Legal challenge seeks to quash Broads National Park name change

[JennyMorgan]

Interesting, with a top QC costing abt £20k a day the bill could be £100k, at least it's not coming out of the Nav Acccount.

 

Dave

I wouldn't be too sure about that, Dave. Our mutual friend in a high place is adept at manipulation and confusion. Money may not come out of the Navigation Account directly but sure as heck any money coming out of the NP account will impact on other projects and I think it a fair bet to suggest that the Nav Account is at risk of being raided, again, as it was to support an unfair proportion of Authority overheads.

If the BA looses this one then not only will there be considerable legal costs but the costs to-date with the 'branding' will have been wasted. 

I really don't think that the QC calling for a judicial review would be doing so if he didn't think he would win, QC's don't like loosing. It's worth googling both QC's.

[marshman]

Must misunderstand something - what do you expect the BA to do?? Allow every minority interest or very wealthy private individual to always dictate policy? Is that what you really want? The individuals concerned are possibly more interested in their own specific quarrel than in the interest of the broader public.

 If they had not not brought this rather silly action ,maybe the BA would not have to expend their resources on defending it and all to what end??? I guarantee it will make not one jot of difference over the longer term other than to line lawyers pockets further!! It certainly makes no difference to me a user.

And PW you clearly are illustrating that you do not understand how the law works - any QC will say what he is paid to say, not what he believes!! Every court, every day throughout the land is full of QC's trying to defend the indefensible. Surely you do not want me to begin a list....!!!

[Poppy]

This action is a classic example of someone with a 'single interest' pursuing it  at great personal expense ( or is it at their own cost? ), causing great expense to the majority.

Of course, had the Authority not pursued this ridiculous BNP re-branding exercise in the outset there could have been no case to answer.......

[Paul]

One of the best posts I have ever read on a broads forum Marshman.

I have been critical of the Authrority in the past but in my opinion this branding excersise is an ideal compromise. JP gets the NP name for the perceived promotional advantages (and his own CV, no doubt), The Broads survives without Sandford and we all live happily ever after. In that respect the excercise is far from ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is that someone with too much time and money on their hands can effectively try and hold the authority to ransom. Of course they have to defend themselves, as Marshman says, if not, or if this action fails the potential consequences are pretty frightening.

Defend the Nav account as much as you can Peter, but if this appeal is upheld, and those bringing it go on to get their ultimate wish, of a Broads as a full national park with Sandford governing all decisions you will not need a Nav Account, there will be no navigation to fund.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Paul

[JennyMorgan]

Marshman, re understanding the law, I have good, lifelong friends in the profession. Some QC's will advise that a case is not worth pursuing, I know, I have received that advice in the past.

Of course there are QC's defending the indefensible, would seem to me that in this case there is one is doing just that! 

Not make a jot of a difference in the long run, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Defending the Broads Bill cost a small fortune. This latest case is also likely to cost a significant amount. Both have a common denominator, the driving force behind them. Can the BA really afford that denominator? We can only live in hope!

The branding has always been a contentious issue, surely that itself is the 'silly action'. 

Surely, Marshman, the public should dictate policy. At the moment one person tends to dictate and lead, that can't be right.

Edited September 25, 2015 by JennyMorgan

[JennyMorgan]

Paul, as we all know, ad nauseum, it would take an unlikely act of parliament for the Broads to be a national park & subject to Sandford. If someone doesn't stand up to the NP branding then sure as heck Packman will use that to further pursue his goal, have no doubt of that.

[Paul]

Surely, Marshman, the public should dictate policy.

 We agree on that point JM, but fairly, and democratically. Not as individuals excersising power through wealth and influence.

If,as he claims this branding excersise prevents the Broads Authority from pursuing full NP status then surely that is a good outcome for everyone. Well almost everyone!

Of course I appreciate that Dr P has "changed his mind" on issues and decisions before.

[senator]

Paul do you honestly think that JP is dropping his quest to become a full national park just because he has been allowed to use the name?

If you really want a conspiracy theory, what would happen if the Broads Authority were to loose the action and be forced, as they have already adopted the name, to take on full NP status including Sandford. Would this not be mission accomplished? 

[kfurbank]

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads act 1988 defined the authority and its roles and responsibilities. Somehow during the last decade that same authority has lost its way and tried to go beyond its remit and push to become a full National Park. By doing so it is alienating the boating fraternity to a large extent and loosing their support. As a compromise it has sought the prestige of rebranding for marketing purposes as a National Park without actually becoming a National Park. (I still believe there is a case of false advertising that could be bought before the ASA) However now the conservationists who were given false hope of The Broads becoming a National Park also feel let down by the authority and off course are fighting back. To a large extent you cannot blame them. Mr and Mrs Harris have been fighting to protect Catfield Fen for a number of years. Now they feel their quest to protect the fen may be weakened by the authority's move to rebrand without fully consulting AND listening to all the stakeholders. They have every right to bring this case. Likewise the BA have no option but to defend a path they have railroaded down.

