Help Please.

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry fred but no. If you believe a member is or maybe lying you nor I have any right to say so on open forum. This may sound unfair but is, in reality right and proper. You may PM people to raise your fears, but you may not call someone a liar on open forum. I may be wrong, but you cannot call me a liar for saying it. 

[marshman]

Rightly or wrongly, my view, not necessarily accepted by all,  is that this argument has become very tedious to the point of boring. Nothing has changed yet now another topic, closely related, is being hijacked by a small number of individuals to discuss their views ad nauseum with NOTHING new being  actually discussed.   It has all been said before, not once but time and time again!!

Is there nothing happening in the Broads of real interest? Surely its time to move on until something actually happens that directly alters the issues?

[vanessan]

On 14/01/2020 at 16:55, JennyMorgan said:

Our local newspaper is asking for suggestions into what they can investigate in 2020. May I suggest, even ask, that you suggest to the EDP that they investigate either the Broads Authority or the bogus Broads National Park.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/business/archant-investigations-unit-story-idea-1-6464820?fbclid=IwAR0rn9jI4B1cjBbu7vVUEPa0v4yZL_1Ujuvk8HqO5yc-N7fp-8xoprxffE0

With respect marshman, this was the OP. Much more meat has been put on the bones by the research and dialogue of 2/3 members and I’m sure many of us appreciate that. If anyone is going to ask the EDP to investigate BA’s use of ‘National Park’ they now have a good starting point and can refer to various letters etc. The fact that there are two similar threads running is unfortunate but initially they were fundamentally different topics IMO. If members find them boring and/or tedious, there is no need to read them. 

[Paladin]

22 minutes ago, marshman said:

Rightly or wrongly, my view, not necessarily accepted by all,  is that this argument has become very tedious to the point of boring. Nothing has changed yet now another topic, closely related, is being hijacked by a small number of individuals to discuss their views ad nauseum with NOTHING new being  actually discussed.   It has all been said before, not once but time and time again!!

Is there nothing happening in the Broads of real interest? Surely its time to move on until something actually happens that directly alters the issues?

The thread opened with reference to the EDP's request for a subject for them to investigate. That's rather new, isn't it? There followed a discussion about whether or not a particular letter from a government minister existed or had been disposed of. That letter was new to me (and I suspect, many others). It was eventually tracked down and published - for the first time?

You might find it boring, but I have found the discussion, and the research carried out, very interesting and enlightening. Each to their own, I suppose.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Sorry fred but no. If you believe a member is or maybe lying you nor I have any right to say so on open forum. This may sound unfair but is, in reality right and proper. You may PM people to raise your fears, but you may not call someone a liar on open forum. I may be wrong, but you cannot call me a liar for saying it. 

 I agree if referrimg to a  individual member but I was referring to an outside agency and its representatives.

Fred

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

54 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

 I agree if referrimg to a  individual member but I was referring to an outside agency and its representatives.

Fred

And an agency that every member of this forum, both historic and present, has in some way, via hiring a toll payed boat, or owning outright, funded, so i think ALL of this discussion is very relevant. 

[grendel]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

 I agree if referrimg to a  individual member but I was referring to an outside agency and its representatives.

Fred

one of those representatives is a member though, so in essence MM is correct.

[Paladin]

33 minutes ago, grendel said:

one of those representatives is a member though, so in essence MM is correct.

Unless a post has been removed, I can't see any post that actually accuses an individual (member or not) of lying.

[WherryNice]

I would like to say that I find all of the BNP discussions interesting and informative, I knew nothing of it until I became a member here and it has been an eye opener to say the least.

If what had been said in the past had never been said again I would likley never have known anything about any of it so I am grateful to those who continue to raise the matter and provide information about it.

As an adult I am quite capable of digesting the information given and forming my own opinions and views on it.

Should I become bored of the subject I will simply stop reading threads relating to it, I find people suggesting that discussion on any subject be shut down a little bit off.

 

[Paladin]

I note that the three current threads related to the Broads Authority have been removed from public view to the Members’ Chat Area. As a matter of personal policy, I do not subscribe to discussions behind closed doors, so I will absent myself from those debates.

[JennyMorgan]

I think that it is up to individual forum members to decide for themselves if any particular individual is lying, and then to keep it to themselves..

However, as far as the Authority is concerned, I don't see it as being in anyway unreasonable for us forumites to discuss whether they, the BA, are being entirely honest with themselves let alone with us mere minions. 

We have a case where a judge has allowed the Authority to use the BNP term for marketing. Whilst making that decision I do wonder if that judge was made aware of the actual  and complete contents of the Barry Gardiner letter? I have to say that I doubt it thus I would ask whether the Executive was entirely open and honest when presenting their case?

I also wonder just how many Authority members are actually aware of the numerous ministerial dictates that have made the BNP position abundantly clear?  I have to say that I doubt it thus I would ask whether the Executive has been entirely open and honest when presenting their case to past, present and incoming members?

An question of honesty, or lack of,  and to a greater or lesser degree it has the potential to impact on us all, whether we like it or not, evan Marshman! 

