So You Can Go Swimming!

[Simondo]

There's been quite a lot of chatter on this thread about angling and the interference thereof for this event. As an avid angler I support this event (not for safety as I don't care) as when it is held there are umpteen miles of undisturbed angling abound on the broads that very day...so fill your boots anglers unless that is you fancy catching something bigger!

[JennyMorgan]

Mel has made it clear that divers will swim the river in order to remove discarded fishing tackle and obstructions. Sensible and reasonable precaution. Most anglers who fish the Waveney do so with ledger weights or similar to hold their tackle to the bottom.

The problem comes when an angler retrieves his tackle to avoid a swimmer. Sounds contradictory but with the weight and a flying hook, or hooks, then there is a very real risk of hooking an angler as the tackle is retrieved. Most of us with boats have picked up anglers tackle and most of us who regularly fish the Broads have lost tackle to boats, it happens.

I agree, anglers can avoid the event, if they know about it. However if a match has been arranged for that weekend , and it might well have, then I doubt that it would be cancelled or relocated, indeed why should it be?

[Vaughan]

13 hours ago, dnks34 said:

It appears Mel Holland feels the other place has been more welcoming to her!  (yes really!!!) 

I am going to reiterate that any comments on this thread to my mind have been solely down to the choice of location, nothing against Mel and nothing against wild swimmers, I wish her every sucess with the event I just wish it were somewhere more suitable, (the Bure maybe??)  

Obviously though its none of mine or any other NBN members business....especially if your not a local and or a boat owner......we are all just pesky medling kill joys who have nothing better to do than think we own the place and spoil everyone elses fun......

I am putting it out there again that had this been a Northern river event then her reception over there would have been quite different.  

Hornets nest springs to my mind but if they feel like they are improving their image by scoring a few points then I say leave them all to it! 

Appologies if I need to be modded but I or any other NBN member is not being done down by them, we may disagree but we dont hold grudges. 

I hope not to be modded for this either but I have just had a read of the thread in the other place and it is a bit peculiar how opinions vary so much.

There are posters there who are easily recognised as those who post here and yet their views are entirely contrary to what they say here even though they are discussing exactly the same subject. Some of the worst criticism of this forum also seems to be coming from those who are also its members, including senior ones.

I would suggest that if one feels the need to change one's opinion depending on the company one is keeping, it will end up difficult for either opinion to be credible.

I almost never read the other place but this morning was an interesting exercise which I don't intend to repeat for a while. It was also interesting that there was one member and 5 guests (including me) there at the time. Their thread has had 2355 views whereas ours has 13880. Perhaps the statistics speak for themselves?

 

[Smoggy]

30 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Their thread has had 2355 views whereas ours has 13880. Perhaps the statistics speak for themselves?

Watching people sitting quietly having a polite discussion is never anywhere near as entertaining as watching people get their knickers in a twist over something, you are right the statistics do speak for themselves.

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Their thread has had 2355 views whereas ours has 13880. Perhaps the statistics speak for themselves?

 

56 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Watching people sitting quietly having a polite discussion is never anywhere near as entertaining as watching people get their knickers in a twist over something, you are right the statistics do speak for themselves.

Be fair guys, ‘their’ thread is 4 days behind this one. I also get the impression there are far fewer members interested in the issue anyway. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I hope not to be modded for this either but I have just had a read of the thread in the other place and it is a bit peculiar how opinions vary so much.

There are posters there who are easily recognised as those who post here and yet their views are entirely contrary to what they say here even though they are discussing exactly the same subject. Some of the worst criticism of this forum also seems to be coming from those who are also its members, including senior ones.

I would suggest that if one feels the need to change one's opinion depending on the company one is keeping, it will end up difficult for either opinion to be credible.

I almost never read the other place but this morning was an interesting exercise which I don't intend to repeat for a while. It was also interesting that there was one member and 5 guests (including me) there at the time. Their thread has had 2355 views whereas ours has 13880. Perhaps the statistics speak for themselves?

 

I was beginning to think I was the only one that noticed that different opinion thing clearly I'm not , I'll defiantly agree with your comment's regarding this forum being slagging of by duel member's and they may well regret that its possibly the most stupid thing to do and then expect credibility on the forum you attacked only to find its suddenly vanished .

[grendel]

4 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

I was beginning to think I was the only one that noticed that different opinion thing clearly I'm not , I'll defiantly agree with your comment's regarding this forum being slagging of by duel member's and they may well regret that its possibly the most stupid thing to do and then expect credibility on the forum you attacked only to find its suddenly vanished .

this fact has not gone unnoticed.

