Help Please.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Paladin, 

I really appreciate your research in this subject, you hi lighted a lot of vitally important information that I would imagine most of us would never know how to find. 

It really does look to me like the top brass at Yare Towers will stop at nothing until they get their dream. It's almost like a dictatorship, you can't elect us, but you WILL do what we say and live with it. 

It's actually quite frightening to think that our elected Government is allowing this to go on unchecked. 

Definitely an excellent example of why the BA MUST be an elected authority, or at least the top brass must be. 

[JennyMorgan]

 

4 hours ago, Paladin said:

JM, having raised this, it is something that needs to be clarified, please.

The proposed name change came about by ministerial decree. The Broads National Park Bill was deemed incompatible with the existing National Parks Act 1949, e.g. three core duties versus the BA's four. English NP's all share the same legislation thus the Broads was the odd one out. The Authority was told that the BNP Bill would not pass through Parliament so the only option was to drop the NP designation. a case of either or and no half measures. Effectively this is all in Hansard.

[JennyMorgan]

The required letter has emerged, thank you to the good folk at the BA!!

Letter from Barry Gardiner MP 2 September 2006.pdf

[Paladin]

24 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The required letter has emerged, thank you to the good folk at the BA!!

Letter from Barry Gardiner MP 2 September 2006.pdf 1.23 MB · 7 downloads

Thank you JM and whoever at the BA. Bearing in mind the EDP report, and looking at the rather spidery handwriting and the stamped date, 25 September 2006, (presumably the date received by the BA), I would think the date of the letter is 21 September 2006, rather than 2 September, which might explain the zero hit result for your FoI request.

Mr Gardiner’s language is even more equivocal than previous correspondent’s. “The area has an essentially equivalent status to the National Parks”, which is not quite saying that it has equivalent status. One of those almost-but-not-quite expressions.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Mr Gardiner’s language is even more equivocal than previous correspondent’s. “The area has an essentially equivalent status to the National Parks”, which is not quite saying that it has equivalent status. One of those almost-but-not-quite expressions.

I believe that the expression is cherry picking! 

[Paladin]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I believe that the expression is cherry picking! 

There are better cherries he could have picked. But nowhere in that letter does it say that the 1988 Act conferred that status.

[JennyMorgan]

28 minutes ago, Paladin said:

There are better cherries he could have picked. But nowhere in that letter does it say that the 1988 Act conferred that status.

Yet it is the letter that he uses to substantiate his NP status claims.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

So does this now mean we are within our rights to write to packman and demand the withdrawal of all adverts and signs proclaiming the Broads as a National Park?. Also, to demand that he drop any future claim that the Broads ARE  a National Park, and that he will never do so in the future?. Or do i just have an over zealous aire of optomism?.

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

So does this now mean we are within our rights to write to packman and demand the withdrawal of all adverts and signs proclaiming the Broads as a National Park?

You can but to be right and proper address your demands to the Chairman of the Authority:

 bill.dickson@broads-authority.gov.uk

[Paladin]

4 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Yet it is the letter that he uses to substantiate his NP status claims.

Just being curious, but in what gathering does he quote this particular letter? I've never heard of it before, although I have seen numerous references to 'equivalent status' over the years.

[JennyMorgan]

17 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Just being curious, but in what gathering does he quote this particular letter? I've never heard of it before, although I have seen numerous references to 'equivalent status' over the years.

It popped up recently, will see if I can find it.

[JennyMorgan]

Our good friend Poppy has unearthed one reference to that letter:

This is an extract from The Blessed Authorities 'communications strategy'. " NAME AND STATUS 4.1 The Authority name and status has been the subject of much debate and some confusion. However in his letter dated 2 September 2006 the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs, Barry Gardiner MP, confirmed that the Broads has an equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . 

[Paladin]

59 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Our good friend Poppy has unearthed one reference to that letter:

This is an extract from The Blessed Authorities 'communications strategy'. " NAME AND STATUS 4.1 The Authority name and status has been the subject of much debate and some confusion. However in his letter dated 2 September 2006 the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs, Barry Gardiner MP, confirmed that the Broads has an equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . 

