JennyMorgan

I understand where Richardsons are coming from on this one but I also fear that those in the insurance industry, as well as some within Yare House, will consider it to be a good idea, heaven forbid.

Or giving it a dose of Fisons!

It might also be Matthew at Barnes winding up Clive at Richardsons!

I hope that Sean has managed to sort himself out another boat.

At the end of the day it's Clive's business and Clive's decision, respect to him for that.

Joking apart but I do wonder when physical ability will become an issue.

There is a very real danger of that happening. One of the joys of a Broads holiday is that whilst accidents and tragedies can happen they do it at 5 m.p.h. On top of that there is a pretty strong likelihood that someone, help, will soon be coming past. We now live in a culture that looks for problems that haven't but might just happen, however unlikely. Unfortunately once that potential problem has been admitted then action has to be taken thus I suspect that other yards will follow suit.

Marsh, that challenging comment almost deserves a suitable response. Yes, I am tempted, very tempted. Almost too good to miss!

Thank you, Paladin, for clearing that one up. If I remember correctly the Harris argument was something on the lines that the Authority were not acting as they, Mr & Mrs Harris, expected a national park authority to act thus they should not be entitled to use the term.

John, he couldn't have one without the other, sorry and all that but that is a provable fact, the documentation is out there. If he wanted one then he had to have the other. For him to have thought otherwise would have been incredibly naive. Now I am concluding , I admit that, that he must have therefore have wanted Sandford. There are others though that are stating it as a matter of fact and claiming that it can be substantiated, history at least suggests to me that they are right. To be honest whether he did or did not is immaterial, that the BA sought full NP accreditation is clearly stated in the Broads plan.

Bill, I would love to think that you are right. However, the clear policy change that the BA no longer seeks full NP status only applies to the life of the present Broads Plan, their words not mine. Regretfully policy changes, mid term, are not unknown, all a matter of expediency. All a matter of trust.

John, one doesn't come without the other. Not an assumption, a fact, one that has been made abundantly clear both by DEFRA & relevant secretaries of state. In fairness to JP he might have assumed and wished otherwise but I'm unable to substantiate that.

Believe me, the 'you're not an NP' chant is wholly dependent on the 'we are an NP' chant. One doesn't come without the other! The whole sad saga is of one man's making, it never reared its head under his predecessor. The BA only have a right to use the NP term for marketing, absolutely no other reason. Regretfully its use by the BA has caused confusion and contradiction. Thankfully it does appear to be coming to a head although I can see it running for a while yet.

Fair comment, John, but the well researched and presented evidence is that he has actually sought Sandford, that he has actually sought full NP status. The evidence produced has been linked to Authority agenda and policy documents by someone who only ever makes a statement that can be substantiated. He doesn't state opinion or guesswork, he only does fact. I could, if you wish, copy and paste, on the other hand you could (please) just accept that there is clear, sustainable evidence to support these assertions. I've got to say it, in my opinion JP has put himself in a corner.

Peter, the Martham crowd are good people, deserving of your custom, not only that, Jayne is a woody, a proper boat. She's also a doddle to handle. I'm sure that you'll appreciate her pedigree. If you get a chance to poke around the boatsheds then do so, if only to savor the scent of freshly worked timber, fascinating place. https://www.marthamboats.com/hire/motor-cruisers/14-jayne

Ah, bless him, he does appear to be uncharacteristically lost for words at the moment though. In the 'other place' JP pleaded for support for his pet project after which he was vociferously challenged regarding the history and legitimacy of the BNP tag-line. The same has happened via a Facebook group and in both cases it appears that JP is either unwilling or unable to respond to what is clearly a well researched, well worded challenge. Perhaps it's only an 'A' level after all!

I don't think that Richardsons would do anything that would impact their business without a great deal of thought and, as they see it, justification. I am actually quite surprised that so many people want to go solo! What also surprises me is that Clive, normally an affable sort of fellow, hasn't come along and explained this new policy as clearly it effects a number of forum members, especially as the forum has for so long been staunchly pro Richardsons.

I believe that he has an 'A' level in creative writing !

There speaks the voice of experience. Sand, dreadful stuff, so abrasive!

Whilst said Yarmouth girls shed their's beneath the town's illustrious piers!

Better still the pubic hairs of a virgin, preferably from Gt Yarmouth. Ohhhh, Poppy, we miss your terrible jokes!

Good point, has anybody thought to p.m. Clive@Richardsons?

I feel entirely confident in suggesting that a goodly number of those of us on the Navigation Committee at that time did not entirely agree that safety was the prime motive behind the Bill. I'm afraid that minutes of informal Nav Com meetings in the car park were never taken but I assure you that many of us had our doubts! Yes, there were some safety issues, can't deny that.

I don't believe for one moment that he will be able to.