marshman

No - I can narrow it down a bit to the Waveney methinks!!!!

Lets wait and see and not try and second guess! Methinks things like that are well on the back burner and stuff which tends to get further and further down the schedule usually means its likely to say in drawer gathering dust!

So why does any one think that the marine leisure sector should continue to, realistically, justify from continued lower taxation? It is surely an unjustifiable anomaly? I can see the point for perhaps farmers and possibly the fishing industry, but why should construction benefit for example and road hauliers do not? Nonsensical in my view when to most who own a boat, fuel cost or indeed the extra tax on it, is unlikely to be the final straw that breaks the camels back! Well in my case, I hope not!

I am not a doctor or an expert on infectious diseases - I am very happy to leave the decisions to those who know better than I do. I doubt whether the "experts" in either the US or Ireland are necessarily any better or wiser than those in this country. I suspect we will follow but willing to let them decide the timing.

Whilst I respect your views I believe the impact on the leisure sector to be almost negligible - its just possible that some of the Brundall Navy see the need to downsize to smaller boats/engines but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it! There must be very few who see this as other than an anomaly, which was never going to continue forever - it was originally introduced I believe for the benefit of the fishing industry. Why should it continue for what is strictly a leisure sector especially as it is probably not a significant cost for many in the sector?

Surely all those who now use red and who continue to have that exemption, will be able to use red - but the rest including recreational boating, will have to buy white, although how long it will take to "wash" through, might remain a moot point. This has been coming ever since they introduced the 60/40 ruling for this industry several years ago, and if thats what it means it will make only a marginal difference to me ,but perhaps more to those with bigger engines. Perhaps we need to see the small print though , before jumping to conclusions?

Read that story further and perhaps its just fake news, especially as the company brewing it say they have seen no impact - yet!

Not even the BA would be foolish enough to take spoil from Oulton to Rockland - thats an 8 hr round trip! And the Postwick tip (a 12hr round trip!) is a "lined" tip to specifically take the contaminated spoil from the upper reaches of the Yare - use that and where would you put that spoil as they are the only lined pits the BA have access to. I would also question how much good in the short term, are loads of wet slurry to the SWT? I am sure PW will tell us exactly what they are going to do with it, but normally you cannot touch it for a couple of years - are they going to use the pump that is currently up in Hickling to pump it ashore? Perhaps he can furnish us with the details as I am interested!

There is an Alpha 32 on "the other side"! (Not that I wish to encourage you to go and look! )

As I said they provide much needed moorings, and if as an aside I can get to a decent Reserve, then thats a bonus. At the same time the BA get to dump some spoil, then to me its a win,win!! But of course some will have to find fault, as they endeavour to do at every occasion!! Sadly the support on my side of the fence has declined as one poster will be absent as a result of the comments he has had to put up with - very sad that people continue to leave the Forum because of such actions. Me? I am a bit harder to dislodge!!!!

Your view I accept, but not necessarily those of everyone who uses the Broads!!! To me its just one pot and in total, given the state of the world at large, not a very important one!!

Nothing of real interest added to the topic then????? I shall use the pontoon if available and will not give a jot out of which pot it comes - its all the same to me!! Better things to be interested in methinks - like spring!!

Sadly just trawl around the Brokers and ASK them as well!!

Its all about the control of the boats in a confined spot - the New Inn was always fairly straightforward because you can see what is going on but the Ferry was very different. It was on a blind corner and you just would not be able to stop if you saw someone in trouble manoeuvring and taking up the whole river. Quay attendants were trialled at the Ferry but there were several issues with their control and abilities - thats why the experiment failed. I must admit I was unaware of even a trial at Bramerton - is that one where they allow double mooring? When double mooring was originally proposed it caused an outcry - but in all honesty is there much difference to stern on, except it takes up less room in the river? If Church Fen is full, I just go onto to Bargate - nice too!! To me stern on would not be appropriate in either position and in any case not really necessary for most of the time. Is it really necessary to have boats sticking out into the navigation by up to 45'?

Hi Fred - you are probably right!! I just had a vague recollection that when they built the Barrier they also carried out a lot of work either on the Lea or around Bow Creek area? Or was that at the time of the Olyympics? What my comment was meant to illustrate, was that placing a barrier say at Yarmouth, would not impact the whole of the North Sea by an infinitesimal amount but could affect other areas much closer by! I still stand by my assertion but perhaps got the location wrong - ooops!!