Perhaps its time for the government to step in and replace the figures at the top of the BA and remind the replacements what the contents of The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads act are and to appoint members who will act within the confines of the original act.

[JennyMorgan]

I have to add to Keith's last paragraph by suggesting that the CEO should also act within the confines of the original act.

 

More importantly it is NOT the duty of the CEO to set and drive policy, that is the duty of the Authority members. 

 

This action is a classic example of someone with a 'single interest' pursuing it  at great personal expense ( or is it at their own cost? ), causing great expense to the majority.

Of course, had the Authority not pursued this ridiculous BNP re-branding exercise in the outset there could have been no case to answer.......

Precisely, spot on comment, the nub of the problem in a nutshell. This whole unnecessary saga is the result of policy being both set and driven by one individual, it is not democracy. 

 

[marshman]

But in reality who really decides policy in a democracy - the silent majority or those who pursue self interests and/or make the most noise???

Not sure which is the worst?????

[JennyMorgan]

Sometimes, thankfully, someone with money comes along and, possibly unintentionally, supports the opinion of the silent majority. As for most noise, well, push the silent majority hard enough and that's what happens. Remember the days of Aitken Clarke? Not much noise back then, what's changed? Ah, yes, I know . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

[batrabill]

Absurd nonsense. People here supporting the case because it will annoy Packman, when the objectives of the stupidly rich litigants it to impose Sandford?

One really important change we could all make is spelling "lose" and "losing" right. Now that would improve the world.

[kfurbank]

Batrabill Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am and so are you. BUT don't make it personal by picking up on my sepling mitsakes. If they offend you then I suggest you don't read my opsts. I'm sure youure perfect in all you do, I on the other hand am not and do alow the old spelling mistake to slip in. In the grand scheme of things no big crime, at least when compared to being rude about others.

[JennyMorgan]

Batra Bill, hope that I have spelt that correctly, your suggestion that people are supporting the case because it will annoy Packman is in itself totally absurd nonsense and completely unfounded.

[BroadAmbition]

I have a theory - well to be honest - it's not my theory - but it is one that does hold water imho and to me adds up.

Dr J Packman knows that CEO's that have been in charge of a national park - on their retirement from holding said position generally get a peerage or knighthood.  That is his ultimate goal, whereas his ultimate goal should be what the BA was originally tasked to do when it was formed.

Just a thought

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

If Packman were to get a gong then that would, in my honest opinion, make a mockery of the whole awards system. Whilst the man has done some good it has to be admitted that on balance he is surely in deficit. More than anything else he has destroyed the trust & widely held respect in the Authority that was once very much a feature of the BA & the Broads community during the time of his predecessor.

Edited September 26, 2015 by JennyMorgan

[Hockham Admiral]

Absurd nonsense. People here supporting the case because it will annoy Packman, when the objectives of the stupidly rich litigants it to impose Sandford?

One really important change we could all make is spelling "lose" and "losing" right. Now that would improve the world.

bat rabidly,  hi.

Gsh sorry but thats exactlytly what this damned prpredicive text came uplease with!

Nowe I'very lost my thread!            

(totally non-hat on)

[MauriceMynah]

their are many things that can annoy me on computer forums lack of punctuation is but one poor spelling and terrible grammer are two more

 

However

 

I fully accept that some people are better than others in these skills. Some have genuine reasons (dyslexia for example) for such failings whilst others might just have typed their posts in a hurry, or perhaps even in anger.

The standard of the posts on this forum are as good and frequently better than any other I'm a member of, and certainly often display a better understanding of English than my own.

Batrabill, might I ask that a little more tollerance is shown, because that really would improve the world.

[Hockham Admiral]

their are many things that can annoy me on computer forums lack of punctuation is but one poor spelling and terrible grammer are two more

 

However

Batrabill, might I ask that a little more tollerance is shown, because that really would improve the world.

Indubitably, John! We would like to tolerate nothing less!    

[MauriceMynah]

Whoops

[Paul]

Sometimes, thankfully, someone with money comes along and, possibly unintentionally, supports the opinion of the silent majority.

Are you trying to persuade us that it is the wish of the silent majority that the Broads becomes a full National Park then? That was not my understanding but I am happy to be corrected. 

[JennyMorgan]

Paul, NO.

The Harris family are opposing the rebranding. I firmly believe that the NP issue is incidental to that quite simply because it would require an Act of Parliament to achieve NP status, as has been pointed out almost continually. Once the Broads 'branding' is established I have absolutely no doubt that the good Doctor will then use that to claim that the 'brand' is now established so why not allow the Broads to be a 'real' National Park. Okay, so that would mean back-tracking in regards to the BA's declared policy of no longer wishing to achieve full status but I have no doubts whatsoever that that would happen. Best that the brand name Broads National Park is quashed, in my honest opinion. Whether we are in a win-win or loose-loose situation is open to debate but I would rather leave the question of NP status to a democratic Parliament rather than to an undemocratic, manipulated Authority. 

[batrabill]

Bless. 

Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.^[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

[Hockham Admiral]

Is it similar to mumbo jumbo, I wonder?