So You Can Go Swimming!

[batrabill]

38 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The organising company is a limited company, a company who's liabilities are limited. Certainly a wise move by the organisers, perhaps I am looking for motives that don't exist but limited liabilities are just that.

Financial liabilities are limited, yes. But if you are suggesting safety liabilities are limited you are quite wrong, there are a few people in jail right now who will attest to that. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Financial liabilities are limited, yes. But if you are suggesting safety liabilities are limited you are quite wrong, there are a few people in jail right now who will attest to that. 

On the safety issue indeed, however many waivers or disclaimers participants may sign they will not override the  organiser's statutory duty or duty of care (can't remember which), particularly as the participants are paying to enter. This is not a "fun event" where it could be argued that the participants are equally as responsible for their safety as the organisers.  

[Guest]

Normally swims of this distance (10k or over is classed as a marathon swim) are the flagship event of well established organisations with experienced event teams. Instead of starting off small and building experiance this person who is appears has not actually organised an event before, wants to do 'the big one' Someone asked for a shorter distance on facebook and this is the reply  "Hi Lucy, it's an excellent idea and one already being considered. But we need to generate a success with one event before branching out" notice the word need, finances are taking a front seat here.

I blame the BA, I think they have given this the green light in haste because it fits in with the NP narrative, has it even been put in front of the navigation committee? 

 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, 40something said:

Normally swims of this distance (10k or over is classed as a marathon swim) are the flagship event of well established organisations with experienced event teams. Instead of starting off small and building experiance this person who is appears has not actually organised an event before, wants to do 'the big one' Someone asked for a shorter distance on facebook and this is the reply  "Hi Lucy, it's an excellent idea and one already being considered. But we need to generate a success with one event before branching out" notice the word need, finances are taking a front seat here.

I blame the BA, I think they have given this the green light in haste because it fits in with the NP narrative, has it even been put in front of the navigation committee? 

 

 

Maybe someone forgot there are lots of boats in this National Park?

[JennyMorgan]

5 hours ago, batrabill said:

Financial liabilities are limited, yes. But if you are suggesting safety liabilities are limited you are quite wrong, there are a few people in jail right now who will attest to that. 

No, I'm leaving that to others to decide for themselves what they should think.

I will make a point though, my insurance demands a minimum level of cover. I wonder what levels of cover will be provided for this event?

[JennyMorgan]

I have written to the Authority. I enclose a copy

I have sent the following to Messrs Birtles and Packman. 
Dear Mr Birtles. 

I note with some horror the announcement of the forthcoming Waveney Swim, http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/waveney-river-swim-2018-1-5452716

Inaugural Waveney River Swim is coming to Beccles
www.edp24.co.uk
An inaugural river swim is set to be held in Beccles at the gateway to the southern Broads.
I have read the details and corresponded with the organiser and in my honest opinion this whole, commercial project has to be viewed with extreme skepticism. The event is a race, that is quite clear. It isn't a case of two hundred swimmers in line astern of each other, close to one bank, it's two hundred swimmers in competition. Canny swimmers will want to use the tide to their advantage, cutting corners and changing sides in order to minimise the distance travelled. 

Is it safe?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216996/Body-rescuers-searching-triathlete-feared-drowned-competing-swimming-leg-race.html

Triathlete Paul Gallihawk drowned in Leybourne Lakes, in ...
www.dailymail.co.uk
Paul Gallihawk, 34, (pictured) was taking part in his first triathlon when he entered one of the Leybourne Lakes in Larkfield, Kent, for a 750m swim but did not ...
I ask again, is it safe? The answer is clearly questionable but is almost certainly 'NO'. If we accept that, from a health and safety perspective, then we have to ask ourselves what we can do to reduce the risks. 

The river Waveney is, I suppose, about fifty to sixty feet wide in the main reaches. On-coming and passing boats will need about thirty feet plus five, maybe ten feet of space from the bank. Swimmers, say three abreast, will need ten feet, plus several feet from the bank. Possible, with discipline, but would it happen? Whilst there is room for doubt then we have to accept that there is a very real risk.

