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 / Broads Authority Issues / BA unjustly removes NavCom member
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: BA unjustly removes NavCom member

Similar Threads That Might Help :
Join the Navcom?| Elected members for the BA?| Become a BA member| BA Members Expenses.|

-- Page: 1 2

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

ruby
Oct-04-2018 @ 10:17 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 644
Joined: Aug 2010
ruby
          

Add To Ignore List
My thoughts exactly Bobdog. The trouble Is there are two of those blondes about at the moment.

annville
Oct-04-2018 @ 4:03 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 988
Joined: Oct 2013
          

Add To Ignore List
Hi Andy Thanks for that it helps to get it in plain english, rather than solicitor speak.Quite understand that you are unable or need to lambust the B A  as some do. there is always two sides. John

RichardB
Oct-05-2018 @ 1:32 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 353
Joined: Oct 2007
          

Add To Ignore List
Do you supporters of the unwarranted removal of a committee member and the falsehoods in the press release  realise that there are no provisions in the Act for it only the changed rules introduced by the CEO to quell the slightest deviation of BA and committee members from speaking out?

Such draconian practices are unacceptable anywhere but especially in an undemocratic and badly run quango.

Do you realise that the BA had to reinstate a member following the peer review? That member was also subjected to a witch-hunt of outright lies.



This message was edited by RichardB on Oct-5-18 @ 2:33 PM

Bobdog
Oct-05-2018 @ 6:19 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 240
Joined: Mar 2013
Bobdog
          

Add To Ignore List
Not all of us have such a jaundiced view of the BA.

ruby
Oct-05-2018 @ 9:23 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 644
Joined: Aug 2010
ruby
          

Add To Ignore List
Writing numerous semi humorous blogs slightly anomously on the Internet Is not appropriate behaviour for anyone involved in the corporate governance of an organisation and is never an appropriate way to act . Even Our blonde bombshell finally recognised he had to leave the cabinet before he was able to  say what he truly felt.

In this case the possible merit of the original grievance was always going to be overshadowed by the method chosen to address the issue.

I am not a fan of the BA management but I don't see  how any public sector organisation would have come to a different decision given these circumstances.

Paladine
Oct-06-2018 @ 6:31 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 7739
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

Waveney, while I have insufficient information on which to come to a judgement, and your predicament will never be resolved by an Internet forum, could you please be a little more specific, in relation to the allegation that the BA did not follow correct legal procedure when removing you.

You wrote elsewhere: ”5. The sanction (removal) exceeds the limits put in place by the Localism Act 2011, and is contrary to the provisions of the Broads Act which dictate how members are to be appointed and replaced. I believe they've acted ultra vires.”.

What are the Acts and Sections that you believe have been contravened?

"..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)

TerryTibbs
Oct-06-2018 @ 8:51 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 6890
Joined: Jul 2007
TerryTibbs
          

Add To Ignore List
As I’ve said elsewhere, if James belives he was “illegally” removed then he should just continue to attend the Nav Com meetings, What are they going to do? Forcibly remove him? At least that would polarise the situation

if it is to be it is up to me.

Paladine
Oct-06-2018 @ 10:07 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 7739
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

TT, he would, in the eyes of the BA at least, be a trespasser and, yes, he could be forcibly removed. I don't really see what good that would do.

If his removal from the NavCom was illegal, there is a legal recourse. I have asked Waveney for clarification of exactly how the removal was illegal.

I'm afraid the bullet points he has raised, on Facebook and NBN, raise more questions than answers, questions that I would expect any MP to whom complaint is made to ask. Questions that I can't answer, so I would not be prepared to write to my MP, in case I was asked to put flesh on the bones of the complaint. It all very skeletal, at the moment.

This is a much too complex issue to be debated to any depth on discussion forums. On the face of it, it is something that should be taken to a much higher level, but by the individual concerned, not by poorly-informed members of the public. I don't mean that in any derogatory sense, simply that we (and I include myself) simply don't know enough detail.

Forming an opinion of this situation which is simply based on our own prejudices and historical distrust of all things JP is hardly a basis on which to take any further action.

"..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)

TerryTibbs
Oct-06-2018 @ 11:03 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 6890
Joined: Jul 2007
TerryTibbs
          

Add To Ignore List
Good points Pally.

Dave

if it is to be it is up to me.

PAGE: 1 2

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.