Meantime

I don't think so. If you look at the confirmation statement from the previous year it runs to 133 pages and lists all the individual limited companies or sole traders who were shareholders of NISA Retail Limited. Each with differing numbers of shares. I guess depending on whether they had one shop or a few shops in a local area. There are approx 12 entries per page and the statement runs to 133 pages, so somewhere in the region of 1600 individual shareholders owning 59760 shares between them. I don't know how much the co-op paid for NISA Retail Limited but each of the shareholders would have got a percentage based upon the numbers of shares they held, although more than likely it was a sale of convenience to offload the wholesale arm and give them access to the improved buying power of the co-op as well as the expanded product range. companies_house_document (1).pdf

Somebody also needs to inform the Government then, or more specifically Companies House!!!! Company Name NISA RETAIL LIMITED Company Number 00980790 Confirmation Statement date 17/08/2018 Shareholding 1: 59760 ORDINARY shares held as at the date of this confirmation statement Name: CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOLDINGS (2011) LIMITED I think your misunderstanding stems from the following. All of the independent shops trading under the NISA logos were also shareholders of NISA Retail Limited, which despite its name was actually the wholesaler and distribution to all the independent shops. These independent shops as shareholders of NISA Retail Limited company number 00980790 have sold that business to the Co-op, who is the sole shareholder of NISA Retail Limited. In return the independent shops benefit from the increased buying power of the co-op as well as an expanded product range and get to continue using the NISA logo's and branding. The independent shops remain exactly that, independent, but they no longer have any stake in what used to be their wholesale / distribution arm, NISA Retail Limited. The independent shops get to do what they do best, running their own independent business without having to worry about being shareholders off and having a say in running a much larger more complex wholesale and distribution business. Whichever way you look at it, the facts are NISA Retail Limited is wholly owned by the Co-operative Group and the independent stores operating under the NISA branding continue to be exactly that, independent businesses and no longer shareholders of NISA Retail Limited. companies_house_document.pdf

You might want to tell NISA to update their website then!! 2017 It’s our 40th Birthday! 2018 In May 2018 the Co-op completed its acquisition of Nisa Retail Limited. Link to NISA website

The not running engines at moorings from 8pm to 8am is becoming stealth legislation of the worst example as it potentially legitimises running them between 8am to 8pm at moorings. The fact is it is NOT backed up in any way by a byelaw and can not be enforced by the BA. The byelaw prohibits making a smoke or noise nuisance at moorings at ANY time. I would class a running diesel for hours on end as both at a mooring. The BA have a byelaw, so why do they chose to put advice, they cannot enforce, on their mooring signs rather than the actual byelaw? It doesn't make sense!

Don't worry they're rarer than the booming of the Bittern!

A slight digression but very pertinent to this subject. Batteries do not make electricity, they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas powered plants or diesel fueled generators. So to say an electric boat is zero emission or environmentally friendly is not at all valid!!!!

I believe the first charging points were paid for, or heavily subsidised by a sustainability grant to encourage electric boating, however the problem doesn't just end with allowing an electric boat to commandeer a post for charging purposes, given that most are on public moorings paid for out of the general toll. All things being equal priority should be given to an electric boat wishing to recharge over one which is plugged in to power the oven or boil a kettle. It could even be argued that if you put credit on a meter and a higher priority user came along you could lose it as their need to plug in is greater than yours. However imagine you're moored at Ranworth or Horning and there are no available moorings left and along comes an electric boat that needs to recharge to continue its journey. Would a non electric boat that is plugged in have to move off to make space for the electric boat that needs to plug in. Would a non electric boat that is not even plugged in have to move off to make space? There clearly needs to be an expansion of the number of electric charging points, but it is an expensive business especially in very rural areas, who pays for it? Should there be a network of special moorings purely reserved for electric only boats, and if so should it be funded from a different pot, either a government grant or an electric boat toll? The BA really needs a clearer policy around the whole issue of electric boating and also the placement of posts, and also a clear hierarchy of post usage. Perhaps one mooring nearest to each post should be reserved for all electric boats only, with anyone else able to use the mooring, but must stay with their boat and be prepared to move on should the space be needed by an electric boat.

EE / BT mobile seems to be fairly good in most parts of Horning now. Also if your cottage comes with WiFi, most modern mobiles now support WiFi calling where it will switch to using the WiFi to make and receive phone calls. (providing you have this turned on in the phone settings) Obviously will only work within the cottage, but you can also use WiFi calling if connected to a pub WiFi if in a poor phone signal area.

I think we have to go by the BA Byelaws. They define that navigation lights should be exhibited between sunset and sun rise. Since hire boats generally do not have nav lights, they should be moored up by sunset. In the interpretations they also state that "By night" means between sunset and sunrise.

Ahead of schedule then!

