[River Yare Closed At Haven Bridge]

13 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Black Humour - It's more generally a military thing

Onboard if someone's parents died the usual banter was - Jammy git - save a fortune on mothers/fathers day cards

That was one of the more milder comments too and just one example, there were many covering all sorts of scenarios far too much for some of the snowflakes in here so I won't be enlightening you

There was banter covering every topic known to man, most of it taking the urine out of some one / group.

If a shipmate died, there was banter selling / buying his kit to raise money for his family

Here's a gentle example:- Squad - Ho, all those with a mother take one pace forward. Smith! Where do you think your going? Your mum died last night,  Get yersen off home pronto.  I witnessed that at HMS Excellent in the 70's (His name wasn't Smith btw)

Another gentle example, we were alongside in Pompy expecting a new mess member to arrive in the evening.  Voice came down the hatch into the mess square asking - You got any n1ggers down there? No went the reply, well you got one now and down came 'Reggin' grinning his head off, (We nicknamed him 'Reggin', it was ages before he realised what it meant spelt backwards)

Did it do us any harm? make us mentally disturbed? were we hurt and needed a safe place? were we offended, did we run off reporting our hurt feelings to some sort of authority?

No of course not, we all gave as good as we got and just coped and got on wi it

Personally having 'Suffered' twenty four years of it and going on todays ethics / standards, I'm impressed I'm not permanently basket weaving in Rampton (Or maybe I am  )

Griff

I think there's a world of difference between what you might say in private company, to that you might say on social media where the wider public have the chance to read it, including those that may actually be going through the very thing you are joking about. Some might think of this forum as a select group of friends having a natter a bit like you might do down the pub, but it isn't, not when anyone can read it.

 

[River Yare Closed At Haven Bridge]

1 minute ago, Vaughan said:

Aren't you over reacting, rather, to a little bit of black humour? 

My Mother used to say, there's a time and a place for larking about, or joking.

I think that until the bomb has been safely disposed off with no loss of life or damage to peoples property or homes, then now is neither the time or the place to be joking about it.

3 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I assume they are insured?

I actually cannot believe you've said that! Insured or not, these are peoples homes and goods, that I'm sure they'd very much like to get back to with them intact.

4 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Or is Hylander right?

I wonder how Hylander might feel about the subject if the bomb was in a neighbour's back garden? There but for the grace of God and all that.

[River Yare Closed At Haven Bridge]

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Of course we feel for all those who are displaced and whose property may be in danger. But at least today with all the precautions, they are in no danger of their own lives.

During the war, their sense of humour was largely what saw them through.

That may be true of the people, but they and we cannot know yet what they may be gong back to after the bomb has been exploded. Don't forget it has been described as very unstable. Hopefully those who have been evacuated have homes to go back to.

Quote "

A resident, who does not wish to be named, went back to her home in the exclusion zone to gather more clothes and essentials.

She said: “ My family has spent the night at my mother-in-laws. We even had to get the cat out.

“It’s been very stressful, but we will be very glad to get home.

“We’ve been worried throughout the night, but obviously it’s best everyone is kept safe.”

I'm sure the jokes here though will be helping them through all their stress. 

My Father fought and was injured in the Second World war, whilst my Mum along with the rest of her family experienced living in the East End of London during the war. So I know a good sense of humour helped them through the war, but it was mainly aimed at the Germans, not those worried about their own lives, or in this case their homes.

[My Day]

 

Keep your gob shut Gracie, keep it firmly shut  x

 

 

a glass of Prosecco however..... 

Who knew!!! All it took was a glass of Prosecco to get you talking again  Such little will power 

[River Yare Closed At Haven Bridge]

10 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Its very worrying for those that live and work in that area.Lets hope that it's sorted out for them soon.

 

 

My thoughts exactly Ian. It's all very well making jokes about improvements to the area, but there are people who have had to find alternative accommodation last night, that may be worried about being faced with damage to their homes when they get back. Perhaps the time for jokes is after the bomb has been safely disposed off? Not exactly the caring friendly forum are we?

[What's Your Flavour?]

I see that Flavours are advertising for part time staff and front of house supervisor, so hopefully they will be reopening March for the season. Look forward to trying this place again.

[How Busy Can It Get?]

18 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I now know I must have ancestors from oop norf, as when I started investigating "chain counters" my immediate reaction was "HOW MUCH?"

