.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
JohnK
-
Posts
873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by JohnK
-
-
Thanks for all the feedback folks.
Very useful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I think the rules are that hire boats may not navigate on the Broads at night. Private boats with the right lights can. Is that correct?
Has anyone done much night navigation on the Broads?
I was thinking it could be very interesting to see some of the nocturnal animals and birds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
As it's fish oil. I think the smell might get to you inside, designed only to leave a very thin coat though
Thanks, I didn’t know that.
I want it to soak in don’t I? I just give it a light spray when I pass. So it will get plenty of coats.
Luckily my wood working skills are so c**p I’m unlikely to make anything that’s allowed in the house so the smell shouldn’t be a problem
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
I’m not promoting this as a good idea for boats!
I was messing in my shed and did a comparison of Danish oil (which I like using) and WD40 (which is dead easy to spray on)
Very little difference on a scrap piece of wood.
And I’m quite happy with the way this is coming up.
Two coats so far.
I don’t do much prep so it could be a lot better.
60 grit on a belt sander is as far as I go and no sanding between coats. I like to think that’s because I like rustic. But it’s more likely I’m just lazy
. Has anyone else tried it?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You can get smartphone apps to do colour analysis if that helps?
Like this:
Color Analyzer - Get info from image with camera!! by Satoshi Nakamurahttps://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/color-analyzer-get-info-from-image-with-camera/id1160206848?mt=8
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Bump.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Respect to you for putting a real effort in Steve.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Done.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
And which is why, people who are unaware of the details would do best to re read the old stuff rather than continue a new discussion!!
Does that apply to every subject?
Once the enlightened few have spoken there’s never a need to discuss it ever again?
That sounds more like Wikipedia than a forum.
[Posted very much tongue in cheek]
I keep koi and use a couple of forums. Every year the same subjects come up over and over again. Some people choose to get involved, some choose not to. I think it makes new people feel welcome when they can get their questions answered.
Things change too. Good advice / right answers five years ago may no longer be good advice / right answers today in my experience.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
6
-
1
-
-
Just put it down to the time of year, or people stuck in because of the cold weather and not wishing to move far away from the computer being the reason why this is being resurrected yet again for the umpteenth time!!!
Actually, it was resurrected yet again because I was interested to learn about the situation.
Sorry.
Here’s me thinking a Norfolk Broads forum would be a forum to discuss the Norfolk Broads (JOKE)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
2
-
2
-
-
The 'lie factor' is relevant, let me explain. I was at a staff and member briefing at BA H.Q. when the BA CEO, John Packman, instructed us and BA staff to call the Broads 'The National Park', explaining that that was in order that the term should gain acceptance. That was despite the fact that the Broads National Park Bill had failed in Parliament and despite the fact that DEFRA was adamant that the Broads is not an N.P. The 'Lie' clearly being used as a means of undermining the will of Parliament, that can't be right. A case of attempting to 'gently, gently, catch the monkey'? I'm sure that it is.
I don’t doubt that it is important.
What I’m saying is that when you first ask what the issue is and you just hear that it’s a lie it seems petty.
The issue isn’t that someone may be lying. The issue is that someone is potentially trying to sneak legislation through by lying.
Perhaps I’m alone but when I kept hearing “they’re lying” my thoughts were “who cares?” It’s only now I understand a little more what may be happening I care.
Do I care someone is being dishonest? Not really.
Do I care the Broads may become a “real” National Park? Too bloody right I do!
To be blunt only saying it’s a lie and refusing to discuss it further is going to alienate people who are new to the issue but might actually care and help.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
5
-
-
I would also like to mention, as I have on other threads, that the Broads are geographically different from other national parks, which can be genuinely described as being in their natural state. A place like Exmoor has looked like Macbeth's "blasted heath" for thousands of years and if left alone, it will stay that way, without interference or maintenance from any "authority".
But you can't say that about the Broads. They are man-made and so man must maintain them. As I see it, the only practical way to do this is to maintain navigation for pleasure boating and tourism, which is where the revenue comes from. Other activities such as birdwatching and cyling will not, on their own, provide enough revenue.
