Look Out Norfolk, Chris Packham Is Back Again!

[Malanka]

Chris Packham suffers from the same condition as the XR protestors I saw in London last weekend. It’s a well known thing that has caused well known and respected people to lie cheat and vilify others, shut down debate, rely on a consensus, and generally close their ears. It’s called Noble Cause Corruption.

Remember the emails from UEA, “why should I send you my data so you can veryfy it? All you want to do is find something wrong with it!”

 

Well yes that’s the meaning of verify. Dumb as a box of rocks……

[Hylander]

On 05/01/2022 at 15:23, grendel said:

perhaps there will soon be a new requirement for all new houses to have stables, to house the inevitable horse that these households are required to have once all the green initiatives have robbed us of suitable alternative transport.

You  would be ok for manure though.  Got to think of the plus side of things.

[Hylander]

On 05/01/2022 at 23:26, floydraser said:

Not sure about that but to keep up with the Joneses you'll have to have a second horse for the Mrs, tied up outside just for show. You however, will have to groom both at the weekend.  

Is that before you mow the lawn?

[Vaughan]

I see in the EDP this morning that "Batman" and his supporters have succeeded in causing a diversion to the planned route of the Western Link, which adds to doubt whether it will, in the end, be built.

Actually I freely admit I have always been against the Broads National Parkway in the first place - it is just the excuse to build thousands of little boxes all over the Norfolk countryside that I grew up in and love dearly.  I just wish that decisions so vital to the future could be based on matters more substantial than a colony of bats.

In fact, it may be fortuitous.  Now that the Cold War has returned with a vengeance to Europe, I guess we are going to need all of our farmland for what it was meant for - growing crops to feed the nation!

[Vaughan]

It concentrates the mind a bit, I find. 

Time to stop agonising over cycle paths, re-wilding, sea eagles, beavers and bats, and concentrate on priorities rather closer to home.  Like bread and milk for breakfast and roast beef for Sunday lunch.

I think back to when I was at naval college and on occasions, the chaplain was not in attendance at lunch, so the captain superintendent would have to say grace.  One of his favourite versions was :

"We thank the Lord for our meat and gravy : we thank the Lord for the Royal Navy!"

To which the whole college in unison, shouted "Amen!"

[Mouldy]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

. . . . . . . . . . . Now that the Cold War has returned with a vengeance to Europe, I guess we are going to need all of our farmland for what it was meant for - growing crops to feed the nation!

Solar panels seem to be the new crop of choice.  I’m guessing that the fees paid to farmers to allow the planting of these visual monstrosities must be more than they’d get for planting foodstuffs.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why developers are not forced to cover the roofs of all new warehouses built with solar panels and keep them out of sight.  Lack of farmland might explain why the pack of runner beans I bought the other day were grown in Morocco.

As for linking the A47 to the western end of the NDR, until it’s built, there will be a rat-run through the villages that currently form the route between the two roads.  I would imagine that the residents are more anxious to see completion of the NDR than Mr Packham.

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, Mouldy said:

As for linking the A47 to the western end of the NDR, until it’s built, there will be a rat-run through the villages that currently form the route between the two roads.  I would imagine that the residents are more anxious to see completion of the NDR than Mr Packham.

Indeed, but the rat runs have only started since the NDR was built.  A bit like "the chicken or the egg".  Some think of it as a ring road but it was only ever designed to feed into all the new housing estates to the north and east of Norwich. Nowadays a lot of the rat runs are attempts to avoid the NDR when trying to get out of Norwich towards Wroxham or Plumstead. The queues on the roundabouts back up for miles.

 

[Mouldy]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Indeed, but the rat runs have only started since the NDR was built.  A bit like "the chicken or the egg".  Some think of it as a ring road but it was only ever designed to feed into all the new housing estates to the north and east of Norwich. Nowadays a lot of the rat runs are attempts to avoid the NDR when trying to get out of Norwich towards Wroxham or Plumstead. The queues on the roundabouts back up for miles.

 

The problem now is that having created the rat runs, the simplest solution to fix them is to complete the ‘ring road.’  Anyone approaching Norwich now from the west will look for the easiest way to get to the airport, Stalham, Wroxham or areas north of the city and cut through the villages to access the NDR.  Most folk use a sat-nav which will automatically send them the quickest/shortest route.  The damage to the area has already been done and the exchange of small, well filled brown envelopes will surely guarantee that planning will be granted for housing whether the missing (NDR) link is built or not.

