ePetitions - interesting general observations

[Paladin]

Don't be surprised if the answer you get isn't quite so polite

[JennyMorgan]

The formal response:

 

 

It's there in black and white, surely no one can agree with a Chief Executive that promotes the lie? Time to sign?

[Guest]

....Debates are given up on for any number of reasons. It might be a lack of understanding of the issues which prevents someone joining in in the first place, or perhaps complacency, or perhaps simply running out of arguments........

 

 

Or maybe just despondency at being repeatedly accused of all those failings, rather than just having the right to a valid alternative opinion to yours.

[Paladin]

Everyone has a right to voice their own opinion. But opinions are, by definition, subjective and based on interpretation of facts. Opinions can be debated until the cows come home and that debate might not make the slightest difference. Facts are (most of the time) indisputable.

 

It is a fact that the epetition is widely drawn. It is an opinion that it is too widely drawn.

 

It is a fact that a certain number of people have added their names to it. It is an opinion as to whether they agree with all or part of the epetition.

 

It is a fact that it has so far failed to achieve the requisite number of votes to require a discussion to take place in a back bench committee room. It is an opinion as to whether the epetition has been a total failure, as it has, for example, sparked the discussion on this thread, so promoting its reading by a wider audience than it might otherwise have reached.

 

I am very happy to hear the opinion of others, but I am happier if I can also hear their arguments to substantiate that opinion. My view of the Broads Authority has swung 180 degrees, from being prepared to defend it in the face of what I perceived as unsubstantiated criticism to having my own indisputable substantiation of facts that now make me view their whole operation with a high degree of suspicion.

 

However, I am quite prepared to make the swing back, if I can be convinced I am wrong.

[Guest]

......My view of the Broads Authority has swung 180 degrees......

 

A view that you are perfectly entitled to have Paladin,

 

Just as have to not share that belief,  nor to be compelled to laboriously substantiate it if I choose not to.

 

The Broads Authority is not perfect, and the management of it may indeed have radically altered your opinion, but I would still not be prepared to try to oust them completely with a total vote of no confidence, because I fear the outcome could be worse, with perhaps the Environment Agency taking charge, etc..

 

As you also said,

 

"It is a fact that the epetition is widely drawn. It is an opinion that it is too widely drawn."

 

An opinion possibly believed by many to be fact.

 

The discussion sparked on this thread and elsewhere has been quite limited, in terms of the number of people that have replied, even though threads are being regularly stoked up.

[Paladin]

A view that you are perfectly entitled to have Paladin,

 

Just as have to not share that belief,  nor to be compelled to laboriously substantiate it if I choose not to.

 

The Broads Authority is not perfect, and the management of it may indeed have radically altered your opinion, but I would still not be prepared to try to oust them completely with a total vote of no confidence, because I fear the outcome could be worse, with perhaps the Environment Agency taking charge, etc..

 

As you also said,

 

"It is a fact that the epetition is widely drawn. It is an opinion that it is too widely drawn."

 

An opinion possibly believed by many to be fact.

 

The discussion sparked on this thread and elsewhere has been quite limited, in terms of the number of people that have replied, even though threads are being regularly stoked up.

I really don't think that the epetition will have any effect on the Authority, least of all ousting them. I think it may be regarded as many regard by-elections; not going to make any difference in the long run, but a means of expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo.

 

Sorry, but it's either 'an opinion' or 'a fact', much as the Broads is a national park or it's not. Can't be both.

 

Quality vs quantity? I'll take the former any day.

 

Tell you what, I'll not stoke this thread any more. Over to you.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

I will ask Strowager one question, What makes you think the EA would not be any good at running the broads?. For all you know, the EA MIGHT make a damn site better job of it, and yes, i do agree, they MIGHT not be as good, and be a damn site worse.

 

Reading many posts on several threads on this forum, some members are also regular visitors to other inland waterways of Britain, most of which are under the control of the EA, and to be honest, i can`t bring to mind any negative posts about their controlling of the canals etc.

 

When people vehamently decry any discussion pointing out the perils and pitfalls of the BA as it now stands, it always makes me wonder, exactly why, and what do they stand to lose if the BA was superseeded by another authority?.

