The Norfolk BroadsThe Norfolk Broads
Username Password
Norfolk Broads Weather

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 7:20 am BST- Light Rain
5 Day Forecast

Wind 2.0 mph @ 40°
48.0°F/8.89°C Humidity 93% Pressure 29.65 (S)

Welcome to The Norfolk Broads Forum
This is THE Worlds Largest Forum devoted to the Norfolk Broads, here you can discuss issues about the Norfolk Broads. Or just somewhere to chat with others interested in the Norfolk Broads area. In 2015 forum members spent 2,048 days afloat on the Broads

Please Help Support The Norfolk Broads Forum
OR

The Norfolk Broads Forum / ASK JP #2 / ASK JP - disgraceful
login
join
Graphics Off
Search
Forum Members - Book your Hoseasons holiday today, Just call 0345 498 6296

This is a moderated forum Reply to this DiscussionReply to Discussion | Start new discussionNew Discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Discussion Topic: ASK JP - disgraceful

Similar Threads That Might Help :
Asking for a Huge favour from the members| Dare I ask.......| Can't believe I'm asking this| Hylander Asks.....How do I post Italics|

-- Page: 1 2 3 4 5

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

Paladine
Nov-13-2016 @ 9:22 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 7620
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

Thank you, Exile.

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

Simondo
Nov-13-2016 @ 11:55 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 184
Joined: Feb 2014
Simondo
          

Add To Ignore List
I also think the tone post headline 'Disgraceful' is a tad OTT but as said that that is subjective. I think it is great that the BA participate in this forum but maybe not after this post!
As you have alluded to in the past Paladine communicating via PM to the various people...why didn't you start that in this case...or did you?

I would have thought rather than an open forum thread exposing disgracefulness! a PM might be a better route? Either way we may well have shot our own foot!!



This message was edited by Simondo on Nov-13-16 @ 10:58 PM

Dzign
Nov-14-2016 @ 10:26 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 786
Joined: Mar 2013
          

Add To Ignore List
The boat I said was going has indeed "gone"!!!

L

Paladine
Nov-14-2016 @ 10:56 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 7620
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

Simondo, as Richard has confirmed, I sent him the draft of my OP before posting, in particular to check it against the ToS, of which he is the final arbiter. He gave his permission.

The post headline was “ASK JP - disgraceful”. The ASK JP refers to the thread of that name, not the individual. I try to be very careful about my choice of words in everything I write.

Disgraceful = shameful, deplorable, objectionable, shabby, inexcusable, just some of the synonyms that I think are equally applicable.

As far as communicating by pm is concerned, I might have considered that, if I was upset about the conduct of a member of this forum ON THIS FORUM. During the ASK JP#2 session, the member known as JP behaved impeccably, so I have no quarrel with him on that account.

However, as John Packman, Chief Executive of the Broads Authority, from whom we, as stakeholders, have the right to expect the highest professional standard of behaviour, he used his involvement with this forum to further the highly controversial (to put it mildly) agenda of the Tolls Working Group 2016. Improperly, in my opinion.

In his report to the Broads Authority, on 18 November 2016, he has added something that wasn’t in the report to the Navigation Committee. Under the heading ‘Consultations’ he writes:

”There have been other ways in which the proposals have been put in the public domain. The report to the Finance, Scrutiny and Audit Committee on 5th July prompted an article on the proposals in the Eastern Daily Press. On 20 October the report to the Navigation Committee was highlighted by the Authority on one of the social media forums and a link to the report provided. That evening an ‘Ask JP’ event provided an on-line opportunity for the Forum’s members to ask questions on the proposals of the Working Group.

Couple the section I have emboldened with the report we have heard that, at the NavCom meeting, it was commented that not many complaints had been received, and it might be reasonable to assume that members of the NBF were content with the proposals, as there is no suggestion made of any dissent or disquiet.

The full comments of the NSBA, BHBF and BASG, who were properly and fully consulted, are appended to the report. Not one of the many very hostile comments made by NBF members during the ‘consultation’ has been mentioned.

It is that deliberate omission, which is, IMO, a clear attempt to mislead Authority members, that provoked my OP.

I hardly think we have shot our own foot. I have never had any problem getting answers out of the BA when I have made a direct approach, and I doubt whether any of our members whose adverse comments in the thread have been totally ignored will be in any hurry to engage with JP in the future.

