[England V Panama]

9 hours ago, Jayfire said:

I love when someone no-one knows interferes with an in joke between two friends don't you 

Sadly "in jokes" between good friends can seem a tad confusing on a public board.

But then as I don't get jokes I never know if what has been writ is a joke or not.

Slowly backs towards door, so no one will notice, and hurriedly leaves. :)

[Vape Friendly Pubs]

On 10/04/2018 at 17:01, SteveDuk said:

 We've done Dog friendly, now it's time for Vape Friendly.

I'll start off with

 

The Yare - Brundall

I bet you wish you hadn't bothered asking ................... lol

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

9 hours ago, VetChugger said:

I've heard that I have been 'moderated' on this thread! To be honest, I hadn't noticed but now that I know, I thought policy was to inform folks of moderations and the why's as a 'friendly' way of guiding posts.

Moderation used to happen as you describe now it seems posts are removed, reviewed and action taken before informing the author.

But threads like this with strong feeling held and vented will attract acts of moderation, I know, I have been one, however I'm sure the moderation is carried out in a fair and unbiased way with equal number of moderated posts on both sides of the argument.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

I think everybody who wanted to voice an opinion has done so by now.

I havn't been swayed by the opinions of those who opposed the swim and I suspect they havn't been swayed by arguments in support.

So i'll leave it at that.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

20 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

No offence smellyloo but maybe if you did own and had experience of the way boat owners have been nailed to the wall with Toll increases theres the possibility you might feel differently about it. 

The Toll for my boat has risen 35% in 7 years, why would I not get anoid about people turning up and using the waterway for free!!

I am not suggesting as a non Toll payer your view is invalid but there are valid reasons some of us feel this way. 

Ok, I understand your annoyed with the BA for hiking up the tolls but please don't take it out on other users.

I pay road tax (i don't have a diesal so pay a lot) but I wouldn't ban diesal users and if they get away with low road tax good on them. I also don't want to see pedestrians or cyclists pay road tax even though I have to pay to use the roads.

I paid river tolls for 15 years whilst I owned a boat. I never resented paying it. I certainly would never have advercated that swimmers pay a river toll. Where would they stick the tolls paid sticker? Answers on bog paper please. LOL

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

I could fall off a moter boat and be mangled in the prop.

I could be clonked on the head by the boom of a sailing boat and killed.

I could be moored up in my boat and killed by carbon monoxide poisoning

I could fall in the river whilst fishing and drown

So WHY the concern for swimmers partaking in an organised swim? I think BetraBill might have identified the underlying coarse ...... the blessed toll issue.

If I was lucky enough to own a boat I would and have been happy to pay the toll. Walkers don't pay road tax so why should swimmers pay a toll!!

Incidently you can admire the scenery whilst swimming, if I was up to it I would have very much enjoyed swimming that route ...... it really is a scenic part of the Broads.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

4 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

How many times have 200 people been in the water (broads) at once for problems to occur? 

I think them only managing 90 participants this time might have made a difference to the amount of disruption that was actually noticeable to others. 

Where do you draw the line 

The Waveney is not a particularly busy river (boating wise) so any disruption would have been to a relatively few users. That disruption, as I recall, was a loss of one or two mooring spots on route and an instruction to follow advice from the course marshalls. The river remained open for all.

It feels that some on here are still striving to stop future similar events and trying to concoct any reason to support that action.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

9 minutes ago, grendel said:

the real safety issue here is that these people now see the broads as a swimming river, organised events is one thing, but suppose some of these people decide to go for a casual swim with no support craft or backup.

A precedence has now been set.

I guess anybody who takes wild swimming seriously will know how to stay safe, just as scuba divers do, so in the unlikely event they take a dip should we really get involved.

Wild swimming has been around for some time now ....... how many times have you encountered a problem?

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

7 minutes ago, vanessan said:

That was a bit harsh, sorry! I used to be the same, wouldn’t go anywhere near fb. I realised there could be a lot of info I was missing out on so I joined to be able to access things at a whim. I never post and never will and the info google has on me is very limited and not necessarily totally true! But I am prepared to take the risk so I can keep up to date (and look like a thoroughly modern crumblie!!).

No offense taken.