Sorry MM but if you had ancestors from upt North your reaction would have been "OW MUUCH" 

[Reform The Broads Authority]

I'm sorry Vaughan, but I have read your reply several times and all you appear to be doing is confirming the point I'm trying to make  You say,

21 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

James will have done his business plan for this year way back in September, not now.

and you also say,

21 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

it is clear that toll rises are normally announced in November,

Which to me is crystal clear that even in any normal year James would have no idea what the forthcoming toll rise would be when he sets his budget. The one thing that would be known is that there will be an increase of some sort, just not how much. I cannot remember the last time there was no annual toll increase.

So I repeat a sensible businessman would make an allowance even if they  did not know the exact figure. Last September I could have very easily made an educated guess at 10 or 11% increase. To claim that he had no idea there would be an increase in toll for the next year, to use a local term, is utter squit.

So I repeat again that James either exaggerated, was misquoted or is just not a very good businessman, and we both know the answer to that last one, which really only leaves him exaggerating and if you know James, then you would know that is a good possibility, or it was the good ole EDP high standard of journalism again!!!!

[Reform The Broads Authority]

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Is that an informed comment?  Hire boat operators are in the seasonal tourist business and have to make their decisions a year in advance.  Not just from the marketing point of view, but to try and decide how much of a business overdraft you can afford, to cover the cost of materials and labour, to try and present your hire fleet in good order for next season's customers. 

Actually YES, James was quoted as saying 

 

7 hours ago, Vaughan said:

and it went up with no hint that it was coming.

Now as sure as Winter turns to Spring, there WILL be a toll rise, the only unknown is how much, but then again this is the BA we are talking about, so a "sensible" businessman would guestimate higher rather than lower!!!!! Certainly only a village idiot would expect no rise!!!!!

So I repeat either James was misquoted, or exaggerated, or was just plainly a very bad businessman, which you and I both know he isn't.

[Reform The Broads Authority]

13 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

James Knight is quoted in the article :

As a business, we have set the prices for the year.  It's our largest fixed cost and it went up with no hint that it was coming.

That is a member of the BA speaking.

Yet I'm a lowly boat owner and I knew there would be a toll increase and knowing the BA it would be at least the rate of inflation. Which means either that James has been misquoted, exaggerated, or not a very good businessman.  We are talking about an EDP article here.

[The Lion At Somerton.]

1 hour ago, FlyingFortress said:

Well said MT.

Last time I was in the Lion was 2007 . The last time I got under that blooming bridge

In fact I'd go as far as to say whenever you see my boat, if I'm not around you generally manage to find us  Can't think how!! 

[The Lion At Somerton.]

13 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

We are the same, and at home friday/saturday/sunday are pub days,

If I'm not in Norfolk then pretty much every evening I meet my brother in our local for a couple of Guinness's a tradition that has now gone on for far longer than I care to remember.

The other pub that concerns me up that way is The Nelsons Head. This New Year there was four of us staying in Oulton Broad, but we took a run out one day to see the seals at Horsey and off course it would have been rude not to pop in for a few. Sadly that day I was driving, so was Des, designated driver, but the others made up for my shortfall. 

[The Lion At Somerton.]

8 minutes ago, marshman said:

Who amongst you lot go down the pub for a drink on a regular basis

When I'm on the boat every lunchtime and every evening you'll find us in a pub somewhere. Apart from the vary occasional BBQ all evening meals are also in the pub.

However The Lion at Somerton is one place I don't get to very often, mainly because of that bloody bridge that your quite keen to see remain as it is because it keeps the hordes away from the Upper Thurne. I guess you cannot have it both ways!!!

The last time I got to The Lion was over the New Year's holiday about four years ago when we were staying in the National Trust barns next to The Nelsons Head at Horsey.

[Odd One]

2 hours ago, Gracie said:

And where were you on the nights of December 23rd and 24th?  

Come to think of it, I wonder if Vaughan and Meantime have an alibi  x

Gracie my Darling, I do believe that you are my alibi 

As you very well know, I was very busy on the night in question 

How else did Santa's elf manage to find all those Christmas jokes to post  

Have I got away with mentioning Christmas in January? 

Now I wonder if Vaughan has a convincing alibi? apart from the small subject of being in a different country. 

[Odd One]

2 minutes ago, LizG said:

I've seen it commented elsewhere that it might be a welded seam that might have failed or a manufacturing defect maybe possibly caused by sitting in the ice?