That seems to be from an internal document (I can't seem to find it on their web site), and, once again, someone was being economical with the truth. What Mr Gardiner said was "The area has an essentially equivalent status to the National Parks", but if you really want to get in a lather about the status claims, read the attached pdf, particularly paragraphs 1.1, 2.21, 3.2, 3.5, 5.5, 5.72 and 7.8 (the last one is a corker). But don't say I didn't warn you!

1_Core_Strategy_ldf.pdf

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, Paladin said:

What Mr Gardiner said was "The area has an essentially equivalent status to the National Parks", but if you really want to get in a lather about the status claims, read the attached pdf, particularly paragraphs 1.1, 2.21, 3.2, 3.5, 5.5, 5.72 and 7.8 (the last one is a corker). But don't say I didn't warn you!

"The Broads as a National Park 2.21 The Broads is granted national park equivalent status under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988"

The Doctor is adept at twisting the truth to suit his obvious agenda.

 

[Paladin]

8 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

"The Broads as a National Park 2.21 The Broads is granted national park equivalent status under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988"

The Doctor is adept at twisting the truth to suit his obvious agenda.

 

If I may be blunt, that is not twisting the truth, it is a blatant lie. NOWHERE in either of the Broads Acts does the word "status" appear.

[grendel]

do we have on record where the useage of the term Broads national Park for marketing purposes only is allowed? or has that been inferred from the above.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

do we have on record where the useage of the term Broads national Park for marketing purposes only is allowed? or has that been inferred from the above.

If you go to the minutes of the Authority meeting on 23 January 2015 (attached) and scroll to item 4/9 'Branding the Broads', while the whole section is worth reading, on page 8 there is:

“They (the members) considered that the recommendations recognised the reservations and concerns of the NSBA and Broads Society as well as those stated by the Navigation Committee and provided the brand was used for marketing related purposes this would be acceptable.“  

If you scroll down to towards the end of page 9, you’ll find:

“In reaching their decision Members had to be satisfied that the Broads National Park Brand would be adopted for marketing related purposes…”

and, in the resolutions on the same page:

“…(iv) that the brand “Broads National Park” be adopted for marketing related purposes with immediate effect using the powers in Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.”

I think that is the beginning of the official adoption of the expression, although mention was made in the earlier consultation process and there have been later instances. For example, the judge at the judicial review referred frequently to the marketing purposes aspect. I’ve attached a copy of the judgement and it’s worth searching it, using the pdf search facility, to see just how many times the word 'marketing' is used, but to give you a flavour, the judge said:

“…the decision taken by the Authority was to adopt a brand name which included the words “National Park”. That term is only to be used for marketing purposes and the legal regime within the Broads remains unaltered.”

Branding the Broads Minutes BA-Minutes-230115_confirmed.pdf Broads National Park Judicial Review CO.1866.2015-Harris-v-BA-Judgment-FINAL.pdf

[MauriceMynah]

Seeing as we've been raking over the actual words used (or not used), is it relevant that it says "marketing" and not "marketing only"?  

[Paladin]

8 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Seeing as we've been raking over the actual words used (or not used), is it relevant that it says "marketing" and not "marketing only"?  

Perhaps I didn't make the judge's words clear enough:

"That term is only to be used for marketing purposes..."

Dr Packman is fond of using that judgement to justify the BA's use of the BNP expression. Perhaps he should also recognise, accept and abide by the limitation, as well.

[BlueSky]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

do we have on record where the useage of the term Broads national Park for marketing purposes only is allowed? or has that been inferred from the above.

Thanks to Paladin for attaching a copy of the judgment. I hadn't figured out how to do that yet.

At para 3 the judge said,

Quote

The claim for judicial review challenges a resolution of the Authority passed on 23 January 2015 by which the Authority decided inter alia “that the brand “Broads National Park” be adopted for marketing related purposes…”. 

Unquote

And at para 113,

Quote

…the claim for judicial review is dismissed.”

