JennyMorgan

I reckon that I can argue that point, at least to a degree! The BA is the local harbour authority and I suspect that, even though the bridges in question are outside their executive area, they are in a position that requires them to insist that access to the Broads is not hindered. It is certainly worth asking the BA to at least comment.

Over the years both the Yarmouth Port Authorities and local council, despite changes of personnel, have shown a desperate lack of sympathy or respect for private boaters. A proposal for a marina at Cobham was ignored as were requests for pontoon berths for visiting boats for example. Bridge openings are, by now, traditionally resisted if there is a hint that traffic will be inconvenienced. What has long been forgotten is the legal requirement that comes with there being a tidal river to the Port of Norwich. Clive Lewis M.P. is the obvious person to contact. The Broads Authority is, in actuality, the local harbour authority, and as such should be demanding that the Port Authority meets its responsibilities in regard to the bridges. The NSBA should also be asked to act on behalf of those of its members that use the port. RYA members could also lobby their legal department. There's plenty that can be done and with the probability of a third bridge at Yarmouth it's a problem that needs taking in hand. The Broads Authority is legally required to protect the interests of those of us who navigate the Broads.

Thank you for sharing, Chris. Sadly a situation that either my wife or myself will one day have to face up to.

I should imagine the guys at Peel Ports let the BA know that Robin had entered the Broads, nothing sinister, just co-operation.

More about it here: http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/oyster-yachts-gone-liquidation-2-64825 http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/oyster-yachts-marine-norwich-wroxham-ipswich-rhode-island-palma-boats-east-anglia-1-5383740

Don't thank me! It's thanks to Quo Vadis who got chatting to Paul and obviously Paul who did the hard work.

Thanks to Lord Paul for this link:

Aren't KFC & Mc D practically next door to each other?

Have actually been there, didn't realise it was a Wetherspoons. That blessed 'teddy bear man' was performing outside, he's awful. As you say, better Spoons' in the area, back to Mc D's!

The bacon rolls are ace too but they are not open in the evening!

I didn't know that there was a Wetherspoons in Yarmouth. I've never heard anyone recommend it, unlike the ones at Beccles and Lowestoft.

I'm afraid that fine dining and Great Yarmouth don't usually come in the same sentence but both Mc D's are pretty good. My wife and I prefer the Gapton Hall Estate one to the Regent Street one.

Some good looking timber there? Did you find that locally?

Good job that Crew Indy was happy to eat aboard tonight, I genuinely couldn't think of anywhere to recommend to Robin. As Katiew has just said, Independence has proven herself, Breydon should be no problem!

Lord Paul is, I saw him disappearing into the setting sun, too late for a natter.

We were just yards apart, Quo Vardis, I was in the Coast Watch lookout, in the warm!

John, the problem is, & Paladin has highlighted it for us, is that Dr P tends say one thing on one occasion and something else on another. DEFRA has made it perfectly clear, in Parliament, that for the Broads to be a national park it would have to accept the national park's legislation which includes Sandford or that the NP legislation would have to change to include the Broads without Sandford & I don't see that happening anytime soon. Dr P is a very persuasive and manipulative speaker. Those who have been involved with or watched his modus operandi over the years have learned not to trust him. Thankfully there are folk, like Paladin, who have longer memories than appears to be the case with Dr P.

Good news!!

Thank you for that, Paladin. As for the Countryfile Magazine, well, creditable or not it does appear that it is being used by Dr Packman to further the 2010 objective, of that I have no doubt.

Sincerely seconded by yours truly, especially the last sentence.

But if you choose to believe that all this effort, time and money is being spent just for the sake of a name, who am I to disenchant you. JohnK, an entirely logical comment is that. A few months ago JP invited me to drop in for a chat which I duly did. I asked about the NP issue to which he replied that 'it has gone as far it will, for the moment'. That suggests to me that once the moment has passed then the issue has further to go. Perhaps it's all coming to a head? Personally I feel that he's overstepping the mark.

Cynically smirking I suspect.

Half of 'em have moved up to Norfolk! Perhaps we should have bilingual Norfolk/Cockney weather forecasts. Imagine bilingual toilet signs, Mawther's Privy/Queeny's Toilet or whatever.

Having ploughed through all 35 pages it is abundantly clear that the Broads is NOT a national park and that even a pedant can't now deny that. What has not been made clear is quite why Dr Packman has pursued his NP obsession with such tenacity and expense to the public purse. The justification seems to largely resolve around the interests of commercial interests. Personally I remain convinced that we have more to loose than we shall ever gain

Keep taking the pills.