Vaughan

I have just read an astounding article in the EDP following the publication of these proposals, which says new powers could be given to BA rangers. The new powers being proposed would allow rangers to issue fixed penalty notices if byelaws were broken. In addition, rangers could be permitted to make public space protection orders to deter "genuinely antisocial behaviour". I would be most vehemently against such a proposal and I speak as an ex Broads special constable. The rangers have no role as policemen and never have had. This must remain a role for the police and especially the Broadsbeat patrol launches. That is what they are there for. What will be next? Rangers in stab vests and combat boots? Rangers bearing arms? You may think me hysterical but this is a slippery slope which we must not go down. Is this what the new National Park thinking will bring to the Broads? Whoops, I have posted this on the wrong thread - it should be on the landscapes review. Perhaps a mod could move for me?

And I suspect you may be dead right! This is a very good post, as you have the experience to weigh up the options and make your own choice. In your case, in the off season, it sounds like the right choice. But CHOICE is the still the operative word. If the yards are now trying to cash in a bit more by making it compulsory then I fear they are pushing the limits.

Er .. just to clarify, as there is a difference which can be easily mis-understood. It is the security deposit which is refunded if there is no damage, as this represents the excess on the boat's insurance. The damage waiver is non refundable, as you are in effect, taking out insurance against the excess. It is this "private" type of insurance which can be considered illegal if it is not offered as an option.

Well, there's one topic gone down the toilet! I am surprised there is not more feeling from members about all inclusive. Do you think it should be an option or are you happy just to pay up? If you think your holiday will cost more that way, you would be right. And in some companies I have known you would be more than right! Would you rather pay for the fuel you actually use, if you are just on the north rivers? Your car insurance has an excess, which you accept and are happy to pay if you do minor damage. So is boat insurance any different? Should you have to fork out more, just to cover the excess?

I certainly agree that it is an actual proposal to do something - one of few that I noticed - but I am still not sure whether it would turn out to be a plus or minus in the long run. I have always felt that the Broads have been best run by Broadsmen. In the 60s, the chairman of the River Commissioners was Desmond Truman, of Oulton Broad.

It used to be, when Blakes and Hoseasons had around 100 boatyards on the Broads. The only payable extra that you mention above, was pumpouts. All inclusive is all very well but it must be a customer choice, not an obligation. To insist on a damage waiver certainly used to be illegal, so one must assume the yards concerned have found a new "loophole". It would be interesting if a customer were prepared to take the issue to court. Above all, we don't know what seasons are going to be like in the next few years. Will it be boom or bust? I just hope that some of these yards are not biting the hand that feeds them.

This rather reminds me of the awful day when Crown Blue Line was sold to the tour operator, First Choice, who of course, knew nothing about hire boats. At that time I was the only Englishman on the French board of directors and the only English base manager in a company running over 450 hire boats. Very soon, a party of young First Choice wizz-kid executives came out from London for the day to hold a big meeting of all the managers and base secretaries, to tell us all how to run a boatyard. None of them spoke a word of French, of course. The first Yuppy put up the first slide, which was headed MISSION STATEMENT. All eyes in the audience turned to me for a translation but after the meeting was held up while we muttered among ourselves, it turned out there wasn't one. The expression just doesn't exist in French! From then on the meeting became more and more risible, until another Yuppy was presenting his project for "local income". This turned out to mean the sale of T shirts and coffee mugs in reception and one of the bullet points on the slide was "assumes on-target client take-up". Again all eyes turned to me but I was no wiser than they were! It turned out later that it meant "so long as we get enough bookings". So why the "Sam Hill" couldn't they have said that in the first place? I am afraid I also got to know what it means when a corporate tour operator talks of the need to "drive down costs". This translates as "stop doing any maintenance on the boats and get rid of a third of the personnel".

Yes, but what actions? All they have actually proposed, as far as I can see, is to form a whole lot more committees and give new official titles to existing and rather dubious Quangos. "When in doubt, form a committee" is a well known maxim in government. Most of us know that the best form of committee consists of three people : Two of whom are off sick.

Thank you for the link, but I certainly didn't enjoy reading it! I am afraid I see the whole thing as miles and miles of words in a foreign language, which produces nothing concrete. For instance : Share knowledge and expertise to build capacity across the protected landscapes family. This was one of the bullet points but what on Earth is it supposed to mean? And then later on, under sustainable tourism (whatever that is) : To identify and deliver further ways to help the industry to grow back greener, we have also committed to producing a Sustainable Tourism Plan, working with the wider Visitor Economy sector and VisitBritain/VisitEngland (sic), and we will be engaging with representatives from the protected landscapes to help inform that plan. Who writes this stuff? Meghan Markle? How is a Broads boatyard supposed to grow back greener? Even if it knew what that meant? I also noticed, under the heading "Nature and climate" : Natural England's new Landscape Designation Programme . . . . . . . is exploring new approaches to improve landscapes for people and nature, particularly in and around towns and cities. What, around Norwich?? In only a few years' time, a journey by road or rail between Norwich and Wroxham or Acle will just pass through a continuous estate of little "affordable" boxes with no countryside left whatever! How can all these wonderful ideas for maintaining our countryside and its "bio-diversity" have any hope at all if the local authorities are still allowed to grant planning permission for "green building" all over it? I am afraid I get the distinct impression that the government mindset behind this document is that there will now be certain designated areas of the UK which will be preserved as national parks, while the rest of our "green and pleasant land" can go to Hell.