 

We`ve all heard the saying "if it aint broke, don`t fix it", but in my opinion, in the last few years, the BA has definitely been broke, and in need of a major overhaul, let alone a quick fix.

[Guest]

I will ask Strowager one question, What makes you think the EA would not be any good at running the broads?. For all you know, the EA MIGHT make a damn site better job of it, and yes, i do agree, they MIGHT not be as good, and be a damn site worse.........

 

 

You've answered your own question Neil,  they could indeed "be a damn sight worse"....

 

The EA is the department responsible for the 20 year 120 mile flood protection scheme that has replaced so many piled moorings with reprofiled reedbed.

 

I kept a boat on their Anglian waterways area for many years before I came to the Broads, so I realise how much cheaper the BA toll fees are as well.

 

..and before someone starts up the old argument about the difference in the cruising areas, the Broads effectively gives me far more in effective usage, due to the lack of locks.

 

...and there's a far more planned and concerted "vehement decrying" of the BA on the forums than anything I've ever said in response.

 

 

ps..  note to Paladin, I will indeed resist stoking this thread as well, but this response is to answer a direct question asked of me.

[Paladin]

...and there's a far more planned and concerted "vehement decrying" of the BA on the forums than anything I've ever said in response.

 

 

ps..  note to Paladin, I will indeed resist stoking this thread as well, but this response is to answer a direct question asked of me.

Note to Strowager, 'planned and concerted'? Care to expand on this? Who are the decryers who are acting in concert? Conspiracy theory raises it head again?

[Guest]

Yes, on reflection, perhaps 'planned' was not the right word on my part, I retract that.

 

Definitely concerted though, and over many years on more than this forum, before your 180 degree turn.

 

Right from the early days of Speakers Corner, every opportunity has been taken to insidiously cast the BA in a bad light, hence the phrase "BA Bashing" being coined many years ago.

[JennyMorgan]

For heavens sakes, Strowger, it is the BA executive that has put itself in 'a bad light', that has earned itself the distrust that many bestow upon it. Okay, so myself and others have highlighted their shortcomings but there has never been smoke without fire. I respectively suggest that the phrase "BA Bashing" was coined by those who have closed their eyes to those shortcomings. Do you really think that the BA is above criticism? Do you really think that its customers, such as myself, should ignore those shortcomings? Go back to the Broads Act, if the petitioners had not got off their backsides, and at their own expense gone to London, then we would have had insidious and excessive controls in place. You continually 'bash the bashers', heavens knows why although I could make a few suggestions that you probably wouldn't like. 

 

I appreciate that this posting is not in the NBN tradition but Strowager's constant sniping is becoming tedious.

[Guest]

Thank you Peter, a nice clear manifesto from the chairman of the anti BA movement.

 

Go easy with the "heavens knows why although I could make a few suggestions that you probably wouldn't like" though, it sounds suspiciously like something that would break the TOS to me.

 

(....and no, I certainly don't think the BA are above criticism, as I've repeatedly denied, though you keep accusing me of it.)

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you Peter, a nice clear manifesto from the chairman of the anti BA movement.

Strowager, I won't say what I think of you or such comments but there is positively NO anti BA movement, however there are people who become concerned when the BA get it wrong, such as over the National Park rebranding. That you fail to differentiate between bashing and rightful concern is your shortcoming, not mine.

[Guest]

Peter, as this is a public discussion forum about the Broads, anything raised can be agreed or disagreed with, as long as it doesn't sink to personal insults.

 

Every time I express my point of view, you accuse me of "sniping", or being a "BA groupie" etc..

 

Yet all of the recent threads focusiing on the BA show far more animosity and disrespect to anyone apparently "defending" the BA than those against it.

[Guest]

,

[Paladin]

Yes, on reflection, perhaps 'planned' was not the right word on my part, I retract that.

 

Definitely concerted though, and over many years on more than this forum, before your 180 degree turn.

 

Right from the early days of Speakers Corner, every opportunity has been taken to insidiously cast the BA in a bad light, hence the phrase "BA Bashing" being coined many years ago.

Getting back to discussion.