At the moment, the situation is similar to what the M25 would be like if the bit between the M40 and M4 were missing.

[TheQ]

Yep a bypass built on the cheap, well expensive really, but all the extra money on the NDR was spent on buying up extra farm land to build cycle ways, bridle ways,   treed areas wildlife refuges etc.

So increasing the carbon foot print of the NDR as a sop to the green lobby.

The NDR has a much wider footprint than the southern bypass.

Several of the junctions should have had proper overpasses not just the A140. It would have saved much unnecessary car emissions in the queues.

[Vaughan]

Not Chris Packham this time, but perhaps a public opponent that he should look out for!

According to an EDP article of yesterday, Dr Rose O'Neill of the Campaign for National Parks (there's a new one on me) has stated that not enough of the area is open to the public.  She states that only 0.5% of Broadland is freely accessible, which means only 150 hectares out of 30,500 in the area.  What "area" precisely, is not defined. She wants the Broads included in the definition of "open access land".  What definition, again, is not defined.

The BA have responded with the usual stuff about all the work on footpaths and walkways (which is quite true) and especially that they are "working with"  the Whitlingham Charitable Trust - which recently terminated their lease - to create a "path for all" around the gravel pits (sorry - country park) that the Colman family dug out of the Crown Point meadows several years ago.  I thought that "scenic feature" already had a path all round it?

They go on to reply - and here's the quote of the week - The Broads are not technically a National Park.  Now there's a tactical withdrawal if ever I saw one!

I wonder how this idea sits with some of the biggest landowners in the BA area - namely the RSPB and NWT  - who have clearly announced that they want to close all their land off to the public, in order not to frighten the birds?  Or, for that matter, with the Blofeld family, who want to keep all the fish (let alone the public) out of Hoveton Great Broad?

I wonder what she thinks of Chris Packham, who has also dictated that car parks in north Norfolk should be closed off in order to discourage the Great Heaving Public from rampaging all over the precious natural areas in which other "ecologists" are introducing non native species such as sea eagles and beavers.

I can't help remembering, back in the 60s, when Henley Royal Regatta was starting to introduce "corporate entertainment" with tents and stands along the meadows at the side of the regatta course.  One year, just before it started, a rather fearsome local lady (Margeret Rutherford springs to mind) arrived on foot, armed with a Stanley knife and slashed an opening into the canvas sides of every marquee and stand, which stretched from Leander Rowing Club half way to Remenham, so that she could make her way along the public footpath - and towpath - at the side of the Royal Thames.

As far as I heard, they were never able to prosecute her for it.

 

[grendel]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

They go on to reply - and here's the quote of the week - The Broads are not technically a National Park.

now we see where when it suits them they remember this fact

[Mouldy]

28 minutes ago, grendel said:

now we see where when it suits them they remember this fact

I wonder how much changing all of those brown tourist signs to read ‘Not technically a National Park’ would cost!  

[LizG]

I do care about damage to wildlife habitats but consider the introduction of Sea Eagles and Beavers to be vanity projects. I constantly say look after what you've got before introducing/ re-introducing allegedly extinct species. The reason why they are extinct is that the modern landscape can't support them. Otters come to mind?

[Andrewcook]

What I can not figure out is this question. If the Broads. was a National Park. pays for the upkeep? As it is not who is responsible for the upkeep of Broads at this time? And keeping it Navigate able Broads Authority with River Tolls fairly High and not a lot to show for it a part of putting in Onshore power and maintaining a few Moorings as I think it needs a few more to be put in place?

 

[rightsaidfred]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Not Chris Packham this time, but perhaps a public opponent that he should look out for!

According to an EDP article of yesterday, Dr Rose O'Neill of the Campaign for National Parks (there's a new one on me) has stated that not enough of the area is open to the public.  She states that only 0.5% of Broadland is freely accessible, which means only 150 hectares out of 30,500 in the area.  What "area" precisely, is not defined. She wants the Broads included in the definition of "open access land".  What definition, again, is not defined.

 

 

Just one more example of the I want I shall have society we now live in with no regard for anybody else's rights or property.

Fred 

[FlyingFortress]

IMHO the RSPB and Natural Trust are the greatest threats to our right of access or indeed our freedom that exists today.

[Heron]

You might need to keep your eyes on some of the legislation coming through if you are worried about our right of access or indeed our freedom.

[addicted]

With the often seen tendency to put the perceived need's of wild life before those of people, I'm tempted to believe that the most endangered species these days is man!

 

Carole