We have to accept that Sundays are popular with both rented dayboats and private boats, the event is scheduled for the high season. Dayboats are available from Beccles, Burgh St Peter, Oulton Broad and St. Olaves, it has to be accepted that most will be helmed by novices and that there are very obvious risks to swimmers.

Swimmers are required to tow a visibility float, tethered to their bodies. I dread to think what would happen if the tether became entangled in an engaged propellor. 

If swimmers are advised to hug the right hand bank then there are very obvious problems when swimmers need to cross the river to access the twenty-four hour moorings.

Boats are governed by the rules when it comes to navigation, swimmers are not. 

Then we have the question of anglers. There might be a fishing match on that Sunday, there will certainly be individual anglers out on the bank. If an angler fails to remove their tackle on the approach of a swimmer then there is a very real possibility of a swimmer being foul-hooked. That is especially so if an angler is reeling in their line when a swimmer becomes entangled. Consider that pike anglers, such as myself, might have two, sometimes four lines out and we can only wind one in at a time, we might have three treble hooks on each line. This isn't fanciful thinking, the risks are very, very real and I write this as an experienced angler.

I am also a boater, I pay a toll to navigate the river and use the twenty-four hour moorings. That the event is a commercial enterprise rather than an established Broads event is also relevant. Indeed it is being organised by a limited company, thus a company with limited liability and its obvious implications.

The organiser has assured me that a risk assessment has taken place, that the Broads Authority supports her venture. This might be the case but I can only suggest that the right questions have not been asked. 

I sail a boat, I am well aware that if the wind drops then I might not be able to take avoiding action. Are swimmers, in general, aware of the restrictions imposed on boats? Consider that this is a competitive event. 

The Authority has long preached that swimming on the Broads is not safe. I have to question why this change of policy, especially as we are talking two hundred swimmers sharing a relatively narrow, restricted waterway, manouvering with and possibly in contact with large, sea-going motor yachts as well as numerous hired dayboats with inexperienced crews. There is a very real risk of injury if not worse. Consider too the limited access to the river bank by emergency vehicles.

Mr Birtles, swimmers in close proximity of boats, especially motor boats, is a recipe for disaster. I can only ask that you reconsider the Authority's support for this ill conceived venture. Closing the navigation is not acceptable, I would also question the legality of that option. Anglers also have a right to fish tidal waters. this is enshrined in law. 

So back to basics, is this venture safe? Is there a risk of tangling or being foul hooked with an angler's tackle? Is there a risk of a swimmer being injured or killed by contact with a boat's propellor? Can effective safety cover be guaranteed for every swimmer? Are the risks worth it? If the answer to any of those questions is NO then I have to suggest that the event is either cancelled or moved a to a suitable venue such as the excellent lakes at Whitlingham. 

Regards, Peter Waller.

[JennyMorgan]

Personally I see the Authority as being caught in a trap of its own making, damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. I note that on a popular Broads related facebook page there is a very real suggestion that boaters should consider blockading this event and hogging the 24hr moorings. Wow, hadn't considered going that far but obviously some people, not just me, are seeing the obvious problems and issues as well as the possible precedents. In hindsight not objecting to the river closure for a charity duck race was a bad move. Whether a blockade should be considered is open to debate but I suppose that it all hinges on how the BA responds to complaints such as mine. If the event is cancelled then the organisers might press for compensation, if the event is not cancelled and there are problems then the Authority would be in line for valid complaints and possible compensation claims! Oh dear, a rock and a hard place but it is a problem of the Authority's own making. By becoming involved the buck stops there.

What is now abundantly clear is that the 'negative thinkers' on NBN are not alone in their questioning of the safety issues surrounding this event. It is clearly an about turn by the Authority in relation to its previous policy on swimming in the Broads. 

[dnks34]

I dont think I would want to take part in a blockade but it really is not suprising that people feel so strongly. 

It demonstrates to me that the Authority isnt fit for purpose, or at the very least has its priorities all wrong and its head in the clouds. 

I wonder if Mel Holland expected there would be this sort of reaction to the planned event.   

