marshman

Well said PW!!! Everyone goes on endlessly about life jackets and yet I was advised by a leading body of safety examiners for water based activities to seriously consider ditching the auto inflates we use, for safety vests! Now I know many will think I am making it up, but remember most life jackets are designed to work at sea and yet with the exception of Breydon on a very rough day, we have calm waters and access to a bank, mostly, within 20 metres. For what its worth, their advice is that a well fitting vest will provide sufficient buoyancy without the problems of the auto inflates. You should for example check an auto inflate EVERY time you use it to ensure the gas bottle is tight - it is really quite common for these to work loose and I have found them missing altogether. Some people also find the auto inflates difficult to adjust, and as you have to adjust them for every piece of clothing you add, or talk off this can be a nuisance - they also have to be fitted carefully and I guess, at least 50% of those I see fitted, are just not tight enough in the first instance. Some may find vests easier This is not to say I do not advocate NOT wearing an auto inflate, but you should try and fit a vest before deciding finally - they may not turn you up the right way but unless you knock yourself out, that is not really an issue and they will never not fire for several reasons!!

Don't think the Diamond 35 is noted for its lack of headroom - although I cannot recall how tall it is. Do not remember anyone saying its too low either. Cannot have it both ways - has an air draft, or mine does of 6'7" and although not been under Potter, thats due more to the beam rather than height. And I would rather sail north of the bridge! Heres one https://www.norfolkboatsales.co.uk/used-boats/aquafibre-35-diamond-benmore-683.asp - although a well used one! and a very posh one although built by Sheerline https://www.norfolkboatsales.co.uk/used-boats/sheerline-35-lily-906.asp

The boats CAN go through through the bridges - on suitable tides!! I am not a lawyer, nor profess to be one, but methinks the Sale of Goods Act might just be a stretch too far!!

AF 37 every day over the Lowliner - but then there will always be someone to advise you otherwise! Personally I prefer the AF 35 Diamond anyday, but thats a personal view as I have one! You also need to think about your budget but remember, what works for someone, will not work for another! Thats just life!!

ST - I think it will cope with Acle Bridge!! That has a clearance of 12' at AHW. I personally think that both the BA and the yards should continue as now - err on the side of caution. If they made it "exact" there would be more accidents especially as lots of hirers do seem to be unable to read in many cases, and making it "exact" would encourage more to try. Believe me it would!!! If they really want to explore the upper reaches of the Ant, there are many many boats available to do this; do people really take holidays without doing the research? There are plenty of places where bridge heights are available - read the info available and take advice if you need to seems a good idea....! Why should anyone expect a refund when talking about tides - are tides predictable?Not as far as I am aware!

Yep - its a sedan with an air draft of 8'6" - more fun for the watchers at Ludham https://www.richardsonsboatingholidays.co.uk/boats/wayfarer/

PW - just say what you mean! A breakdown in cooperation with whom? Are you actually saying that prominent local landowners have ever cooperated with anyone other than themselves? The inference is that they are no longer cooperating with the BA - I was unaware that they ever had!!! Or are you just inferring a conspiracy over Whitlingham perhaps? Come on - we all want to know and have all laid bare or shall we just leave it hanging and leave it individuals imaginations? Spoilsport!!!

Withdrawn their cooperation? From whom or what? I get the inference PW, but I think that inference, as I interpret it, is that it is something to do with the BA is a tad misplaced! Its more the attitude of the large landowners whose motto is "whats mine is mine and you are not sharing it!!!" The loss of wild moorings, especially on the Ant, has to some extent been reversed - I notice how they are in lots of cases opening up again, and thats as a result of people forcing their way into the bank and just using it. Fleet Dyke is slowly happening again but lets face it, people prefer posts to tie up to. Like it or not all the banks, even originally, are private land and technically they are within their rights - but it is a shame how, sometimes , that new sign gets knocked over! (All posted in the interests of " balance" of course!)

Having actually read the report, I must admit I don't see it as quite as simple or straightforward as that as that - however I am not a legal expert, and I suspect most other readers of the Report are not either, and I am not prepared to enter into the semantics of the issue or issues this brings up. So I will leave you in peace to discuss it, if you so wish, to your hearts content! P.S. I might just chip in for the sake of it just to keep you all on your toes though!

I don't see it the role of BA to chase people through the civil courts in the, I suspect, never ending hope of just trying to improve access - I can think of much more important places to spend money. What I think it may have done is to clarify the situation in some cases and remember, it is just as important, to be able to prove ownership when push comes to shove and I suspect the report does just that. Its a useful base from which to start but I do not think it was ever going to be a definitive piece of work, nor one from which the BA was going to base civil actions on. My guess is that at some stage in the future, it may well help when people pretend they own something which the BA may wish to lease for moorings - and possibly vice versa.

That is correct, Vaughan. Known as Snipes Marsh - although I believe parrots feather is confined largely to that bit of the marsh immediately in front of the cottage. You might not know about it, even if it did bite you, but if you had it in your pond you would certainly know about it!!!!! Parrots feather - https://www.plantlife.org.uk/uk/discover-wild-plants-nature/plant-fungi-species/parrots-feather Like any of these invasive plants very fast growing and if you have it, take real care NOT to spread it. I have seen it completely cover marsh dykes literally in a matter of weeks and despite annual pulling, it is virtually impossible to get rid of, as it regenerates from the tiniest fragment.

Well - they commissioned it and I actually went on a presentation on it about 2/3 years ago, or perhaps more, so theres not a lot new I guess. Its certainly of general interest but no one is going to be able to make much use of it I don't think - well not legally anyway! Its a bit like common land issues - a tortuous minefield and only of value to those with very deep pockets I suspect!