[JennyMorgan]

One or two of those to whom Vaughan's wise observations might refer are adults, amazing. Perhaps we should call in Jeremy Kyle to officiate.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

One or two of those to whom Vaughan's wise observations might refer are adults, amazing. Perhaps we should call in Jeremy Kyle to officiate.

I always thought the Jeremy Kyle show was a televised audition for East Enders.

[LondonRascal]

Clickbait has nothing on this thread's ability to get people involved in a topic.

[ExSurveyor]

Robin,  do you mean Chickbait

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Robin,  do you mean Chickbait

Is it good for catching roach?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

One or two of those to whom Vaughan's wise observations might refer are adults, amazing. Perhaps we should call in Jeremy Kyle to officiate.

No no no no , jerry springer , come on now ,,,  jerry jerry jerry jerry 

[JennyMorgan]

On 4/5/2018 at 16:51, Ricardo said:

No no no no , jerry springer , come on now ,,,  jerry jerry jerry jerry 

Isn't he a bit potty?

[JennyMorgan]

Dear Mr Waller,

 

Thank you for your email in  which you raise concerns regarding the proposed Waveney River Swim event in June.

 

The event organisers have been in contact with the Authority for some time now and the request is progressing through our normal events permission process. We receive numerous requests for events that are proposed each year and we pass them all through the same process which involves a number of officers reviewing the organisers plans and documentation, and best practice advice to ensure that the event does not adversely impact other users of the Broads.

 

As you are probably aware we do not have powers to restrict swimming in the rivers and broads and the only time when the Authority would encourage swimming is when it is part of an organised event where we can have influence on the safety measures employed.

 

As the Broads and Rivers are a shared water-space with a variety of users, interest groups and events it is in our interests to work with the organisers of such events to ensure that our duties are adequately discharged.

 

I can assure you that the proposed Waveney River Swim will be robustly assessed and will not go ahead unless we have been satisfied that all reasonable measures are in place and that the impact on other users of the river have been minimised.

Subject to the swim event being given the go-ahead, the Authority would issue a Notice to Mariners to advise users of the event. 

 

Kind regards

[NorfolkNog]

Many thanks for the update JM 

[grendel]

Its good to see that the BA are taking things seriously.

[ExSurveyor]

As you are probably aware we do not have powers to restrict swimming in the rivers and broads

 

 

I can assure you that the proposed Waveney River Swim will be robustly assessed and will not go ahead unless we have been satisfied that all reasonable measures are in place and that the impact on other users of the river have been minimised.

 

A bit of a contradiction here,  they either have the authority to stop the event or they don't.

[Londonlad1985]

9 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

A bit of a contradiction here,  they either have the authority to stop the event or they don't.

You took the words out of my mouth. 

[Bound2Please]

3 minutes ago, Londonlad1985 said:

You took the words out of my mouth. 

really Meat ......................................

Great track that

[grendel]

I believe what they are saying is that as an organised event they can put controls in place as to whether it goes ahead or not.

Just imagine for a moment if it were not organised and one day 200 swimmers suddenly decided to throw themselves into the river and swim to Beccles, it would certainly be more chaotic than the proposed event (I still dont think the river is wide enough nearer Beccles)

[dnks34]

It reads to me like it hasnt actually recieved the green light yet?

[Guest]

So the BA say the event is still being assessed, yet the company website says:

"We now have a confirmed date for the inaugural Broads swimming event along the Waveney River.It will run on Sunday 1st July, 2018"  Hardly seems fair on potential entrants that they are not being told the true state of affairs

 

 

 

 

 

[stumpy]

1 hour ago, Bound2Please said:

really Meat ......................................

Great track that

I bet you say that to all the boys.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

As you are probably aware we do not have powers to restrict swimming in the rivers and broads

 

 

I can assure you that the proposed Waveney River Swim will be robustly assessed and will not go ahead unless we have been satisfied that all reasonable measures are in place and that the impact on other users of the river have been minimised.

 

A bit of a contradiction here,  they either have the authority to stop the event or they don't.

My first thoughts exactly. The question of impact on other users is an interesting because there is no mention of the impact by other users on the swimmers. This is a competitive event but the playing field can hardly be classed as level. Some swimmers might be inconvenienced by tacking sailing boats whilst other might not. 

There are no regulations, only guidelines for these events, one being that, if I remember right, that there is one rescue boat per ten swimmers, e.g. twenty rescue boats, all fitted with propellor guards.

Something of a Catch 22, if swimmers keep close to the bank then they interfere with anglers, if they keep clear of the anglers then they interfere with the boats.