Apart from the fact that the wood around the top has also "failed cleanly" in exactly the same place!!!!

[Odd One]

That has not been done by some drunken idiot or some mindless thugs. It looks to be an aluminium boat and the cut is very straight and tidy, possibly done with an angle grinder.

Someone is making a statement about something or some trust they are not happy with. It certainly wasn't cut in the water or done as a spur of the moment thing, but must have been pre planned and come armed with the tools needed as well as possibly two people to lift it out of the water first.

[Brouhaha On The Broads.]

17 hours ago, Vaughan said:

What the article doesn't mention is why the BA objected to the new quay being used as moorings.  Some of us with a little memory may recall the underlying reasons for that.

I wonder why this should remind me of the saga of Jenners Basin, all over again?

I have absolutely no idea, because it is nothing like the Jenners saga at all.

The land in question is owned by St Olaves Marina. It was repiled and used by the EA or their sub contractors when the original botched bank works were done on both sides of The New Cut. Once this work was finished it was handed back in a rather worn state to the marina, who went back to letting the mooring as annual moorings to berth holders.

The BA were looking to provide additional visitor moorings and enquired about leasing that stretch, in the main because of the bridge, to fulfil their commitment to providing masting and demasting moorings either side of the bridge. Discussions faltered and it never happened and St Olaves Marina continued to rent out the moorings.

Then St Olaves Marina lodged an application that was passed with quite a few conditions attached to dig out a new basin within the marina to provide an extra pontoon full of moorings. This work was completed but a lot of the conditions were overlooked until protracted discussions with the BA took place and the work was finally completed. Some of these items were the additional planting of trees and hedges to screen the marina from some of it's neighbours. The provision of land both before and after the bridge to provide masting and demasting moorings. Eventually a compromise agreement was reached where the marina provided the land and the BA piled and quay headed it. These are the two short stretches just before and after the bridge. 

In the meantime the section of mooring along the New Cut owned by the marina and let as annual moorings had reached the point where they were starting to fall into the river and the EA under its remit to protect the land from flooding put in a planning application to repile that bank again, having already done it once back around 2002 or 2003. It is part of the flood defense for the properties on Haddiscoe Island. Planning was granted, but due to the acrimony between the marina and the BA over past planning issues and delay in implementing planning conditions, the BA granted planning for the new piling on the basis that no mooring was allowed. The second planning application from the marina sought to reinstate this as there had by this stage been a long history of mooring along that bank and all the outstanding planning conditions had been met and the BA by now had it's two masting and demasting moorings.

Both sides are to blame to some extent. The marina for being lax and in some cases taking nearly ten years to meet some of the planning conditions. The BA by being petty and sneakily removing the right to moor along that bank as part of the application from the EA.

All the above can be found and verified if you look hard enough into all the documentation held on the planning system for applications dating all the way back to just after the marina started to be developed.

It isn't and never was another Jenners.

It isn't and never was about residential boating. Which by the way is not allowed in any part of St Olaves Marina as contained within their own mooring terms and conditions. Long term visits are allowed, but all berth holders must have an alternative permanent postal address.

[Potter Bridge Closed To Road Traffic]

19 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

The author of the article appears to have a deep and thorough understanding of what 'locals" think and say.

By "locals" I assume you mean Paul Rice and Richard Price? Who I hope have really taken on board the views of those they represent, rather than just seeking column inches!!!!

I'd have a lot more faith in the article if Mr Sanford had been interviewed and quoted.

[Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)]

16 minutes ago, floydraser said:

So if you are now paying a service (how ever many times!) does this mean if the mooring goes wrong and you bash into another boat, you can now blame the staff member and all claims are directed towards his employer?

One of the reasons I don't use the ranger at Reedham is because they tend to haul the front in straight against the concrete quay heading. I only moor at Reedham if I arrive against an incoming or slack tide because I can step over from the helm and straight onto the quayside with both ropes in hand. I normally have both ropes connected together ready for solo mooring and if they grab the rope at the front they end up pulling the whole lot in the water.

They should only help where it is needed, and to date I've never needed their help. They don't man Burgh Castle, Polkey's Mill or The Berney Arms, so if your used to mooring at those, then Reedham is no worse. So why should I pay for not using their services at Reedham.

[Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

it should also note this on any signs at the moorings in case anyone were to question why the boat moored next to them was not charged and they were.