Those of us who are against the national park status fear that this balance of activity, and revenue, will be eroded if they are "managed" by a national park authority.
That’s really informative thank you.
It’s good to hear an option of why or why not rather than “it’s a lie” which superficially sounds petty (I’m not saying it is petty, just that unless you hear the back story it sounds petty).
I think you’ve convinced me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
My views are well known.
Not by me which is why I asked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
This is the NBN at its most cultish.
What’s your view Bill?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Apologies to everyone who thinks we shouldn’t have had this discussion.
But I have to say as a newcomer to this without hearing the reasoning behind it arguing just that it’s a lie does sound quite out there.
It makes perfect sense to object when you find out a little more about what’s happening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
I was looking back through some old BBC stories about the Broads and came across this.
Norwich: Safety warning after Broads boat hits railway bridgehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-32958732
At the bottom I see related stories (I tell you this because it’s possible different people see different related stories).
The first one is Broads mapped from ducks eye view. Fair enough. Quite well related in my opinion.
The second related story is woman killed by whale in Mexico. Related? Really??!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I found this on Wikipedia.
Do you think that’s a reasonable description of the state of affairs?This is the subject of ongoing controversy among some Broads users who note that the Broads is not named in law as a National Park and claim the branding detracts from the Broads Authority's third purpose which is to protect the interests of navigation. In response to this the Broads Authority has stated that its three purposes will remain in equal balance and that the branding is simply for marketing the National Park qualities of the Broads.
If the BA did make that statement do we believe them?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
John, you have reached the only possible conclusion having read the above link. In any hands it is scary scenario, in the wrong hands even more so.
Couldn’t agree more.
Isn’t there a danger that if the only people talking about it are for it the perception becomes that everyone agrees?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
11 hours ago, MorningSwan said:JohnK
well there's not a lot to be said about some of our worlds leaders right now is there?
X xxxxx as an example but there are others ?
You’re right there.
That was my point really. Keep telling the same lie and it becomes a truth is in my opinion what got the other their current leader.
Xxx is fairly scary but Xxxxx scares me a lot more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
the effectively unchallengeable control which would be obtainable with the Sandford Principle is the ultimate goal of a sector of the Authority.
I hadn’t come across that term before.
Assuming this is true....
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/aimsandpurposesofnationalparks/sandfordprinciple
That is scary. Fair enough for a true nature reserve but for man made waterways?
Sorry to have dredged it up again (bad pun intended) but now I know a bit more I’d say it’s worth discussing at every possible opportunity however boring it gets! There must be a lot of people like me that know nothing of what may be trying to be done and the potential consequences.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
2
-
-
Sadly that is so true JM,
Surely it can’t be true.
If that was the case any idiot could become leader of the free world just by saying over and over they’d be really good at doing it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I did do a search but could find very little other than some people saying it shouldn’t be discussed and a few saying it isn’t an NP so it shouldn’t be called one.
If it can be called a NP in marketing how’s that different from calling it an NP in public?
What I was hoping to hear was people’s opinions on why they think it’s either a good or bad thing calling it an NP
I can understand concern over it actually becoming a NP. So is the worry over it being called a NP just that someone is trying to sneak it through?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
John, this has been discussed in depth and suggest that you use the search facility.
However, in a nutshell, the fact is that the Broads is NOT legally a national park, a fact that even the delusional Broads Authority acknowledges.
Fair enough. Sorry for the post. I’ll shut up and use google in future.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
MorningSwan. Yeah, sort of. It was your post that prompted me to ask but I’ve seen many other people post the same thing.
I’m not trying to provoke an argument (I seem to be saying this a lot recently but I’m honestly not). I just like to understand stuff.
I still don’t really understand the problem. I completely agree people should be honest but I don’t understand the harm in this case. Is the worry as SpeedTriple (biker?) says that boats get banned, skiing stopped etc? Or is there more to it than that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nighttime Navigation - Allowed? Opinions?
in Broads Chat
Posted
I’ve got an (none road legal) LED lightbar on my Land Rover. If I turn it on it’s like daylight. When I turn it off I can see very little for a few seconds. It almost completely destroys my night vision.
There’s something about red light preserving your night vision isn’t there?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk