Loch Lomond

I laughed out loud at this article in The Guardian – not at those people who were genuinely upset by the new navigational chart developed by the national park – but at the pickles some organisations inadvertently get themselves into.

You may recall I wrote some weeks ago about Bishop Auckland having to withdraw their printed claims as the birth place of Stan Laurel. Now the Loch Lomond National Park  have had to remove this chart because as explained by the article: “Local residents and boat owners were furious to discover that the chart had included “derogatory” and “megalomaniac” new names for key landmarks on the loch, one of the most popular and heavily used stretches of water in the UK.

The most offensive, they said, was to rename a sandy beach on Inchmoan island as Giro Bay after the Scottish slang term for a dole cheque.

There have been repeated rows over youths from neighbouring towns littering the banks of Loch Lomond with abandoned tents and unsightly rubbish tips after all-night parties and camping expeditions.”

On a more serious and contemporary English note, the governance arrangements for National Parks are being considered at the moment with potential scope to make them more democratic – is this a good thing?

And should the balance often pursued in such Parks in support of conservation over development (in view of the coalition government’s general disposition in favour of development) be deliberately re-tilted?