JennyMorgan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Strow, there is enough history to substantiate this one. A BA lady, now thankfully moved on, was very open on her views. Not sure that it would happen now but I can assure you that there were those who would have had it happen if they could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Sorry Peter, your reply is as substantiated as I expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Sorry Peter, your reply is as substantiated as I expected. Sorry, Strow, not prepared to post names on a public forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wussername Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Would the attached suggest a "done deal"http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads_rebranding_majority_support_it_1_3921391 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshman Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Its OK Strow - its all an extra fan to the fire if you want to believe it. And my guess is that its a bit like someone in the EDP talking about through trains from Gt Yarmouth to London again!! Why? Most times they cannot even fill one carriage and oh, someone clearly forgot to point out to the EDP that Norwich to Yarmouth has yet to be electrified!!! And Soundings - I live here too and I don't see the Broads you do clearly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 This is from the Broads Plan 2004: Recreational pressures on existing water space are considerable and somewhat exacerbated by some broads being closed to the public, and certain upper reaches being inaccessible. The number and types of boating activities can have implications for safety, quiet enjoyment of the waterways and river-banks and for nature conservation interests, and must be carefully managed. Improvements in access must also be tempered with limited or no access to certain water space that provides a key refuge for wildlife. Zoning of the water space, both in time and space, is a recognised means of reducing conflicts between different user groups. Promotion of good boating practice may also help to reduce environmental impacts of boating. Opportunities for the creation of more water space can also be explored, although options are limited in a nationally protected area. As some of you may know I was one of several people who petitioned against the Broads Bill in the House of Lords. Zoning of water-space and excessive management was one of the issues that we objected to. Proposals within the draft Bill were watered down and then further watered down in the Bill presented to Parliament. It's all on public record, if you refer to Hansard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Would the attached suggest a "done deal"http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads_rebranding_majority_support_it_1_3921391 All part of the propaganda! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundings Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Marshman - well there you go, it is a good job we are all different and it illustrates why a balanced approach and not one skewed to business or boating is required. And not one skewed to conservation either. The fact however remains that many punters want to protect the navigational rights at all costs. I do not fall into that category and I would prefer the natural environment to take precedence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baitrunner Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Is a small point being missed here. The rivers have always been navigable hence we had wherries and a bit of industry in the past. The broads are basically man made so what part of nature ever existed before we screwed the landscape? Take away the boats and as commented elsewhere 13000 boats and their respective revenue (licences alone) means the rspb etc are gonna need a lot more members Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundings Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, the rivers have always been navigable, but not always so intensely. Anyway that sort of proves my point, there are two differing agendas. Mine is different to yours, I agree, which is why I do my cruising elsewhere. I also do most of my fishing elsewhere in the summer - in Norfolk but away from navigable waters. You are right, man created the Broads and the fortunate bi-product is superb wetlands and related surrounds. We should cherish that not ignore it. Enough habitat is being butchered in the name of progress/profit already. You do not have to look far to see that. But you have hit the nail on the head "funding"- how do the BA raise the funds if boating stagnates? That is where their conflict of interest arises in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Soundings, our tolls pay for nearly 50% of BA overheads. Rather unfair really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The RSPB have no shortage of numbers or cash. Membership is about 1085000. Income including grants £122m and the last figures for cash reserves that I saw was £93m (2010). Their promotional spend is in excess of £30m. All within a tax free charitable status. Powerful people with much influence in Government and the EU. Toll income has no guarantees associated with it. Revenue streams and expenditure can change, not overnight granted, but over time. The peaks, South Downs, York Dales, Moors etc have no such income and survive. One thing is certain the next twenty years will be an interesting time as the Broads enter yet another chapter in their long history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 On a personal note, I doubt very much if I will be much bothered in twenty years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MauriceMynah Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 One can easily fall into the trap of only thinking about the navigable part of the broads when discussing this, yet I reckon that with the help of the ordnance survey map, I can name more non navigable broads than navigable ones. Surely those non navigable areas should suffice for the RSPB's requirements! or are they greedier than the birds they purport to protect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 .....But you have hit the nail on the head "funding"- how do the BA raise the funds if boating