.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Paladin
-
Posts
1,168 -
Joined
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Paladin
-
-
19 minutes ago, Paladin said:
It is enshrined in the 1988 Norfolk & Suffolk Broads Act, and applies equally to hire and private vessels.
Correction: It's section 16(6) of the 2009 Act, not the 1988 one.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BroadsAuthority said:
Hi Cambridge,
To aid cash flow problems with the hire yards during the COVID lockdowns, they did not have to pay a toll on vessels that were laid up/in storage. However the moment that a yard took the decision to hire a particular vessel out, the full annual toll was payable on that particular vessel.
Thanks,
Tom
I don’t think that is entirely accurate. In a normal year, unlike private owners who have to pay the full amount by 1 April, the hire companies are allowed to pay their tolls bill in four stages 10% in April, then 30% in May, June and July. In 2020, those stages were delayed and the final tranche was only payable on 30 November 2020. So although there might be a liability to pay the full toll once the vessel is put into hire, that liability is deferred at the discretion of the Authority.
The exemption to the liability to pay a toll under certain circumstances has nothing to do with the Covid situation. It is enshrined in the 1988 Norfolk & Suffolk Broads Act, and applies equally to hire and private vessels.
-
1
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
Interestingly non of the miscreants are sailing boaters! Just a thought, perhaps the motor boat toll should be raised to pay for possible prosecution, surely you'll all agree to that!!
You appear to have forgotten, or are ignoring, that the toll for a motor cruiser is already 26% higher than that of a motorised sailing boat of equivalent block area and 39% higher than an equivalent sailing cruiser. The last thing we need is another wedge driven between boaters.
-
1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:
...while any fatality is regrettable as far as I know there were fewer last year than in preceding years just more publicity on all platforms.
It is also notable that the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is carrying out an investigation into the Gt. Yarmouth tragedy. It appears there is great concern within the Authority about the possibility of corporate manslaughter being raised, as was mentioned at the last Navigation Committee meeting. So the idea is to get the defence in first, as an MAIB Inspector has said that any remedial action the BA takes will be noted in the MAIB report. The BA is simply jumping before it's pushed.
-
1
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, chameleon said:
and how many times do you pass this shed and its locked up with the boat inside?
33 minutes ago, MaceSwinger said:Exactly my point.
But how many times do you pass this shed (or billet) in the course of a day, week or month? Just because the patrol vessel isn't being used when you pass by, it doesn't mean the ranger isn't on duty. Who do you think carries out bank clearance? Yes, rangers, and they normally use a work boat rather than a patrol launch. Sometimes, it's more efficient to carry out maintanance checks on mooring by road, rather than launch.
There's no mystery here. If you look at the figures regularly publish, the hours spent on patrolling, conservation, admin. etc. are clearly shown.
-
3
-
-
35 minutes ago, grendel said:
the photo concerned also contained the image of a person not associated with the crimes involved, thus the decision was made to remove the image, the combination of not the exact boat and the addition of the person not connected to the crimes involved made it unwise to retain the image, but we should not need to explain that to a legal expert such as yourself.
You're right, you didn't need to explain that, but I referred only to the matter of the copyright, which was part of the reason you gave for removing the image.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, grendel said:
we have removed the photograph as it only shows a similar boat, and the image is copyright to craigs site.
thanks polly for spotting that one
Craig's images may be used, provided the Creative Commons Licence is adhered to. This permission is to be found at the foot of each page on his site:
"Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike unless otherwise noted."
-
1
-
1
-
-
The initials probably stand for B**** Lathe Company. Loads to choose from here http://www.lathes.co.uk/ but I haven't spotted that particular logo.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Chelsea14Ian said:
Think it's best if you dont recognise the number dont answer it.
In which case, you could very well miss the genuine call, giving you an appointment to get the anti-covid vaccination.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:
For those who did not watch either the Navigation Committee or Full Authority there was little the members of either could say against the proposed increase.
If that statement is true, it calls into question the whole purpose of both committees.
