johnm

Imagine the "fun" we are going to have come the warmer weather! The newest member of our crew is 5 stone (and still growing at 11 months) of American Bulldog cross. Lifejacket will be a must with this one! - if he goes in, he'll have to stay afloat until the finish gun/horn/bell

I believe that Craig's measurements are taken from the builders original details wherever possible. The details that the BA have are those that the vessel was first registered with and so will depend on the accuracy (or otherwise) of the details provided by the person originally registering the vessel. I guess the ultimate answer is to take a tape to her and see what results you get. If they are less than those registered: a. hop across the dyke and have a word with John! b. ask the BA to correct their records. Although in that case you may need to fork out for a surveyor to provide verified measurements and in which case it may be cheaper in the long run to do nothing

Nothing wrong with a bit of shot - cleans decanters nicely, so think what a nice job it'll make of your innards!

It is well known that prosecution for non-payment of tolls is very much a last resort used against only the most persistent offenders. The majority of cases would appear to be dealt with without recourse to expensive prosecutions. I would expect that the same is likely to be the case with those found to be without insurance, indeed the very report you linked to would imply that is the case with the 5 owners who only took out insurance after the survey. education and discussion is far cheaper (and possibly more effective in the long run) than prosecution. WRT your repeated assertions about certain insurance companies, how do you know that the Authority are not taking action? They may well be in discussion with the insurance regulators if that company(/ies) is not in compliance with UK and/or EU legislation/regulations; we don't know and, to be frank, it doesn't matter! The onus is on the boat owner/toll payer to ensure that their craft is properly tolled and suitably insured as required by the Byelaws in exactly the same way that it is the responsibility of each and every car driver to ensure that their vehicle is correctly MoT tested and suitably insured as required by the law. Each and every toll payer is required to make a declaration that their vessel is suitably insured and that is all that the Authority needs to do and it is not negligent for them to expect toll payers to take responsibility for their own actions. It is also not their responsibility to advise/direct toll payers which insurance companies they should use, we do not live in that sort of country yet, however much people would like to make us think so. However, if the Authority has been made aware of specific companies whose policies do not not meet the requirement, I would agree that they may be wise to highlight this to toll payers as part of their communication and education strategy. If it was me, I would probably consider including that information with the reminders sent out to toll payers and also including a piece in the regular issue of the Broad Sheet. Given that this appears to be a recent exchange between yourself and the Authority, how do we know that this is not their plan? The Authority's staff (at all levels) are human beings with full in-trays, conflicting priorities, limited resources and busy lives, they are not faceless automatons only out to see off the boating fraternity. Why not ask or make a polite suggestion, you might be surprised by the response to a helpful and proactive approach.

kfurbank, I don't know the detail of your FOI request but presume that it was something to do with the number of enforcement actions/prosecutions. WRT the enforcement of a toll payer being required to hold compulsory 3rd Party insurance to a level of £2,000,000 they already are! All toll payers are required to make a statement that they hold suitable insurance; anyone who lies or is foolish enough to take out a policy with a company that is not authorised under FSA2000 and is involved in an accident/incident will not only severely prejudice their own defence in any investigation (by the insurance companies, Police or Authority) but will also be liable for that offence as well as any other they may face prosecution for. The Authority have put the rule in place to protect everyone and have obviously satisfied themselves that the measures in place are sufficient after a risk based analysis. Indeed, I am (personally) unaware of any incidents that have needed the Authority's officers to be included in any investigations where it has become apparent that no insurance was held; evidently there have been a few isolated cases according to the Authority's report but they have apparently decided that the measures in place are sufficient. I suspect that there is a direct correlation between non payment of tolls and lack of insurance and that they deem that the enforcement action of the former offence will cover the majority of cases of the latter. Essentially, it comes down to a matter of personal responsibility on the part of the toll payer to comply with the law, a presumption that I do not believe is unreasonable, and for the Authority to satisfy themselves that sufficient measures are in place to enforce the requirement, without placing undue burden on their staff or increasing the costs which, ultimately, come back on the toll payer. You appear to see this as evidence of not policing this particular Byelaw but I would disagree for exactly the reasons I have given. In this case I, for one, believe that they have got it about right and am very glad that they are not increasing the red tape associated with toll renewal. I also welcome the news that they are repeating the survey in 2017 (presumably at the time of toll renewal) as evidence that they are keeping a watchful eye on their policy with a view to reviewing it should the need become apparent. Maybe this will also act as a spur to anyone foolish enough to take your (doubtless tongue in cheek) advice: So my advice for those who maybe facing boating hardship next year would be to pay your toll, even if you cannot afford your insurance, or chose to downgrade to a cheaper non compliant insurance company. seriously that they should actually face up to the responsibilities of boat owning and make sure that they cover all of their responsibilities.

