JohnK

It’s gone very quiet. Have you all realised the errors of your ways? [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Three boats well under £400. Bargain! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you register a boat with the BA you need £2m+ public liability insurance don’t you? Would a hire boat be different? Not convinced that’s anything to do with this though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My guess would be fear of litigation. In my opinion litigation in the UK is now as bad as the US. A few years ago I worked for a company that owned a few quarries. One disused one had filled with water and had security fencing installed around it. Allegedly a parent broke through the fencing to allow him and his child through to go swimming. The child allegedly got injured and the parent was intending to sue the company for not having strong enough fencing to keep him out. It would have gone to court but the company lawyers settled because they thought they’d loose. Mad isn’t it? On the back of cases like that I’m not at all surprised companies are now risk averse. In some ways we as a nation only have ourselves to blame for letting this happen in my opinion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely. With a business completely reliant on public opinion you can be damn sure it hasn’t been an easy decision or one made without a lot of thought. Respect to Clive for posting here too bearing in mind some previous posts in this thread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Haha, never. We need a swingometer [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JM, I’ll accept that (not that it really makes any difference whether I believe it or not [emoji57]) that in the past JP / BA have tried to get Sanford adopted. But I’m yet to be convinced they still are. You haven’t misread my situation at all, you’re absolutely right. I get that (and the following bits I haven’t quoted) and I’m far from arrogant enough to believe I can come along late, understand everything and solve the problem. However, as a newcomer at the moment some of the arguments feel like the emperors new clothes. Because a lot of people believe it, state it regularly and loudly doesn’t make it true. Personally, I have to be convinced by evidence rather than someone saying “this is how it is” when other parties are telling me “actually, he’s wrong, really it’s like this”. My position at the moment is I’m convinced (mainly by JM) that in the past the BA has tried to do some stuff that we as boaters / Broads users almost certainly wouldn’t like the outcome of. But I’m far from convinced they’re still trying to do it. I did read the email exchange and found it very interesting. Some good points were made on both sides. However, I have to say I wouldn’t have replied in JPs shoes either when a big part of the argument is whether marketing and promotion are the same thing. I make no claim to be an English scholar (despite being English and once going to school) but I think they’re very very close to the same thing. I hope I’m not coming over as confrontational here, I’m trying very hard to be open minded. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah ok. So it’s fair to say the BA has sought NP status and we’re assuming that can’t be separated from Sanford? Perhaps you’re right, perhaps JP and the BA did want Sanford or perhaps they were hoping to change the rules. Perhaps it wouldn’t have been possible but we’re making a few assumptions to say JP wanted Sanford aren’t we? I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the “you’re not an NP” chant. Perhaps I’m drawing false conclusions but when a post on Facebook that the BA are selling fleeces with NP on them being considered to be “proof” that Sanford is actively being pursued seems a step too far to me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do accept that I think. To be clear ... has sort Sanford or has sought full NP with an assumption that would invoke Sanford? If (and I realise this is a big if) he has changed his view and no longer wants full NP status and Sanford are we giving him chance to prove it? I do think that every announcement the BA ever make is going to include the NP badge (because the BA believe they have a right to use it) and the constant “you’re not an NP” isn’t helpful to either side. I could be swayed either way in this debate (it doesn’t look that way here because I’m the kind of idiot that tends to challenge commonly held views) but the “you’re not an NP” chant is likely to make me walk away and I doubt I’m alone in that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

At some point don’t you give up arguing with people whose counter argument seems to be “you’re lying”? He’s said clearly he’ll never support Sanford but we don’t accept that. He’s said clearly he doesn’t want full legal NP status but we don’t accept that. He must realise that there’s not a single thing he could say to convince some of you mustn’t he? At that point do you continue trying? I love a good argument but I wouldn’t. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Day boat covers done by Bailey and Stone too. Once again, I’m very happy with the service and product! The new cover puts the rest of the boat to shame! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks JM. The mist is clearing for me a little. I can see the logic for the positions on both sides of the fence. But we are in this together [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone in a fairly neutral position (I hope) I don’t see it that way. Unless the high court said that every time the BA use the phrase National Park they must add the disclaimer. Did it? What do you see as the omission? They couldn’t be clearer that they’re not a full National Park, have no intention to become a full National Park but can use the brand could it? Whether or not that’s true is a different debate isn’t it? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn’t agree more. I might debate the last part a little though [emoji57] Short of DrP leaving could they now do anything to restore your faith? Would even that do it? I think what’s equally a shame is that whilst almost everyone here wants the same thing we argue over the issues. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We all accept the Broads isn’t a legally defined National Park don’t we? We all accept the Broads can call itself a National Park in some circumstances don’t we? Does anyone not agree with those statements? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, I’d assume you have no black cats [emoji57] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As it was getting a bit too quiet on the subject [emoji6] .... I came across this by accident on the BA website. http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/frequently-asked-questions If you believe what the BA say that states the case quite clearly doesn’t it? I know some of you don’t trust the BA based on history. Is that what this debate comes down to? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Now that could be very interesting considering what some people above have been saying about him and his team [emoji6] Does anyone have the phone number for the Have I Got News For You lawyers? [emoji56] Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

King’s Arms - Ludham (bar, not restaurant but food served in bar) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right next to the QEII bridge is an aggregates site whose products come from dredging. They regularly dredge up WWII ordinance and have to close the site whilst it’s dealt with. The scary part is they’re often not noticed until they appears on a pile after being dredged and passing along a few conveyors! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if it’s partly down to the indemnity insurance of the boat yard. Since we seem do have now adopted US litigation laws could someone who had an accident sue the boatyard because they hired a boat to an unsuitable party? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I like to see different sides of a debate. Ok, perhaps MrB’s comments could have been put over better or maybe they just seemed critical when alongside all the gushing (joke!) but still an interesting slant on the subject IMO. I’m not ex forces but have a lot of friends who are (from all arms) and I know they wouldn’t take offence to those terms as they’re exactly the sort of thing they call each other all the time in a good natured banter way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it’s well written and well thought out. It doesn’t point the finger. I think if it had it would be pointing at farming rather than boating. I very much like that whilst their main focus is wildlife (it is a wildlife trust after all) they’re also considering other users. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My experience of byways and other vehicular rights of way would suggest the public has right of access that the landowner can’t stop. I used to be on the Local Access Forum with Leics CC and a bundle of laughs that wasn’t. I think that would prevent dog owners from being blocked. But I’m not certain I’m right. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When a public footpath goes across private land could it be enforced then? I’m guessing not but not really sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk