.....!!!!!

While I accept that your view is and may possibly be right in that NP status  is a storm in a teacup how do you justify all the waisted resourses being used to promote it as something it is not

Fred

[batrabill]

1 minute ago, rightsaidfred said:

While I accept that your view is and may possibly be right in that NP status  is a storm in a teacup how do you justify all the waisted resourses being used to promote it as something it is not

Fred

Don’t at all. I wish JP would shut up about it because the Broads are a de facto NP already but the signs are a waste of money. 

 

But I’m not going out with with spray paint or trolling hotels because, as I have said above the signs in my view are both  pointless and utterly harmless. 

[JennyMorgan]

Call to arms! The Stalham parish Council will be having a meeting in March and an email stating objection to the road sign addition will be on the agenda. Anyone else who feels the same could you please send an email to the Stalham parish clerk, the more objections they receive may help in getting the signs removed. 

clerk@stalhamtowncouncil.org

 

[batrabill]

7 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Call to arms! The Stalham parish Council will be having a meeting in March and an email stating objection to the road sign addition will be on the agenda. Anyone else who feels the same could you please send an email to the Stalham parish clerk, the more objections they receive may help in getting the signs removed. 

clerk@stalhamtowncouncil.org

 

 

I'm curious if other members think that using the NBN for campaigning is a good or bad thing. Genuinely interested.