Well, call me thick but I can't find the report on this website. If it is anything like the press release, however, it is not worth the trouble of reading it. These are not proposals to actually do something - they are just a lot of educated verbiage that says nothing at all. For instance : By harnessing their collective strengths whilst preserving their independence, the partnership will support local leadership to work together nationally, including by carrying out campaigns, organising events and offering volunteering opportunities that bring people closer to nature. My word for this is b*******, which the forum filter translates as DAFFODILS. I am sure Old Wussername would call it a load of old squit.

Just as bad in a non - bio. Once that thin ice has worn away the gel coat, it will eat through the mat in just a matter of moments.

As the OP of a thread which has run to 8 pages over more than a year with over 7000 views, I would request clarification, please? May we assume that we are allowed to discuss game shooting - on several threads - but not fox hunting? I invite members to have a quick look through the comments on page one, which followed my introductory post. Fox hunting was freely and reasonably discussed, including contributions by a moderator. A discussion yesterday, however, was locked out. I wonder what has changed over the past year, or are we to suspect a new "cancel culture"? Yesterday's debate was reasonable, mostly humorous and on topic. There was no abuse and I cannot see that the TOS were threatened by it. "Moving on", however - to quote the Vicar of Dibley - there is an article in today's EDP about the DEFRA Environment Land Management Scheme, which is designed to replace EU farming subsidies after Brexit and will involve big projects of re-wilding of countryside. Also a Local Nature Recovery Scheme, to replace the present Countryside Stewardship Scheme. This re-wilding would also see the introduction of non-native species such as sea eagles and beavers. As this will obviously have a future effect on our enjoyment of the Broads countryside as well as Norfolk as a whole and as it seems to contradict the NCC's plans for "green building" all over farmland, I would like to discuss it here on the forum. Before I spend time on it, may I please ask first : are we still allowed to talk about important local matters or will it get arbitrarily chomped, as soon as one member expresses an opinion different from another? I am mindful of the genuine meaning of the Roman word Forum.

I see in today's EDP that Norwich City Council have now withdrawn support for the building of the western link as they say it will "promote car dependency". I think I must have missed something here, while I was spending Christmas on another planet. I thought roads were meant to be for cars? Or perhaps it should be called the Western Cycleway and then they would support it. From what I have seen of these new vast estates of little boxes, otherwise bereft of any community services or shops, which are supposed to be fed by the NDR - ("distributor" road) - I think if you lived in one of those and were not dependent on a car, you would just have to sit there in your kitchen and slowly starve to death!

Griff, I really do understand how you feel but no-one can be accused of an offence simply because they have denied it.

I whole-heartedly agree with that! But perhaps I am saying that it may be a separate matter from this particular incident. In my career I have known dreadful examples of violence, intimidation, foul language, threatening behaviour and criminal damage from fishermen - suffered by my customers as much as myself personally. I assure you they are not just like this on the Broads. They are the same wherever I have seen them. I was once actually fired on by a fisherman with a 12 bore, because I had gone over his line, when he himself was invisible behind a bush on the bank. When I showed the Gendarmerie the close spread of shot in the gelcoat of the boat, about 18 inches behind where I was sitting in the open cockpit, this particular "sportsman" was locked up. Fishermen do themselves no favours by their attitude as a whole and their own associations seem to have no control over it. It is indeed an issue which the BA and EA have been needing to address for a long time now. If this brings it to a head, so much the better. I just feel that there is still not enough evidence in this case, to go flying off the handle.

Some may think I am sitting a thousand miles away from all this but it could very easily have been my daughter's family on my boat, when this happened. The boat is moored nearby in Stalham, they often cruise off season and often use the Neatishead moorings. I was a special constable on the Broads (in Ludham) for nearly 7 years and have seen similar acts of vandalism committed. Thankfully quite rare. I still remain un-convinced that this damage can actually be linked to the people fishing on the moorings at the time. Although the supposition is understandably obvious there are as yet no FACTS to support it. There is a difference between speculation and the asking of relevant, concerned questions : 1/. Were the fishermen interviewed the next morning the same ones who had been on the moorings the day before? 2/. Were the ones the day before, fishing all night? 3/. I know people often fish at night but they usually have tents, powerful pressure lamps (to attract the fish) and I doubt they are there for 24 hours or more, at one "sitting". 4/. Was there a personal argument between the boaters and the fishermen, which led to an act of retribution? From what we have heard here, it seems not - but the act itself still seems to have no particular motive. 5/. Would the fishermen really have done something like this when it was glaringly obvious that they would be blamed for it? 6/. Was this simply a mindless prank by kids on bicycles after a few beers on a Bank Holiday? This is a disturbing act of vandalism in a popular and tranquil holiday location but we must be objective and see that there is just no EVIDENCE at the moment, to start a witch hunt against fishermen. That said, the BA will be aware by now that they have a big problem of antisocial behaviour on their moorings. What is more it is a recurrent problem. Let us wait until after the holiday, to see what they do about it.