I would imagine it all depends on the age of the post and how rotten it is. Judging by the marks and scuffs you see on the posts, they get nudged on a fairly regular basis. Wood under water without oxygen never rots, or rots extremely slowly, on the other hand wet wood exposed to the atmosphere will rot much quicker. The part of the post that is constantly wet and exposed to the air due to the rise and fall of the tide is the bit most at risk of rotting. Which begs the question, when you see a missing post, how much of it is still left just under the surface of the water? Maybe, just maybe an extra reason why they should be replaced in a timely manner. Edited to add: I believe it was a snapped off post on Barton Broad which holed a boat a few years back. In the channel on the approach towards Neatishead.

It's worth noting that the crew on board the hire boat had already spent the night on board the boat stuck on Breydon and the coastguard were called at noon the next day, which would have been just after high tide on Breydon. I suspect that having gone aground the crew sat it out until the next day on the hope of refloating on the next high tide and had they have been successful little would have been known about this particular incident. Possibly the high tide not being high enough or having drifted further they were unsuccessful and called the coastguard.

Now there's a point. Any boat not tolled after a warning has been issued gets towed to Breydon and sunk to mark the channel. Would save on marker posts and also serve as a reminder to pay your toll.

You are right that mistakes will happen and if you like, idiots will be idiots, but please bear in mind that the navigation markers are not a luxury, they were installed as, and are an aid to navigation. When they fail they should be replaced in a timely manner. The Authority responsible for maintaining them has a statutory responsibility for safety. One they wanted to take over from Peel Ports. And far from doom and gloom to put people off from crossing Breydon, replacing those posts and improving the signage should give more people the confidence that they can cross Breydon Water in safety.

However improved signage and posts being replaced in a timely manner would lead to less people running aground as was proven when John Cressey improved the signage. Or are you suggesting that if the number of posts makes no difference that none of them should be replaced when they fall over. Perhaps you would like to see all the posts removed? The posts were installed for a reason. They should be replaced when they get damaged.

A true statement putting to one side the sarcasm, but them luckily someone also took a photo. So it looks like Oulton and Breydon Bridge were not dark!!!!!!!

No my point is that if the posts had been in place and proper signage then they might not have gone aground there. I fully agree there is a chance they may have run aground further across and I fully agree they should not have been there. The picture below borrowed from elsewhere and modified to disguise the identity of the boat is from an eye witness who took the picture as it passed Breydon Bridge. I think we can all agree the light levels should have been sufficient not to have run aground even if their final destination may have been Timbuktu with an arrival in the pitch dark!!!

I don't know if you are deliberately trying to miss the point, but I have already stated a few times that they should not have been there and I have no idea where they were heading. It was after dusk so the destination is irrelevant, but at the point they grounded it was NOT pitch dark.

It is not a pointless debate and at no time have I tried to defend the hirers. There would still have been good light when they run aground, even if they should not have been cruising after dark. The missing post there is confusing and does need to be replaced. John Cressey put signs on those posts for VERY good reasons and they reduced the amount of call outs dramatically. I know because I spoke to him a few times in The Berney Arms. He used to be a regular at The Berney due to locating one of his rescue tugs there in the Summer due to the amount of call outs on Breydon. I believe it is his nephew who owns EMS and has again put signs back on the posts just recently. John's original signs were so successful that the BA eventually replaced them with their own and then failed to maintain them. It's not just hirers that use Breydon. I've made a few night time crossings and also gone across around dusk when the mist suddenly descends and at that point you rely on the posts. I say posts because they stand out against the horizon far better than buoys.

I'm merely pointing out that your previous comment made it sound like they ran aground in the pitch dark. At 10pm it would not have been anywhere near being pitch dark, therefore that was not the cause of them finding themselves outside of the channel. I agree as a hire boat it was after dusk and they should not have been cruising, but many do ignore the rules and at this time of year there is a good 60 mins between dusk and total darkness.

It is reported they ran aground at 10pm, now I know that is after dusk, But, I was in Oulton Broad a week ago and it was still very light at 10pm, more like 10:20 before you could say it was dark. I doubt light levels was their issue even if they should not have been there.

Exactly what I was hinting at. I don't know EMS's relationship to the BHF, but I do know the owners are related to John Cressey and I suspect have taken over his dealings with the BHF on a similar basis, which would leave the question why are the BA neglecting to cover their own commitments? Perhaps the coastguard and inshore lifeboat need to have a whip around for the BA to fund a few extra posts to prevent so many call outs. That was tongue in cheek, but perhaps if the BA are neglecting their responsibilities to providing clear signage there might be a case for the BA to cover some of the rescue costs.

I wouldn't bank on it! John Cressey was paid by the Broads Hire Federation to provide a recovery service. He put the initial signs up to prevent so many call outs, I believe he was paid annually rather than on a per call out basis.

If by the other side you mean Richard's you will see that it was Everitt Marine Services who put out the markers and signs with the BA onboard Spirit of Breydon eyeing up that the sign were level and at the correct angle. A task that the BA should be more than capable of doing. Taken from Facebook " Everitt Marine Services 22h · Yesterday we put three more markers out on Breydon and today we fitted two channel signs to posts 1 and 1A. Many thanks to Keith and Martin on Spirit of Breydon for there assistance making sure we had the signs at the correct angle.