Jump to content


Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


batrabill last won the day on November 8 2018

batrabill had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

353 Excellent

About batrabill

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1909

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,272 profile views
  1. batrabill


    Ah... that is a scary outcome.
  2. batrabill


    So, if I register a canoe I get a vote, but if I own a house on the river, but don't own a boat, I don't get a vote???? There is no possible way of having elections to the Broads Authority which resolve these issues with it in its present form. You could have boaters representation on the Nav committee elected but I have never seen an explanation of who the electorate is for the wider authority. Lots of calls for an elected body, but much like another thorny issue we are all struggling with that begins with B, it's easy to say you want something, but then you have to make it work. A slimmed down Broads Authority does seem possible, but are you saying ONLY boaters get a say? What about everyone else? There is more to the remit than just the right of navigation. Anglers, walkers, bird watchers, kite flyers, swimmers, dog owners, cat owners, businesses, everyone - but they don't get a vote??? Lots of powerful voices there who are never going to let that happen. This seems the most plausible - but I can't think of any system where someone gets 2 votes, so 1 vote for either residents, OR boaters, just one vote each. But if you leave the planning function with the BA, I have that pesky canoe owner having influence on my planning application on my house through his/her vote. Sounds a bit odd, no? If you remove the planning function then the house owner is simply in a County Council. Since the river isn't just the bank, doesn't my neighbour who doesn't have river access have no rights even though he is only 50 years from the river? Complicated innit?
  3. batrabill


    I would hugely support voted representation on the Nav Committee by toll payers. Doubt if that would be popular with the CEO But any vote by “those that live here” immediately disenfranchises toll payers who don’t live here. Good for you and me Mrs Morgan but bad for boat owners who don’t live in the parish. As is said above, ALL mass taxation is ‘unfair’ to lots of people. If you obsess about the minutiae of it you go bonkers. 😜 I pay under £400 for three boats and I think that’s bloody good value. If you have a 40 footer with a Diesel engine you have to expect under the present ‘unfair’ system it’s gonna cost you. Enjoy the sunshine
  4. batrabill


    Because that is the basis for nearly every type of taxation? You and I both pay for roads we will never drive on, services we won't ever use, schools we will never know exist and right now we are saving the life off a 1000 people we will never know even existed. There are always winners and losers in any taxation system.
  5. batrabill


    You must remember that if they move to a new system with yearly registration from the first date of registration, I guess, possibly 95%?? maybe 99%, will be on the current date, and will only very slowly change over time.
  6. I think you have confused 3 issues here. 1. There is a really good reason that you can’t pay for a part of a year - everyone would stop paying when they lifted their boat out. The result of a change to that would be the tolls would have to go up hugely to replace the money lost by everyone gaming the system. 2. When you buy a boat should you pay only for the part you will use ? Seems fair. Would cause a loss in income. But can’t be huge. 3. The “yearly renewal from any date” system. This seems a really good idea. Coupled with an online renewal system which does most of the work automatically, why not. Requires low level resources throughout the year.
  7. What makes you think you won’t hit an iceberg on Breydon? Or a Unicorn? It could happen!
  8. Yes. You’re thinking of Titanic hitting the cinemas obviously?
  9. Avowed intent?? Like you do when you deliberately post things you know will get pushback? I’m unclear what you are saying with the flatulent piece? You know quite well I live in Ludham because you have a history of false rumours you’ve spread about me. I never realised your skin was so thin.
  10. Paladin, you love a wind-up don't you? You know very well what I am saying - that JM isn't trying to be helpful to us the little people whop don't understand it as well as he does, he is lobbying for his view. That is presenting information (which to me seems pretty irrelevant now) which supports his view, with no obvious justification other than it supports his view. He also knows that very well.
  11. Jeez. You are that ‘friend’ who insults you, and then says “I was “just saying””, aren’t you? If JP discredits himself, why did you have to post this 10 year old stuff? Is JP slacking in his self-discrediting so you’d thought you’d lend a hand? #justsaying
  12. I read most things Mr Waller, but you see, you don’t know what things say till after you’ve read them. That’s how reading works. Dredging up things from the past has some function beyond your relentless efforts to discredit John Packman?
  13. Isn't this sort of thing more appropriate to Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park, on Facebook? A group that share your views?
  14. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.