Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

JanetAnne

Rangers On A Purge. ..

Recommended Posts

I have considered this.  Maybe temporary ones stuck on a card, the card then held on with Blue Tak - Just for inspection purposes only of course.  They can issue me with as many contravention notices as they like! :default_rofl:

Griff

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just keep them happy by putting your reg on a white plastic plate hung from the bow, I'm sure a copy of the notice along with a photo sent in would keep them happy, a bit like this....

griff_reg.jpg.641db59c12194dee6d8e9da9f9faaeba.jpg

You probably need on on the stern as well as they don't stand out very well from the background, they could probably argue that one very well in court with the contrasting background bit.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always worry when something is being fought on "a matter of principle". Sometimes it is right to do so, on other occasions it may be unwise, and better to go with the flow.

I put this suggestion/question to you all. What powers do you want the Broads Authority to have?

Please don't start slamming the worthy Dr. here, this question applies whoever is running the show.

Imagine this. Griff refuses to put the reg. no. where the BA wish him to. Suddenly, Broad Ambition is watched like a hawk. It crosses Barton broad at 5.5 mph. They prosecute. It cruises at night not showing exactly the correct lights. They prosecute  etc. etc.

Is this the life on the broads Griff wants? I think not.

If any boat owner continually flouts the law (bylaw) does the Authority have the right to refuse that boat owner the right to moor there? Would you want the BA to have that right? Remember the boat Pelican seemingly permanently moored at Stalham staithe, the same rules will apply to him too.

It is oh so easy to make a stand without considering ALL the implications so I work on the "pick your fights with care" motto.

PS, Smoggy,  I love the number plate! A much better solution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add a bow sprit and put the numbers on that - 2m from the front end (nb you might need waterproof glue)

 

Phoen mono 1_zpsnrz3qf0z.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I always worry when something is being fought on "a matter of principle". Sometimes it is right to do so, on other occasions it may be unwise, and better to go with the flow.

I put this suggestion/question to you all. What powers do you want the Broads Authority to have?

Please don't start slamming the worthy Dr. here, this question applies whoever is running the show.

Imagine this. Griff refuses to put the reg. no. where the BA wish him to. Suddenly, Broad Ambition is watched like a hawk. It crosses Barton broad at 5.5 mph. They prosecute. It cruises at night not showing exactly the correct lights. They prosecute  etc. etc.

Is this the life on the broads Griff wants? I think not.

If any boat owner continually flouts the law (bylaw) does the Authority have the right to refuse that boat owner the right to moor there? Would you want the BA to have that right? Remember the boat Pelican seemingly permanently moored at Stalham staithe, the same rules will apply to him too.

It is oh so easy to make a stand without considering ALL the implications so I work on the "pick your fights with care" motto.

PS, Smoggy,  I love the number plate! A much better solution.

MM we are talking about a Yorkshireman here you know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the voice of reason, MM, strikes again! We all seem to have a degree of uniformity on our number plates on cars/bikes without a great deal of fuss, don't we? Or perhaps that is my imagination?

Presumably other waterways have similar requirements too? No doubt someone else will know this without me checking? I guess also most of the hire boat operators are  complying without much difficulty.

However having said this, I do think that they are being a little OTT in some cases but I guess it was felt that perhaps just too many were trying to get away with it, or rather just stretching the guidelines a bit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all seem to have a degree of uniformity on our number plates on cars/bikes without a great deal of fuss, don't we? Or perhaps that is my imagination?

Jack Powels all had uniformity too on the Star Supreme class, maybe other classes too no doubt.

We all seemed to manage with the location of the reg numbers just fine.  Port Commissioners were fine too.  Fifty three years of no issue until the  Ba decided to go off on one

Seems to me that Tampax Towers have nowt better to do.  I'm sure the Rangers have however

Griff

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of upsetting a few there seems to be a lot of hot air about nothing here, as MM and Marshman have said there is no need to remove existing numbers and compliance is quite a simple thing to do.

The Rangers have a legal right to enter marinas etc to check for compliance and have done so for as long as I can remember, it is the only way they can check all those boats that rarely venture out on the river.

The requirement regarding registration placement is part of the byelaws and the guidance notes are issued to aid with that as are all guidance notes and they were always included with the toll plaque and are available on the web site so there is no argument for not knowing.