Unquote

In essence, this was because, as stated by the judge at para 91,

Quote

In my judgment the branding decision taken by the Authority cannot be regarded as having any misleading effect as to the statutory functions of either the Broads or the Authority and no abuse of power has occurred.

Unquote

BUT in my opinion paragraph 82 is particularly interesting in showing that in coming to this view, the judge took into account that:

Quote

it is not suggested that the Authority’s decision was misleading as regards the status of the Authority itself. The decision challenged does not involve the Authority holding itself out to be a National Park Authority.

Unquote

In his judgment, any failings of the National Parks UK website were excused as the work of a third party. Para 90 reads in part, “the website has been produced by a separate organisation…”, and, “whether or not the Authority has power to use the Broads National Park as a marketing brand cannot depend upon errors of this kind on the website of a third party.”

As drawn attention to in my previous post, the National Parks UK website now shows that it holds out the Broads Authority as a National Park Authority. Further, Yare House is now the correspondence address of National Parks UK. Does anyone truly believe the Broads Authority have no involvement in this? Or is it more likely that the Broads Authority itself is now pushing the envelope and indeed holding itself out to be a National Park Authority? If so, why? Just asking.

Of course I should previously have said “hi” to everyone. Apologies….

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

do we have on record where the useage of the term Broads national Park for marketing purposes only is allowed? or has that been inferred from the above.

Having re-read your post, are you asking whether term 'marketing purposes' has been defined? No, it hasn't, so the normal meaning of the word must be used. But no matter how it is interpreted, the planning function cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as marketing, yet the BNP term is routinely used in that respect, even appearing on documents submitted by applicants.

[JennyMorgan]

Regarding the Court Judgement regarding the brand and its usage I wonder whether the Executive actually presented the unabbreviated  Gardiner letter or whether it was the  more helpful and suitably edited and rewritten interpretation?  If it were the latter then perhaps there could and should be repercussions. I feel another FOI coming on!  

[ModeratorTeam]

Members are asked to refrain from  accusations of lying against individuals.

Objective scrutiny is fine but let’s not get carried away. 

[rightsaidfred]

10 minutes ago, ModeratorTeam said:

Members are asked to refrain from  accusations of lying against individuals.

Objective scrutiny is fine but let’s not get carried away. 

I dont wish to disrespect the team or the tos but when an organisation or an individual acting on behalf  of said organisation is seen or appears to be seen making misleading claims or statements then surely we are entitled  to say so and call them to account I dont think that is getting carried away or detrimental to the forum especially as they have the right and ability to respond.

Fred    

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Regarding the Court Judgement regarding the brand and its usage I wonder whether the Executive actually presented the unabbreviated  Gardiner letter or whether it was the  more helpful and suitably edited and rewritten interpretation?  If it were the latter then perhaps there could and should be repercussions. I feel another FOI coming on!  

Having read through the judgement…again!...I can’t find anything that specifically refers to the 2006 Gardiner meeting and subsequent letter. Paragraph 32 of the judgement refers to the passage of the Broads Authority Bill, the disagreement over the proposed name changes and the removal of those proposals, which essentially reflects what the meeting and the letter determined.

The good Dr is wont to claim that the judgement legitimised the BNP name and that the judge said its use was not misleading. That statement, in itself, is misleading.

What the judge actually said, in para 85, is (with my emphasis), “This issue therefore depends upon whether the mere use of the phrase “Broads National Park” in promotional literature would mislead a reasonable member of the public into thinking that the Sandford Principle is applicable within the Broads.”

He judged that, “No reasonable member of the public would see the use of the words “Broads National Park” in promotional literature as referring to the specific legal regimes governing either the Broads or National Parks in the UK.”

So the judge didn’t say the use of the expression wasn’t misleading in any situation, only in its use in a very specific manner, i.e. promotional literature, and with regard to Sandford.

Promotional - intended to advertise something in order to sell it;

Literature - printed material published by a company that is intended to encourage people to buy that company's products or services or to agree with its opinions.

So while printed posters in railway stations could be considered to be 'promotional literature', I cannot consider for one moment that this description could apply to metal road signs.