Paul

Whilst they are about it they need to get a decent proof reader on the web page. There are only so many times we need telling it has bow and stern thrusters, flat screen tv's etc, or do they keep repeating everything to make the list look longer?

so what are these so called "cruising restrictions" which mean it cannot travel the Ant or Chet?

We "renamed" Pacific Princess "The Good Ship Venus" for lads week one year, we got a few knowing looks from those who understood ....

I think regular visitors to Loddon will understand the point that Wyndham is making, and the introduction of a mooring fee could be seen as one way of surmounting the "problem", as indeed it might at other locations too.

I was lucky enough to fly in a Mig 29 of the Uzbekistan Air Defence Service back in the early 1990s during a stopover in Tashkent. An incredible experience. I had been told to eat a good breakfast, but must admit I wished I hadn't, it wasn't quite so good on the way back up. My pilot spoke just two phrases in English, "boring" or "not boring", before I realised what I was doing I had, with a nervous laugh replied "not boring". It wasn't the changes of direction, the breaks that did for me, it was the nose dive from 55,000 feet. As the rest of me raced back toward the ground my breakfast decided it would rather stay up there. By the time we landed my stomach had just about recovered, but I could not get my legs to go. With help from the ground staff who undid my straps and helped me out of the cockpit i made it onto the forward edge of the wing, where a metal ladder was placed to get back to the ground. I came down that ladder using pretty much just my arms. I thought at the bottom as I stood on the tarmac stiff legged "not unlike Douglas Bader".......

Having hired from Pacific on forty plus occasions I never have a problem with it. In fact I love cruising down the Chet. For obvious reasons cruising back up it never seems quite so pleasant.

see what I mean .....

9 minutes, about eight and a half longer than expected .....Of course it's Langley Dyke Dreadful moorings there by the way, not worth going up .....

Are you sure. I'm sure the BA could make that cost half a million by the time all of the studies and consultations and such like have been completed, and ignored.

I understand that a slightly revised planis being held in reserve in case the Blessed Authority cannot obtain the required land and/or funding ....

I wouldn't "bank" on that

if hybrid wipers are your thing then you can buy them in Wilko, 4.50 each in most common sizes

Bosch wipers are pathetic. PIAA Silicon are the best, they will ocst about the same as Bosch Aerotwin's full rrp (though you can usually find Bosch on sale somewhere) but will last twice as long as a standard rubber wiper and dont degrade in cold weather, useful when you are on the motorway in freezing fog

But they don't own any moorings above the bridge .....

Is the site too small, or the ego too large?

not for everyone. the childrens clothes shop was a bit expensive but one of the few places selling such goods that thinks boys don't just wear jeans or joggers. You could get decent boy's smart trousers there.

I have to disagree with that, anglers benefit from the maintenance of the waterway which is paid for by tolls. I wasn't talking about a rod license, but a fishing permit to fish the particular waterway. Not only would it generate revenue to provide facilities for anglers, but it would offer a degree of accountability. A permit issued can be withdrawn.

Excellent idea. I have long held the opinion that anglers should have to buy a fishing permit to fish the broads, in the same way they do the canals.

Correct, but then neither have I .....

I rather like the analogy and anglers and cyclists, I think that is quite appropriate. Whilst it is true that there are good and bad in both fields in my experience the number of bad has dramatically increased in the last twenty years. No longer can they called the "small minority". I do believe it is still a minority of anglers, albeit not small. I don't think it is a minority of cyclists any longer. To me it is indicative of a change in attitudes which effect boating too. The demise of thoughtful mooring, boats taking up as much space as they can, rather than what they need which is prevalent, non more so than at the afforementioned Brammerton. Peter is right when he says that finding a way to live together is the only solution, but I don't see that happening without the introduction, and most important the ENFORCEMENT of legislation.

The referendum was not down to being listened to, in fact very much the opposite. David Cameron only inserted a referendum promise in to his 2015 manifesto to counter their growing popularity and attempt to win back votes from them in order to secure the majority he didn't get in 2010. He only did so believeing that there was no way the UK electorate would vote leave. It was another in a long line of political gambles that marked his career. This one backfired on him, spectacularly, But it was not in any way listeneing, it was attempting to silence them.

Perhaps the answer with National Park / Broads CEOs is to engage a system such as with US Presidents, where they need to be "re-elected" every four years and serve no more than 8. The Broads is not the only member of the National Parks family with a contentious CEO.

I think it is very commendable that you were able to change your opinion in such manner. I don't think that is too common in British politics where most of the electorate have very entrenched views. I agree with you entirely, as I suggested in my earlier post that was a huge percentage of the UK electorate who were not heard, whilst largely nationalist parties have much greater voice from smaller support. I don't mind saying that I grew up a young Liberal. I was a teenager in the years of David Steel's leadership and whilst the two main parties seemed intent on spitting venom and vitriol at each other for the sheer sake of it, in Steel there was a reserved, moderate character who would not engage in the petty squabbles of Foot and Mouth, sorry, I mean Thatcher! As a young Liberal I was in the hall in Llandudno in 1981 when David gave his famous "Get ready for government speech". Of course that was quite likely at the time but the Falklands War came along and as Sir Humphrey Appleby very astutely commented, their is nothing like winning a war to restore faith in a failing government. In contrast the Lib/SDP alliance was torn assunder when David Owen took over the leadership of the SDP with policies that were, to quote that phrase from Evita, "slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun". The one thing that Liberalism of my younger years left me with was a strong support for proportional representation but it has to be the right sort of proportional representation. There are many different kinds each suited to different political systems. Dodgy Dave (sorry I could not think of anything better to satirise Mr Cameron, and didn't want to show any political bias by leaving him "unmolested", hence I have shamelessly plagiarised Dennis Skinner's work here) was very clever in agreeing a referendum on PR but then ensuring a form of PR which was so unfeasible that not even it's staunchest supporter could vote for it was put forward. I still hope that one day we will see PR in place in the British Electoral system, but the only form it would work in my opinion would be mixed member voting, whereby a certain number of elected members are returned by the constituancies in the same was that happens now, but an additional number of MP's are returned under a proportional system. This would ensure that the UKIP vote of 2015 would have received a proper voice in Parliament. Don't get me wrong, I don't support UKIP and have never voted for them. Whilst I agree with some of their policies I disagree strongly with others. But the fact remains that 3.88m people voted for them, and were not heard. So where does this all tie in the the OP, and with the Broads Authority (and a great many other similar kwangos for that matter). Such a PR system as MM would end the monopolies of the biggest parties. They would still have the largest representaion, as they rightly should, but they would have to work together to create policy and in doing so they become more answerable to the electorate.

It's OK, you're not going to offend Mr a dictator, he's dead. They found his bones on Brighton Beach remember.