MauriceMynah

Too cold to walk to the pub though!

agreed! Enough common cents and you can save a dollar. :-)

Thank you Marshman, one we agree on here. In the past there were no facilities (but still a charge, collected by an old guy in a punt with a dog!) Now there is a piled bank with mooring posts, water points and rubbish facilities. there is a car park and toilets albeit something of a walk away. Money collected from moorings goes towards the improvements, but I doubt it covers them. I would agree with the "Free for up to 2 hours" but only if they then charged £2 for water. perhaps they just charge the £2 to keep things simple. Good luck to 'em I say!

Probably use it to generate all that extra electricity we're going to need. :-)

I suppose its a fair thread given the possibility that someone might be thinking of buying a boat reckoning on getting their money back by hiring it out when they are not using it. It might serve as a shot across the bow for them. Some years ago I met someone who had that very idea having heard about my having a boat (we worked at the same place.) Also, how many of us owners have been asked "do you hire your boat out?" You never know Marshman, this thread might actually achieve something.

It will be a "No" from me too. If the insurance agreed to it, and if I paid the toll for a hire craft there would still be issues. I keep my boat ready to go with my bed stuff, spare emergency clothing etc. etc. I have lent Nyx to friends but never for money. I hate to think of the legal minefield involved, so I agree with Ray, best left to the experts in the field.

Is that Ranworth Island price inc vat?

No I hadn't.

I have CB but not yet fitted. It always surprises me that CB isn't more popular on the broads as it seems perfect to me.

And Ludham bridge is the best place to stop for a libation. The Dog Inn as a couple of hundred yards up the road, beyond the shop.

I can tell you something that I suspect has NOT changed... Somebody in the BA makes an insulting statement. People clamour for an apology. He apologises. The same people look at each other and say "That's not enough, we demand a resignation" He resigns The same people look at each other and say "That's not enough, We demand another resignation" And so on and so forth. Tony Stapleton & Hillary Frantzen should consider themselves lucky that those same people were not demanding ritual suicide. It seems to me a fine illustration of the problems that occur in trial by forum. Even when the case is won, more is demanded. The other thing that appears to be the case is that you (Peter) seem to be trawling the history of the internet to find things to throw at the BA This is a misleading statement. it is a link that gives the entire story, not an explanation of the history of an on-going situation. Sorry Peter, but that's the way I see it.

I like the dinghy :-)

Christianity is one of the newest religions at something a little less than 2000 years old, yet the number of divisions within that religion are many and varied. More to the point the number of translations are many, each advocating peace and forgiveness to one extent or another. It is reasonable to suggest that the older the religion the greater the number of sects within that creed. It will be inevitable that some translations will be at odds with others, but these interpretations are human based, some, if not most carrying the agenda of the translators. In the distant past, religion was used by some to keep the population subservient to it's masters (some will say that all religion is thus based, but that is not my opinion) This goes some way in explaining the high rank of the religious leaders at that time. It will be from those translations that the "Death to infidels" concept arises, and such writings are taken and exaggerated by those who do and wish evil. these people are the people who brainwash and groom poor misguided souls to commit horrendous acts now referred to as terrorism. If you take the basic religions, be it Muslim Christian, Jewish, Buddhist etc. etc. you will not find one that proposes violence, even in some cases ones own defence would be discouraged if it meant harming the attacker. Yes, you will find passages in any religious writings that might be taken to mean "Kill the infidels" but it needs to be held in mind that these writings are ancient, have been translated many times and conceivably intentionally misquoted. The ToS of this site quite rightly, does not permit religious debate, but I hope I have put a balanced point about religions rather than about any religion in particular. I shall say no more on the subject lest I wander into banned territory.

What's a "service" ?

I agree completely though would say "using religion as an excuse". These cowards use religion as some sort of shield to hide behind. It is my belief that no true religion supports violence towards other people.