MauriceMynah

In "another place" there is a thread running that I don't fully understand. The implication is that Great Yarmouth council is closing some of it's public conveniences. There seems to be a bit of a leap of faith in saying that the Thurne and Acle will be on the hit list or that it has already been. Is there any confirmation of this? Whilst I'm reluctant to highlight the other forum, I do believe it a topic to get an airing here as well. (May I point out to those unaware, that I use the term "another place" or "The other place" with full respect and that it is I believe, the expression used in the houses of lords and commons when referring to each other.)

No Mark, you should know me a little better than that. I have no wish to scrape people off the road, and yes I have seen some pretty terrible things but what I was describing was a concept. I wore crash helmets (one at a time though) when I rode a motor cycle even though it wasn't compulsory. Similarly I wore seat belts before that was compulsory too. My objection is that the nanny state made it law. I have seen (and helped recover) bodies that have been in the water for some days, yet Life Jackets are not compulsory. I have seen people dying of lung cancer, yet Cigarettes are not illegal. I fully agree that where a driver does something dangerous to other road users, that driver should be punished. I do not hold that view if that driver does something that is dangerous to himself alone. He should be allowed that freedom. How come it's allowed to where nothing more protective than a bobble hat when skiing, yet a crash helmet must be worn when riding a low powered moped? Why are cyclists allowed to ride with no protective head gear? We even recognise the term "Dangerous sports" which some people do just for fun, perfectly legally. It even gets discussed here from time to time about drunkenness on a boat, but it seems that some hold the opinion that although the fellow safe in the cockpit must be as sober as a judge, the idiot staggering about on the roof is fine. No Mark. I do not think that people should do stupid things, I just don't hold with there being laws to stop them. If that makes me a plonker, then plonker I am and proud of it. Talking about plonkers... has anyone heard from Dylly (Royal Tudor) of late?

Did anyone actually find out what a "clout" was or even if the May was referring to the month or the blossom? Never mind eh, the saying is as true and precise today as the day it was first written

I dislike laws that are there "for your own protection". Laws should be in place to protect others from your stupidity/crassness/existence. If a motor cyclist wishes to ride without a helmet... let him. If a driver prefers not to wear seat belts... let him... it's all the same to me! People should be positively encouraged to trespass on railway lines, as well as to swim in fast flowing rivers...OH VERY WELL THEN, not actually encouraged !!! Long live the Darwin Awards.

So did the 10 commandments!

A fair point AJB, and certainly there has to be some level of legislation. However, I was brought up on and around boats and was pretty competent by a very early age. No 'nanny state' to stop me in those days. In 1964 aged 9, I brought Richardson's "Fancy Free" into Thurne dyke, turned her round and put her in to moor. My crew for this was my cousin (14) forward, and my sister (13) aft. Ok, my dad and my uncle were on board, but not in the cockpit. They knew it to be unnecessary. I am in no doubt that skills I learned at that age saved my life in later years, one example being that whilst driving a car on icy roads not long after passing my test, I got into a skid on a duel carriageway and controlled it because it was so like being at a helm. Ok it was faster, but the rules were the same! (It was a Ford Anglia, so I wasn't going that fast!) So, as far as I'm concerned, If I see a youngster at the helm without supervision, and if he is in control good luck to him and I doff me cap to his parents. If he's not in control then... well.... I blame the parents!... I still wouldn't make it an offence though!

Amen to that MM

Back seat and wearing the cuffs Matt? And there's me thinking what an upstanding fellow you are!!!

Out of interest Jeff, how did you get on as a taxi driver with the radio? I ask as I too have done that job, also in the 70s and 80s I was a CB radio user. I found it strange that when on the phone (No hands free but before it was made an offence) it was hugely more distracting than the radio conversations. I stopped using mobiles until I acquired a hands free unit but even then (and now) I find them very distracting. The radio however , vastly less so!

Fully agree with speedtriple here, on both points. Nobody has said Will, though many have pointed out the risk. The smoking analogy is right, but as with any analogy, take it too literally and the similarities will be lost in the semantics.

I hope you can allow yourself a dram or two of the malt on this occasion BS, I might even try to keep a drop onboard Nyx for when we eventually meet up

Not yet seen your estate Speedtriple... Volvo?

I refuse to be put in a position where I find myself obliged to admire Her Majesty's Charlies.

Sorry Strow, but the speed limit per say isn't the issue, it is that a certain section of the boating fraternity has been banned from that area, in the name of conservation.

So, does 1.5% to 2% seem to be at all accurate as a working figure to budget to?

Better at "Hit n Run" than most

Don't forget Strow, "the word on the Rhond" is always a good reed.

My premium is about £240 or just under. That includes about 20 years NCB

Ahh yes, you can't beat a lidl haggis.

£1 per 1000??? As my boat is worth about £15,000 you're saying my premium should be £15 ??? I'd be happy to pay that. I would reckon on nearer £2 per £100! I pay a little less than that with Nav & Gen. What value do you put on your craft?

I suppose that it's hardly surprising that an article in the EDP should pose more questions than it answers! One that occurs to me is, given the statistics "But it was agreed by 11 out of 16 members of the Authority that there was no future ambition to become a national park in law" just what do the "5" think? and what level of influence do they have? and most importantly... Was Dr Packman one of them? Come on fellas, keep the pot stirred.

I'm sure Riyadhcrew will be along soon, just to put you two back into your respective boxes

Sounds a bit fishist to me!

The last time I went in the Wayford Bridge Inn, I was asked my opinion. I said the menu was pretentious and the décor was reminiscent of the gentlemen's toilets at Kings Cross station. (Jon, your likening it to a vets was, in my opinion, very kind to the pub but a little harsh on the local vets.) The idiots behind this "makeover" should be taken to one side and left there. I suspect that Marco had little or nothing to do with it.

I'm just jealous of people wot can read