It is an age thing but I can't stand the mobiles around be (not mine) beeping everytime somebody posts a statement like ....." i'm walking down the road " and Facebook just seems to the tip of a very jagged iceberg. :)

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

5 minutes ago, vanessan said:

If anybody really wants to see what the swimmers thought of the event, who won what, or what contributions were made, the info is on the broads swimming fb page if you would like to take a look. Best do that then no assumptions need be made.

If I used Facebook I would but sadly I don't.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

5 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

The point that I still make is the financial one, maybe in certain circumstances the BA ought to impose an “events” fee to make it all seem that bit fairer to those that do pay for it. 

I dont know for sure that didnt happen but I think if it had of done it would have been said early on. 

I suspect, but dont know, contributions will have been made to any organisation that helped police the event. If BA provided resources during the event then I would assume a contribution would have been made to them.

Note, I do not know if this happened, although I seem to recall that Mel (the organiser) indicated that this would be so, but I assume this to be true rather than assume the opposite.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

54 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I agree with you, but that is not what I meant. 

This event seems to have attracted no local publicity. I can only deduce that it is of more interest to its own participants than other local people or Broads lovers.

I compare it with the 3 Rivers Race, which attracts "race followers" in their thousands, who camp out on the river banks all day to see the yachts go by. They may not sail themselves but they turn out to enjoy the event and the "day out".

This swim clearly, has not had that effect.

Or is it perhaps, that they chose a venue, where no-one could get to the river bank to see them anyway?

You seem to be saying that only events that attract spectators are to be encouraged?

Are the NBN meet events designed to attract spectators or press coverage? Or are they more directed towards the enjoyment of the participants.

Angling matches can hardly be described as spectator events but have been a part of the Broadland scene for donkeys years.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

38 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Were you there? Perhaps you would like to tell us how it went? Perhaps you have some photos? No - one else seems to. . . 

I dont need to be active in a particular sport to champion their right to enjoy their activity.

It is great to see the Broads attracting people other than boaters and anglers ..... we live (well I do anyway) in a beautiful landscape and I enjoy sharing it with people with diverse interests.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

4 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Just a little observation if I may - from a distance of 1000 miles away.

There have been no eye-witness reports from members on here, and no photos. Susie tells me there is nothing on our FB page either.

It is now Tuesday and there has been nothing on the EDP website, including in the section "latest Norfolk sport" and not in the Beccles and Bungay Journal either. (though I haven't looked there this morning).

Nothing at all on either local TV channel although ITV had time for a piece on a local netball team.

So although I am glad that participants seemed to have enjoyed it (and survived intact), I deduce that it is not much of a spectator sport? So no significant tourist impact locally?

But 90+ very happy swimmers that enjoyed a day out on the Waveney plus family friends and supporters that will have enjoyed the hospitality of local hostelries.

All in all a very successful event that seems to have been organised in a professional manner.

Lets hope it becomes an annual event.

[Forum Behaviour]

16 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

John, largely I agree with your most recent submission but there have been a number of regretfully barbed and offensive comments in regard to the Waveney Swim. Like you I don't easily take offence but even I have been moved to publicly comment on one such unpleasant submission, not sure but that might even be a first for me!

It is seemingly very easy to take offense when none was intended, I guess that's why this thread came about.

The mod team have explained what criteria are applied when moderating posts and unless an attack is made on a specific person , if the post can be interpreted as not having the intention to offend an individual then that post is deemed OK. 

So sadly it seems the only way to respond to aggressive posting is to respond in like fashion being mindful to not target an individual which would most certainly be bullying.

So in essence do as advised and grow a thicker skin, that is me not you.

 

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

6 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I agree, the organisers of the swimming event are not answerable to the NBN. my answer to this would be for them to issue a detailed safety statement on their website, since the issue is as important (maybe more so) to the participants as it is to boat users of the broads. 

On the current webpage the issue of safety is covered in just 2 bullet points: Event safety cover & Event medical cover, plus the comment that each swimmer will have a swimming float to aid visibility.

It is a shame Mel felt hounded out by aggressive contributions as if she had been treated with a bit more respect she may have been able to provide a much more detailed explanation of what has actually happened.

But we're would be the fun in that?

