.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
batrabill
-
Posts
725 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by batrabill
-
-
Badly-written, unfunny tittle-tattle of zero consequence.
Tediously crops up everywhere I look.
-
Moorhen in Horning.
-
6 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:
Surely bridges failing to open and thus restrict navigation (although I don't know these laws so have no idea if they are meant to open at all so won't overly comment) is a problem which should be addressed by the navigation authority of which we pay the tolls to use such waterways and of which is surly one of the main reasons that such authority is there and why tolls are charged? If so and if this authority is failing to complete this basic task then are they capable of being the authority? These are questions I have not statements.
Addressed exactly how? The BA don't own the bridges, and don't pay for their maintenance.
So their only course of a action is to ask/demand/force NR to fix them.
In the real world NR can just do nothing and the BA can't do much either except bring pressure. If there were a clamour, with pieces in the EDP and reports on local TV that might exert some pressure on NR...
Personally I don't see that clarifying the legal position is going to help, unless the BA would just say what they think it is.
-
2
-
-
Isn’t the fundamental issue here that there isn’t a single, powerful voice to represent the views of boaters?
NYA are probably a lovely bunch, but cannot be a ‘leader’ because they have such a vested interest.
The bridges is an issue where, contrary to the usual attitude here that “the BA should do something”, the BA might be grateful for pressure to be applied on NR by us if it was coordinated and had widespread support.
Note, NR’s revenue is £6.5 billion
It is quite possible they completely ignore bleating from the BA
-
4
-
-
So, the choice is, a Conservative councillor, or a Conservative councillor.
Hoorah!
-
2
-
-
Vaughan, may I share your pictures with the Ludham Community Archive?
-
Womack
-
2
-
-
Ludham has bins still?
-
12 hours ago, batrabill said:
Perhaps the more grown up question is, if freeswimming is to become a regular thing, perhaps the BA could find a way of creating a contributing payment?
I imagine that this event was seen as a test so perhaps if it bugs you you should ask the BA.
On a point of fact Jenny Morgan.
-
Fair do’s
-
2
-
-
Yes, that is precisely what I said above. You should calm down yourself and read back.
-
10 minutes ago, 40something said:
This time you stated an opinion and then backed it up with what you feel is evidence, so yes I would say that qualifies as reasonable debate, much better than "NBN members ... it’s not your river, it’s everybodies" don't you think?
Wasn’t my point directly illustrating the attitude that NBN members think they “own” the river because they paid tolls?
-
3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
Bill, past experience shows that as much as possible, even considering the blurred accountancy of the Authority, will be charged to navigation. If we take dredging, for example, that benefits conservation hugely, wildlife as well as culture, yet I doubt that many pennies of that come from DEFRA's contribution. To suggest that the BA's involvement in the swim wasn't funded by navigation is wildly off the mark, in my opinion. Don't forget that about 50% of our toll pays for BA overheads and that about half of the BA's total income is from the tolls. I certainly don't want to fall out over this but please be clear, somewhere along the line toll money will have been used. Not wasted, I hasten to add, the Authority was duty bound to be involved, but nevertheless I doubt that the swim organisers will have financed the BA's involvement in any way despite it being a commercial venture, that is in them being a limited company.
Probably not, but as I’ve said above, perhaps in the future?
And the limited company thing - doesn’t the current NBN situation illustrate exactly why you would that route? The liability issues mean a Ltd Co is a straightforward way to manage it.
I really do not think they made any money at all.
-
2
-
-
Shall we agree that it is impossible to completely separate the two budgets? That there will always be blurring?
-
1
-
-
Just a heads up. The annual paddle boarding event is “money making”
Shall I draft a letter to the EDP?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, 40something said:
Please show me who has ever said the river is just for NBN members, or even just for boaters, more hyperbole from someone who cant have a reasonable debate
Blimey, is it the “reasonable” part or the “debate” ?
Reasonable - I think many people here behave like they’ve paid their tolls so they own the river. Evidence?
As you can see above, JM suggesting toll payers paid for the swim event, and me pointing out the BA have £3 million quid to pay for other stuff. Is that reasonable?
Am I not pointing out that these facts are wrong? Is that not debate?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
What I do think is a consideration is that the BA's involvement was probably funded by the toll payer and as such toll payers should be able to ask questions if they have concerns, safety or otherwise.
But it wasn’t “funded by the toll payer” was it?
The BA has 3 primary aims.
The promotion of understanding and enjoyment of the Broads is one.
The BA gets £3 million pounds from the taxpayer for that.
It’s NOT just Toll money!
One of the things missed here is that navigation is a PART of the BAs remit.
NBN members ... it’s not your river, it’s everybodies.
-
3
-
-
-
Just now, JennyMorgan said:
I have no doubt that the Waveney Swim has the potential to be a real earner, just as is a hire fleet so I don't see that as an issue.
However, there is the small issue of urinating, boat crews are not allowed to discharge their effluent into the river so their boats are fitted with holding tanks, are swimmers similarly equipped?
Of course I write in jest, I think!
Anyone who has worn a wetsuit knows that on a cold day the warming effect is most welcome.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, vanessan said:
Well I would rather like to know where the money went if you don’t think much was made. By my calculations there were 70 solo entries at £70 a time plus I think at least 10 relay teams at £90 each. Plus sales of merchandise. That’s a fair amount by my reckoning. I believe I saw that £265 went to the Waveney River Trust. I hope a few more charities benefitted as well, maybe you can answer that batrabill?
No I cant be *****. Can you give me a reason I should do this for you?
Why don't you ask the organiser when you want to know stuff, like I did.
-
2
-
1
-
-
With the greatest respect the Norfolk and Sufffolk Broads are the result of investment over hundreds of years. The EA, all the councils, central Goverment.
If find the argument that ‘we paid for it’ a bit childish.
Its not YOUR river, any more than it’s MINE. It belongs to everyone and everyone has contributed in numerous ways. Since the money seems important to you let’s talk about that. It’s £45 to enter the 3rivers race which helps pay for lots of things, but most work is done by volunteers. The swim, had a much smaller pool of volunteers so much was paid for directly. (Source - a chat with the organiser online.)
I doubt very much if much money was made, if any.
Perhaps the more grown up question is, if freeswimming is to become a regular thing, perhaps the BA could find a way of creating a contributing payment?
I imagine that this event was seen as a test so perhaps if it bugs you you should ask the BA.
-
5
-
-
So it’s the money....
-
I swim in the Broads quite often. I see others do it. Just a fact.
-
1
-
-
I really can smell the ? ?.
Its “safety” or is it “cos they’re not paying” or is it “because they didn’t have enough spectators” or perhaps they “didn’t look at the scenery enough” or perhaps “no one died this time but next year when they are a million strong, what then?”
We all know the most dangerous thing in the Broads is a slightly drunk holiday maker driving a boat bigger than his house after 10 minutes of “instruction”
Ban them.
-
2
-
Anyone For Yoga?
in Broads Chat
Posted
As probably the single most prolific spin-doctor for the anti-BA cause - I believe I have seen your opinions on Facebook, the EDP and this forum just today, and trust me I was not seeking hem out - I would quote,
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?