Vaughan

The chalet looks like the "bishop's bungalow" at Thurne but I don't think so. There is (or was) another building like that, all on it's own, at the top of the moorings on the south bank above Acle bridge. It was owned by the Ames family, who owned Maidie at the time. It is obviously a steam pump chimney, which could have been near Upton dyke, as replacement for the old wind pump there, on the east bank. The yachts are not racing, as one is towing a dinghy. They are probably hire boats but I don't recognise the pennant, or the emblem on one of the sails.

Oh, no, it hasn't!

I notice that a lot of your posts about the Broads are in strong support of BRAG on Facebook. Has it not occurred to you that Peter Waller is one of the main contributors and driving forces of that organisation? And yet you denigrate his contributions to this forum. Exactly! That is exactly what the management of the Broads used to be, and it worked! I have sometimes suggested here that the management of Blakes, and the Commissioners, was more like a "league of gentlemen". They knew each other well, they worked together in a common cause and they achieved great results. Hardly what we see in front of us on the Broads these days, is it?

Excuse me but that one is "below the belt". He is a very old friend of mine, largely because our fathers were as well. They both played a leading role in the first Broads Study and Plan, by the Nature Conservancy in the 60s, and upon which the present day management of the Broads area is still very largely based. Peter himself is an ex member of the BA and as such, was the only one I know who took the trouble to contribute to this forum in the way that he has. His criticisms of the BA are based on his own (somewhat bitter) inside experience. In other words, he knew what he was talking about. There is no-one on the present forum who can say the same on this subject, including me. Yes, he got a bit passionate at times and was eventually muzzled by moderation. When we look around us at the shenanigans going on right now, we might reflect that he had very good reason!

I suppose one can hardly blame him!

I notice that Rogerbarnes, who dug up this discussion on Thursday, has not yet returned to read the results. Still, we seem to be getting on fairly well without him!

Oh. I thought he was Alladin?

Sennybridge in Wales certainly doesn't support human life! The amazing thing about Dartmoor is that you clamber up the side of a small hill, or tor, and find yourself knee deep in a bog, right on top of it!

Am I reading something in between the lines, there?

This is correct of course, but I was trying to define the very big difference between maintaining the landscape on the Broads, as opposed to all the other, older and more natural areas. I know one or two of the national parks fairly well, as I have tromped all over them in big boots when I was in the Army. The Army actually own a fairly large area of the NPs and look after them pretty well. Apart from all the shell holes, of course! Perhaps the Corps of Royal Engineers should become involved in maintaining parts of Broadland? I am sure they would soon make pretty short work of Potter Heigham bridge!

Come on Batrabill, what are we getting in to here? Let's just step back for a moment. I cannot see anything in what I have posted today that should cause such a reaction from you personally. I took this as a throw-away, joke remark. What else was it supposed to mean? When this question was raised again this morning I tried to post in a way that looked at this "NP" thing from a more broad based perspective. That is to say : what is it, exactly, that we are all trying to preserve? Do we all see it the same way? Does its future mean the same thing to all of us? I then explained my reasons for suggesting how I feel. You have since quoted a long post from 6 years ago which, may I say, largely refers to what people said on Facebook. I am not registered with Facebook : I have never posted a word on it and I certainly never intend to. So your feelings on that, cannot refer to me. All the same, there is a great deal I agree with in the long post that you have just made. But this morning, I tried to give a fresh subject for discussion on what has, very naturally, been discussed at length by all of us who hold the Broads dear to our hearts. So, rather than what you said 6 years ago, what are your views on what I said this morning?

That's just your opinion! It is a very good question and it also applies to the decision, by those who lived, worked and were concerned with the Broads, back in the early 80s, to vote against a flood barrier across the Yarmouth Haven. We could see the point, in principle, of having a surge tide barrier but in no way, could we trust all the various agencies and authorities, not to bugger about with it!

I wonder if you realise how much that reminds me of the committees, societies, charities and even boards of directors that I have been part of in the "old days" where we would attend for a serious discussion of Broads future but someone, towards the end, would always stand up, having contributed nothing to the debate, and say "Mr Chairman, I have sat here and heard nothing but rubbish, from start to finish"! They would then sit down again, without saying anything further. One of the worst proponents of this tactic was Philip Wayre, of the Otter Trust, who had the arrogance to assume that as everyone knew who he was, he was therefore right. If you feel that my carefully considered post of this morning is rubbish, that is fine. This is a forum. But genuine criticism is only valid if you can offer a reasoned alternative. So what is yours?

