Broads Authority - Petition

[Poppy]

Although the topic of 'The Broads National Park' is discussed on another thread, I felt that this petition required one of its own.

The issue of the democratic deficit in the Authority is important - Please sign.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/74305

[ExMemberBobdog]

Poorly put together and over ambitious petition, because it has too many different elements:

 

a) Calling for a vote of no confidence in the BA.

Calling for a vote of no confidence in the BA's CE.

c) Demanding the rescinding of the use of the term 'National Park' by the BA.

d) Demanding voting/electoral rights for toll payers.

 

... etc, etc, etc.

 

I think I counted 8 different elements in total.  Now I might support one or two of those, I definitely don't support one or two others, and I have no strong feelings about any of the others.  Accordingly I won't sign because overall the petition does not represent my views.

 

Had the authors of the petition had a clearer vision and a narrower focus they might have secured greater support that they are likely to.
 

[JennyMorgan]

In my mind the real topic that matters is the governance of the Authority. This has enabled the BA to make the declaration that the Broads is a National Park, this is covered in this petition. Whilst of great importance the other matters are incidental at this point in time but nevertheless they are relevant to the future well being of the Broads. Clearly written by someone who understands the Broads and has the well being of the Broads at heart, I enthusiastically support this petition and ask that you all do too. It serves to undo injustices of the past as well of much more recent times. For Broads sakes support it, please! It's our chance to be heard.

[Polly]

Sue may have overstated it, but I would rather sign than not on this issue. It calls for a review and that will balance the evidence if granted.

[JennyMorgan]

This appeal is on FaceBook, stark and to the point:

 

 

Would you believe that there is a government department that enthusiastically claims that it is something it is not?

The Broads Authority now claims that black is white and that it is now a National Park, when it cannot be so. It's the final straw in a large steaming pile of mismanagement and we are fed up.

Structural change is needed in the Authority. It won't fix itself. Please sign our petition at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/74305

 

 

I rather wish I'd written that!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Yep,  Me too.

 

Although i don`t nessecarily agree with every word, i pretty much agree with most of it. The pros far outweigh the cons.

[Guest]

Poorly put together and over ambitious petition, because it has too many different elements:

 

a) Calling for a vote of no confidence in the BA.

Calling for a vote of no confidence in the BA's CE.

c) Demanding the rescinding of the use of the term 'National Park' by the BA.

d) Demanding voting/electoral rights for toll payers.

 

... etc, etc, etc.

 

I think I counted 8 different elements in total.  Now I might support one or two of those, I definitely don't support one or two others, and I have no strong feelings about any of the others.  Accordingly I won't sign because overall the petition does not represent my views.

 

Had the authors of the petition had a clearer vision and a narrower focus they might have secured greater support that they are likely to.

 

 

I find myself in agreement with Bobdog.

 

If the petition had focussed on a more realistic target then it would have stood some chance of getting a reasonable number of signatures.

 

As it is though, it comes across as a complete damnation of the BA, so even the people who are concerned about the NP title are less than likely to support it.

 

I'm reminded of Marshman's comment on the recent thread where this new Broads Facebook group was first advertised on here, where he said "But equally Peter, there are very many many more very astute, knowledgeable people not on board and given the tone, unlikely to join in" and "Think this group should be left alone to witter on rather pointlessly!!!!"

 

 

The petition appears to have had the same impression elsewhere too, so maybe it will sink without trace like the "Broads Toll Payers Association" did, a year or so ago.

[JennyMorgan]

Strow, you never fail to disappoint me!

 

The mention of local types of boats is interesting, something that should be considered. Boats and boating have long been far from the top of the executive's personal agenda. Yet their very existence, from wherries to hire boats, have dictated much of the character of the Broads over the centuries.

 

Whilst it would be good to see wherries toll free I think it would be much appreciated if the upper echelons of the BA were to acknowledge the place of boats in both the history and future of the Broads. 

 

Boats have influenced the Broads and the Broads have influenced boats, that needs to be acknowledged. Where would the Broads be without boats?

[BroadScot]

 

Where would the Broads be without boats?

 

A National Park?  Only kidding JM

 

Iain

[JennyMorgan]

A National Park?  Only kidding JM

 

Iain

You little tinker!!

[ExMemberBobdog]

Absolutely no problem with recognising that boats have influenced the Broads and vice versa - and I love my very traditional Broads halfdecker.  However the demand that DEFRA instruct the BA to "recognise our unique maritime heritage" is meaningless pomposity.  How should it be recognised?  With a plaque on the side of Yare House? The demand is vague and nonsensical, and is perhaps the poorest thought out in a very poorly phrased petition.

