marshman

And there are those privateers who hire sailing cruisers and similar just to keep their hand in.....!!

And yet when they talk of building a third river crossing nearer Gravesend, the locals are up in arms!!! Nimbyism!!!

Sadly Chris is correct - all been thought of before I believe but blown out of court by the marina owners for any number of reasons. Or so i believe!!! Could call it Airmarina!

BUT you have not a clue to the circumstances so you cannot say that had that vessel had an anchor light, the RIB would have avoided it? You could say that the anchor light was a distraction given that it may have been the first ever seen on Oulton - all total and utter speculation! Perhaps it was mistaken for something else or even if it had been lit, it could easily have been lost amongst clutter. There are no guarantees in such circumstances and thinking you know the circumstances or that an anchor light could have avoided it it, is again a pure guess at this moment in time.

I agree again with PW and Vaughan - I doubt whether any kind of anchor light would have made any difference simply because whilst it shows overall position, it does not delineate size. We all assume the helm, whoever that might have been, did not see the boat?? That like a lot of this is mere speculation. I think anchor lights on the Broads would be a total waste of space - I suspect we have all travelled at night on the rivers and IMHO the ambient light levels at this time of year are perfectly adequate to navigate by and see other other boats, especially at that time. What were the weather conditions? Heavy cloud, light cloud, clear? All are relevant and without that info its even more of a guess! Lots of unanswered questions, some of which will ultimately come out in the wash, but lets not immediately assume what we don't know and suggest an unworkable "solution" !!!!

Not sure to be honest, whether such a thing as an anchor light would make any difference - the photo shows an impact area on the starboard aft corner and to be honest, it looks as though it was more of a misjudgement. A masthead light shows the boats overall position but will not delineate the extremities of the vessel. Such comments as give anchored vessels a wide margin mean nothing in an accident. As PW rightly suggests, it is all so tragic turning on a split second decision. Let us hope that the guys life is not blighted forever by such action. What is certain is that you cannot put the clock back, sadly, however much you would wish you could, nor should the Authorities respond with an inappropriate knee jerk reaction.

Charlie - like all Forum members you are entitled to your view but its not just about those operating a ferry service, and yes those guys will have to qualified, or the action of those helmsman but the congestion at a narrow point. Is it right that sailing boats struggle and do you know how hard it is to stop a sailing boat - yes it can turn round, but if you are familiar with it, you will know it is pretty much a blind bend, and if you have boats manoeuvring into a "slot", that can block the river - several times I have watched boats having to stop to allow this and if you are sailing upstream, with a brisk breeze, and the tide, it does not actually give you a lot of thinking time or time to avoid an issue. I accept that people can vote with their feet but until you have actually gone inside the pub, you cannot tell whats what can you? When it last changed hands it was a real shame that it went to someone interested in only making a quick buck rather than someone actually interested - nip down there in the winter and see how many local people actually use it then!!!! Its a prime location - pity its rating is not!!

I think this is now a fait accompli - the BA have decided, without apparently any consultation, that safety is not being compromised and as a result Ferry are, I believe, now permitted to moor a number of boats, between about 10 or 12 stern on at the upstream end of the mooring. As far as the mooring opposite is concerned I understand it has a new tenant - guess who? As a result people are now forced over onto the other side of the river, charged a fee for mooring and forced into a grotty 1* pub to eat as well! All done with the BA's consent - it is not a planning issue but I believe agreed with the new Head Ranger Lucy Burchnall and all I suspect as a result of pressure from the much loved and admired landlord! The BA as usual will probably not give a to** whether sailing boats are inconvenienced - why should they especially as the landlord is happy - temporarily! Elsewhere along the frontage he is permitted to double moor as well, as if that was not enough. The other night coming through the Queen of the Broads narrowly missed meeting Broadsman coming the other way - but as i passed the latter , he was chatting on his VHF so they can manage. Thats more than Olive could the other day, having to lower her sail and mast, and quant against a strong headwind and tide, as there was simply not enough room to tack - that bit also suffers from fickle winds because of the tree growth. The situation is very very different at the New Inn as you have visibility for much further, and can at least plan, whereas at the Ferry is on a sharp and blind bend. The problem is exacerbated by the mooring issue although today at 4.30 p.m. there was plenty of mooring around. Cockshoot was only half full, as was Fleet Dyke and St Benets had 5 boats in total moored at that time

Viking - go past in the winter and its all died back!! Not really sure the weed growth is any worse than it was but it is one of the few Broads containing a large and rich collection of water plants - most of the Broads have no plants whatsoever! Certainly the fish like it as do many other sorts of wildlife - as far as I recall and thats going back a lot, it is pretty much unchanged over the years. Thats probably a good thing but the level of plant growth does change a lot from year to year - some years some plants dominate, others others.

PW - as far as I am aware this was done with the full agreement of the BA, and without consultation with other river users who could be affected - indeed they may well have negotiated with the Ferry, not others, to reach what they believe is a satisfactory result. Hardly surprising then that agreement was reached since it appears to suit admirably the parties concerned and as ever, has little regard to those not directly connected, but concerned for one reason or another. Must admit, as far as I am aware the NSBA were not consulted neither was the Nav Com although to be fair it may well be outside their jurisdiction.Within the BA any decision looks as though it rested directly with the new Head Ranger.

