Help Please.

[ranworthbreeze]

Talk about bending the truth.

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

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? )

You seem to have moved the goal posts. This is the question you asked earlier...

10 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

 Has JP ever said in writing (or even written verbally) that the Broads is a National Park?

The BBC web page, which has been sitting there for the past 13 years, puts Dr Packman's words in quotation marks. That indicates to me that the reporter/interviewer was reporting the actual words he used. Had the report been along the lines of...Dr Packman said that the Broads is already a national park..I would regard that as the reporter's interpretation of what was said.

I wonder just what 'documented proof' would satisfy you. It is documented by the BBC, but, according to you, that could be wrong. It is plastered all over the web site of the organisation of which he is the CEO, but perhaps someone has put all these NP references on there either without him knowing, or against his instructions?

 

[marshman]

Returning to the OP, if I may, requesting the "local"rag carries out an investigation is in itself slightly bizarre.

Whilst I am not even going to bother to look in detail to find them, I can remember several times over the years when Members of this very Forum have bemoaned the lack of accuracy of the reporting from that venerable institution  - do you think that anyone in these circumstances would actually believe what they said if they did agree to carry out a serious piece of investigative journalism?? 

Methinks not more than a few!  It is after all a newspaper and we all know what the prime objective of papers is - to tell the whole truth? Not my take on them in general terms! 

[Paladin]

25 minutes ago, marshman said:

Returning to the OP, if I may, requesting the "local"rag carries out an investigation is in itself slightly bizarre.

Whilst I am not even going to bother to look in detail to find them, I can remember several times over the years when Members of this very Forum have bemoaned the lack of accuracy of the reporting from that venerable institution  - do you think that anyone in these circumstances would actually believe what they said if they did agree to carry out a serious piece of investigative journalism?? 

Methinks not more than a few!  It is after all a newspaper and we all know what the prime objective of papers is - to tell the whole truth? Not my take on them in general terms! 

If we (that's the Royal 'we') don't ask, we don't get. Who knows what will happen, until it's tried? Looking at it more positively, if the EDP carried out an in-depth investigation and found there was nothing to report, at least two of our members would be very happy.

[ExSurveyor]

John Packman, BA chairman,

A quote from a recent article in the EDP.

Hardly a great omen for an in-depth investigation.

The days of even average journalism have long gone, the standard of reporting has declined in direct ratio to the decline in sales.

[MauriceMynah]

Hmmm, Pally asks me what I would accept as proof,. I suppose I would have to reply, "Something that the Dr himself cannot deny."

The BBC document says he said it, even quoting him but this could easily be denied by him saying it was a 'misquote'.

I'm sure he could equally say that he has made it absolutely clear that he has no ambitions to make the Broads a National Park. I believe this is the case, but that nobody trusts him in this. I believe that too is the case.

My confusion is that if he says it is a National Park then why state that he has no ambitions to make it one. If he says it is a National Park why are we trying to stop him making it one.

Some time ago I asked if anybody here (on this forum) thought that JP actually believed that the Broads was a National Park. There was no particular response to that question.

It is my belief that JP does not believe that the Broads is a National Park, but wants to make it one. I further think that the same belief is held by several members here. It is with that in mind I asked if there was any proof that JP had stated that the Broads IS a National Park.

[JanetAnne]

I don't suppose it being written on every piece of hardware that the BA owns counts?

 

[vanessan]

Please take a look at those FAQs I posted yesterday, the statement is there - ‘The Broads is a National Park’. Surely that statement wouldn’t be there if the CEO, Chairman and members didn’t believe it was true!

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Hmmm, Pally asks me what I would accept as proof,. I suppose I would have to reply, "Something that the Dr himself cannot deny."

The BBC document says he said it, even quoting him but this could easily be denied by him saying it was a 'misquote'.

I'm sure he could equally say that he has made it absolutely clear that he has no ambitions to make the Broads a National Park. I believe this is the case, but that nobody trusts him in this. I believe that too is the case.

My confusion is that if he says it is a National Park then why state that he has no ambitions to make it one. If he says it is a National Park why are we trying to stop him making it one.

Some time ago I asked if anybody here (on this forum) thought that JP actually believed that the Broads was a National Park. There was no particular response to that question.

It is my belief that JP does not believe that the Broads is a National Park, but wants to make it one. I further think that the same belief is held by several members here. It is with that in mind I asked if there was any proof that JP had stated that the Broads IS a National Park.

MM, you haven’t actually answered my question. Everything is deniable, even if the denial is not plausible. If you heard it from his own lips, he could still deny he ever said it. If there were other witnesses present, or a recording had been made, he could say, ‘Yes, but, no, but I didn’t mean it in the way it came out’.

But let’s take the standard of proof as being ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which is a high bar.

As the Broads National Park Bill was being prepared, Dr Packman was interviewed by the BBC, in March 2006, and was reported as saying, in quotation marks so it's direct speech:

 "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."

The Bill, which was a private Bill being introduced by the Broads Authority, was ostensibly being introduced to increase safety on the Broads and to extend the BA’s powers to impose tolls to adjacent waters. It wasn’t intended to change the 1988 Act to any great extent, other than to change the name of the Broads to the Broads National Park and the name of the Authority to the Broads National Park Authority.

 If Dr Packman did not think and believe that the Broads was actually a National Park, why did he drive the proposed name changes so hard? He even went to London with his chairman, in September 2006, to try to convince the minister to let him have the names changed, but was rebuffed. This was after he’d already had a letter from Defra (John Kilner) in May 2006, telling him he couldn’t use the national park descriptions.

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, let alone reasonable doubt, that he said what he is reported as saying. If you remain to be convinced, that is your prerogative.

[MauriceMynah]

I remain totally convinced that JP knows that the Broads is NOT a National Park. Vanessan's 'FAQs' tell me as much

11 minutes ago, Paladin said:

If you remain to be convinced, that is your prerogative.

Thank you.