Finally, Simondo, did you not think of communicating with me by pm, instead of criticising me in open form?  Smile    tounge-in-cheek

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

JP
Nov-14-2016 @ 11:34 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 167
Joined: Dec 2005
JP
          

Add To Ignore List
Good Morning,

Paladine – I’m sorry you have this impression but the purpose of citing The Norfolk Broads Forum in the report to next week’s Broads Authority was to simply reference the fact that it had resulted in communicating the information about the Members’ report to a group of boat owners. It was not part of a formal consultation, that would have been inappropriate, was not intended as such and I have not said it was.

I have tried to answer questions posed by the Forum’s Members in a factual and straightforward way.

Next Friday I will summarise the views I have received and seen on the proposals including those from this Forum. You are welcome of course to come to the meeting and you can see that will be the case.

I have found the Ask JP sessions useful and helpful in listening and trying to understand your views. If you want to have another session in the future I am very prepared to participate, but will wait to be invited and will sign off until then.

Richard – the costs of the Insight Track research are in the public domain. They were £47,355 of which £26,970 came from navigation expenditure.

Please have a look at the report using the following link:

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/465448/Stakeholder-Surveys.pdf

It would be difficult to say how many hours were spent on the proposal but the great deal of time the members on the member working group spent was free, other than any expenses they claimed for.

With regards

John


Paladine
Nov-14-2016 @ 11:44 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 7620
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

"It was not part of a formal consultation, that would have been inappropriate, was not intended as such and I have not said it was."

In that case, why was the reference put in that section of the report very clearly headed, 'Consultations'?

In fact, why was it mentioned at all?
.
.
.
PS Simondo hasn't ignored me, we've exchanged pms Smile

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


This message was edited by Paladine on Nov-14-16 @ 11:27 AM

Richard
Nov-14-2016 @ 9:10 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Administrator
Founding Member
Posts: 8901
Joined: Aug 2004
Richard
          

John,

Many thanks for getting back to us with the information that we requested.

quote:"......
£47,355 of which £26,970....
......."



Are you SHITTING ME??????

What a colossal cock up and waste of BA money. For rubbish data.

That amount of money could have been spent on :-

Oh God the list is so long, why bother with bullet points.

John, please stop this before there is a total breakdown between the stakeholders and the BA.

I can't see too many New Years Honors coming out of this.

ADI
Nov-14-2016 @ 10:09 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Been Posting For a Long Time
Posts: 1938
Joined: Oct 2009
ADI
          

Add To Ignore List
The TBMC was going the same way as the BA (costs spiralling out of control not being managed in the interest of the users Etc) until we got a new chairman a few years ago who managed to get all the costs stripped right back and got it managed in the interest of the owners. I think the expenditure of the BA needs looking at and savings passed to the boaters, but who am I, the BA will keep charging us more to waste more  Mad

Regards

Adrian  Michelle

Beck  Braydon and Mere.

BuffaloBill
Nov-15-2016 @ 10:01 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mardles sometimes
Posts: 2976
Joined: Dec 2008
BuffaloBill
          

Add To Ignore List
"They were £47,355 of which £26,970 came from navigation expenditure."
So lets see......£26,970 from OUR tolls was used to find a way to
Increase our tolls when that money would have covered the increase anyway!
What a joke.  Mad  

The older I get...
The better I was....!!

Paladine
Nov-15-2016 @ 11:05 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 7620
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

BB, number-crunching doesn't come cheap. Take a look at the detailed report. Does it really say anything that wasn't already known (to those who bother about these things)?

"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)


This message was edited by Paladine on Nov-15-16 @ 10:05 AM

PAGE: 1 2 3 4 5

Home Photo Gallery Days Afloat Contact Us
Chat Room Downloads Norfolk Broads @ Amazon Make My Logo
Shops & Businesses Members Gear Norfolk Broads @ EBay Holiday Calendar
Pub Guide Tide Tables SOS List Popular Threads
2017 Calendar Contest Make A Donation Links Hireboat Info
Norfolk Broads @ CafePress FAQ Broads Quiz Forum Events
Advertise With Us Forum Shop Boating Bits Stickys and FAQs Boating Bits Hirecraft List

 

 

 



Copyright © 2005 Y2KInternet, All Rights Reserved.