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

25 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I note that the three current threads related to the Broads Authority have been removed from public view to the Members’ Chat Area. As a matter of personal policy, I do not subscribe to discussions behind closed doors, so I will absent myself from those debates.

Such removal is patently wrong, these issues concern not only ourselves but also members of the wider cathedral that is the Broads. Regretfully we have now lost Paladin's input and wisdom, not very clever, in my honest opinion.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

one of those representatives is a member though, so in essence MM is correct.

Sorry but like others I can find no reference to him or any other member, any public body and its executive officers are or should be open to public scrutiny and their integrity should be beyond reproach if there is any suggestion to the contrary then that should be open to question.

Fred

[Vaughan]

Like Paladin, I am not willing to contribute to this discussion in members only. I have explained why on the Acle Bnp thread.

[MauriceMynah]

10 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Such removal is patently wrong, these issues concern not only ourselves but also members of the wider cathedral that is the Broads. Regretfully we have now lost Paladin's input and wisdom, not very clever, in my honest opinion.

I agree totally, and wonder why this action has been taken.

 

10 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Sorry but like others I can find no reference to him or any other member, any public body and its executive officers are or should be open to public scrutiny and their integrity should be beyond reproach if there is any suggestion to the contrary then that should be open to question.

Fred

I suspect that the mod post was acting "proactively" rather than reactively.

However the term "Liar" is somewhat of a legal minefield.

If I know the time to be 8:32 and I reply "Half past Eight" when asked the time, am I telling lies?

Politicians are experts in finding ways they can make a statements that are misleading, yet can be totally justified by using the "small print". They are not lying but perhaps quoting things out of context. The Dr. is a politician. (a game not entirely unknown to a few members here.)

I do ask this if only for the sake of balance. Has JP ever said in writing (or even written verbally) that the Broads is a National Park?

I don't mean "A National Park in everything but name" nor do I mean "A National Park for marketing" I mean "The Norfolk Broads is a National Park."

I suspect not, as if he has then why does he insist on stating that he has no intention of making the Broads into a National Park?

 

To the Mods, Please  replace this thread  back into the public eye.

[JennyMorgan]

36 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I do ask this if only for the sake of balance. Has JP ever said in writing (or even written verbally) that the Broads is a National Park?

Now you are asking! He may or may not have written, 'The Broads is a National Park' but he undoubtedly does use the BNP term and he very clearly encourages others to do likewise, ad nauseum! Surely calling the Broads the BNP is no different to saying that the Broads is a NP?

[MauriceMynah]

33 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Surely calling the Broads the BNP is no different to saying that the Broads is a NP?

And there's the rub of it. Yes there is a great deal of difference in calling the Broads "The Broads National Park" and stating that the Broads is a National Park.

The former has been permitted by Parliament for "marketing purposes", where the latter is not correct as that same Parliament has stated that it will not make it one.

I know not what the legal definition is for "Marketing purposes" is, but I suspect that it has a far wider scope than  even you would  dare to imagine. "Marketing to whom?" one might ask.

Saying that the fine Dr has stated that the Broads is a National park, might be considered an inaccuracy...  or worse! 

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Saying that the fine Dr has stated that the Broads is a National park, might be considered an inaccuracy...  or worse! 

Have any of us actually said that? Intimated, probably, but is that any different to JP's continual use of the BNP term? I take your point though. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

One piece of terminology I think should be remembered, and that is "they may not tell an outright lie, but they may also NOT tell the WHOLE truth". 

Politicians usually make good use of this system to attract support for something controversial, by hi lighting any benefits, yet hide the pitfalls that also go with it. Remember the Common Market?, we were told it was all about trade, but we're kept in the dark as to what was the real aim. Now come back to current times and consider the Broads being "advertised" as a National Park, it certainly makes me wonder what their ultimate aim is. 

Did someone say Packman was a politician............... 

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Did someone say Packman was a politician............... 

And do any of us really and truthfully trust politicians?

[Smoggy]

31 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

And do any of us really and truthfully trust politicians?

<lie mode> of course we do <\lie mode>

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Saying that the fine Dr has stated that the Broads is a National park, might be considered an inaccuracy...  or worse! 

Let me answer that again by stating this time that someone at the BA has! We can only guess who the driver behind that was!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4850052.stm

[Paladin]

6 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Let me answer that again by stating this time that someone at the BA has! We can only guess who the driver behind that was!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4850052.stm

I don't think it's against the ToS to quote what the BBC has publicly attributed to Dr Packman in 2006 (at the time of the Broads National Park Bill), to wit:

"John Packman, chief executive of the Broads Authority, said: "Changing the name of the Broads will not change its status.

"It is already a national park, but the proposed new name removes the current confusion among the public. It will also make things clearer for tourists who visit the area."

[MauriceMynah]

I have to be a pain here. Has the fine Dr. said it, in writing. The  BBC says he has, but they may be wrong. This is not the same as him actually stating it.

Come on Pally, you know the difference!!! So, is it on record that JP has stated that the broads is a National Park? ( and do we have documented proof of his saying it? )

[vanessan]

Might be appropriate to put this link in here, https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/frequently-asked-questions . There are some interesting answers to the FAQs - one actually says 

‘The Broads is a National Park’ ............