Meantime

The two images below show where the mooring is and the rough route to Morrisons. There are no obvious signs saying it is a mooring, but there is a lack of No Mooring signs there.

It's about a mile walk from the Morrisons mooring. The Coldham Hall Tavern also had a couple of Redwell beers on a week ago.

There used to be a sign there saying something like 2hr short stay moorings but last time I was there that sign had gone. There is no no mooring signs so I presumed them still open and popped to the Redwell brewery tap room. The beer was good and we may have stayed a little longer than 2 hours.

I think the Nisa quickly became some kind of International supermarket. I purchased a pint of milk in the Summer and it was just about in date. Hopefully the Londis has a better turnover.

It was good, good beer! Cannot vouch for the Londis as I haven't been in there yet, but just thought it might be useful!

If Oulton Broad is on the lads agenda I can recommend making the effort to reach The Stanford Arms. See below for today's menu. Also if extra provisions are needed there is now a brand new Londis at the petrol station near Oulton Broad North station.

The only way to get an answer to that would be a freedom of information request. As of the 13th June 2023 no one had received a MCN Mooring Contravention Notice.

No its still there. If I were to search for such items I would use specific search terms on the Youtube site such as Broads Authority and Sutton staithe which would probably give you a reasonably short list of videos. Then I'd look for one that had been uploaded in the last few days from that list.

With regards to your last sentence, I would argue that not all do, only the law abiding ones, and this is where things do get complicated. The Police have the power to seize and possibly crush cars or vans that are not insured or MOT'd. Whilst the BA have certain powers under the Byelaws, they don't have the power to seize and destroy unless the boat is abandoned, which I'm sure no one would want anyway if it was someone's home.

This is where it all gets rather interesting! Since Daniel Thwaites wasn't on the boat he wasn't in a position to agree to enter into the civil contract with the BA. Further he is under no obligation to provide details of the hirer to the BA unless a Byelaw has been broken. As we already know the BA are dealing with this under civil contract law, not a Byelaw. If Daniel Thwaites does provide the details for a civil case when he is not required to, then there is an issue to be considered for breach of GDPR. And finally if the details of the hirer were given out, was he even at the helm, or was he unaware having left the boat in the capable hands of another helm whilst he slept of the results of the dinner time session. In which case the rest of the crew would have to search their collective memories, whilst under no legal obligation, to try and provide the name of the helm who did moor there and effectively enter into, and breach, the civil contract. I'm rather guessing it will come to nothing and just be recorded under the column of hire boat refused to pay, on some BA spreadsheet.

I guess where I'm coming from when I say the BA should be working with its partners to solve the issue, is that as the local planning authority it must have a responsibility. The closest I can come to equating it, is that local authorities have a responsibility to provide a legitimate number of traveler sites and pitches. Liveaboards are I think the Broads based equivalent. The Government has acted and created the Planning Policy for Traveler Sites. One of its stated goals is, 3. The Governments overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for traveler, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travelers while respecting the interests of the settled community. And, some of the ways to achieve this are stated as, b. to ensure that local planning authorities, working collaboratively, develop fair and effective strategies to meet need through the identification of land for sites h. to increase the number of travellr sites in appropriate locations with planning permission, to address under provision and maintain an appropriate level of supply j. to enable provision of suitable accommodation from which travellrs can access education, health, welfare and employment infrastructure I'm not going to go into specifics, but the above is relevant to at least one of the regulars at Sutton. I believe the BA has particularly failed in delivering the following; 10. Local planning authorities should, in producing their Local Plan: a) identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against their locally set targets[footnote 4] b) identify a supply of specific, developable sites, or broad locations for growth, for years 6 to 10 and, where possible, for years 11-15[footnote 5]

These things are never as simple as it seems. Firstly are the boat registered and therefore if not how do you serve paperwork to bring a court case? If they are registered they often change hands soon after to another owner and the paperwork has to be cancelled and the process started again. There but for the grace of God, if the BA were successful and managed to get a fine lodged against them, would they be able to pay? Or as is often the case would they agree a payment plan that could be afforded, say £1 per week, which might get paid for the first month and then the BA have to go chasing the fine again. I guess the BA's first and more importantly first course of action is to make the mooring less attractive to overstayers. There are no easy answers. It bugs me when I turn up at Sutton and cannot get moored on the green, and it has definitely got worse in the last couple of years, but at least I do have other options, not least a home to go to. I know there are many who make a lifestyle choice to liveaboard, or to live within their means are forced to do so and generally you wouldn't know who they are. Then there are others with little option but to do it as cheaply as they can, and others who just don't want to conform, but you have to ask your self, if there was a genuine alternative would they be living like it? Its a more complex issue than just the Byelaws can deal with, but I do agree the BA could and should and in fact I think have a duty to do more, even if it means working more closer with the social services departments of the local and county councils the BA executive area overlaps with.

