Rangers On A Purge. ..

[Jocave]

On 08/05/2019 at 23:07, BroadAmbition said:

Well according to the regs I read, 'B.A's 'Bow' reg numbers are not compliant.

However they are in the exact location that Jack Powels first put them on in 1966.  That's fifty three years ok until now.  I have no intention of changing that particular piece of history where our 'B.A' is concerned, not to mention the mess / scarring that would result thereof.  I have much better things to waste my time on  - I can see a a tantrum / hissy fit on its way

Griff

It's not 1966 anymore , ba  is nothing like it was back then, they didn't fit deking, led lights ,mikuni or planner heating or even beta engines, things change , just put the numbers where they are required and problem solved, private boats/hire boats it doesn't matter just do as the ba ask and the problem has gone away...

[BroadAmbition]

I'm kinda agreeing with you. However it should be a level / same palying field for all and it obviously isn't

As for a problem, I don't see it as a bona fide problem as of yet - More of an annoyance

Griff

[Malanka]

10 minutes ago, Jocave said:

It's not 1966 anymore , ba  is nothing like it was back then, they didn't fit deking, led lights ,mikuni or planner heating or even beta engines, things change , just put the numbers where they are required and problem solved, private boats/hire boats it doesn't matter just do as the ba ask and the problem has gone away...

Just do as they say ( they are not asking)? Really? 

Why not simply comply with the law? That surely is what we should do?

This is the whole crux of this debate, compliance to requests are just that requests. You do not have to do as requested. What you do have to do is comply with the law... 

There is a huge difference that I thought was completely understood! Obviously I was wrong, oh well never mind. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

24 minutes ago, Jocave said:

It's not 1966 anymore , ba  is nothing like it was back then, they didn't fit deking, led lights ,mikuni or planner heating or even beta engines, things change , just put the numbers where they are required and problem solved, private boats/hire boats it doesn't matter just do as the ba ask and the problem has gone away...

No, it's not 1966, more's the pity! Anyway, that aside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

[Jocave]

11 minutes ago, Malanka said:

Just do as they say ( they are not asking)? Really? 

Why not simply comply with the law? That surely is what we should do?

This is the whole crux of this debate, compliance to requests are just that requests. You do not have to do as requested. What you do have to do is comply with the law... 

There is a huge difference that I thought was completely understood! Obviously I was wrong, oh well never mind. 

 

I agree it's just a request  not the law, but to make the whole problem go away just put the number temoraraly  where they want it , in six months time it will be forgotten about and something else will crop up, its not a huge problem is it , just follow the guide lines and there is no problem and nobody needs to get uptight and stressed out about it.

[Malanka]

The guidelines have changed at least three times in four years whereas the law hasn’t changed in decades. 

Don’t forget the guidelines can be changed as the result of a committee meeting. 

Personally I choose  the law not interpretation documents liable to variable interpretation depending on which person to whom you speak. 

That’s simply my view. 

Our boat is fully compliant with both documents, the law and the guidelines. But not because we have changed over the years with each guidance document but precisely because we haven’t.

 

M

[MauriceMynah]

7 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

No, it's not 1966, more's the pity!

It isn't ??? When did they change that ???

[TheQ]

8 hours ago, Jocave said:

It's not 1966 anymore , ba  is nothing like it was back then, they didn't fit deking, led lights ,mikuni or planner heating or even beta engines, things change , just put the numbers where they are required and problem solved, private boats/hire boats it doesn't matter just do as the ba ask and the problem has gone away...

it's a general principle of British law it can't be back dated, you can't be prosecuted under a modern law for something that wasn't law when the incident happened. So you may  have "grandfathers rights". For instance my 1984 landrover does not have to meet the latest emmission regulations , and yes it has got a more modern but not latest engine in it..

[grendel]

28 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

It isn't ??? When did they change that ???

about the same time they changed pub licencing hours, I bet you noticed that one.....

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, Jocave said:

I agree it's just a request  not the law, but to make the whole problem go away just put the number temoraraly  where they want it , in six months time it will be forgotten about and something else will crop up, its not a huge problem is it , just follow the guide lines and there is no problem and nobody needs to get uptight and stressed out about it.

Sorry, but I can not agree. It is just a request, as you say, and, if we think it unwarranted, which it is, then we have the right to say 'no' or at least to question it. 

Part of the problem is that the Authority really does appear to have very little real understanding of what it purports to have authority over. In this case the Authority is asking for standardisation in order to make the job easier for the increasing number of Rangers that are themselves not in any way boat minded. Why? What is so hard in asking a Ranger to scan a passing boat, one that is doing four to six miles an hours? Boats are our precious possessions, we don't like being told what to do with them. I say 'told' because what should be a request has become an unwarranted command. On its own perhaps just a storm in a teacup but it's not on its own. Back to the old chestnut, we are told that it's a national park when it isn't for example. The Authority should stick to the requirements of the Broads Act, plain and simple.  The Authority hasn't managed that yet, it doesn't need to start writing new 'rules'. 