As if - in any case perhaps I send a card to myself!!

Come on PW - you can be sure I am merely trying to find out whats going on - far be it for me to ever criticise the BA!!!! But my concerns primarily revolve around the possibility of 30 ton boats being able to stop in time - only today all traffic had to stop whilst boats were reversing in - or rather NOT reversing in!! But apart from the inherent dangers, it also hampers sailing boats trying to tack - Hunter boats cannot just turn on engines ( yet! ) and not everyone will have time to see what is going on before perhaps having to take action. Or not! Having said that of course, it would seem that both the landlord of the pub, and Woodbastwick Estates also, are in a win win situation at the expense of the river user - I suppose its only natural that the BA need to do all it can to help support local businesses. I wonder if the NSBA were consulted for example?? Or perhaps Horning SC??

Interesting developments at Horning Ferry - following the closure of the Woodbastwick moorings, sad now to see the No Mooring signs go up over the last few days. Does anyone want to guess who the new tenant is, or indeed know? Such a shame that greed seems to have got the better of Woodbastwick Estates and perhaps worse that the authorities condone both double mooring and stern on moorings on a blind bend - surely they must realise that not everyone wants to be squashed, or indeed forced into a pub car park, attached as it is to such a "fine" eating establishment. I suppose the only upside is that if you do have to eat in the pub, mooring is cheaper!! My only real wish is that the BA should actually consult with river users over the issues involved, rather than acquiescing just to ensure that the wallets of a few are made even fatter!! Agreed there was little that they could do about the lease, but the present result is probably the worst of all worlds to the guys who do not want to actually moor squished in to a car park!!! Still they can always move on i suppose but the proliferation of additional mooring charges on to those who are not aware of the alternatives can only add to the long term problems already well covered elsewhere on this Forum.

Unlike the Ferry at Horning!!! Shame really but nevermind it wont bother me as I never will eat in that pub until they show they care about punters enough to bother to get a 5* rating!!!

I am not sure they did not just go out and cut them down - bet they never had to ask the landowners permission!! Certainly records show you could stand by the church in Horning and not see a twig between there and Yarmouth!! Or so was said!!

Ok - noted, but not entirely sure that justifies leaving it alone - I would hate to see it so dominant here that it literally covered the banks for miles!!

The Thrigby stork is a well known sighting in the area from Thurne mouth downstream - he (she? ) and perhaps some of the others there, seem to fly around that area quite a lot. Good spot though!! Poppy - despite your comments, the Himalayan Balsam is a nightmare. I am delighted lots of conservation bodies take a lot of time and effort to try and keep this under control, as do the BA. Parts of the country seem to have it much worse than us but it should be kept under control if at all possible. Agreed it is not so much as a nightmare as Japanese Knotweed but it would be nice to see it go !!

You see PW ,I agree wholeheartedly with you!!!

Hi Bobdog - actually "liked" a post for the first time ever!!!!!!

Vaughan - much as I oft agree with you, the wrecking of acres of marshland is well outside the BA's jurisdiction and silly things like planning permission are irrelevant i am afraid!! Farmers were, and still are a law unto themselves as far as p/p is concerned and looking at the time horizon, it was all well well before anyone ever dreamt up the BA !! Recently subsidy payment and incentive payment scheme changes means that these areas are still under threat and I believe you would find if you ask the question the BA are well aware of these new threats but can do sod all about it!! The farmers can, but as always it is their pockets they think of first and sod the rest of you and traditional landscapes!!

Hi Vaughan - I agree totally with the second part of your post concerning the farmers who have for their greed, ruined vast swathes of marsh and indeed natural flood defences. I am sure you are right that the BA could have prevented it, but not quite sure how this could , or should have, been achieved?? Large landowners and that includes some farmers just seem to forget that they are guardians of this precious landscape but sadly they first objective seems to line their trouser pockets - that last comment is not to say they all do, but certainly a largish proportion seem to

Bobdog - you bothered to reply in detail to that observation - I didn't!! For what itis worth I was a bit lost too ,as you, and it contained some factual inaccuracies. Worth banging on about - probably not!!!!

As Poppy rightly pointed out there are many local charities which are directly connected with the Broads and most are crying out for funds and/or volunteers - please please help support them!

But Speedtriple, the emergency services themselves have responded by saying that the point in question was an issue for either the Coastguard or the Police, so why cannot a reporting wait 1/2 hour? As was stated quite clearly the BA is not an emergency service!! And Spider ,you are probably right!! Balance has to be maintainred!!!

Poppy - you know, or you should by now, that my apologist stance here and elsewhere is merely to counteract the "anti" stance of others!!! Every argument has two sides and readers are entitled to see opposing views - you can then take your pick!! And in my own defence, there are very few public bodies to which most of the criticisms levied against the BA cannot be applied either - councils, NHS and many others!! And oh, the BA have nothing to do with fishing - its the EA you should be directing those comments to. Typical piece, IMHO, of the type of misinformation promulgated! And what have sub surface sewage treatment systems got to do with the issue?? Thats Anglian Water methinks!!