Acle B.N.P.

[grendel]

just a gentle reminder that the BroadsAuthority in the persona of Tom, is a member and that all of the normal rules apply that protect individual members from being attacked or baited by other members apply.

This of course should not stop any comments regarding the authority in general terms (as we are used to from both sides of the fence), but when these comments are directed at a member (Tom specifically) then myself (with my size 14's) and the rest of the moderator team may well step in if we feel you have gone too far.

Tom has made it clear that if he feels that a question will cause either himself or the authority grief if answered, then he wont answer it, so please leave it there and dont keep pushing.

Now can we get back to the great sign scandal debate, as clearly we have views that range from one extreme to the other, and its only by discussion that we can come to a consensus as to whether these are good for the broads, bad for the broads or make no difference.

So are the signs merely marketing, or something more sinister as alluded to by several members, or merely a nothing as some other members see them?

[Paladin]

  

1 hour ago, grendel said:

Now can we get back to the great sign scandal debate, as clearly we have views that range from one extreme to the other, and its only by discussion that we can come to a consensus as to whether these are good for the broads, bad for the broads or make no difference.

So are the signs merely marketing, or something more sinister as alluded to by several members, or merely a nothing as some other members see them?

I am very happy to return to the signs debate.

As to your question, the signs are, without any doubt whatsoever, marketing. The Broads Authority isn't (allegedly) allowed to use the term for any other purpose.

What I find most peculiar is that they are being allowed to be attached to legal road signs. If you or I wanted to use existing road signs, or their supports, for attaching our advertising signs, we would certainly be refused permission.

BroadsAuthority has told us that:

"The signs have been installed in some key Broads locations to increase awareness and promote the area’s special qualities. They are not intended to mark or alter the precise boundaries of the Broads Authority’s executive area (it would be very difficult to achieve this given the way that the boundary follows the waterways and flood plains and interacts with roads)...

...Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council have helped achieve a very cost effective way of promoting the Broads National Park by using existing signage posts."

It is the BA's confirmed strategy to "Increase public awareness of Broads National Park brand", by installing "35 Broads National Park tourist information road signs (by end 2019)". The Lead Officer for this is the BA's Head of Communications.

Please note, the stated purpose isn't to increase awareness of the the Broads (which are already known World-wide), and which purpose would, arguably, fall within the remit of Section 2(1)(b) of the 1988 Broads Act, but to promote the national park brand, for which the BA has no legal remit or responsibility.

There are already many brown tourist signs dotted about Norfolk and Suffolk, directing people to The Broads. If the numbers are insufficient, it only needs for more of the brown signs to be put up. Obviously, that need has never been identified.

None of the signs erected in Acle are on roads that actually lead to the Broads, and they are in direct conflict (and confusion) with the tourist signs on the A47, which direct motorists to the Broads via the A1064, not by cutting through Acle town.

Yet Norfolk County Council refers to the signs as either boundary signs or gateway signs (they can't seem to make up their mind).

If the signs are considered to be information signs, measure them against The Open University's list of 10 qualities of good information:

1. It must be relevant

2. It must also be clear

3. There must be sufficient accuracy

4. The information must be complete

5.The information must also be trustworthy

6. It must be concise

7. Information must be provided in a timely manner

8. It must be communicated to the right person

9. It must also be communicated via the right channel

10. Information must be less costly than the value it provides (the cost so far for the signs alone is £26,366.86)

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

First of all I admire Tom for putting his head above the parapet and the way he handles himself. I also fully understand the position in which finds himself. Thank you, Tom, diamond geezer that you are. I do hope that you remain with us. There are many good folk at the Authority, you are one of them.

For those of you, should I say who are up on the fence, please consider this piece of history combined with a smidgeon of facts & opinion.

Three times now our elected government of the day has turned down requests for the Broads to be designated as a national park under the National Parks legislation. Remember that the House of Commons is a democratically elected body. 

Numerous are the sights of letters from various Ministers, over time and also recently, confirming that the status of the Broads is unchanged, that it is not a national park.

Despite this an appointed, rather than elected, executive officer has used his position and powers to undermine the decisions of the elected House of Commons. In doing so,  I am firmly of the opinion and belief that misleading statements and actions have been made in order to achieve the belief by the public that the Broads is indeed something that it is not. 

If after reading the above folk remain content with such actions then so be it. Personally I am not a great believer in using lies to achieve a personal ambition or agenda.

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Peter, Do you think that the doctor believes that the broads is a National Park? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, Heron said:

Back on to the subject of the signs, one is being attached to the Stalham sign on the A149 approaching from the Hoveton direction today.

Only the waterside part of Stalham is in the BA area. I doubt it will go down well with local residents.

Approved by Stalham Town Council at their meeting on 8th April 2019.

[rightsaidfred]

Firstly Tom nothing I can see is directed at you personally just your position as spokesperson for the Authority.

Having looked at all the relevant information I can find I like many others can see no benefit to the Broads in continually referring to them incorectly as a NP which they are clearly not other than to promote a misconception for whatever political gain the executive may forsee.

My love of the Broads is for what they are not for any categorie they may fall in and I like I would imagine many others visit an area be it Lake District, Dartmore or any other for its Ecology and attraction regardless of its status of a NP, SSI or AONB, the only benefit to me  of NP status is to protect the environment from over development.

Fred

 

[Poppy]

58 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter, Do you think that the doctor believes that the broads is a National Park? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Speaking for myself and not JM, I believe the Doctor is fully with the status of the Broads with respect to its NP status. It appears to me to be clear that he is pushing the boundaries  little by little until he reaches his ambition of full membership. That will of course involve ultimately inclusion of the Sandford Principle !