This is the eternal problem with shower trays : they are below the waterline! Which is why traditional hire boats all have a "shower button" which , when pressed, empties the shower tray by way of an electric pump. The good old Jabsco "Water Puppy" was good for the job! But it will still not sink the boat as the Water Puppy has a vaned impeller which acts, in fact, as a non-return valve.

Oh, the joy of forum discussions! I do hope you agree with the point I was trying to make, all the same?

It is unlikely that a boat would sink by ballasting as modern ones have to have all skin fittings 40cm above the waterline, unless they have an accessible sea cock inside near the skin fitting. Older boats such as Bounty have skin fittings at the waterline but these go straight up to the galley sink or washbasins, so would not take water until the decks were almost awash! All the same, as modern boats are built with very little access to the bilges, it would be impossible to make sure that all water had been pumped out afterwards and was not hanging around in under-floor compartments that you can't get at. I think the best way is Richrdsons' method, of putting big plastic oil drums on deck and filling them with river water from a motor pump.

You say "don't they want them to be protected? This is a fair question and I hope you have found some answers by reading back over this thread, as I have just done this morning. Apart from the legal arguments, I have always had a priority reason why I don't want a national park and I quote from the first page of this thread : The Sandford Principle talks of the conservation of natural beauty. Dartmoor, for instance, is pretty well exactly the same today as it has been for hundreds of millions of years since the last ice age, so it can really be considered as natural. All the maintenance it needs is the local farmers grazing sheep on the uplands or coppicing the woodlands and natural forest for firewood and timber. I suggest that the "national park" function has more to do with controlling the public and providing all the car parks and signage, than actually maintaining the "park" itself. The Broads stands out on the list above, as the only one that is not natural. It is a lowland basin that was artificially drained and re-claimed from the peat bogs hundreds of years ago. Since then, it has had to be maintained by Man, as he has seen fit. So the real question, for me, about preservation and conservation (as per Sandford) is this : At what point in its evolution over the centuries, do you want to "stop the clock" and preserve it? It is not natural beauty, so you can take your choice. Clearly the RSPB as a major landowner, would like it to go back to the 1600s, as a wetland marsh. Others would yearn for the 1800s, in the heyday of the trading wherries. I would rather see the navigations as they were in the 50s, than just what little is left now. The farming landowners of course, would prefer thousands of acres of oilseed rape. I don't see much evidence that the BA can answer this question or have even seriously addressed it, so I don't think that a national park structure would be any help at all.

Admiraly Manual of Seamanship.

I think, to get it noticed, you need to click @BroadsAuthority and I quite agree with you. If relationships between the authority and the hire boatyards have been allowed to deteriorate to this extent, it is very serious indeed.

I gave a "thanks" to your post as you took the trouble to share it for us. The actual letter should have had a "sad". My father was chairman of Blakes for 8 years, in the 50s and 60s and I shudder to think what he, or Jim Brooker the M.D., would have felt if they found they had the need to write a letter like that to the River Commissioners. Is this another example of the authority "working with partners? Lamentable.

I believe Simpsons boatyard in Stalham have a couple of small dayboat/cruisers that they would probably let out for several days. If not, I have found Richardsons in Wroxham to be most accommodating.

Funnily enough, it was only when I "came back to the Broads" in 2017 that I found Surlingham Broad was navigable all over. It was opened to the navigation by Blakes in the early 50s and from then on I had always known it as a buoyed channel across the centre, with a lot more sunken wherries than there are now. So someone must have dredged it all out in the interim. I remember that the broad and the dykes were also only navigable at high tide.

Except that the BA decided for themselves to increase the number of rangers long before the report was published. The report itself didn't actually tell them to do anything. I repeat what I have said in other threads : Since 2020 there has not been a "similar incident in future" and I don't know of anything beforehand either. It was a one-off accident and I cannot see, in my job experience, how an increase in rangers patrolling would have prevented it - or would have any effect whatever in preventing a hypothetical repitition.

I quite agree with you, but perhaps this is a different subject, in that we are talking about the BA's perception that they need more rangers, to make sure that hirers have had a proper introduction to what has always been, an adventure and activity holiday. Half the fun of hiring a Broads cruiser, is learning how to drive it! Please don't let us forget that. It is a bit like "letting the fledglings fly the nest".

Let's be quite clear about this : Opting out of having a trial run is a positive and conscious refusal on the part of the customer. It does not mean that the boatyard has not bothered with them or has not cared whether they can drive the boat. We do not let a quarter of a million Pound's worth of boat go out on hire without a proper instruction unless we know the customer and we are sure of their experience. Contrary to popular belief, we did not come down with the last shower of rain.