-
15 hours ago, grendel said:
one must also consider that the EA stopped doing routine maintenance under the first lockdown, while the BA did not, meaning that as soon as restrictions were relaxed people could get out on the water again, whereas some of the canal system could not immediately be reopened until it was made safe to do so.
Isn’t this just repeating BA spin? The English canal system is owned and managed by CaRT, who did stop routine maintenance and had to ensure the canals were safe before opening them again. But the Broads were never closed.
The BA don’t maintain the river banks. Nor do they maintain the bridges. I haven’t noticed any tunnels here, either. There are hundreds of locks on the canals, which had to be checked. How many are there on the Broads?
So exactly what did the BA do during the first lockdown which, if it hadn’t been done, would have rendered the Broads (as a whole) unsafe for navigation?
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, grendel said:
yes, travel is mentioned in the guidance, but not in the legislation.
it seems people are reading 'you can travel to do so if necessary' as allowing unlimited travel, but the following paragraph asks you to walk or cycle where possible, which doesnt seem likely if they were expecting you to travel more than a few miles.
It is one of those situation in which it could be said, 'it all depends'. For someone living in a city, most facilities will be on their doorstep. So cycling/walking would be a viable form of transport.
I live in rural Norfolk. My nearest shops are 3 miles away. The next town, in which I might be able to obtain goods not sold in that town, is a further 5 miles. So an 8 mile journey for provisions is, for me, nothing unusual. But walking/cycling to shop is not an option.
Yesterday, I went past How Hill. The public car park was absolutely full. It is 2.3 miles for me to walk there, via public footpaths across fields, but my wife can't walk that far. It is 2.5.miles by road. We don't have any bikes, so that would mean using car, and, possibly, not being able to park. So I went by boat (4.4 miles).
I don't think I broke the spirit of the guidance and I am absolutely confident that I didn't break the law. But I wouldn't expect anyone to motor such a distance that they couldn't get home in the same day.
-
6
-
-
11 hours ago, Paul said:
so then why is there such a variance between government advice and legislation? I am not disputing Meantime's point of view, legislation does still permit many things which "advice" says we shouldn't do.
I really have no idea. I presume the guidance, from whichever source it comes, is intended to make things clearer for those who can not or will not take the time to look at the legislation themselves. Unfortunately, as we have seen, it only goes to sow the seeds of confusion, seeds which grow rapidly. Most of the discussions I’ve read on social media are around what is or isn’t permitted under the guidance. Those who bring the legislation into the discussion are quickly dismissed or ridiculed.
I wonder what would happen if a defendant offered a defence of ‘but I was only following the guidance from ...’ I suspect that might be a mitigation, if genuine, but it wouldn’t stand up as a defence.
-
10 minutes ago, Paul said:
keep your hair on, perhaps you need to refer that question to DEFRA, it was there spokesman, not I.
And no, I can't explain why all those things are open, in my eyes given current "guidelines" they shouldn't be, but as you say there is a difference between guidance and legislation. One we are obliged to follow, the other will only be followed by those wishing to see an end to this pandemic.
That's a rather odd comment to make, IMO. I thought the legislation was designed to bring an end to this pandemic.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, annv said:
If you did fit another tank you could then fill it with duty free red diesel just!! for heating. John
3 hours ago, ChrisB said:Heating is not duty free Annv, it is reduced to 5% I think.
The duty on fuel used for heating is 10.70 pence per litre. The VAT is 5%.
-
13 minutes ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:
That is a low blow!
No, that was a genuine question.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Ray said:
You are clearly the font of excellence, no one can think as clearly as you. Congratulations
Yes!
Thank you, but do you actually have a contribution to add to the discussion?
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, grendel said:
I have carefully read the law and by my understanding of it have not changed my mind, i will still be staying at home as that is my understanding, no matter how cleverly you try and persuade me otherwise. i will follow my understanding and my conscience. what makes you believe that those who have made a decision different to yours are sheep and are only blindly follow the guidance, i am following the guidance, by my own evaluation and because in my judgement it is the right thing to do.
But you clearly haven't carefully read my post. I described those who blindly follow guidance, without any thought process of their own, as sheep. If you have given the matter carefully thought, having fully understood the regulations and guidance, then you obviously don't fall into that category.
