marshman

Correct!!!

Agreed, but none of us have any hard facts, so its all speculation, or at least some of it! I might take more interest if someone could produce "hard" evidence but they cannot! Even Sandford is vastly overplayed as though its imposed and actually used daily - which it isn't! But why continue to put about such "speculation" when there is no evidence to support it?

I would agree with Vaughan - it does have the look of as trader and perhaps this an early example to try and use the counter stern. I cannot really logically see how you could just cut off the cuddy and stern and convert it to a counter stern as it would have not a lot of structural integrity as some big bits, such as the stern post and apron, would have gone too!! Sadly I doubt whether we shall ever find out the truth but it does look like a forerunner of these beautiful counters on the Wherry yachts. It may also, especially as there are no real records of the boat, mean it did not last long and quickly passed on to bank or staithe somewhere! Chimbleys - not sure Pete that I know of another name, unless I forgot it, but you are correct about the coburg which protected the stub of the chimney and which would have prevented the mainsheet catching. The chimbley would have been in two parts, a steel tube to fit over the bit coming up from the stove , and Albion still has the square bit to fit over the inner - if you look at the picture , you will see that that this is square too. I am also equally sure that that they were not always unshipped when sailing as there are plenty of pictures around with chimblies smoking- my guess is that in a gentle breeze you may be able to flick the mainsheet over, to avoid catching it. But we will never know and going back to a favourite hobby horse, it all just shows how vitally important it is to keep all the information of a bygone era!!

Would it be a good idea to please put this to bed as suggested? None of us have the gift to foresee the future and to be honest it is all supposition on the part of PW and Vaughan too, and indeed others, as to the impact of what could, or indeed, would happen. Its a guess, and IMHO not even a good guess! Times change and so do circumstances - rules too and you might just as well argue that without the full title being used, the grant will be cut completely ( which it won't !!! ) When so much supposition continues to take place, you do get an awful lot of squit in some posts , which in some cases far far exceed the worst case scenario (IMHO) but none of us know or can guess so why do people persist in making vague statements which even they know are based on supposition and not fact?? Give it a rest chaps - we know where you are and lets just wait before calling on the big guns to fight a shadow, especially when the sun is not even shining!!!! Peter and the Wolf comes aptly to mind.....!

Two now - better view from the stills feed !

I think its something to do with the fact that clearly they take a bit of effort to lay!! And they want them to hatch within a day or so of each other!! Clever 'ol stuff them birdies!

And???? The Govt, and now the Courts have said they can do that, so why shouldn't they? Whilst I am only too well aware of the issues and the views of almost everyone on this Forum, do you really think that any one else in the country really bothers about the name? You and I know it isn't, anyone interested knows it isn't and as it requires primary legislation to actually change the situation, its hardly going to creep in unannounced is it? Can we just let anyone who wants to do so, now get on with calling it what they like for the sake of books, leaflets, marketing material, and then perhaps take interest if something ACTUALLY happens?

Thats absolutely correct Alan - not quite sure how it works but thats the way it is!!

PW is exactly right - the money from fishermen goes to the EA but to say that they are responsible for water quality ALONE is not really true!! Neither do I think the late Martin George would agree with you, nor for that matter, Andrea Kelly at the BA who I guess he also knows and respects Both the BA and the EA put in a huge amount of time and effort to continue to ensure water quality improves and will continue to do so - it is much better than it was 25 years ago and work is still ongoing. There is for example a lot of effort up towards Brograve to solve the red ochre problem and they, and indeed others such as the IBD,s are doing there bit. However it takes a long time to undo all the harm cause by overdeepening the drains and really difficult to reverse - but it is getting better and takes a lot of effort but they ALL have a role and are continuing to work together thank goodness

Having said that Vaughan, what you have said about cyclists is just not true!! You may not like the interference of non boating organisations or projects backed by cyclist organisations , but possibly like railway signs, often there are more than just the BA contributing. Remember the BA's legal responsibility is NOT just about boats and navigation but others to, which is just why we moved on from the old regime, and why funding in the form of the NP Grant from DEFRA is just one of the sources of BA cash other than tolls. But I still think you are a nice bloke and read your posts so don't despair!

Vaughan - that was NOT a personal attack on you at all but merely an attempt to try to show the objectives, and purpose of the BA is entirely different to the old P & H Commrs. Indeed if you go back to the original Broads Act, the BA was set up simply because the former bodies were just too narrow to accept the responsibilities of the new era. Its no longer just about the navigation, but the fauna and flora ( margerine?? ) and providing access to all - or thats how i see it!! Not meant personally - not my style!!!

If you want to go to the South Coast, then with respect , please do so but if you do , perhaps your next campaign will be against the Marina Owners themselves! Brighton Marina for e.g, want to charge a day visitor rate of £1 per foot per day - my Diamond annual mooring charge would be over £4k a year and if I wanted a postbox, they want another £300. What cheek! And Pete, surely ALL the NP's had their NP grant cut - can you point me to the bit where the BA were singled out for their profligacy? I have a list deside me of 2016 expenditure and to be a bit honest, it would be quite hard to make savings of £1.5 m or nearly a further 25%. Its easy to bandy figures around to suit but I think your "overheads" figure includes a fair degree of what it would pain even you to go without!