As for the historical element very little in life is the same as it was 20 years ago let alone 50, regulations change all the time for better or worse and  like it or not it is our responsibility to comply.

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, marshman said:

We all seem to have a degree of uniformity on our number plates on cars/bikes without a great deal of fuss, don't we? Or perhaps that is my imagination? 

Apart from any vehicle classed as historic which are allowed black number plates with white letters. Oh and bikes which only need a number plate on the back, not the front, which has caused a lot of hassle around here as the county council keep changing the direction the average speed cameras face due to conflicting "guidance" from the Police. Apparently one minute the police want the cameras facing the cars so that Police have a chance of getting pictures of the driver as well, but this doesn't work for bikes because they have no number plate at the front.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested to see that this discussion is all revolving around what "a ranger" or "the rangers" have done. There is no mention of a name and no-one seems to know these people personally. In "my day" each river inspector had his own beat, knew all the private boats moored on it and knew the owners as well. This sort of nonsense would never have happened in the days of Jack Bidewell, "shiner" Wright, Jack Hunt or Tony Webster.

1/. The bye-law (as quoted on Griff's notice) clearly states "near the bow". It does not specify "on the hull".

2/. The BA know perfectly well what boats are moored in Richardsons wetshed. They therefore automatically know whether any of those boats have not paid a toll. So this is a total public relations failure, for nothing gained.

3/. If this unknown ranger really doesn't know what Broad Ambition is, by now, then they need a lot more training and supervision before being let out on their own.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the BA are going to have toll plate recognition cameras to catch non payers  that only pan on the bow. John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChrisB said:

Do you mean kilometres? We had to drive to Mulhouse twice after we moved to the North Norfolk Coast and that is pretty close to you. I used to clock under 1300 miles. A couple of hundred to Dover and around 430 on the other side. 

Still hats off to you, a fair old journey for a long weekend. The weather looks as though it will be kind to you all.

Hi Chris,

Theoretically it’s 1100km one way which is   a little shy of 700miles, which is 1400 return. In theory, however my last trip back on the A5 in the Ruhr was unexpectedly shut it turned into a 12 hour nightmare of almost 1300km.

Shortest is via Belgium and my bum can’t tolerate the vibration of Belgian Autoroute, as wallonian roads are terrible. French Autoroute ( Peage) is by far the quickest at less than 8 hrs. But de-restricted Germany is only 15 minutes longer but 79 km further and much more fun. 

Mulhouse is in France we live in Muri bei Berne which in Swiss Terms is middle of nowhere. The drive from my house to Basel is about 1hr 40. 

So it’s quite a bit more than 470 miles unfortunately. 

Millie has journey summaries I can post my trip back it was awful

M

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

Yertiz,  both sides.

Griff

 

BA NBN 599.jpg

BA NBN 600.jpg

Griff, this really sucks. In their explanation they state you are not displaying as per the "guidance" If you refer to the byelaw on the back which is far more vague then I think you do comply. Any court would want to know how to legally define "near" before it decided if the reg marks are "near" enough to the bow. Historical precedence e.g. 50 years in the same place would indicate "near" was near enough. Caister is near to Yarmouth, but a few miles away. It is all relative and the byelaws are extremely poorly drafted in more than one area. The 2 metre or 1.2 metres that have been previously mentioned on this thread do not appear in the byelaw, neither does an interpretation of "near"

There is a big difference between guidance and the law. The Police guidance is not to drink and drive, the law states that you can be prosecuted for driving if over the limit of 35 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath. So to take that a little further, if someone goes into a pub and has a half a pint, or even a pint of lager and a meal and then drives away from the pub, they have not followed Police guidance, however if they were stopped and breathalysed by the Police, they are unlikely to be over the legal limit and therefore would not be prosecuted. I am not in any way condoning or suggesting anyone does the above, but just showing the difference between guidance and the law in the eyes of the court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaughan has some excellent points here, well made.  How many 'local' people ( by that I mean folk with a genuine knowledge and experience  of  the Broads and Broads boating) have in the last few years been appointed as 'Rangers' ?  I know a few personally who have applied and haven't even got shortlisted, even though they were skilled in boat handling, and new a considerable ammount about the Broads environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always assumed the Rangers rights were to access marinas via the water not to stroll on foot into a covered and locked warehouse.