That report is interesting, but I note that it was from 2015 and do not have the time (or inclination) to find the follow-on records. However, 2 points leap out: The first is, what were the results of the "ongoing enquiries" into the 8 non-compliant responses? Given the statistically small, albeit well-balanced by vessel type, sample size this is a significant number. Without checking the results, I would fully expect that 6 either produced valid insurance dated from before the enquiry or possibly admitted a lapse and provided documentation from after the enquiry. In a similar vein, the 2 without explicit mention of 3rd Party will, most likely, either have demonstrated such or shifted their policy in order to demonstrate compliance - this is, after all the action of most reasonable people when faced with being shown to have failed to comply with an enforceable requirement. The second is, what decision did members take from the options presented at para 5.2; from the wording of the e-mail you quote, I would presume that it was either: "do nothing further" - which you seem to imply as being a bad thing given your negative interpretation of BA actions but which I do not necessarily see as such, given that the powers already in place (see next comment) do not require the Members to take further action and that the actual risks associated from the holding of insurance cover (or not) by private owners is extremely low. or "take a risk based approach and request insurance information following the issue of written warnings/or notice of contravention for no payment of tolls" - without chasing around for records of members decisions, I would see this as the most logical decision for enforcement officers to be following regardless of Members' decision as they already have this power. Not having been the recipient of either a warning or contravention notice, I am unable to prove this but would expect that it is part of the standard procedures for following up such notices - maybe someone here is able to verify, although probably not because we are all such well-behaved and honourable individuals. I would suggest that what this exercise proved is that the additional costs of managing a system whereby toll payers are required to actively demonstrate compliance are outweighed by continuing to maintain the status quo when balanced against the perceived risk. I would also expect, and fully support, that a similar sized sample is checked on a relatively regular basis (probably 3-5 yearly given the apparently high level of compliance and low risk) to monitor toll payer behaviour patterns and to provide input to ongoing policy development. This will allow administration costs to be kept down, which can only be a good thing and leaves the Authority with more funds available to achieve all the other things that they have to achieve within their limited resources such as the maintenance of the navigation, repairs and maintenance of moorings, visitor assistance and safety patrolling of the rivers, not to mention enforcement of "disturbances"...

That little thing, maybe not. But how about being on the receiving end of one of his big white cousins Photo grabbed from the Interweb cos, when the evil wotsits are sticking their heads into the small boats I tend to inhabit, I'm too busy taking avoiding action to ask the illegitimate thugs to 'smile for the camera' Please do not feed the wildlife! They are quite capable of fending for themselves!!

Well he was a communicator and they might as well be Volunteer Reserves!

So going from being tied by the terms of a lease to having complete control over land that they will now own. I am afraid that I beg to differ Bobdog, I am sure that we will notice a difference. Probably not this year, maybe not in the next two or three but in five years or so when sky rocketing rents have forced out the boatyard and weed prevents the sailing club from operating what then?