Wouldn't those signs need planning permission?

I do agree with you that it should be on the signs, as should the full tariff and times they apply and penalties for not paying. No signs and why would anybody pay some bloke who walks up in a uniform and demands payment!!!! Put up signs without planning and I can see there also being an issue if it ever went to court.

[Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)]

Quote "Q - What powers does the Authority have if people refuse to pay the charges?

A – Non-payment of a mooring charge would be recoverable via a Civil Court action if the situation warranted such action, in the same way that driving away from a forecourt without paying for fuel would be."

For small claims of up to £300, the court fee is £35, so £25 more than the mooring fee, however putting that to one side for a moment, who would they make the claim against? The registered owner of the boat? The helm who actually moored the boat on that particular occasion? Since it's a civil matter what power do they have to demand your name and address for service of such a claim? I moor my boat and claim that I have borrowed the boat from the registered keeper and my name is Mickey Mouse 1 Disney Towers, now send me the bill, and if I don't pay take me to the small claims court. Good luck with that one.

By the way driving away from a forecourt without paying for fuel is stealing goods, a world of difference to refusing to pay for a service twice.

Quote "Charges will be introduced at Reedham and Ranworth where staff help people to moor. "

So does one assume that if you don't use their help there will be no charge?

Maybe just maybe it is time to make a stand. Imagine if 20 boats all turned up on the first day the charges come into force and all refused to pay, and the EDP just happened to be there having been alerted before hand!!!

Quote "Specific by-laws are not required."

That's nice to know, because presumably the byelaws that control the free 24hr BA moorings do not apply. Anyone fancy a week at Ranworth taxi rank for £70 

[Reform The Broads Authority]

13 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

There is no mention at all in the article about any new charge for other moorings.

That is probably just down to the poor level of journalism within the EDP. For instance take a look at the following sentence.

"The concerns follow an announcement to increase tolls by 13% this year, a move the authority is hoping will bring in an additional £4.26m over the next financial year. "

Which would tend to indicate that the toll income is around £37m per year. Just imagine how the BA could waste that amount.!!!!!

[Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)]

14 minutes ago, floydraser said:

It will be interesting to see how hiring companies handle these new charges. Whether the hirer has to pay or if it's included in the hiring fee somehow (refund). Or if there is some arrangement whereby the hiring company pays a set fee and the hirer pays nothing. I guess a couple of nights at ten quid is not much on top of a couple grands worth of holiday.

Thinking about it cynically, which would the hire companies prefer? An above 13% increase in tolls to keep the moorings free, which would hit the bottom line of the hire company, or a 13% increase and a mooring fee introduced at two honey pot moorings which the hirer pays. A bit like the move from gas to electric cooking which saves the hire yard buying the gas, in preference to the hirer burning more diesel which they pay for.

As a hire yard I know which I would vote for, however let's not forget those same hire yards via Blakes took out the original lease on Ranworth and then gifted it to the BA. That must stick in the craw a bit!

[Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)]

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

That reminds me.

I assume all those fishermen who squat on BA moorings and thus prevent boats from mooring there, will now have to pay their "ten quid" as well?

Firstly though, does the forum support the allowing of fishing from BA 24hr moorings? You can see just how quickly things could unravel if this forum was to start campaigning!! I'll leave it there.

[Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)]

You join a campaign group because you support the aims of that campaign, and the moment you don't then you leave it.

You join a forum to discuss topics, ideas, issues or even just to share jokes. You don't have to take part in any debate that doesn't interest you and many will use the forum just as a reference, for entertainment or just to keep in touch with what is going on in an area they love. The moment the forum starts campaigning on any issue it risks loosing members who do not support the aims of that campaign. There are many issues which could split this forum right down the middle if it tried to choose a side to campaign for.

Where would this forum loyalties lie if it had to make a choice on the following,

For or against the continued allowing of water skiing

For or against allowing fishing at all BA moorings

For or against creating more unrestricted areas for the testing of engines

For or against allowing continual cruisers to stay longer than 24hrs at free moorings

For or against supporting the removal of Potter Bridge

For or against campaigning for better facilities for paddle boarders, maybe even restricting motor boats on a part of the navigation for sole use by paddle boarders

If the forum took a stance on each of the above and campaigned for them, there would probably be one or two forum members left happy to support the choices made. For quite a few of the above if the wrong choice was made I'd no longer be a member of this forum.