I don't think the Thames Barrier was ever meant to have that much impact on the Upper Thames - indeed its only usually ever closed against surge tides, although in the floods of around 13/14 they did I believe, use it to keep some of the incoming tide out, so helping the discharge at Teddington. It was designed primarily, I believe, to prevent flooding in the East End and Central London. If you look into info on the Barrier you will see that measurements there show when it it was first built, annual sea levels were increasing at around 1.8mm a year, but now its around 3.1mm a year. Its either the land sinking quicker, the Barrier sinking or actually evidence of rising sea waters - I think I know where I would put my money! The Ipswich barrier isn't really comparable to the Yarmouth issue as thats only on a tiny scale. It only shuts off the Dock and does not impact the drainage of half of Suffolk. A Yarmouth barrier? I suspect in reality they have not a clue about the real impact of one on the Broads as a whole, which is why they opted for the easier option of raising river banks!!!!!

Sadly, Griff, I am not sure hydrographics works quite like that - when they built the Thames Barrier a long long time ago they also had to carry out extensive work in the area, spending a lot around the R Lea. I assume from that is not just a question of spreading all that water across the whole of the North Sea but that it affects local areas far more. I think they have spotted that in the Netherlands too!!

You said that, not me!!!!!

Not me!!!!!! Its a bit like trying to second guess the tides - the damn water does not read the tables and is totally inconsistent, especially when you want it to be, however much you wish otherwise!!!!

No Vaughan - not you! Incidentally I love that bit in your last post about the where you had a hole in the bottom so you could stop them floating away - a commonsense answer to a recurring problem. The number of boats passing through the bridge is also due to a number of factors - just higher water levels generally and also boat design - neither mentioned by the "investigative " reporter! No, the real issue this winter is the length of time we have had prolonged rainfall and the amount we have had of it - the marshes are currently performing their job in that they are have been soaking up a lot of the excess like the sponge they are! Fill up your sponge with water and after a point it cannot take anymore - thats exactly what has happened this year. Like a sponge it then only gets rid of the excess slowly and that is what will happen when we have a drier spell. I suspect in the summer the peat will start to dry out as usual - I recall in some winters fairly recently, the peat hardly got wet! Well it has this year!!!! Incidentally Chris, I am sure the Ludham Archive ( Woodwose! ) will be along sooner or later to tell you the original bridge DID nearly blow away completely in 1912, but that I think was a summer storm - that was when Norwich flooded too. I believe the current bridge dates back to around 1959.

No doubt the Southern Rivers correspondent will be adding a post sooner rather than later! Good to see though, that the article points to the role of the EA. The one its misses though is the IDB which control the dyke behind the Ludham Bridge Boatyard - anyone approach them, and indeed the EA for their views???? They also omit any comment on the exceptional rainfall this winter

Seems to me £132 is a good price for a treasured possession - do you really want a cowboy undoing all your hard work??

Why try and guess what they might, or might not do? The point at issue is that on the present evidence, there is no need to cancel, just as schools are not yet closing - if you really think you are at risk, go to your Dr and get a certificate, just as you would need to stay away from work, and go back with it to Haven. I guess that would work. But see my earlier post - is anyone panicking because in January alone, there were 546 cases of mumps in the UK? And in 2019 5042 cases as against 1066 in 2018 and all because of a discredited "Doctor" now peddling his myth in the US? At this stage, perspective is a good word to hang on to...!

Nor will it do the local economy a lot of good if Haven, as a result of people being panicked into cancelling unnecessarily, face closing down. Think about it - would you go on holiday there, if you heard someone had had flu or perhaps chicken pox or indeed measles? My guess is that its probably a "yes"" so please explain what is the difference? This whole thing is getting quite ridiculous!!!

No - I think Alan may be going back to the days before the current treatment plant ( or I think he is! ) when just before the bend travelling upstream where the hill is.The untreated sewage came into the river just where those big posts, or mooring trestles are, which were used by the coasters to wait, if necessary, before going in to Norwich. The dyke is still there. Its quite a long way before the current outflow which in general is largely treated water .Not sure if I would go in that old dyke there even now!!