So You Can Go Swimming!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I have noticed whats been posted elsewhere and wasnt suprised that  the discussion turned to what they thought of posters here rather than discussing the point in hand.

Some people like to make out they are all tolerating in the hope of making others loose face but you can bet your bottom dollar the first time something comes along that they care about or directly impedes their activities they will be up in arms about it. 

If the July event turns out succesful just watch before you know it for 2019 there will be the Ant Swim, the Bure & Thurne swim culminating in the 3 rivers Swim.....

Aslong as its not in their backyard is that how the saying goes.  

 

 

Well said that's exactly how I saw it , strangely it was interesting to see how they were so interested in Jenner's basin n yet it wouldn't have affected them at all , still pretty shameful to directly lift a letter from here even if they failed to copy n Paste the writer , still it allows them a guessing game I suppose , but your so right if it impeded them then teddy's would be airborne guaranteed .

[JohnK]

You could argue the navigation is closed to swimmers for over 364 days a year.
Perhaps the argument that boats can’t coexist with swimmers as some are making here results in the navigation being closed to boats for a few hours.
Remember it wasn’t the swimmers saying that was necessary if it happens.
Perhaps as boaters our best option is to show that actually we can coexist.

I’d say a blockade of swimmers is more likely to stop boats than a blockade of boats is to stop swimmers. Hopefully it never comes to that.

I used to do a lot of green lane motorcycling and there used to be a lot of conflict with horse riders and walkers. One thing that helped enormously repair the relationship was bikers helping at cross country horse events by marshalling.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

I have noticed whats been posted elsewhere and wasnt suprised that  the discussion turned to what they thought of posters here rather than discussing the point in hand.

Some people like to make out they are all tolerating in the hope of making others loose face but you can bet your bottom dollar the first time something comes along that they care about or directly impedes their activities they will be up in arms about it. 

If the July event turns out succesful just watch before you know it for 2019 there will be the Ant Swim, the Bure & Thurne swim culminating in the 3 rivers Swim.....

Aslong as its not in their backyard is that how the saying goes.  

 

 

So just imagine if someone actually managed to swim over Niagra Falls (without a barrel) would that make it safe forever?

[dnks34]

Is the Navigation closed to swimmers for 364 days or is it just that putting 200 swimmers in one section at once isnt a very sensible idea.

Theres the safety aspect as is being continually stressed and as Im not that bothered if people think im selfish/intolerant whatever you want to call me theres the small matter of 200 swimmers causing disruption to a navigable river that as far as we have been made aware are not paying anything for the use of it, while other users pay dearly. 

 

[batrabill]

Is this really about paying?

Is that it? 

So what payment would make it OK?

[JohnK]

that as far as we have been made aware are not paying anything for the use of it, while other users pay dearly. 

Think you hit the nail on the head there.
Is the BA receiving payment? Do we know they’re not or are we just assuming?
Is the money local businesses will make of no value?

[JohnK]

So just imagine if someone actually managed to swim over Niagra Falls (without a barrel) would that make it safe forever?

No, but if 200 did it might

[Guest]

Just now, JohnK said:

 

No, but if 200 did it might

 

So what would be an acceptable attrition rate to ensure it would ?

[JohnK]

So what would be an acceptable attrition rate to ensure it would ?

They’re only swimmers, not boaters, losing the odd one would be fine (JOKE!)

[JennyMorgan]

John, there have been several people on the Waveney Swim's website asking whether the river will be closed to boating although I agree that the organisers have not openly made such a request. Without raking through pages of comments I do seem to recollect a comment from Mel that the Authority had said that the river would not be closed, whether that was a result of a request or not was not mentioned. In effect it would take a change in the Broads Act for the river to be closed for this event. 

What has surprised me is the 'couldn't care less, it's not my business' attitude of some folk, albeit it's their right to think that way. If there is a potential threat to our right to navigate then it could subsequently affect everyone of us.  Giving an inch and losing a mile immediately springs to mind. However, in this instance I don't see it happening. The Broads Act requires the Authority to protect the interests of navigation.