[MauriceMynah]

18 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Sorry, but I can not agree. It is just a request, as you say, and, if we think it unwarranted, which it is, then we have the right to say 'no' or at least to question it. 

No Peter, it is not unwarranted, I can see a perfectly good reason for it. I don't deny that the BA has messed up in the way it's handling this, but I can see why they want it. Where you have a row of craft moored up stern on which is so common these days, A ranger in his BA craft cannot read the number when displayed "Broad Ambition" style.

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

No Peter, it is not unwarranted, I can see a perfectly good reason for it. I don't deny that the BA has messed up in the way it's handling this, but I can see why they want it. Where you have a row of craft moored up stern on which is so common these days, A ranger in his BA craft cannot read the number when displayed "Broad Ambition" style.

Very true, I accept that but why then the demand that numbers be on the transom rather than the aft cabin wall? Numbers on the transom of a stern on moored boat are obscured by the bank. For good reason boatyards elected to put the numbers up high, that makes perfect sense too. 

[MauriceMynah]

I agree with that one!

[Smoggy]

It's not really a request though is it, it's a contravention notice so it's more a "do it or else", over something that is meant to be guidance.

[Meantime]

14 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Very true, I accept that but why then the demand that numbers be on the transom rather than the aft cabin wall? Numbers on the transom of a stern on moored boat are obscured by the bank. For good reason boatyards elected to put the numbers up high, that makes perfect sense too. 

You beat me to it. If you think of Southern stern on moorings such as Rockland or Loddon, where often due to lack of man power these moorings are checked by road, not launch then I cannot see if displayed as per the guidance a ranger could check all the boats easily. Due to the rise and fall on the South the transom is often below the quay heading.

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, MauriceMynah said:

I agree with that one!

Perhaps if the Authority were to explain the reasoning & need behind their requests then perhaps people would be more understanding.

In the case of BA and many other boats the name is clear and proudly displayed on the bow, it's what we do on boats. Perhaps the Authority's computer system could allow for names and numbers.

If I take my 21' boat as an example, the name is on the bow followed by the number. All quite legal, the number is within two meters of the bow,  about 25% of the boat's l.o.a. back from the stemhead. In a trot it would be hard to see, but it is still legal.  Proportionally my number is further back than BA's. Perhaps we should all have standard lengthed boats!

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Back to the old chestnut, we are told that it's a national park when it isn't for example.

I have just bought some Ordnance Survey Landranger maps of Norfolk, up-dated in 2018. They even show the new NDR!

What I then noticed is that the Broads area is picked out by a wide orange coloured border. On the key to symbols, this turns out to mean "National Park". So it just goes to show - if you keep pushing it forward often enough, it will eventually be officially recognised.

[Vaughan]

Ian Mackintosh's beautiful Broom built cruiser "The Albert" is actually named "The Albert Of Blofield" as there was already a British registered yacht called "The Albert". On the Thames, boat names have to be approved by the authority when  registering and there is no duplication. 

Can't we do this on the Broads? if not, why not?

[Helian]

In the very early 70s my father had a boat built by Bondons at South Walsham and wanted to call it "Spitfire". He was told he could not as there was already a "Spitfire" registered, so had to call it "Norfolk Spitfire". Incidentally its still about and still called "Norfolk Spitfire"!

[Smoggy]

Many moons ago back on the gt.ouse I re-named a boat 'Haddocks Revenge' (don't ask why) and the EA came back asking if there was a problem if it was called 'haddocks revenge 2', I was quite taken aback that someone else would be so stupid as to go for a name like that but the reply from the EA was no there isn't but just in case.....

That said there is a 'Moist Beaver 2' on the broads that makes me chuckle.

[quo vadis]

No I can’t bring myself to say it 

[Islander]

We bought the boat we live on some 18+ years ago. At that time she was called Jackie D after the owners wife. We wanted to change her name to The Green Lady but found there was one already, so we named ours The Green Lady Too. That way the other owners could still use no,s 2 3 or even 4.

Back to the main thread. 2 years back, unnoticed by me, we had lost our stab bow reg that was fixed to our pulpit. Andy Cullum pointed out that I was in breach of regs and to replace it, which I did. No paperwork necessary. So why the need to make it so officious with this current purge. A simple note ' under the windscreen wiper' would have sufficed and maybe using the word should than must would have been a better option and caused the hairs on the back of Griff's neck and several others, to rise.

Colin 

p.s. One of my boats doesn't comply with the guidelines.......I'm not saying which.

[MauriceMynah]

There are two different things going on here. Firstly the request/order and secondly the manner it which was made. The first I agree with and believe it should be complied with, the second is just another example of the BA shooting itself in the foot and  the someone who gave the instructions for what to do with non compliant craft needs a rocket.

[Islander]

Suggestions on a postcard as to where this rocket should be placed 

Colin

 

[FairTmiddlin]

Can I suggest this one and somewhere Re Yare

 

By the way that's apollo 13 and we know that was a disaster

Something wrong with the steering

Brings something else to mind