"more a question wondering if there is etiquette or legislation concerning inland cruising" The etiquette for a UK registered vessel is to wear the Red unless you are in possession of a Royal Warrant allowing you to wear a defaced ensign of either the red or blue variety or, for a very privileged few, a white. The legal position is slightly different and I will come from the other end so to speak. The ensign that a vessel displays denotes her nationality and on the high seas (International Waters) is used to demonstrate this to the representatives of any nation and effectively preventing a country's representatives from boarding or impeding her passage without agreement from the vessel's national government. This should be the case even if a vessel is obviously 'up to no good' in the eyes of an observer that is not from her "flag state" - this is why International Peace Keeping or Border Patrol groups tend to have ships from all participating nations or at least representatives in the group as it makes life easier! No ensign = no proof of registry so reasonable excuse to board! Within the Territorial Waters of a country (i.e. the coast/baseline out to a declared and agreed limit - usually 12nm but sometimes less) similar rules apply but the Nation State that "owns" the waters has more powers to stop and search any vessel as long as they can prove wrong-doing. (For the sake of clarity, we will ignore International Straits such as Dover cos that gets complicated!). No ensign = no proof of registry so reasonable excuse to board! Within the Internal Waters of a country (i.e. from the coast/baseline inland) the national laws of the country apply and it really doesn't matter what flag your are wearing as the law enforcement forces of that country can conduct operations as normal against any resident or visitor within the law. The only exception to this are any vessels representing a Nation State in the diplomatic sense but they are only allowed to enter a country's Territorial or Inland Waters with prior diplomatic approval - effectively, this means visiting warships. That said, not wearing your national ensign and sitting in a foreign port displaying a non-legal flag as an ensign just gives any enforcement officer an excuse to get on your case as I have frequently pointed out (during the course of work not just because I am a busybody ) to dipsticks on UK registered vessels displaying an EU flag in place of an ensign in various ports around the world TBH around the Broads it really doesn't matter too much apart from the satisfaction to be had from 'getting it right'! I presume that Hockham Admiral is either a member of the RAFSA or the RAFYC and also flies the association/club burgee. I am also fairly sure that should Griff join the RNSA and if he registers BA on the SSR (I think she would be big enough to count), he could apply for a warrant for the Blue Ensign - this would be personal to him and could only be displayed when he is 'in command', others of the BA family who are ex-RN would need to apply for their own warrant to be able to fly the Blue (not sure of the detailed rules for vessels in multiple ownership). Any BA skipper who is not ex-RN should wear the Red which would have the added benefit of getting rid of that daft white flowery bed sheet they keep hanging out to dry!

Having been up that way today, I am told that the NWT bid for the whole has been accepted. The locals in the 'Lot 5' area know no more than that. I must admit to being somewhat concerned noting the Trust's intransigence wrt dredging and (as I understand from sources) the historical opposition of certain key players in NWT to even keeping the navigation channel open during previous high weed growth years - it may have been 20 odd years ago but bruised egos have long memories!

So, do they get the lot or did the locals (boat yard, sailing club, boathouses, etc) get their bit?

It surely was!! I would also like to thank the majority of other vessels - both hire and private - who were generally calm and good-natured in their avoiding actions when confronted with wall of sails along The Street all pointing in different directions and going nowhere fast. A cracking day out and congratulations to the Snowflake SC for a great event

Just a heads up that, according to a sign seen yesterday, the fuel station at Stalham Tesco will be closed from Saturday 9 October to Sunday 16 October. No indication of timings on those days but common sense would suggest that they will close Friday night and re-open on the Monday morning. I presume that it is for refurbishment works. I saw no indication that it will affect the main store.

