Mardler, if we can be sure of our facts, and we are dealing with a clever man, then I wouldn't bother with the media, something more like the Ombudsman would be my choice.

Back in May Packman received a letter from DEFRA stating that it could not support the Authority's desire for national park status.

Back in July the Authority received a letter from Natural England stating that it could not support the Authority's desire for national park status.

Back in 1983 the Authority was told by the Countryside Commission that it would not support the Authority's desire for national park status.

How many no's does a man need?

Common sense dictates that DEFRA could have been asked before the Authority pushed ahead with its desire to be a national park. A simple telephone call was all that was needed.

Prior advice should have been sought from the RYA and NSBA, even the Navigation Committee. By not doing so I believe that thousands of pounds of public money has been needlessly squandered. In that regard I believe that questions must be asked.

In my honest opinion it is a matter that has suffered from poor judgement and questionanable management.

I agree, atleast two heads MUST roll.

If these people were gentlemen of honour they would now fall on their swords but as we know from the hushed up document(s) and devious behind the scenes goings on they are nothing of the sort.

I just hope that the pressure will be maintained to protect the Navigation Committee, to ensure safeguards for transparency of toll spend under one account and to redraw the various Directions in far less draconian terms.

Only then may we rest easy. I, for one, am not at all certain that we are anywhere near that goal yet.

Packman may yet get his way: anyone else believe the NP may have been a smokescreen for Sandford via the backdoor of the new Directions? I can see it now, "Upper Thurne closed due to shallow waters deemed unsuitable for most craft in unskilled hands" and "River Yare closed due to excessive shoaling in lower reaches". Don't laugh.

I agree that the title of the Broads area is the least important part of these proposals. Unfortunately, the question begged by this entire debacle is whether Blackbeard and his little Welsh friend have a tenable future at Colegate?

It has emerged that Blackbeard has pressed on for several months with his attempt to become a 'National Park' on his own terms and regardless of the advice of senior civil servants. This has cost both time and money and equally mislead and proved divisive to the coexistance of the three factions concerned with the Broads. How the hard-pressed navigation budget can be expected to fund his personal crusade to become a National Park isn't at all clear. What is clear is that had he spent as much time (probably about a years work) on raising funding for dredging the navigation, we would be on course to be in significantly better shape. Worse, the whole precipitous "I want to run a National Park" episode brings the judgement of all Colegate's senior management seriously into question and it certainly shouldn't have needed a government minister to read his fortune for him.

Errors of judgement are one thing, but we are also aware of specific items of consultative documentation have been apparently suppressed by Colegate - and we still wait too see what other correspondence was deemed too contrary for our eyes. Public servants should not be deceitful and certainly not for their own agenda. This apparent lack of integrity is reflected in other issues.

Blackbeard has seriously compromised his ability to act effectively as a public servant and should resign - preferably by the weekend. It seems his little Welsh friend doesn't have long in left in office but in the interests of starting again with a clean sheet, he too should resign. The Private Bill should then be withdrawn by the new management and submitted as solely an uncontentious Boat Safety scheme. Easy.

Cark, Cark! Old Frank

Just in case you missed it, page 12 of today's EDP.

One down, one less to go!