Or worse, taking advantage of public flood defences on what used to be wild moorings, to charge exorbitant prices to moor with no services provided.

Just a point of terminology - I assume by closed season, you mean the period when fishing is allowed. I always thought the closed season was when it isn't! I am afraid I can't "like" your post as I fear that what you propose will incite open confrontation and public disorder. Something else Grendel said in his first post is that we must not start a war between boat owners and anglers - although I fully understand your Naval instinct of "Send a gunboat"! If (and I say IF) this incident had to do with fishermen on a country mooring, we all know it is nothing new and the problem is policing. It is all very well to have bye-laws and notices but we all know there are virtually no police on patrol out in the county at night, especially over the New Year, so intimidation just goes un-checked. Also worth mentioning that if the BA can happily task 4 rangers' launches in the high season (double manned) as well as Broadsbeat, to supervise a swimming match on the Waveney, then organised fishing matches on their public moorings should also be supervised. "What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander".

Very best wishes from me also, for a happy new year! I am afraid there has always been a fatal tendency in Broads boatyards, towards "keeping up with the Jones's". They make the big mistake of thinking they are in competition with each other when in fact, they are not. Their competition is other forms of holiday, especially package tours to Mediterranean beaches and holiday cottages. They will always leap to fitting a new gadget on their boats, as a selling point in the brochure, which just means everyone else has to spend a lot of time and money trying to keep up. We saw it in the 60s with gas fridges, 240v shaver points, TV and even showers. Remember all the "symbols" that boats had to have in Blakes catalogue, back then? It is still going on now and has got out of hand, in my view. Boating on the Broads is an adventure holiday and learning how to handle the boat is a fundamental part of it. You never stop learning how to handle a boat - I never have - and that is its fascination. You only have to read "The art of coarse sailing", or "Coot Club", to see the real pleasures of Broads boating and those pleasures are still there now, with no need of bolt-on electric extras.

This is not speculation but a perfectly valid question. If it was an organised fishing match, should it have been held on a public overnight mooring? Did the BA grant permission for this event to take place on their mooring, in the knowledge that there are a lot of boats cruising at the moment? If so, maybe they should have policed it?

Grendel, I hesitate to get involved in this but I must agree with others, that these two sentences clearly suggest that the fishermen were involved in the vandalism. In any case, why should we not speculate? this is a discussion forum and an incident like this is of very obvious concern to us all - boater or fisherman - or both, like Griff. The other day a thread about Cantley was locked, for the same sort of guesswork as this. Of course we are going to guess, and want to discuss. This is why we are members of this forum. Please don't stifle discussion when everyone, in a free society, has the right to ask natural questions.

This comment is in the genuine spirit of offering good advice : the best way to avoid contact with a bowsprit is to always pass round the stern of a sailing boat and not across its bows.

I think any skipper of commercial barges on waterways will tell you that you are driving the bow of the boat, not the stern.

The boat hook! Speaking as a hire boat operator, they are a blasted nuisance and I am quite glad I was retiring at about the time when they were becoming an "essential accessory". I have even had customers ring in, to say the thruster has failed and they refuse to drive the boat anywhere until it is fixed. Often fixing it means craning the boat out of the water. Most of them have shear pins on the propellors and some are not accessible from inside the boat. Most electric ones have plastic propellors which are easily chewed up and all electric ones cause electric problems, some even needing their own separate battery and charging circuit. Some electrics will overheat and cut out after only 10 seconds running. You then have to re-set a switch somewhere in the bilges. They easily clog up with weed and debris, unless bars or gauze are fitted over the tunnel mouth either side but these are very easily damaged and also weaken the power of the thrust. The best ones are hydraulic but this needs a hydraulic drive boat and they also need regular maintenance as well as good cathodic protection. They can also stall the engine if the tick-over is not set high enough. Griff doesn't need a bow thruster because he has a classic design of Broads boat with an underwater shape that is easily handled at slow speeds and a long keel so that the boat does not blow easily sideways. He also has a large, balanced rudder. A boat designed for the job! The main thing to remember when mooring is to place the bow where you want it. You can always get the stern in later. If you have a thruster, you ONLY use it if the boat is stationary. If you have "way" on, ahead or astern, they don't work.

As a more serious answer to Andrew's question, we always try to keep hire boats as simple as possible and not install gadgets which will just cause another breakdown call. I have done a lost of analysis of breakdowns over the years (it was my job) and there is no doubt that electrical failures are by far the worst problem these days. The second one is overheating of the engine. Both of these, however, are caused much more often by hirers not doing what they were told (what I call finger trouble) than by an actual fault on the boat itself. By far the most important thing is to calculate what battery capacity in amp/hours your boat's equipment is going to need and then making sure that you have alternator power to re-charge that capacity in a days cruising. If you get that basic calculation wrong then sure enough, you will get battery problems.