[dnks34]

23 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Is this really about paying?

Is that it? 

So what payment would make it OK?

I imagine if there were any payment involved for use of the Waveney the EDP wouldnt have an article and this thread wouldnt be here.

But please correct me if I am wrong.

In organising an event it would make sense to pick a location that is suited to your activity and not rely on other users tolerance as its only for one day! 

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

They’re only swimmers, not boaters, losing the odd one would be fine (JOKE!)

 

Us anglers in the UK preach and  practice 'catch and release' so apart from a few scars from foul hooking there should be no loss of swimmers on our account.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

They’re only swimmers, not boaters, losing the odd one would be fine (JOKE!)

 

I recall there is a quote by Oscar Wilde about losing one being OK but more being careless. 

[JohnK]

I imagine if there were any payment involved for use of the Waveney the EDP wouldnt have an article and this thread wouldnt be here.
But please correct me if I am wrong.
In organising an event it would make sense to pick a location that is suited to your activity and not rely on other users tolerance as its only for one day! 

Ah, so you’re relying on the thorough research done by EDP?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Ah, so you’re relying on the thorough research done by EDP?

 

 

2 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Ah, so you’re relying on the thorough research done by EDP?

 

EDP the final word on knowledge wisdom and accuracy.

[JennyMorgan]

24 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Think you hit the nail on the head there.
Is the BA receiving payment? Do we know they’re not or are we just assuming?
Is the money local businesses will make of no value?

 

It maybe that some business actually lose. Will Rowen Craft at Geldeston lose dayboat customers when they are told that they can go no further than Beccles? If anyone is thinking backhanders . . . . . . . . it just doesn't happen, of that I'm sure.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

It maybe that some business actually lose. Will Rowen Craft at Geldeston lose dayboat customers when they are told that they can go no further than Beccles? If anyone is thinking backhanders . . . . . . . . it just doesn't happen, of that I'm sure.

sorry but I don't think there is enough money on the table for any of that. 

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

 

EDP the final word on knowledge wisdom and accuracy.

Coincidentally their fairly recently acquired 'Broads Reporter', the one who criticised the Authority in a full page article, has recently left the employ of Archant. Speculation anyone?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Coincidentally their fairly recently acquired 'Broads Reporter', the one who criticised the Authority in a full page article, has recently left the employ of Archant. Speculation anyone?

Falling on your sword?

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Falling on your sword?

Nah, I'll leave that to others!

[ExSurveyor]

I have read all the for and against on this whole thread and I have tended to agree with the against sentiment.

I was completely swayed to the idea that the proposed swim,  in that location  is a bad idea by my weekend onboard.

Three hire craft,  over two days , passed my moored boat at between 2 and 4 feet away at the full limit of their engines,  this is on a section of the river in excess of 70 feet with no other river traffic.

I dread to think of the carnage even one of these idiots could do to a group of swimmers in a far narrower area of river.

I fully support the concept of a river swim,  just not on the proposed section of the river.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

I have read all the for and against on this whole thread and I have tended to agree with the against sentiment.

I was completely swayed to the idea that the proposed swim,  in that location  is a bad idea by my weekend onboard.

Three hire craft,  over two days , passed my moored boat at between 2 and 4 feet away at the full limit of their engines,  this is on a section of the river in excess of 70 feet with no other river traffic.

I dread to think of the carnage even one of these idiots could do to a group of swimmers in a far narrower area of river.

I fully support the concept of a river swim,  just not on the proposed section of the river.

Plus one other caveat; concurrent with boats. 

[Bound2Please]

7 hours ago, JohnK said:

Is the money local businesses will make of no value?

Are you sure they will?

[JohnK]

Are you sure they will?

Sure? No.
Fairly confident some will though.

[Paladin]

9 hours ago, Ricardo said:

...still pretty shameful to directly lift a letter from here...

As I read it, JennyMorgan’s letter was reproduced on NBF with his permission, as I hope he will now confirm.