grendel

looks right posh though.

I am now up to 7 roof supports bent and another in the process of steaming (17 minutes to go)

at least you would know where the crew tossed them overboard that way.

from the newspaper article I read that they didnt say they had found nests, just that they needed to make sure there werent any - maybe someone remembered they should have checked at the last minute.

Perhaps they did not want to post before it happened in case it didnt happen - err - like it didnt. Now having got myself thoroughly confused, the way I read it in the latest report was that the bridge opening was initially a trial to make sure it would work for the boat removal. I am not sure the nesting birds theory holds water, after all if the bridge were lifting on a more regular basis, then the birds that tried to nest would just have to take their chances, though I guess if there was a nest and the chicks had just hatched, it would be nice to think they would wait a short time until they had fledged.

so we now know that timbo likes leather, and his next boat will be an oriental woody (a junk?)

I shall just roll this facsimile of a rubber check for £5 into a ball and post it to you with a cabbage flavoured stamp.

I like the comment that they hope to test the bridge before the boat leaves, well to my mind, if the bridge doesnt open, the boat wont be leaving.

I have temporarily removed the forum shop link on the latest post pages and replaced it with the gazebo appeal, so the link is on the unread posts tabs. it probably wont appear on the apps either

I will look into that, I dont want to crowd the pages with too many announcements etc.

I'll watch it when I am not at work, but I must say Tim scrubs up good (either that or he put loads extra pairs of nylons over the lens to soften the image for his appearance)

Ok the link above doesnt seem to like working, there is a donation button at the top of each forum section page. eg. http://forum.norfolkbroadsnetwork.com/forum/3-broads-chat/ as per the image below - this one definitely works.

I will look into it.

If you were at Salhouse this year, you will remember that we were lucky with the weather, which was a relief for those of us sorting tentage. Now we are trying to make sure future meets stay snug and dry even if it rains, and although we have a good tent, we admit it's a bit too small for our numbers. So we decided to launch an appeal for 'Gathering Gazebos'. We'd like to raise enough fund two pop-up gazebos, with sides, at about £100 each. Anyone who would like to contribute is asked to kindly donate through our Gathering Gazebos button. If we manage to raise more than this amount, funds will go to purchasing a £96 Tug O' War rope, which Griff plans to use to good effect at future gatherings...you have been warned.

as shown here.

from the BR station, you exit the station, cross under the railway bridge ans cross the road, and you are at the other station.

lets hope they get it all fixed before the sea cadet boat needs to get through.

So I read in this and the other notice that at present there is absolutely no access currently from the Broads to sea.

part of that change would be proving that no large craft would require access above the bridge, and that there were no craft still above the bridge that would be unable to pass the new fixed bridge - surely the removal of one of the last large craft above the bridges is just one step forward to a fixed rail bridge. I would imagine there are no longer any businesses above the bridges that could possible require a delivery shipped by water. part of a change in the law would be that navigation above the point they want to install the bridge is no longer required by craft unable to navigate under the new bridge.

I have to say the one half full black sack of waste I had was popped into the hire yards bin when I got back, that was after 3 nights, I guess a weeks worth would still have been less than one black sack worth.

looked at from a different point of view, boatyards have waste bins, these are commercial waste paid for by the boatyard, while a majority will be from their own hire boats, there must also be waste from other boatyards and indeed privateers. As such they are paying for the disposal of their hirers waste, so part of the hire cost will be apportioned for those charges. now assuming all boatyards are paying rates for their waste disposal of their hirers (presumably by the numbers of boats they have on hire) then technically, the waste of hirers has been paid for already (wherever it is disposed of) only private boats dont have a dedicated place to dispose of their rubbish, but that is household waste not commercial. since the commercial waste is covered by the boatyards, on balance all that remains is household waste from private boats, which the council have a duty to remove. if you allow that all boatyard waste (including some from private boats) is paid up commercial waste, then surely balanced out the waste bins elsewhere are on the whole private boat waste (with the odd amount of hire boat waste) by this argument bins not located at a boatyard should be treated as household waste. (as they should be just waste from private boats not based at a yard)

which was why I suggested a reduced rate for the boat waste as it is part household, part commercial, this is the only solution I see as being acceptable for all parties concerned ( or should I say least unacceptable) as it makes allowance for some of the waste being household.

so all private boats waste should be treated as household waste, and all hire boat waste as commercial waste, so a private boat leaving its waste at a bin point should have it removed and a hire boats waste left at the same bin should have it charged at commercial rate at the cost of the landowner - short of placing locked bins for private boats and providing them with a combination, I dont see how the classification as commercial waste can be proven, so it should surely be removed at an agreed rate lower than the commercial rate to allow for a proportion of private boat waste.