You sure, Mr(s) M? A "top" PR company barely gets out of bed to answer the phone for ten grand. "Who sanctioned this expenditure?" is a fair question to which I hope you get a reply.

The BA is a part of government. These people get to spend money extracted from us through our taxes and they aren't answerable to anyone other than the board which has been appointed by, er, government. They waste the best part of half a million quid on a Bill which is SO good and beneficial for everyone that it gets stalled in the parliamentary process and gets more and more objections to it as time goes on. And now we find that they have to spend more taxpayers' money on people who, let us say, "re-cast" the truth to persuade the taxpayers that it's a wonderful use of the taxpayers' money?

I ask you, ladies and gentlemen. Is it any wonder that trust levels remain lower than the silt in the bottom of our rivers?

But let's now look at what might be part of the output of this "top" PR firm: "a victim over the last year or two of petitioners seeking to change its impact in some areas whilst safeguarding its safety aims for the waterways." Hmm. Take a moment and re-read that. The statement is English "through the looking glass" - it isn't what it seems.
- the Bill is a victim? Huh? Under what definition? The words are designed to generate sympathy for the Bill while also saying that the objectors are the bad guys with all the resources. The Bill is a victim of something entirely different.
- petitioners seeking to change its impact. Er, no. Several petitioners are trying to throw the whole thing out. Others are not trying to change the impact, but the substance.
- safeguarding its safety aims. Safety? Oh well, that must make it alright then. This Bill has always been a snow job, hoping people won't read the detail because if it's about safety then it's OK and the petitioners are then positioned as just a bunch of troublemakers.

The truth is somewhat different. The House of Commons Select Committee, led by an ex-miner from the Midlands who knew nothing of the Broads, took great care to examine the evidence of the then four petitioners. What they heard caused them to write a special report which specifically mentioned the lack of trust in the Authority and recommended that the Minister re-think whether there should be elections to National Park bodies and their equivalents, because there was something systemic about unresponsive public bodies.

Some of the delays since that point relate directly to that report. More parliamentary time spent, another round of consultations undertaken by the government. More individual petitioners, and sudden interest from bodies like the Norfolk Town and Parish Councils Association which had previously lain rather silent.

No amount of spin can erase that. Indeed more spin only makes it worse.

A happy new year to all our readers

Presumably, this spend has been sanctioned by the same person whose reaction to the Navigation Committee's veto on another massive tolls hike was to threaten a reduction in dredging because of the lower budget available. No guesses as to which Account will be charged.

So, the CEO moans because tolls are pegged & calls for less dredging to balance the budget; then we find that he has already spent another ten grand. Go figure.

Just a thought, does the BA not employ a PR person? I thought it did. And if that is the case then surely it was not beyond the whit of man, or even woman, to down load a list of relevant people from the web and therefore justify her salary?

Surely this £10,000.00 is just another glaring example of the profligate irresponsibility that we are coming to expect?

Doubtless the official excuse / party line will be that it is to protect the already huge waste that this accursed Bill has incurred to date. Sorry, that just doesn't wash. If it were acceptable and right in the first place then we wouldn't be in the mess that we are now.

Plus a hint of incompetency?

Deep intake of breath between clenched teeth, I'm not sure that it is politic to mention tides tables in the same breath as mentioning the BA's fragrant one!