JennyMorgan

Bob, that this thread has developed as it has shows very clearly that most if not all of us care passionately for the safety of others. By and large I suspect the same can be said of our feelings towards our beloved Broads. I hope that your teddy is not too bruised.

Loo, you surprise me.

They certainly have a duty of care and I hope by going public that they will both review and respond to my concerns. I don't expect an immediate response, such would probably have to go to the legal dept before release.

Bob, thankfully we all have minds of our own. As for moderators, are they not allowed to take their mod hats off and have an opinion?

I have very mixed feeling about a blockade but I do think it shows the depth of feeling in some quarters and I do understand the thinking behind the suggestion. There is very clearly a fear that this event wouldn't be capped at 200 in years to come and once its established it would be hard to stop. Restrict or close the river for one event, what and where next? I understand and support the concerns on that one. As for a blockade, it would be done lawfully, let's see if and how the Authority responds to my letter before debating that one further. In the meantime, having debated this issue with friends, I have submitted a copy of my letter to the EDP. In that regard the ball is now firmly in the EDP's court. The same can be said of the Authority, the matter having now been raised as a safety issue, will they, can they ignore it? Whether it escalates is really up to them.

Personally I see the Authority as being caught in a trap of its own making, damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. I note that on a popular Broads related facebook page there is a very real suggestion that boaters should consider blockading this event and hogging the 24hr moorings. Wow, hadn't considered going that far but obviously some people, not just me, are seeing the obvious problems and issues as well as the possible precedents. In hindsight not objecting to the river closure for a charity duck race was a bad move. Whether a blockade should be considered is open to debate but I suppose that it all hinges on how the BA responds to complaints such as mine. If the event is cancelled then the organisers might press for compensation, if the event is not cancelled and there are problems then the Authority would be in line for valid complaints and possible compensation claims! Oh dear, a rock and a hard place but it is a problem of the Authority's own making. By becoming involved the buck stops there. What is now abundantly clear is that the 'negative thinkers' on NBN are not alone in their questioning of the safety issues surrounding this event. It is clearly an about turn by the Authority in relation to its previous policy on swimming in the Broads.

I have written to the Authority. I enclose a copy I have sent the following to Messrs Birtles and Packman. Dear Mr Birtles. I note with some horror the announcement of the forthcoming Waveney Swim, http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/waveney-river-swim-2018-1-5452716Inaugural Waveney River Swim is coming to Beccleswww.edp24.co.ukAn inaugural river swim is set to be held in Beccles at the gateway to the southern Broads.I have read the details and corresponded with the organiser and in my honest opinion this whole, commercial project has to be viewed with extreme skepticism. The event is a race, that is quite clear. It isn't a case of two hundred swimmers in line astern of each other, close to one bank, it's two hundred swimmers in competition. Canny swimmers will want to use the tide to their advantage, cutting corners and changing sides in order to minimise the distance travelled. Is it safe?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216996/Body-rescuers-searching-triathlete-feared-drowned-competing-swimming-leg-race.htmlTriathlete Paul Gallihawk drowned in Leybourne Lakes, in ...www.dailymail.co.ukPaul Gallihawk, 34, (pictured) was taking part in his first triathlon when he entered one of the Leybourne Lakes in Larkfield, Kent, for a 750m swim but did not ...I ask again, is it safe? The answer is clearly questionable but is almost certainly 'NO'. If we accept that, from a health and safety perspective, then we have to ask ourselves what we can do to reduce the risks. The river Waveney is, I suppose, about fifty to sixty feet wide in the main reaches. On-coming and passing boats will need about thirty feet plus five, maybe ten feet of space from the bank. Swimmers, say three abreast, will need ten feet, plus several feet from the bank. Possible, with discipline, but would it happen? Whilst there is room for doubt then we have to accept that there is a very real risk.We have to accept that Sundays are popular with both rented dayboats and private boats, the event is scheduled for the high season. Dayboats are available from Beccles, Burgh St Peter, Oulton Broad and St. Olaves, it has to be accepted that most will be helmed by novices and that there are very obvious risks to swimmers.Swimmers are required to tow a visibility float, tethered to their bodies. I dread to think what would happen if the tether became entangled in an engaged propellor. If swimmers are advised to hug the right hand bank then there are very obvious problems when swimmers need to cross the river to access the twenty-four hour moorings.Boats are governed by the rules when it comes to navigation, swimmers are not. Then we have the question of anglers. There might be a fishing match on that Sunday, there will certainly be individual anglers out on the bank. If an angler fails to remove their tackle on the approach of a swimmer then there is a very real possibility of a swimmer being foul-hooked. That is especially so if an angler is reeling in their line when a swimmer becomes entangled. Consider that pike anglers, such as myself, might have two, sometimes four lines out and we can only wind one in at a time, we might have three treble hooks on each line. This isn't fanciful thinking, the risks are very, very real and I write this as an experienced angler.I am also a boater, I pay a toll to navigate the river and use the twenty-four hour moorings. That the event is a commercial enterprise rather than an established Broads event is also relevant. Indeed it is being organised by a limited company, thus a company with limited liability and its obvious implications.The organiser has assured me that a risk assessment has taken place, that the Broads Authority supports her venture. This might be the case but I can only suggest that the right questions have not been asked. I sail a boat, I am well aware that if the wind drops then I might not be able to take avoiding action. Are swimmers, in general, aware of the restrictions imposed on boats? Consider that this is a competitive event. The Authority has long preached that swimming on the Broads is not safe. I have to question why this change of policy, especially as we are talking two hundred swimmers sharing a relatively narrow, restricted waterway, manouvering with and possibly in contact with large, sea-going motor yachts as well as numerous hired dayboats with inexperienced crews. There is a very real risk of injury if not worse. Consider too the limited access to the river bank by emergency vehicles.Mr Birtles, swimmers in close proximity of boats, especially motor boats, is a recipe for disaster. I can only ask that you reconsider the Authority's support for this ill conceived venture. Closing the navigation is not acceptable, I would also question the legality of that option. Anglers also have a right to fish tidal waters. this is enshrined in law. So back to basics, is this venture safe? Is there a risk of tangling or being foul hooked with an angler's tackle? Is there a risk of a swimmer being injured or killed by contact with a boat's propellor? Can effective safety cover be guaranteed for every swimmer? Are the risks worth it? If the answer to any of those questions is NO then I have to suggest that the event is either cancelled or moved a to a suitable venue such as the excellent lakes at Whitlingham. Regards, Peter Waller.