I'm not sure why we should be being upset by this You seem to see the words Broads Authority and immediately assume that funds that 'should' be spent on protecting and developing the navigation are involved. Nowhere in this article does it mention the use of navigation funds or even National Parks funding for this part of what is a large and wide-reaching project (http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/looking-after/projects/water,-mills-and-marshes). It does, however, specifically mention Heritage Lottery Funding and donations to build up the overall investment total which is, as is standard practice on these occasions, being spun to demonstrate official commitment to the project. Even if part of the overall total for this particular part of the overall scheme does come from the Authority's overall funds I do not see that it would be inappropriate, as long as it is properly accounted for, as long as it is not taken from the navigation budget. This project is, after all, meant to be a celebration of local culture and is a means of promoting the Broads and enjoyment of the area as well as providing employment to a local (well at least regional) theatre company. Surely all this falls under the remit of "have regard for the economic and social interests of those who live and work in the Broads", not to mention the need to "promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public" which is, unless I am much mistaken, part of the core responsibilities of the Authority.

I know this place does thread drift but ... 2 points: 1. This sounds a lot like politics and will definitely involve 'political' discussions. Is the forum ready for that and will the ToS cover it. I'm not against it at all but just running a small warning flag up a flimsy pole! 2. If we think we might be ready for it, would it not be better to ave this running as a specific thread. After all, who would think that "Cruiser Sailing Without Lights, Shock Horror, Lifeboat Called!" is actually now 'Should we become a local political pressure group?'

Tim,

Timbo, Thinking about your point A, might it not just be a deep spot? It is, after all, the junction of several ditches. We get distracted by the ease with which machinery can now clear such features but it is a different case when doing so by hand! If it was me trying to keep these clear, that junction would be a likely starting point for each run of the smaller ditches heading out into the marsh. I'm not a local and am more used to moorland areas where holding boundaries tend to be formed of stones and, in later times, walls. However, logic dictates that the easiest way of delineating holding boundaries in marsh areas is by use of ditches. Could the big ditch with the deep spot be such a boundary? And possibly the same for the other big one (just below the A "circle" in your original image) heading just south of west.

This is fascinating, I have used this stuff to help in charting shoal waters but not in chasing land features before. Do you really think it is some form of peat store? I know it is only a few hundred metres from the edge of the diggings (Broad) but, from what I remember seeing of peat diggings, the drying stacks are/were usually right next to the dig point and, I presume, that the users would then have transported the peat to their settlement for storage and use. Looking at it, I wonder whether the rectilinear feature is not part of a settlement on the higher ground where Pilson Green is. Could it be the origin of Town House Farm? It is, after all, just the other side of the road! The trackway could be a connecting route out to the north across the marshes linking that settlement with the Horning area and the Abbey. By my reckoning, it would join the Abbey causeway somewhere between where that feature is now cut by the Ant at Ant Mouth and Horning Hall. Given the previous discussion about the meandering of the Bure and the Ant running along the Hundred Dyke, this seems logical to me as a route to join the high ground of what are now the Horning and South Walsham parishes.

Thanks guys. Plenty to work with here.

Thanks for the recommends , I'll start calling around.

Now that I would love to see!! Presumably you are a mono skier JA - how do you attach the ski? I guess it is screwed to the keel What do you use for a tow boat? I bet that wash would be more than 12 inches and returns hurriedly under the stone from which he crawled!

OK, resurrecting an old thread here. I need to get some proper repairs done to some stern quarter (old hire days) bashes and then a repaint (topsides and proper prep & antifoul below) on a 41 year old plastic, stinkie () thing. Any recommendations for decent quality work/value for money? Ideally north but can come south if necessary.

OK, curiosity got the better of me! It appears that my memory was either faulty or just out of date and that wake boarding is allowed - http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/looking-after/managing-land-and-water/recreation-and-tourism/how-we-manage-waterskiing Given that, it was probably part of a routine risk assessment review. Mind you, if I put my conspiracy theory hat on, was it a way of ensuring no obvious interaction with other vessels whilst they got some good "action" pictures to help with advertising the National Park!

That may be the case. I haven't looked recently but I seem to remember from a brief investigation a few (well probably nearer 10) years ago that wake boarding was not permitted in the Broads skiing areas. Presumably because of the wash. If it has been allowed since then or they are looking at allowing it, then I would suspect that this may have been part of a risk assessment.