JennyMorgan

Rather than preferred I would have written 'suitable purchaser, one that fits in with JP's 'vision'.

It' so very easy to jump to conclusions, and be wrong, but in this case there are a great many pointers, and not just on this forum, all suggesting pretty much the same conclusion, wrong that it might be, or even might not be. The odds are hardly even but I know where I would place my money!

Oi, hands off Polly's bumps! Or at least warm 'em up first, your hands I mean.

It should, but will it? He is the master of tenuous links when it comes to apportioning costs to the Nav Acoount!

Wow and wow again! That could really be the urrhem hitting the fan!

In fairness to Marsh I do think that Roger left it rather late in the day before finally submitting an application. Anyway, that said, if Roger can be bothered at this point in his life, I firmly believe that he has a very strong case to put before the Ombudsman.

It's the blackened cooking oil on people's waterlines that I would worry about, not the BA! Gadgetitus can become an obsession on a boat. If I were to fit everything that I might need but never will then I suspect that my waterline and rubbing strake would be one and the same by now!

Re the startling revelations, I don't for one moment see these undoing the present appeals or consents. If they come to anything it will lead to an inquiry, and they can go on for years. Hopefully an early retirement will result but not so hopefully some serious compensation claims that will probably impact on the navigation spend. At the moment Mr Knights and Dr Packman are manouvering, each trying to corner the other. If James has the tenacity and wherewithal, he does have some serious money in the background, then I think, having had experience as to how the Executive operates, that James has a very, very strong case. There is no question in my mind that there is clear evidence within the national parks saga, for example, to illustrate the manipulation of reality that goes on within the hallowed walls of the BA's executive suite. Personally I don't see James as a disgruntled whistle blower, more that he's a highly principled individual with the future well-being of the Broads at heart. Things are NOT right at Packman Towers, no question in my mind, the control exercised is heading towards frightening if not just plain excessive. For a kick-off the Authority is very clearly controlled by the Executive rather than the Executive being controlled by the Members, that can not be allowed to continue, the present situation is objectionable. Thorpe Island, Jenners in particular, is a done deal. The ball is rolling with Packman & Knights squaring up to each other. Hopefully it won't peter out because that would only strengthen Dr Packman's hold over the Broads and also the Authority, that would not be healthy. Why did Roger not take up the offer of consent for twenty five moorings? Obvious, surely, he believed, as I would have done, that historical use and consent already existed for more. Regretfully Roger was 'advised' by a total WCQR who in no way helped his case but nevertheless I do see where Roger was coming from, not that I agree with the way he fought his corner. In the meantime I shall watch James's fight of principle with interest. James has clear evidence that the Executive has meddled with reality, although for whatever reason we can only guess, I'm also not convinced that smooth talking is going to help JP this time.

Throw the darned thing over the side! Simple & cost effective.

Those wheels are running and quite likely to overheat. http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2017/07/thorpe-island-episode-4.html

A bit like a woman really. Both play up when things aren't going entirely to their liking!

I rather suspect that this saga has just acquired a new set of wheels and that they are set to run! More details if and when they become public.

Maybe, maybe not. But when TWO authority members publically voice their disquiet then it is time to sit up and take notice, or not if the wearing of blinkers is your preferred option Methinks there is an unpleasant aroma emanating from along Thorpe Road.

Hats off to Lana.

Blazers for the gaffers, rust red or washed out pink trousers held up with a tie instead of a belt for the members! A stereotypical member, as older folk will recognise! The Seagull one being as they would head towards the marina on a Friday evening. Come Sunday evenings they would be faced the other way and possibly minus the ancient Seagull, that having been consigned to the deep after over 200 futile pulls on the starter string!

Just a question of taste, Rear or Vice.

Make of this what you will: http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/company-which-purchased-part-of-thorpe-island-for-200k-owned-by-two-of-the-original-objectors-1-5090103

An apt reminder perhaps? http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-accused-of-gagging-its-members-1-4004881

Cherry picking for 'helpful' comments has long been the procedure at Yare House & its predecessors. Re poor research, of course sometimes that is entirely true. However I firmly believe that selective presentation of carefully researched 'facts', with a view to winning, means that the truth, when it is unhelpful to the cause, is conveniently brushed under the carpet.

Sorry Mark, not made it clear, my mistake. Following the video is another video showing a pike swimming amongst small fish.

Just a thought, Neville, having published these videos complete with location on facebook then please don't be surprised if you find the bank increasingly crowded!

My understanding is that in tidal waters no one owns the fish as no one owns the water. From the Anglian Region Bylaws: 1.6.2 What freshwater (coarse) fish can I take? On rivers, you may take no more than:  one pike of less than 65 cm per day  two grayling of between 30 and 38 cm per day  a total of fifteen barbel, chub, common bream, common carp, crucian carp, dace, perch, pike, roach, rudd, silver bream, smelt or tench (including any hybrids of these species) of less than 20cm per day All lengths are measured from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail. These restrictions also apply on all the waters in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads that are subject to the coarse fish close season (see above).

Based on information supplied the planning appeal 'judge' came to this conclusion, a conclusion that the BA relies upon to support its actions: 36. I acknowledge and accept all of the evidence from Mr Knight, Mr Ashby and others which indicates that since Jenner’s boatyard went into liquidation and the buildings were removed, various vessels have been moored within the basin over the years. This includes some mooring by Hearts Cruisers (between 1984 and 1989) referred to by Mr Ashby. However, none of this evidence is conclusive in my view on the types or intensity of the mooring uses and some of the later evidence is in conflict with submitted aerial photographs and the evidence of Mr Warren. There is no dispute that the boatyard buildings and the supporting infrastructure were removed in 1971. After that the evidence indicates that there was an extensive period of non use as a boatyard. I accept that the mooring uses referred to may have included the mooring of some hire vessels for a short time and for a variety of reasons. However, in my view, the evidence does not indicate that these uses were of such a character or intensity that, on the balance of probabilities, they could have kept alive the former mooring use carried out by Jenners. Neither is the evidence given on behalf of the appellant in my view, sufficient to indicate that these various mooring activities constituted any significant material change in use of the appeal land. It would appear that boatyard use rather than mooring use is the basis of the judgement that went against Mr Wood. Nonsensical in my opinion and that the BA chose to use that argument, illogical or otherwise, in order to win its case & destroy those moorings is of no great credit to the Authority, in my honest opinion. Also in my opinion there is unpleasant dirt to be dug.

1960's

Back in time the Red Arrows had no height restrictions when performing over water and they took full advantage of it!