[vanessan]

 JM - when writing to the Authority, would you have any objection to reference being made to your communication or would you rather each individual compiles their own in full? I ask because you have covered all the salient points so well and I think more people might contact the BA if they are able to refer to something that covers everything. Just a thought. 

I can’t say I like the idea of a blockade, that’s a step too far IMO. 

[johnb]

I do not know the suggested area very well. but it does seem that members experienced in angling, boating and swimming with a good general knowledge of the area, as well as historical knowledge have not only seen the drawbacks of the proposed sites, but have been able to be positive in suggesting sites that appear to be more suitable. It is good to see that there is a positive aspect to various threads, as well as Peter's letter to BA. I think this is helpful towards getting certain points across as the organisers/authorities cannot say that this is just people who are against the idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rightsaidfred]

Ok I had stepped back from this debate because I thought there was nothing else to add but on reflection I think there is, firstly I would like to thank JM for his letter which as usual is well constructed, my other thought which I know will attract the derision of some is that while we all know that there are businesses that profit from sport legitimately I find it hard to justify the motives of someone who would appear to be promoting the sport in its own right doing so  as a commercial exercise with an obvious lack of knowledge of the chosen venue.

Fred

[Guest]

An excellent letter JM I totally agree , blockade wise that might be illegal but refusing to move when within the 24 hr period from a BA mooring surely isn't , BA cannot tow anyone off a mooring for any other reason that a dangerous boat / pollution hazard so far as im aware even overstaying only gets a contravention notice though that might but most likely won't lead to prosecution .

[grendel]

I do hope that nobody decides a blockade is a good idea, that presents a totally unacceptable risk in my mind, and while a lot of our concerns were on the safety aspects, on those same aspects I couldnt condone any action that might put lives in more danger.

[rightsaidfred]

I should have added that I am not in favour of anyone taking matters in their own hands, it is down to the BA as to whether this event takes place it will also sadly reflect on both them  and the organisers should any tragedy happen.

Fred

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Personally I see the Authority as being caught in a trap of its own making, damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. I note that on a popular Broads related facebook page there is a very real suggestion that boaters should consider blockading this event and hogging the 24hr moorings. Wow, hadn't considered going that far but obviously some people, not just me, are seeing the obvious problems and issues as well as the possible precedents. In hindsight not objecting to the river closure for a charity duck race was a bad move. Whether a blockade should be considered is open to debate but I suppose that it all hinges on how the BA responds to complaints such as mine. If the event is cancelled then the organisers might press for compensation, if the event is not cancelled and there are problems then the Authority would be in line for valid complaints and possible compensation claims! Oh dear, a rock and a hard place but it is a problem of the Authority's own making. By becoming involved the buck stops there.

What is now abundantly clear is that the 'negative thinkers' on NBN are not alone in their questioning of the safety issues surrounding this event. It is clearly an about turn by the Authority in relation to its previous policy on swimming in the Broads. 

Remember, you could not claim compensation simply because an event is cancelled, you would have to prove actual & real losses which would be the basis of your claim.

Mention was made earlier to some approvals for the event being outstanding so any expenditure could be regarded as being speculative or premature. 

[JennyMorgan]

I have very mixed feeling about a blockade but I do think it shows the depth of feeling in some quarters and I do understand the thinking behind the suggestion. There is very clearly a fear that this event wouldn't be capped at 200 in years to come and once its established it would be hard to stop. Restrict or close the river for one event, what and where next? I understand and support the concerns on that one. As for a blockade, it would be done lawfully, let's see if and how the Authority responds to my letter before debating that one further. In the meantime, having debated this issue with friends, I have submitted a copy of my letter to the EDP. In that regard the ball is now firmly in the EDP's court. The same can be said of the Authority, the matter having now been raised as a safety issue, will they, can they ignore it? Whether it escalates is really up to them. 