You are right Vaughan - typical Broadland country side although the marsh in piccie No 10 is the scene of an ongoing battle with one of those very nasty water plant invasions - parrots feather - which has been a pain in the butt on that site, if its Snipes Marsh, for many many years. It was always confined just to that marsh, and I hope it stays that way, as it is a complete pest - after about two years untouched, you could almost have driven a small digger across the mat it had formed in one dyke. Incidentally I have always known that staithe as Johnny Crowes, not Johnny Cromes, although it is in the dyke to Cromes Broad- this dyke is not navigable to the Broad as there is a new sluice across further up put there by BESL. There continues to be talk of opening the dyke up as Broadsword were going to get involved, but that seems to have been deferred. There is also an old staithe further up that dyke on the bend but whether that staithe is actually Johnny Crowes or just one of the Catfield Staithes I am not quite sure.

Burghman - as you might have seen already, its a tad touchy! To some!! PW is correct - it is not a National Park quite like the others. Technically it is different and it can only become one, by Act of Parliament, or so they tell me.Many locals don't want a NP here for lots of reasons but the BA are entitled to call it one "for marketing purposes". As a result some think it could creep in by the backdoor - but I think it unlikely!! Thats about it really but there are many tens of thousands of words scattered around the internet on the topic and here, people have become a little entrenched in their views! But is regarded by many as a member of the National Parks "family" so whilst it is called one, and can be called one, it isnt one!! Got it it - cos I am not saying anymore as they might let ST loose again!!!!!!

Correct - that was always the plan!

As about 90% of my motoring is single handed, I frequently find that turning a boat on ropes is a doddle. Usually I am assisted by the wind or the current. It amazes me how few people ever seem to realise this is an option, and in most cases an easier one!!

Yes thats part of the problem - no electric spark and the oven lights, if fitted won't work either but quite honestly the gas lighters from the market work just as well, if not better. And if they go wrong then its only a quid to replace!! And whilst the point on working on boats is taken, having a "boat" cooker on a boat is no help. Spinflo won't work on boats - you would have to take your cooker out to have warranty work done!! My Spinflo is next to u/s - the oven thermostat is miles out and the "insulation" is a few bits of 1/2" glass matting stuck to the outside with Sellotape or similar!!! A classic example of BOAT!!!!!!!

There continues to be a myth around the boating industry that you must have a "boat" cooker, oven, grill or whatever. This goes back to the days when boat cookers /hobs had FFD and cookers etc for your home did not. Nowadays all gas appliances running off bottled gas, either butane or propane, have FFD's as standard as they are required in properties that are tenanted so as far as I am aware, there is now much greater choice as you can fit kit that you can use in domestic situations. Or so I am led to believe! You do need to ensure that you have the correct burners as they are different for butane or propane but you should not have an issue fitting any domestic type - the trouble will be when you want to install them. A lot of fitters will not work on boats, for some reason, but I see no real reason why this should be. You should also bear in mind that a lot of gas cookers have 240v electrical systems as well and you would need to address this in addition. The choice is now much wider and I would steer away from the expensive kit you see in chandleries - they continue to think along the lines of the BOAT acronym - boat owner, add a thousand!!!! And in my experience a lot of it is cheap and flimsy. I am sure however, someone may come along and say this approach is not legal? Chapter and verse would be handy then!

Oh no - its Faceache!!! Not doing that either!!1

Sorry MM - but there is some logic in what I said, and I was also basing my judgment to some extent on the Which review. I don't always make purchases in line with their recommendations but it is somewhere to start if I haven't a clue!! Which I haven't!!

Whilst that one has not been tested by them, an earlier Cello model managed to get an abysmal score by Which when tested. They are only British assembled and I guess in the end, you get what you pay for. But if you want a cheap tv for your van, and you dont mind what the picture is like too much and you can put up with the sound quality, and you only use it in the van.......... I would want to be convinced though. I am not sure I would be taken in by the reviews on Amazon!!!!

Probably anywhere in the UK except the Broads!!!!

I think you are all probably reading too much into this change from the information that is currently available - we do not know for example if the Trustees have even talked about it reviewing the arrangement earlier in the BA's tenure? They may well have done for all you know. Nor do I know what the terms of the original setup where? Trustees have a duty to review regularly their professional advisers and I do not see a lot of difference here - the BA were merely "managing" an asset and although they were pretty embedded through the use of "their" volunteers, perhaps it was felt that they were just too cosy and they had received advice to review? All things are possible - we just do not know! Many years ago the BA were more directly involved in some of the Broadland historic craft - they used to provide direct support but that has long long gone. I am not sure how much input or support they gave - but Vaughan could probably . Perhaps some thought it all too cosy and felt an element of "competition" would produce a better result. I am sure that we will learn more as time progresses but in reality there is little or no substance in sight, despite 4 pages of not a lot - it couldn't really be a lot else given whats currently available to the interested public, and before I get picked up on that, that includes my contributions as well!!

And if the BA don't know why? Ask the Trustees who do know - but they will probably ignore you as you have no right to know that information, despite views to the contrary.

Perhaps the need for transparency would be better if it came from the Trustees - although I doubt you will get that in full. As far as the BA are concerned, they "lost" the contract to manage the area further - what more is there to know? They have already told us that and given the circumstances, perhaps we should be extending our sympathies to those directly involved? There is no need to gloat over the loss, nor much need to criticise the BA further. If anyone owes anything to anyone, perhaps it is the Trustees who should be questioned further - after all it was they who finished the contract for some reason, and they certainly know the truth. I guess Vaughan may be closest to the truth, but I perhaps like many changes in the world it may be harder to get hold of the real facts, other than it was felt that a change was needed to look at differing ways to proceed for the future.