 

'concerted' = "done in a planned and deliberate way usually by several or many people." (Webster's)

 

If 'planned' was the wrong word to use, I suggest so was 'concerted'. I have been both a defender and a detractor of the Broads Authority. The views I've expressed are my own. Other people have agreed with them (on each side). Am I acting in concert with anyone? You should know the answer to that one, Strowager. We have never communicated privately, yet have shared the same opinions. Have we ever planned our responses in a collaborative way?

 

As far as I am aware, on no discussion forum past or present, has there been any planned efforts to adversely criticise the Authority (I do not consider FaceBook to provide discussion forum facilities).

 

'insidiously' = "causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed." (Webster's)

 

A full-on open criticism of the Broads Authority can hardly be called 'insidious'. The intention is absolutely clear.

 

I am in possession of a copy of an email from the Chairman of the Broads Authority, part of which reads "...we are now using the term "Broads National Park in most of our public facing material, in order to establish the new branding so far as we can in the national consciousness..."

 

Don't you think that telling the general public, who will certainly not be as aware of the issues as are we and who will accept what 'officialdom' is telling them as the truth, that the Broads is a national park is 'insidious'? Probably not, as you cannot see the harm in it. Others can. It's an absolute lie. Whether the eventual harm is to the navigation or to the credibility of the Authority remains to be seen.

[Guest]

I'll try and clarify why I chose the words you've highlighted from my post Paladin.

 

'concerted' = "done in a planned and deliberate way usually by several or many people." (Webster's)

 

Yes, the Broads forums have been used for many years by a handful of people in a very deliberate way to smear the BA's credibility  at every opportunity, concentrating on any negative issues and rarely acknowledging the positives.

 

Yes, it has been done by several people, each acting independently with the same motivation, the only collaboration perhaps being their loose association through the Facebook group, and its unsuccessful  predecessor, the Broads Toll Payers Association.

 

'insidiously' = "causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed." (Webster's)

 

Yes, I'm afraid I have to stand by that too, because it has indeed been gradual, over many years now.

 

The overriding impression that many Broads Forum visitors must have received was that the BA are more bad than good, since the local knowledge in the postings has predominantly concentrated on that aspect.

 

I've always readily agreed that the BA is not perfect and makes many bad decisions.

 

I accept that the CEO may indeed be guilty of many of the accusations levelled against him, and yes, your previously neutral stance adds a lot of weight because of your attention to factual research.

 

However, I do fear the possibility of the BA being replaced wholesale, because of the reasons I've already given. The EA for instance would be a faceless huge government department to argue any grievances against.

 

The chances of a truly democratic replacement are too slim for comfort, so better the devil you know, IMHO.

[Paladin]

I'll try and clarify why I chose the words you've highlighted from my post Paladin.

 

'concerted' = "done in a planned and deliberate way usually by several or many people." (Webster's)

 

Yes, the Broads forums have been used for many years by a handful of people in a very deliberate way to smear the BA's credibility  at every opportunity, concentrating on any negative issues and rarely acknowledging the positives.

 

Yes, it has been done by several people, each acting independently with the same motivation, the only collaboration perhaps being their loose association through the Facebook group, and its unsuccessful  predecessor, the Broads Toll Payers Association.

 

'insidiously' = "causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed." (Webster's)

 

Yes, I'm afraid I have to stand by that too, because it has indeed been gradual, over many years now.

 

I really must object. Words have been carefully ignored from these definitions (the ones I have highlighted in red), which makes a nonsense of the definitions.

 

How can action be said to be "concerted" or "planned", when each person involved is "acting independently" in, at best, a "loose association"? The Facebook group is not a discussion forum, and the BTPA never got off the ground so was never able to "smear" anything.

 

I'm sorry, but I refuse to continue a debate at this standard of inaccuracy and word manipulation.

 

I'm out.

[Guest]

Your choice Paladin.

 

I'm afraid you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

You are undoubtedly much clever with words than I am, but you have lost the main point itself.

[BroadScot]

Behave you pair or I will put you both in the corner of the classroom!   Wimbledon is not till late June! Duece! Maybe that should read truce?

 

 

Iain