[ExMemberBobdog]

I entirely understand, even though I disagree with, the safety concerns argument.  That’s a reasonable debate and I respect the views of those who disagree with my perspective.  What I can’t come to terms with is the extent to which this discussion has degenerated into a torrent of bile and invective, much of it directed at the motivations of the organiser of this event, and some of it perpetrated by moderators who should be setting an example.  I’m amazed at this on the so called ‘friendly forum’, and deeply ashamed, as many of you should be if you re-read what you have posted.  I’m even more amazed that the moderators have not locked his thread permanently; they temporarily did so when it was far less offensive than it has become now.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I have very mixed feeling about a blockade but I do think it shows the depth of feeling in some quarters and I do understand the thinking behind the suggestion. There is very clearly a fear that this event wouldn't be capped at 200 in years to come and once its established it would be hard to stop. Restrict or close the river for one event, what and where next? I understand and support the concerns on that one. As for a blockade, it would be done lawfully, let's see if and how the Authority responds to my letter before debating that one further. In the meantime, having debated this issue with friends, I have submitted a copy of my letter to the EDP. In that regard the ball is now firmly in the EDP's court. The same can be said of the Authority, the matter having now been raised as a safety issue, will they, can they ignore it? Whether it escalates is really up to them. 

I would not support a blockage or any other similar public demonstrations of disapproval (however well intended).

You have written to the senior officers of the BA advising them of a number of safety concerns that have been identified as being real for this event, BA has a statutory duty or duty of care (again I can't remember which) to review the content of your letter.

IMHO There is nothing more you do, as they say "you have already gone above and beyond....." 

[JennyMorgan]

Bob, thankfully we all have minds of our own. 

As for moderators, are they not allowed to take their mod hats off and have an opinion?

[dnks34]

1 minute ago, Bobdog said:

I entirely understand, even though I disagree with, the safety concerns argument.  That’s a reasonable debate and I respect the views of those who disagree with my perspective.  What I can’t come to terms with is the extent to which this discussion has degenerated into a torrent of bile and invective, much of it directed at the motivations of the organiser of this event, and some of it perpetrated by moderators who should be setting an example.  I’m amazed at this on the so called ‘friendly forum’, and deeply ashamed, as many of you should be if you re-read what you have posted.  I’m even more amazed that the moderators have not locked his thread permanently, they temporarily did so when it was far less offensive than it has become now.

 

We are just as entitled to discuss the economics of the event as we are the safety. 

Why should a group be allowed to come in and use half the water they make no contribution to and cause unnecessary disruption and safety implications to those that do contribute. 

I feel quite offended by that. 

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, dnks34 said:

 

We are just as entitled to discuss the economics of the event as we are the safety. 

Why should a group be allowed to come in and use half the water they make no contribution to and cause unnecessary disruption and safety implications to those that do contribute. 

I feel quite offended by that. 

 

 

I would suggest that a recent post is actually an attempt to get the topic locked.

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I would not support a blockage or any other similar public demonstrations of disapproval (however well intended).

You have written to the senior officers of the BA advising them of a number of safety concerns that have been identified as being real for this event, BA has a statutory duty or duty of care (again I can't remember which) to review the content of your letter.

IMHO There is nothing more you do, as they say "you have already gone above and beyond....." 

They certainly have a duty of care and I hope by going public that they will both review and respond to my concerns. I don't expect an immediate response, such would probably have to go to the legal dept before release.

[smellyloo]

7 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

They certainly have a duty of care and I hope by going public that they will both review and respond to my concerns. I don't expect an immediate response, such would probably have to go to the legal dept before release.

Let's hope the organisers of the event are not seeking legal advise re: some of the wild accusations made against them.

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, smellyloo said:

Let's hope the organisers of the event are not seeking legal advise re: some of the wild accusations made against them.

Loo, you surprise me.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I would suggest that a recent post is actually an attempt to get the topic locked.

 

8 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

Let's hope the organisers of the event are not seeking legal advise re: some of the wild accusations made against them.

I recall that Mel herself stated that it was unlikely to make a profit but she hoped it would,  so that clarifies any accusations about the event being for profit. In respect of safety issues it would be an interesting case to justify how swimmers and motor boats in close proximity could be considered safe, plus of course all of the other issues identified.