Vaughan - you said that you would like to see this money spent on "upkeep"? In 2016 they spent £585k on dredging alone - do you think it would matter too much if they spent £10k less!! I think your harping back to the old days , with respect, is probably inappropriate. The world has moved on, like it or not and even volunteers have to be issued with , and read, risk assessments and we live in a different environment. People often refer to the good old days but do we really want to go back to the 70's - I recall the "good ol' days" out spent on seeing how many condoms you could count in an hour or turning up towards Bargate and bumping in to the Commissioners launch moored up, with the only sound being that of snoring! So Vaughan, here is your opportunity to say how you would "improve" the Broads but bear in mind it has to be funded from real money provided by someone - and to be fair I will give you signboards for a starter of £10k!!! And don't say "more moorings" either unless you know of a landowner willing to lease land or at a rent which the BA HAS to pay as agreed by the District Valuer or whatever he is called! If you pay more than that, it would all become pretty noisy with all these dreadfully poor landowners falling over themselves to stuff their pockets with boatowners fivers! Seriously though its never been easy to manage such a diverse area as the Broads and whilst I agree there are issues and some, I think they still a lovely place to be!!

If you read all the various documents around you will see that part of the problem was that hire boat revenue fell by something short of £30k as a result of some 28 (? ) boats being withdrawn from fleets. Perhaps there is an argument for differentiating more widely the difference between hire boat and private revenues? The real blame could also be placed on the Govt who reduced the NP grant over those 3 years - making the BA so dependant on what is really its main source of revenue. Thats not meant to be an excuse either but it does not help! At least the BA spends most of its revenue on the rivers etc, and signs, unlike my road tax which helps fly jet fighters. OH and that is changing yet again, perhaps I will move my car elsewhere!!!

Despite your comments, quite a lot other than dinghies have seen only small changes up or down. I believe budgeted revenues are only expected to rise by 3% so someone has seen a fall somewhere!!

Fortunately , just as there are some who really do not like JP, there are many others who are either indifferent or do not have an axe to grind!! Clearly you feel you are within the former category!!

Whatever you may feel about JP, that is probably childish at best and unnecessary - presumably whatever his views, your observations are based on your most recent meeting with him? No - I thought not!!!

Timbo - one of my favourite themes!! However two things to bear in mind - its not just a question of money! Even if you have the money,its often time which is a decider. It all takes time, time and more time to set all these things up and if you have to do it, and or use volunteers to help, it is still a massive job!! We have been working on a computerised record but its not just the digitalising but the cross referencing that all takes the time! You are right money helps but it is still an issue to sort it all out, and those doing it do not always see the immediate benefit - thats for others later! if you have wherry records you need recording you know where we are!!!!

Its only the busier routes which are lit - you try navigating behind Sheppey in the dark!!!

Which bit?

Wrong! He would not be insured!!!

Vaughan - your comments on why Albion is carvel is indeed the oft repeated reason, but I remain to be convinced ! I actually think it could be a bit more about Billy Brighton and what was his stock in trade - building fishing boats and carvel ones at that and that is what he knew best! There is also some evidence that a some of the planks were not overly long and he merely built it that way because, at the time thats all he had and could get hold of ! The argument about catching on the sides of the locks is fine until you look at her and realise the coverboard and the attached bin iron project a further 3 / 4 inches either side above the sheerstrake If the planking caught then as sure as eggs is eggs that would have hung up unless the fall in the locks was so small she never dropped down that far - but thats a bit risky!! The truth is in reality we shall never know - but it is interesting speculating!! Turning to the sheerstrake you will both be aware that generally this was built of heavier timber - off the top of my head I have a feeling it was often 2" as opposed to 1 1/2" further down and that may be what is evident in the photo. Presumably this was because of the loading higher up is greater as it does have to take some of the stress from the main beam and indeed to whole boat. Turning now to the "mystery" wherry which indeed it seems to be an old wherry of sorts. Yes it looks shorter - probably nearer the 40' or so but again we are all guessing. There is a suggestion it survived into the 50's and was called Cambria but its all vague stuff - thats fine until you try and date the card and that is definitely much earlier and with that in mind, the boat may not have survived that late. Worrying though how much of our past is still disappearing. Everyone who has these old cards/pictures must ensure they are archived properly and annotated accordingly or even more recent memories will be gone forever. I am still aware of collections not preserved properly - there are plenty of archives which are doing a good job but a lot is floating around with no real home.

No promises!! Most are so old they cannot remember what day of the week it is , let alone old wherry names!!!!

Ferry also have a brand new boat built for two - Zircon Emblem. Although Ludham will be OK (just) at least it won't be banned from the Ant (or Chet)! The real key to these boats seems to be that people will pay the £1k for a short break and for the luxury content and feel - this is haynes built too and was probably a bob or two, even if i don't like that slab side "aggressive" look. Each to their own i suppose...!

not off hand - probably know an old Norfolk boy who might!!!