I haven't been attempting to change your mind on the subject. I've merely been countering what I viewed as incorrect assessment, with cogent argument. Isn't that what discussion is about?
-
3
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Islander said:
So if I go to the boat, I can sit and watch the wildlife, make tea, read a book all as part of recreation but as soon as I lift the cabin floor and pour some antifreeze into the exhaust system it becomes unnecessary travel and not allowed. Someone tell me if I’ve got that wrong.
What I hear is different sections of gov sitting on the fence and passing the buck. Either allow boating, even if restricted to daytime use, or ban all of it including canoes, paddle boards and fishing boats.
Colin
You're not exactly wrong, but you're conflating a couple of issues. The devil is in the detail.
If your boat is in a private marina or other private moorings, the difference between 1) simply going to your boat for maintenance and 2) taking it out for recreation is that with 1) you are not going to a "public outdoor place", which is a prerequisite for both exercise and recreation. With 2), you are going to a "public outdoor place", where you may take part in any exercise and/or recreation - which may include working on your boat (which is great fun, isn't it).
It's not about 'unnecessary travel', which isn't mentioned in the regulations, but having a "reasonable excuse" for leaving your home.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
You and I know I am not one of the flock and that I also respect your dedication to truth and fact, what I would say is that there are times when not everything is black and white and sometimes we have to put aside the written word for what we believe is right in the common good, as someone who boats all year round and looks forward to the fishing this time of year I am missing enjoying the broads as much as anyone but am happy in the knowledge that whether my actions were required or not I have done nothing that endangers anyone else and that I can not be responsible for anyone else's suffering.
Fred
I'm pleased you understood what I was trying to say. Although we disagree over this issue, I too am not putting anyone else in jeopardy by my use of my boat. My wife and I are both in the vulnerable category, not just through age, and we will not take unnecessary risks. It is more dangerous going shopping than using our boat - in our judgement, anyway (other judgements are available).
-
5
-
-
28 minutes ago, Ray said:
On the one hand you say he is a sheep and on the other that he has made an assessment!
It's 4 weeks for god's sake, suck it up for the common good whether you like it or not!
No, I didn't. I was trying to make the point (lost on you) that there are those who blindly follow the guidance (which changes with the wind) without making any judgement themselves, and there are those, like rightsaidfred and me, who carefully read and understand the law, consider the guidance and come to a reasoned decision. If everyone came to the same decision regarding law, there'd be no need for lawyers.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
Please excuse my ignorance but why does everyone seem not to be able to understand the underlying statement stay home save lives but instead seem hell bent on jusfying anything that allows them the liberty to put their own interpretation before that of the public good, I have now reached the point where I have lost faith in humanity.
Fred.
Perhaps it's because we're not all sheep, prepared to be led by donkeys.
You've obviously made an assessment of the regulations and the guidance, and have come to your own decision. Just because others don't share your conclusions doesn't mean that their points of view are invalid, or that they don't behave in a safe and considerate manner.
-
4
-
-
Just now, Cheesey69 said:
So if Defra say no. Then the handbrake goes on everywhere.
Can’t see that one going down well.
so unless someone is really brave then it’s yes for boating but don’t stay overnightDefra hasn't said 'No' though, have they. They're saying 'comply with the law'. No problem for boaters there, then.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Regulo said:
As an aside, does anyone know why I couldn't get my previous phone to be a wifi hotspot, but my present one can? Same SIM, same network (Vodafone), same plan. Both phones Android. I think the previous phone was an earlier Android version, but I'd had an even earlier version on another phone, and that was OK. Doesn't matter to me now, but I'd still like to know.
Not that I know much about it, but it seems that some phones have that facility built in and some don't. Perhaps your previous phone simply didn't provide that facility.
The Latest Amended Broads Authority Guidance
in Broads Chat
Posted
No, there is no such power given under the covid regulations. Nor is there a requirement to give your name and address. If you were genuinely suspected of committing an offence and you refused to give your name and address, then an officer could, depending on the circumstances, arrest you, but he would have to have very good grounds for so doing. Simply refusing to give your details is not sufficient grounds, though.