[Matt]

This appeal is on FaceBook, stark and to the point:

Would you believe that there is a government department that enthusiastically claims that it is something it is not?

The Broads Authority now claims that black is white and that it is now a National Park, when it cannot be so. It's the final straw in a large steaming pile of mismanagement and we are fed up.

Structural change is needed in the Authority. It won't fix itself. Please sign our petition at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/74305

I rather wish I'd written that!

They are not a Government department......

I can see it backfiring due to the low amount of people that will sign it.

[C.Ricko]

Why should a Wherry be toll free? most of them should be charged the multiplier the same as other boats available for hire or reward.

[marshman]

I really really hope this loosely worded petition just sinks without trace - like Matt how disappointing it would be if it all backfired!!

 

It was NOT foisted on local residents - as one I was not asked and who knows, given that point, what local residents would like? 

 

Lets just hope the conservationists do not start a counter petition as they will get the 100k signatories easily!!

 

You can argue semantics all you like but with the legal position not changing, and that is unequivocal, nothing has really changed . The Broads Authority has not changed its name either, merely what it, and others can call the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.  Now if the BA  had changed its name to the Broads National Park Authority, that might be a rather different issue!! 

[marshman]

Clive - perhaps you should check your beliefs as to whether Wherries are toll free?  (Was that on this thread?? )

[Poppy]

Look - the petition is out there. Have a look, sign it if you agree don't if not. All this 'debate' was not what I intended when I put it up - I consider it to be more appropriate on the other Broads thread.

Thanks.

[ExMemberBobdog]

Look - the petition is out there. Have a look, sign it if you agree don't if not. All this 'debate' was not what I intended when I put it up - I consider it to be more appropriate on the other Broads thread.

Thanks.

 

But you put it up here encouraging people to sign it.  I've explained why I won't, and actually I hope others will make the same decision. In Marshman's words, hopefully the petition (which is ill thought out) will sink without trace.  This is entirely the right thread to debate the petition itself, the 'other thread' is for debate about the national park issue.

[Oddfellow]

There will be better ways of dealing with this than a petition with a splattergun approach to attacking the BA.

 

I don't know whether the Advertising Standards Authority would be a starting place when adverts appear, but as the BA doesn't advertise per-se, it could backfire on the organisation that is advertising.

 

As the BA is a quango, where else do you register your complaints? A full mailbag of compliants to the local MPs would be a start.

 

Sure, I can fully understand the sentiment, but doubt that this will achieve anything.

[Guest]

But you put it up here encouraging people to sign it.  I've explained why I won't, and actually I hope others will make the same decision. In Marshman's words, hopefully the petition (which is ill thought out) will sink without trace.  This is entirely the right thread to debate the petition itself, the 'other thread' is for debate about the national park issue.

 

Absolutely right Bobdog,

 

I'm quite surprised at Poppy's objection to the discussion about it on the very thread that he introduced it on.  Surely people have the right to reply in the same public place ?

 

When specialist groups discuss strongly held views with like minded people they easily reach a consensus because opposing opinions are not considered or even perceived.

 

The true weight of Public opinion for or against the numerous proposals in that petition will  be revealed quite quickly by how many people sign it. 

 

There are ten thousand private toll payers and a significantly larger number of Hirers.

[Matt]

Up to 101 signatures. Still a way to catch the 864 people who want static caravan sites to be regulated by the Government!

[C.Ricko]

Clive - perhaps you should check your beliefs as to whether Wherries are toll free?  (Was that on this thread?? )

 

Sorry, I am not following, are they toll free, or do they pay a multiplier? I don't really know..

[JennyMorgan]

They are not a Government department......

 

 

No? What are they then?

 

Granted that it is a quango, unelected and unaccountable, but it is answerable to and financially dependent on DEFRA, another government department. 

[Matt]

No? What are they then?

Granted that it is a quango, unelected and unaccountable, but it is answerable to and financially dependent on DEFRA, another government department.

So not a Government dept then?

[JennyMorgan]

I suppose it was predictable that some folk would object to the wording of this petition. Fair enough but surely something is better than nothing? Surely we should be able to trust a public body, government department, call it what you will, to respect Parliament and stand by their ruling? Not only that, we should be able to trust them to be truthful and transparent. Okay, so you are prepared to accept this deplorable situation, that's your right, just as it's the right of those of us who are fed up with the existing situation to express our dissatisfaction via this petition.

[JennyMorgan]

So not a Government dept then?

Mat, hardly worth an argument but what the heck else is it other than a government department?