stagnates?...... Good question, Soundings. Once again, I'm surprised at the headless chicken panic being shown on the Broads forums over this. So many people seem to genuinely believe that the BA are committed to eventually banning all navigation on the Broads. How on earth could a government appointed department sanction the loss of the entire Broads hire boat and boatyard industries, the denial of access to over 10,000 private boaters (all with much sought after votes), and the devaluation of billions of pounds worth of waterside property. I can understand that some people might think that certain areas of the Broads may be closed, (even without any proof whatsoever), but to think that all boating would be denied makes me seriously doubt their capacity for logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshman Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Strow - its all too late again. The fantasisers are out of their bag again and spreading their wild rumours without any shred of fact or evidence in support!! You must remember the RSPB have no other interests in the whole world than to deny access to the rivers of Broadland and buy up every scrap of land to allow one duck to nest!! Its great isn't it how individuals can manufacture panic and such a response out of nothing - there is nothing new here other than a change of name - no change in legal status, no nothing and yet its seen as one huge conspiracy which will end in boating being banned throughout Broadland. Actually, rather selfishly, I don't really care because firstly I shall be long dead and secondly, whilst I am retired, I do know that idle speculation at such levels is only brought on by the cold and boredom and sitting in front of your computer and it will be much more healthy for you all to go out for a walk!!! OOPs cannot recommend that - there is a weather warning out and its actually very nice out there!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 .....Its great isn't it how individuals can manufacture panic and such a response out of nothing - there is nothing new here other than a change of name - no change in legal status, no nothing and yet its seen as one huge conspiracy which will end in boating being banned throughout Broadland..... ...and even though my earlier post on this thread contained an image of the government's actual written response to this latest NP panic attack. Lord de Mauley, speaking for the government, clearly stated that Sandford could not be applied regardless of whatever way the Broads wishes to describe its National Park status. Here it is again, from the last page of the linked document that started this thread and latest panic. (Though no-one commented on it then, so I expect it will be conveniently ignored again).... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The Peace in our Time Speech given in Defence of the Munich Agreement 1938. Neville had a bit of paper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 ...and even though my earlier post on this thread contained an image of the government's actual written response to this latest NP panic attack. Lord de Mauley, speaking for the government, clearly stated that Sandford could not be applied regardless of whatever way the Broads wishes to describe its National Park status. Here it is again, from the last page of the linked document that started this thread and latest panic. (Though no-one commented on it then, so I expect it will be conveniently ignored again).... All quite true, but that is not the issue. The issue is simply that the Authority, as I have shown in the 1994 Broads Plan, has an agenda. In the Broads Bill there was a clear, stated, open ended desire to be able to exclude boats from chosen parts of the navigation area. Thankfully that was thrown out but that does not alter the fact that the wish was there. I really can't be asked to trawl through pages and pages of Broads Bill correspondence but the reality is clearly there for those pedants who need it. Yes, I agree, it was thrown out, as was the proposal to call The Broads a National Park. Now we are back discussing whether Dr Packman is right to resurrect his demand that the Broads be called a National Park despite the fact that it isn't one. He clearly doesn't give up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MauriceMynah Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 In terms of government policy, the broads is treated as a member of the National Parks family although its statutory basis is quite separate and it is not legally a National Park. We do not propose to change this position and it is DEFRA's intention that the three purposes of the broads will remain of equal standing. "Mummy mummy, can I?" "No." Oh Mummy, can I?" "No." "Oh Mummy, Please can I?" "No." "Oh Mummy, Please Mummy, Please Mummy can I?" "NO! Mummy has said no and mummy means no!" "Awww Mummy, PLEEEEEZZZE can I?" "Oh alright then, if it'll keep you quiet!" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyMorgan Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Just a thought, Horsey Mere was closed to navigation by the BA. Granted that the BA stepped back but not before they threatened huge fines on people disturbing wildlife whilst exercising their right to navigate. Thankfully all sorted by sensible people reaching a mutual compromise but that doesn't alter the fact that it happened. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 ......"Awww Mummy, PLEEEEEZZZE can I?" "Oh alright then, if it'll keep you quiet!" An entertaining rhetoric MM, but do you really believe that UK statute can be reversed in the same way as a "mummy" giving way to a "child" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polly Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Yes Strow, depending on how loudly the child shouts and how big it is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I see that Lord de Mauley's clear unequivocal hand-written assurance that Sandford cannot be applied to the Broads has passed without comment again. (aside from the "mummy mummy" comments.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Yes Strow, depending on how loudly the child shouts and how big it is. Sorry Polly, I still can't believe that such an analogy could be truly believable to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.