Sorry MM do you really believe the BA would conduct a campaign of harassment as you suggested ? And if you genuinely do believe they would even contemplate such puerile actions, how on earth could you support that organization in any way shape or form. 

It is the BA who have already thrown their teddies over this issue by deliberately targeting historic wooden boats which have demonstrably not moved their Tags in over 50 years. I notice from the paper they managed to read the reg number perfectly well by the way. 

We should all take note of what Vaughan is writing, the regs are what is important NOT what the BA persons have decided behind closed doors. The only way to deal with bullies like this is when they step over the line is to stand up to the mission creep otherwise when an idiot is in charge or is appointed ( gosh that will never happen they cry) who knows what will result. No dredging, designing costly carbuncles, useless office moves you name it.

M

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bylaw 19 and 22 require me to display my receipts! Mine is an A4 sheet with 4 boats on it. Just where do they want me to display it.

Colin :default_drinks:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaughan - Rangers do still have their patch, and people out and about a lot and especially the yard owners, will know their local Ranger just as you did! In the old days, your lot used to sleep a lot up in Bargate!! But the Rangers now do lots of other things, especially in the winter and also the BA use quite a number of volunteer Rangers. They don't require a salary and expensive pension!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, marshman said:

But the Rangers now do lots of other things, especially in the winter and also the BA use quite a number of volunteer Rangers. They don't require a salary and expensive pension!!

Then they have more to do than go sticking their noses in Richardsons wetshed, being officious for no good reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daft point but the regs say near the bow against a contrasting backgound, does it mention which side of the waterline?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

At the risk of upsetting a few there seems to be a lot of hot air about nothing here, as MM and Marshman have said there is no need to remove existing numbers and compliance is quite a simple thing to do.

The Rangers have a legal right to enter marinas etc to check for compliance and have done so for as long as I can remember, it is the only way they can check all those boats that rarely venture out on the river.

The requirement regarding registration placement is part of the byelaws and the guidance notes are issued to aid with that as are all guidance notes and they were always included with the toll plaque and are available on the web site so there is no argument for not knowing.

As for the historical element very little in life is the same as it was 20 years ago let alone 50, regulations change all the time for better or worse and  like it or not it is our responsibility to comply.

Fred

Fred, the whole point is that Griff and others HAVE complied with the byelaws. Guidance is just that guidance, it is not part of the byelaws, therefore does not have to be complied with. If the BA want you to comply with parts of the guidance, then they need to put it into the byelaws. Simple as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Malanka said:

Sorry MM do you really believe the BA would conduct a campaign of harassment as you suggested ? And if you genuinely do believe they would even contemplate such puerile actions, how on earth could you support that organization in any way shape or form. 

The problem with using an example is that it often leads to an illogical conclusion. No of course I don't believe such a campaign of harassment would take place, but as I say, it was an example, an illustration if you prefer.

The BA wants some standardisation in the placing of Reg. Numbers. Broad Ambition is a very well known craft. For the BA to turn the "blind eye" to Broad Ambition would cause them far more problems that to apply their "guidance" even handedly.

If Griff wants to stand on his rights and disregard the BA then so be it. He can pick that argument with the rangers in the sure knowledge that he knows his rights, and that the worst he could suffer in reality is that his relationship with the rangers deteriorates. 

Or, he can recognise that given Broad Ambition's high profile it would be more constructive to place the relevant numbers where the BA wants him to, in addition to the traditional numbers.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are supporting the BA on this issue. 

 

Oh dear...

 

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical thing to do would be to insist that all newly registered vessels comply.

Strange that they accept a toll for a vessel that doesn't comply with their "guidelines".

For the past few years I have seen the same boats that have no toll and defaced reg numbers, better to persue these first than chase owners who have always paid on time.

When they have collected every toll due they can spend their time on minor perceived infringements.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason blind obedience to orders of those with presumed authority was not in favor 74 years ago!

That is the principle at work here. The BA are NOT permitted to make stuff up as they go along it’s as simple as that. They and we MUST comply with the by laws, not the whims of the current decision makers in the BA. That is what is being ridiculed here whims passed off as regulations which they ARE NOT.

 

M

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app!

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.