And with that deduction you are probably getting a lot closer to why the posts have been turned off.

Today is the 6th according to my calendar, unless yesterday was Wednesday in which case I must have drank too much as I lost Thursday.

I think that's unwise speculation to link the two. Very little details have been released in the press about the incident at Neatishead, but if it had anything to do with the safety of an electric post they would all be turned off until checked.

I'm guessing a simple email to the BA or a freedom of information request may elicit a response, but it would most likely be denied on operational grounds, if revealing too much about what has been going on could lead to others following suit, that's assuming off course that the posts have been tampered with, which I'm doubting. The person doing the filming was refunded his credit when the post was taped up, so I suspect tampering to be more and more unlikely. I understand why this forum has removed the links to the video, but having watched it I feel it says much more about the person behind the camera, than those being filmed who behaved impeccably. The comment from the person behind the camera in the comments section for the video is also very telling!

This is the BA wording from their post on Faceache. Boating News - Please be aware that our electric charging posts at Sutton Staithe moorings have been temporarily withdrawn due to misuse. We will issue a further update in due course. I cannot find the picture anymore, I think it may have been in the comments section for their post, but they have now chosen to limit commenting on that particular post, make of that what you will!

There is a BA statement saying they have been temporarily withdrawn due to misuse and I've also seen a picture of the posts covered by a black plastic bag and tape and with a BA notice on them.

I suspect the problem is "who" is using them! Which in that case it might have been better to have implemented the policy during the busy part of the season, rather than when we are approaching the quieter colder months

And how much toll do they pay towards the upkeep of the mooring? Boaters pay toll towards the upkeep and provision of moorings. Most also spend money in local businesses, but that is not a pre requisite of using a mooring. How much do the businesses at Ranworth contribute to the BA's coffers? I see on Faceache that the BA have withdrawn the electric post facilities at Sutton due to misuse!! For that you can probably read overstaying and being permanently plugged into the post. How long before charges are imposed there under the heading of mooring usage management? OK it is not staffed, but there is easy road access for a ranger to pop by a couple of times a day when doing other mooring checks in the area.

Just make sure you don't mix them up

Whitlingham country park has a few no mooring signs along the edge of the quayside, however they seem to be routinely ignored. I was coming alongside to moor up a couple of months ago and a gentlemen walking his dog along the moorings said something I didn't quite hear, so he repeated it, saying there are no mooring signs along there somewhere and pointing down along the edge. Since I knew which boat he was from I said "I'm sure I'll be fine for one night" and continued to moor. What's good for the goose and all that. He carried on walking his dog and then returned to his boat. He was still moored there a couple of days later. Apart from the thunderstorm, i had a very peaceful night there and moved off the next day. They are no longer BA moorings and are purposely not being tended to discourage mooring, but enough boats are routinely mooring there to keep them usable. The electric posts went as soon as the BA handed them back.

I think it was caused by the lack of washing and polishing! Clearly if it had been washed and polished regularly, the non existant fire wouldn't have happened

Oh dear! Wrong side of the bed this morning Vaughan? Firstly I didn't say Dan was the owner of the boatyard, I said his family were. Since the user DanBroadGate said in his own post, "it's ours and its going back to Bridgecraft" I don't think Dan was making any big secret of who he was, especially if you have seen his very interesting postings on Facebook. I apologise in advance if Dan was trying to keep a secret who he was, which would be the worst kept secret ever, but in which case a much more anonymous user name might be better

I thought it had been established by the fourth post on this thread, the one by DanBroadGate, that is Dan who's family own Bridgecraft and Broadgate Marina, that it was theirs and on its way to Bridgecraft. The multiple smiley faces and confirming Mouldy's guess on his previous post that it was "a mould with a few windows fitted and some missing" seemed a clear indication to me that there had been no major disaster involving a hire craft or fire! This is clearly a commercial venture of some sort and it is for Dan to decide how much or how little they want to share at this stage about their future plans. It might be helpful though, now it has been established there hasn't been a boat fire at Reedham Ferry if the flames of gossip were extinguished by modifying the thread title to something more suitable and less misleading. It has already spread to a neighbouring forum, the last thing we want is the EDP picking it up and printing something without checking it out properly. They wouldn't do that would they?