[Forum Behaviour]

I think the problem that the moderators have when contributing/policing a contentious debate is that if they have a passionate support for one side it is very difficult to be objective when asked to judge if the TOS has been violated.

In many ways it might be helpful if moderators has two handles, the official Nbn one and their own.

This would enable them to like postings without the misconception that a post is moderator supported.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

14 minutes ago, JohnK said:

We’d all agree there’s an inherent risk in this swim wouldn’t we?
But doesn’t almost everything have an inherent risk?
It’s about reducing or managing that risk to acceptable levels isn’t it?
Probably making sure participants and other stakeholders aware of the risks too?

Following on from Bill’s post ... If you applied the same criteria to boating on the Broads that seem to be applied to the swim here .... would you allow novice skippers? Would you allow alcohol? Would you allow unqualified skippers? Would you allow limited companies to make a profit from hiring boats out? Would you allow boats on tidal waters (non tidal would be safer wouldn’t it?). Would you allow powered and non powered to share the same water? Would you insist on redundant engines in case one fails? How about people boating without road access in case of a medical emergency? Who has approved the boating?

Someone on a swimming forum where it was proposed to introduce boats to “their” swimming area might say all of the above mightn’t they? Would they be right?

OK,  we will never know but since unsubstantiated logic seems to be perfectly acceptable do you really think the same arguments would not have been presented were the swim to have been destined for norwich?

JM would never allow anything that suggests a restriction to navigation (sandford) to pass without complaint, and his mistrust of the BA is legendary.

I'm not at all sure this debate is purely about safety as once again the assumption here is that the organisers have discarded safety concerns in favour of profit.

[Forum Behaviour]

8 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

When folk post in different places under the same name and often appear to be supporting the devisive or minority view it does beg a question in my opinion. 

The fact that you are aware that they post elsewhere under the same name suggests that you also take an interest in things elsewhere.

It follows that you can judge whether their arguments are consistent in both places, if not then assuming an ulterior motive to their posts is a reasonable assumption.

[Forum Behaviour]

If somebody is made to feel their opinion is worthless to the extent that they no longer feel able to make further postings then that could be considered bullying.

Now I hear cries from the brave stating that they should grow a thicker skin because that's how forum discourse takes place. However my last statement is also bullying designed to make the unfortunate target feel even more worthless.

One of the previous posters, sorry I forget who, stated that the onus is on us all to call out bullying posts so that hopefully nobody has to be made to feel worthless whilst participating on nbn.

To make the glib statement that those who have been brave enough to raise the topic are guilty of crying foul to sabotage a thread are just reaffirming that bullying exists.

 

 

[Forum Behaviour]

 

 

9 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

Er so why did you bring up the swimming post that I was replying to then?

I know that Peter, but I was replying to smellyloos post on this thread.

Now I am really confused I have  no clue what you are referring to.

[Forum Behaviour]

8 minutes ago, Bound2Please said:

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong smellyloo, was this thread not started by Jenny Morgan one of those against it????? I dont see those for it as being disregarded out of hand at all.

 

If it had been moved Mel Holland for one could not have made her contribution to the thread for starters.

I thought this thread was started by grendel to divert discussions of behavior from the original thread.

[Forum Behaviour]

Whilst their was some genuine, well thought out arguments against the swimming event there were pages of repetitive dogma rubbishing the event with categorical claims that safety was being compromised in favour of profit.

The fact that this thread has been started confirms that the few supporters felt that their input was being held in contempt and being disregarded out of hand.

So sadly I felt the swimming thread was being hijacked by the ....... I refuse to share my broads with anybody that hasn't paid for the privilege.  A debate it certainly was not ..... just page after page of repeated outrage.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

10 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Hang on , as all member's know bullying is against TOS so my first question is have you reported the said posts and trust me they do get delt with .

Sadly some of the posts that can be interpreted as bullying are posted by mods. I commented on one but I guess this was deemed to be incorrect.

[So You Can Go Swimming!]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I don't disagree but let's discuss forum behaviour on a different thread, as the mods have requested.

I think this subject is being very well discussed and it is important that we should not divert from it.

 

Sorry Vaughan I have great respect for your views but I think it is justified to raise these concerns on the thread that spawned the issue.