So You Can Go Swimming!

[VetChugger]

Bill is absotlutely right in his comments and I will take it a step further. This oh so noble forum spent 30 plus pages saying why this should not happen and would only end in calamaty, alrm, disaster and pestilence!

Lo and behold, the swim has gone very well with no problem whatsoever and shows promise for future such events. Is this forum spending another 30 plus pages of hot air congratulating the success?? Is it heck, its busy trying to think up more excuses to have a go! The majority seem to be suggesting that it as some sort of fluke that the event went off without a problem.

Absolutely bloody typical of the holier than though attitude of many on here. Its almost laughable.

[vanessan]

8 hours ago, batrabill said:

 

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.

No, there is absolutely no reason why you should. It was a money making excercise and a successful one, I just hope a little more cash went to the local charities as was promised. No doubt the information will be available, in fact If others benefitted, then bring it on again for next year and the year after. 

[rightsaidfred]

I was one of those that had safety reservations and I am pleased that everything went off without incident although like Grendel I still  have some reservations about it setting a precedent , as far as money is concerned many people use the waterways for different reasons without a financial contribution, being a boat owner I pay significant tolls that contribute to making my experience enjoyable that doesn't mean I begrudge others having access for their own pleasures including anglers and the owners of holiday homes and their guests who don`t pay a toll but contribute in other ways, not all the Broads income comes from tolls and whatever I think about the swim itself their will have been some benefit to the area so it is time to move on and just be thankful that on the day the event was a success.

Fred

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I was one of those that had safety reservations and I am pleased that everything went off without incident although like Grendel I still  have some reservations about it setting a precedent , as far as money is concerned many people use the waterways for different reasons without a financial contribution, being a boat owner I pay significant tolls that contribute to making my experience enjoyable that doesn't mean I begrudge others having access for their own pleasures including anglers and the owners of holiday homes and their guests who don`t pay a toll but contribute in other ways, not all the Broads income comes from tolls and whatever I think about the swim itself their will have been some benefit to the area so it is time to move on and just be thankful that on the day the event was a success.

Fred

I agree with your sentiment, the water should be there for everyone to enjoy but swimmers in the water is very different to fishermen, people in holiday homes, walkers, bird watchers etc because to keep them safe other river users have to be inconvenienced. If the swims were being organised by a purely charitable organisation I may feel differently, but it is a commercial venture.

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, batrabill said:

Why don't you ask the organiser when you want to know stuff, like I did.

Bill, you have been on this planet long enough to know that in general asking organisers or organisations a question will elicit the answer that best suits their agenda or aspirations. Whilst I see no harm in asking  I also see no harm in asking outside of the box so to speak. If people want to ask questions on the forum then so be it, their prerogative.

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. 

The whole event passed off safely, perhaps 90 entrants was manageable thus a good starting point. I still have my reservations in regard to the hoped for 200 or more. Perhaps future events should be capped at 100? Lessons will have been learned, 'tis now over to the powers that be. 

[rightsaidfred]

7 minutes ago, 40something said:

I agree with your sentiment, the water should be there for everyone to enjoy but swimmers in the water is very different to fishermen, people in holiday homes, walkers, bird watchers etc because to keep them safe other river users have to be inconvenienced. If the swims were being organised by a purely charitable organisation I may feel differently, but it is a commercial venture.

Unfortunately its a fact of life that we all suffer inconvenience for the benefit of others at some time or other and I am sure others feel the same about me, to put a monetary value on it just leads to bitterness instead of tolerance.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Unfortunately its a fact of life that we all suffer inconvenience for the benefit of others at some time or other and I am sure others feel the same about me, to put a monetary value on it just leads to bitterness instead of tolerance.

Fred

Regretfully, Fred, we now live in a world where some companies, even small ones, benefit more from the charity that they purport to support than do the intended beneficiaries that us donors would hope. Yes, it does create bitterness, you are absolutely right, hence the growing need for transparency by the charities involved. 

[batrabill]

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. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Unfortunately its a fact of life that we all suffer inconvenience for the benefit of others at some time or other and I am sure others feel the same about me, to put a monetary value on it just leads to bitterness instead of tolerance.

Fred

As I said if it was a charity event I may feel differently, in fact if it was more of a 'fun' swim I would take part! But the reality is a commercial venture aimed at a specific group of serious swimmers.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, batrabill said:

NBN members ... it’s not your river, it’s everybodies. 

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

[batrabill]

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?

 

[batrabill]

Just a heads up. The annual paddle boarding event is “money making”

Shall I draft a letter to the EDP?

[Guest]

 

14 minutes ago, batrabill said:

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?

 

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?

 

[JennyMorgan]

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.

[batrabill]

Shall we agree that it is impossible to completely separate the two budgets? That there will always be blurring?

[batrabill]

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. 

[batrabill]

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?

 

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, batrabill said:

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?

 

Bill, calm down PLEASE! I suggested, and stand by it,  that the BA's involvement was paid for by the toll payer, at no time did I suggest that the toll payer, or even the Authority, paid for the event, that being rescue boats and marshals etc, that's where the entrance fee came in. Interestingly had the event been a sailing boat regatta that attracted entrants from outside the area then those entrants would have paid an 'event toll' of £12.000 which I think is entirely fair. Perhaps such a toll would be appropriate for future swims?  Food for thought?

[batrabill]

Yes, that is precisely what I said above. You should calm down yourself and read back. 

[Maxwellian]

batrabill please don't take the views of some members as the views of all NBN members

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[batrabill]

Fair do’s

[rightsaidfred]

48 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Regretfully, Fred, we now live in a world where some companies, even small ones, benefit more from the charity that they purport to support than do the intended beneficiaries that us donors would hope. Yes, it does create bitterness, you are absolutely right, hence the growing need for transparency by the charities involved. 

JM 

I fully agree that's why without being uncharitable I have very little to do with charities or fund raising in general preferring to make any contribution in differing forms.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Like Bill I suspect that little if any money was made by the organisers, especially as just under half the hoped for competitors entered the race. I rather suspect that all the predictions were based on the hoped for 200. My gut feeling is that this event was rather forced upon both the Broads and the Authority. Certainly I see no need to criticise the Authority on this one, they did what they had to.

[JennyMorgan]

11 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Yes, that is precisely what I said above. You should calm down yourself and read back. 

Firstly I have read back, both our contributions. Secondly, without wishing to extend what is fast becoming an argument, I'm quite happy for others to decide for themselves on this one, as is their right of course!

[Maxwellian]

to agree to disagree would save so much moderator time generally on this forum.

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app