Nominations Required!

[Guest]

For myself I read the poorly worded BA blog as being volunteers both in and outside the organisation.

As far as a nominee is concerned, yes, our Carol, got to be.

 

Each time I read the damn thing, it seems to have changed, but I suppose it's me, not reading it carefully enough.

 

Yes Peter, poorly worded, though it's the word "volunteer" that mainly implies some sort of organised and co-ordinated work, rather than someone giving their effort off their own bat.

 

 

I used to be decisive, but now I'm not so sure......

[Paladin]

It seems that everyone is relying on the BroadsBlog for their information, which is a very potted version of what is available on the National Parks web site. The attached document may help to clarify the purpose of, and criteria for, the award.

UK-National-Parks-Volunteer-Awards-General-Info-2014-Draft2.doc

[ranworthbreeze]

Hello Paladin,

Thank you for publishing the file on the forum.

I suggest that everyone opens or downloads the file if they have an interest in this topic.

All the information contained is clear to understand and it gives all the instructions regarding nominations.

Regards

Alan

[Springsong]

Just going slightly of topic here is a film I gave to Carol to do with as she chose. My parent, my Grand parents and my Aunt and Uncle.

 

 http://www.broadlandmemories.co.uk/blog/2012/07/1939-holiday-on-golden-eagle/

[Maxwellian]

I loved the dog. Enjoyed the rest.

[JennyMorgan]

Have finally managed to gain sight of the document to which Paladin provided a link. If we take the wording of it at absolute face value then The Broads, NOT being an actual National Park, just a mere member of the family, then the Broads is ineligible! Sorry and all that but I didn't write the blurb nor set the rules!

[NorfolkNog]

No worries Peter. I like the sentiments expressed in this thread too!

 

[BroadAmbition]

I could suggest a certain gentleman from up Donny way who has done so much to promote the Broads over recent years. Errr, what's his name, Charlie something . . . . . . . prone to getting weather forecasts wrong when coming back from London.

 

Evening, just got home and trying to do a bit of catching up (There's a LOT of topics ongoing).  Just lets be clear on one point here - I didn't get any forecast wrong on that infamous trip back from the Thames.  I used three different wx forecasting mediums - they all agreed with each other and I made the decision to go.  As it turned out the forecasting mediums all got it wrong together - where I got it wrong - was believing them!

 

 

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

Charlie, my bit of dried seaweed got it absolutely right, which was rather worrying!

[Polly]

Well maybe you should have loaned him said bit of seaweed for the trip.

[Polly]

 

 

P.S. Many thanks for your kind words about the DVD ... your copy will be in the post this morning Pauline!

[Paladin]

Have finally managed to gain sight of the document to which Paladin provided a link. If we take the wording of it at absolute face value then The Broads, NOT being an actual National Park, just a mere member of the family, then the Broads is ineligible! Sorry and all that but I didn't write the blurb nor set the rules!

"Who can be nominated? We are looking for potential winners of all ages, abilities and backgrounds – you just need to be an active volunteer in one of our 15 UK National Parks (Brecon Beacons; Broads; Cairngorms; Dartmoor; Exmoor; Lake District; Loch Lomond and the Trossachs; New Forest; Northumberland; North York Moors; Peak District; Pembrokeshire Coast; Snowdonia; South Downs; Yorkshire Dales)."

[Guest]

I suspect that even your large print version won't end that little soap box Paladine.

 

I was going to reply myself, but the dreaded "National Park" profanity is usually thrown in just to bring the subject up for discussion again, (and again, and again.......)

 

 

[Hockham Admiral]

Hear, Hear, Strow     

 

............ another topic to put to bed, eh?

[JennyMorgan]

The Broads is included in the list but the fact, as I wrote, is that the Broads is NOT a National Park, however desirable or undesirable that fact might be. As I said, 'If we take the wording of it at absolute face value', on that I rest my case. I too can see no gain in continuing this debate but we must not forget the fact.

[Paladin]

We ALL know the Broads are not a National Park and, because the Sandford Principle cannot be applied to the Broads, they never can be without a change in primary legislation, despite anyone's ambitions. So it's hardly likely to happen by stealth or by the continued incorrect assignation of the term.

 

But a very laudable topic has been hijacked for no good reason (IMO). Please do 'rest your case'.