[Polly]

I wonder if the Lake District CEO has visited Ambleside or Bowness on a Bank Holiday recently? There is no problem with the mix of visitors at all, all ages all ethnicities and abilities.
As for numbers ...  well there was no shortage of visitors at all. 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, Poppy said:

Speaking for myself and not JM, I believe the Doctor is fully with the status of the Broads with respect to its NP status. It appears to me to be clear that he is pushing the boundaries  little by little until he reaches his ambition of full membership. That will of course involve ultimately inclusion of the Sandford Principle !

Really, Poppy, I'm surprised at you. Dr Packman has said time and time again that he has no intention of seeking the application of Sandford. Surely, his word is his bond.

On the other hand, he also said, repeatedly, that the Broads National Park term would only be used for marketing purposes, yet it is commonly used among the Broads Authority staff, even within the Planning Department, which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be considered a marketing purpose.

Hmmm, I'll have to go and have a think about that.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter, Do you think that the doctor believes that the broads is a National Park? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Yes.

He has confirmed that he is content that the Broads is a national park.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

Approved by Stalham Town Council at their meeting on 8th April 2019.

A common tactic is to pick off one authority at a time. Dear so and so, a certain person or authority has agreed to allow the placement of BNP signposts,  can I also count on your support, or words to that effect. Gently gently catch the monkey.  Ask the question before the public gets wind of it, Bobs your Aunty! 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

8 hours ago, Paladin said:

The silence is deafening.

According to the Tremalo's, it was golden 

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

According to the Tremeloes, it was golden 

The Searchers too!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

19 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Searchers too!

That's who I meant, god alone knows why I said the Tremalo's?. 

[Regulo]

Because it WAS the Tremeloes!

[JennyMorgan]

As well as the Searchers! Think that the Tremeloes had the bigger hit though. Loved the music back then. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Really, Poppy, I'm surprised at you. Dr Packman has said time and time again that he has no intention of seeking the application of Sandford. Surely, his word is his bond.

On the other hand, he also said, repeatedly, that the Broads National Park term would only be used for marketing purposes, yet it is commonly used among the Broads Authority staff, even within the Planning Department, which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be considered a marketing purpose.

Hmmm, I'll have to go and have a think about that.

All a question of trust, or lack thereof.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter, Do you think that the doctor believes that the broads is a National Park? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Although not aimed at me, does he believe the Broads are an NP, no he does'nt

Does he want the Broads to be an NP, yes he most certainly does. 

Despite his denial, it seems pretty obvious to me (and by the sound of it, others too) that he is determined to see the Broads become a full NP through continual stealth. Who was it who said on another thread "tell a lie for long enough, and everybody will accept it as the truth"?. 

 

[D46]

6 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Although not aimed at me, does he believe the Broads are an NP, no he does'nt

Does he want the Broads to be an NP, yes he most certainly does. 

Despite his denial, it seems pretty obvious to me (and by the sound of it, others too) that he is determined to see the Broads become a full NP through continual stealth. Who was it who said on another thread "tell a lie for long enough, and everybody will accept it as the truth"?. 

 

That will be Joseph Goebbels , and to think I didn't know he was a member 

[webntweb]

41 minutes ago, Regulo said:

Because it WAS the Tremeloes!

Originally recorded by the Four Seasons, written for them jointly by their producer and keyboard player.

The Tremeloes had a UK number one with it.

Don't think the Searchers ever released it as a single but may have used it in their stage show or possibly in a later album.

[JennyMorgan]

9 minutes ago, webntweb said:

Originally recorded by the Four Seasons, written for them jointly by their producer and keyboard player.

The Tremeloes had a UK number one with it.

Don't think the Searchers ever released it as a single but may have used it in their stage show or possibly in a later album.

I don't know that I ever heard it on a disc but I saw them perform several times and just have a memory of them singing it. 

[JennyMorgan]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I don't know that I ever heard it on a disc but I saw them perform several times and just have a memory of them singing it. 

No mention of the Searchers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_Is_Golden_(song)

[JennyMorgan]

30 minutes ago, D46 said:

That will be Joseph Goebbels , and to think I didn't know he was a member 

Unfortunate that it was Dr Goebbels who said it but even the evilest of humankind can make an astute comment at sometime in their lives. 

Back to our Doctor, it might have been in a Broads Plan but I am sure that I have read that it is hoped that by 2030 the Broads will be a national park.  

[YnysMon]

I have to admit I’m a bit ambivalent on the National Park thing...on the whole I’m convinced by the ‘it’s not a National Park’ argument and especially respect contributions from people who have invested their lives in business on the Broads, but then the arguments just go on (and a bit more). Love the thread drift though!

[Paladin]

7 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Unfortunate that it was Dr Goebbels who said it but even the evilest of humankind can make an astute comment at sometime in their lives. 

Back to our Doctor, it might have been in a Broads Plan but I am sure that I have read that it is hoped that by 2030 the Broads will be a national park.  

Yes, but, no, but...

In the Report from 2015 regarding the consultation on the rebranding, the BA said:

"The Broads Plan 2011 states that:
“In May 2010, members of the Broads Authority discussed the draft long-term vision for the Broads and supported the objective that, by 2030, the Broads would be a national park where the public legal rights of navigation continued to be respected and embraced. Though this objective would require primary legislation, members considered this an important ambition in support of the long-term vision.”

The Chief Executive’s report to the Broads Authority (23 January 2015) on branding the Broads is recommending that, should Members resolve to implement the Broads National Park branding, they could indicate that the Authority no longer intends to pursue the long term ambition in the 2011 Broads Plan, in view of the anticipated benefits of the new branding."

I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.