No, I'm leaving that to others to decide for themselves what they should think. I will make a point though, my insurance demands a minimum level of cover. I wonder what levels of cover will be provided for this event?

The organising company is a limited company, a company who's liabilities are limited. Certainly a wise move by the organisers, perhaps I am looking for motives that don't exist but limited liabilities are just that.

Hi Bruce, good to know, enjoy your new boat.

A letter of comment goes on file, a web page doesn't.

Dr John Packman at the Broads Authority is the man to contact with your views, for or against. May I suggest that you stress the safety issues.

I note that Mel has suggested that if this year is a success then she hopes the event will grow, heaven forbid.

I have looked at the full size file of the picture that Grendel posted. What is clear is that a large proportion of the competitors swim very low in the water, indeed with their faces underwater thus reducing their visibility. I also found this picture, bit extreme, perhaps but a quick count shows about twenty abreast, coincidently the same as each group in the proposed race.

That was illegal, I'm sure of that. Most things on the Broads happen by common consent as is why perhaps no one objected. I would hate to think that that closure has set a precedent for this commercial enterprise.

Sod off! A number of us lobbied in Parliament to ensure that that could never happen and Parliament supported us.

The Waveney is wide, compared to the Ant, but in practical terms I'd suggest that there are parts when the usable width is somewhat less than 22m. Regarding space for swimmers, of course there won't be a continuous stream of boats but where there are a two abreast maximum is probably about right. How this fits in with the concept of a race I'm not so sure. Restricting swimmers to just one side of the river might be an answer.

For a kick-off don't assume that it will be difficult! Treat it as an adventure aboard your splendid boat and enjoy!

Loo, I tend to agree with your line of thinking on most topics but on this one my support is with Grendel. Re safety at this event, lifted from a BA safety leaflet: The Broads is unsuitable for swimming. Not sure that that is entirely true but that is their stance and should surely have some bearing on the topic.

Vaughan, re hire boats, on a Sunday many will be dayboats. Dayboats are for hire from Oulton Broad, Beccles, Burgh St Peter, Geldeston & St Olaves and I suspect that Sundays are their busiest days. The big boats from Brundall also come out to play and as they are limited as to where they can go on the Broads thus the Waveney is a popular option. As for anglers there are club events but for every club angler there are probably rather more independent individual anglers. Whitlingham has been mentioned, ideal. Perhaps swims between the piers at Lowestoft or Yarmouth might be considered, I might be game for that!

That this is a commercial enterprise, in my opinion, puts an entirely different slant on this event. We are being asked to move over so Mel's enterprise can make money. Sorry Mel, that's not on. If it were a charity event, all profits going to a charity rather than being hived off to a management company, then maybe that would be acceptable but that is obviously not the case. Mel, you have made it abundantly clear that it is your hope that this event will grow, I would hope that it doesn't. I shall now be taking this up with the Broads Authority in their role as the Harbour Authority.

Thanks, Bill. I searched but couldn't find it.

Mel, I responded to the website & facebook in general, outlining my concerns. Now I am aware of the vagaries of facebook and very quickly my posting disappeared. I did not respond directly to your good self. I think that it would be a wise move on your part if you were to outline the obvious hazards to potential entrants so that they can judge for themselves before deciding whether to enter or not I note that some potential entrants have questioned whether the river would be closed to other users. . My feeling is that you are attempting to force this event onto other river users. On the Broads we have the the NSBA, a body that represents boaters and one that also co-ordinates and advises on events, perhaps it would have been a wise move to have involved them, albeit they are not a swimming organisation.

I've ploughed through this entire thread, including the organisers response and Bob the Dogs obvious and unnecessary flaming, the little tinker that he is! Following Mel's justification I am even more convinced it's a no-no. Very clearly it is a race which means, as has been mentioned, that competitors will be taking the shortest possible route. Tide is also a factor meaning that savvy swimmers will generally be in the middle of the river in order to make effective advantage of the tide. Then we have the issue of rights of way, swimmers don't have any. Now, as a sportsman and generally considerate boater I wouldn't purposely go out of my way to disadvantage a swimmer but equally the safety of both my boat and crew would come first, it has to. Also a group of swimmers might be involved, I might advantage one but disadvantage another. In other words I'd question whether the Waveney, on a high season Sunday, is suitable for fair competition? Now, to another point. Mel invited me on EDP24 to visit her facebook page and raise any concerns which I duly did. A number of potential entrants have asked, wisely, if the river would be closed to navigation? My response might have been seen as negativity but I would say that it was a wise assessment of the obvious hazards involved and worthy of consideration. Within minutes my response was deleted. I have to say that I think that the organisers are burying their heads in the sand in regard to the obvious hazards in order to ensure that this race goes ahead, not wise, in my opinion.

Unless its scoffed a baby duckling!