Thinking Out Aloud...broads Authority

[Cheesey69]

Hi,

If you agree with me or not, it has become apparent that the BA chose wrong to stop cruising on The Broads.

As it was pointed out in an another place, you pay a Recreational toll on your boat and since recreation was allowed...

Anyways, moving on, I feel I've been denied a months use of my boat and the BA had a months toll off of me for no reason.

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this decision, what advice they took and from whom.

Did they think lockdown 2 was an extension of lockdown 1? And if they did why?

My governmental department knew this lockdown was different and issued us with changed guidance and passes to travel  even before the new legislation passed into law, why did the BA react so slow and then failed to react to changing information?

DEFRA made it clear that no new guidance was going to be issued regarding boating, so why did BA not follow other national parks?

If the new tier system is strengthened then many wont be able to travel to their boats and this time that will be legitimate. Thats fair. However, in this lockdown, I think the BA over reacted and maybe assumed too much as many did and you can argue about the "sprit" of the law or the "morals" of the law but i'm afraid that don't wash. The law just dont work that way.

"Sorry your honour, I nicked his motor because I thought it morally wrong his got such an expensive car when others have not."

So as i sit and look over the Medway, I see motorboats inch past me on their way to marinas, I cant help thinking that an explanation is needed.

[Cheesey69]

As a side order and tin foil hat on, They could not wait to jump on the cruiser boater could they? More "green Lobby" agenda?

[Smoggy]

I'm still not sure why anyone has taken any notice whatsoever of what the BA or real NP's issue as guidance over what the gov have announced as law.

If I was close to my boat I would have been using it within gov rules, as I'm 100 miles away I've stayed away by choice as I can't justify the trip to myself without an overnight stay, if needed I will be doing the trip in december to check it over and make sure it's ok for jan/feb as I can see that all going to crap yet once the morons start the Christmas parties.

[marshman]

I suspect that they would argue that their latest advise was you should stay within the law - or something similar which,of course, is a copout!!!  Expect otherwise? 

Actually had you gone out, my view is I doubt anyone could have done much about it - the Rangers certainly not as they have very limited powers and can really only advise. Only the guys from Broad Beat could have done something  IF they felt they should but it was so "grey" I doubt even they would have done anything.

[Ray]

2 hours ago, Cheesey69 said:

you can argue about the "sprit" of the law or the "morals" of the law but i'm afraid that don't wash. The law just dont work that way.

"Sorry your honour, I nicked his motor because I thought it morally wrong his got such an expensive car when others have not."

Not to argue the point (we've all had enough of that!) but to give a different perspective, I'd say that the spirit of the law is about the good to society, so perhaps your admittedly tongue in cheek example may be better expressed as 

"Sorry your honour, I nicked his motor because I thought he was unsafe to drive at the time, I did return it the next day though"

Either way, I'm sure that all the members here actively avoid putting others at risk, which to me is the spirit of the law

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Cheesey69 said:

Hi,

If you agree with me or not, it has become apparent that the BA chose wrong to stop cruising on The Broads.

As it was pointed out in an another place, you pay a Recreational toll on your boat and since recreation was allowed...

Anyways, moving on, I feel I've been denied a months use of my boat and the BA had a months toll off of me for no reason.

I'd like to see the reasoning behind this decision, what advice they took and from whom.

Did they think lockdown 2 was an extension of lockdown 1? And if they did why?

My governmental department knew this lockdown was different and issued us with changed guidance and passes to travel  even before the new legislation passed into law, why did the BA react so slow and then failed to react to changing information?

DEFRA made it clear that no new guidance was going to be issued regarding boating, so why did BA not follow other national parks?

If the new tier system is strengthened then many wont be able to travel to their boats and this time that will be legitimate. Thats fair. However, in this lockdown, I think the BA over reacted and maybe assumed too much as many did and you can argue about the "sprit" of the law or the "morals" of the law but i'm afraid that don't wash. The law just dont work that way.

"Sorry your honour, I nicked his motor because I thought it morally wrong his got such an expensive car when others have not."

So as i sit and look over the Medway, I see motorboats inch past me on their way to marinas, I cant help thinking that an explanation is needed.

Sorry but I don`t understand your logic, you do not pay a recreational toll, you pay an annual toll that allows you access to and to keep a boat on BA controlled waterways, this is payable regardless of whether you access the boat or not or how many months you use it for if you exceed 28 days in any one toll year.

Fred

[Hylander]

3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Sorry but I don`t understand your logic, you do not pay a recreational toll, you pay an annual toll that allows you access to and to keep a boat on BA controlled waterways, this is payable regardless of whether you access the boat or not or how many months you use it for if you exceed 28 days in any one toll year.

Fred

Yes ,  I can see it from both sides.     For example if illness struck and you could not use your boat, you would not be able to claim a refund of the toll.   I'm with Smoggy here with regards to the morons who will be gathering for their Christmas parties etc and spreading this virus even further.       At the start of this lockdown I really felt that if everyone pulled together then an end was in sight , albeit , life would still be very different but at least we had our freedom,  now thanks to these plebs it is just as bad as at the start.     Boris needs to just have the 13 a 11s to stand up and say , for this Christmas, you wont be able to have visitors and that the end of it.    Standing there and waffling on and giving no direct rule which has to be obeyed is no help whatsoever,   some people have to be told.    

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, Cheesey69 said:

I think the BA over reacted . . . . . . . . . 

I also think that they assumed responsibilities that were not theirs to to assume. The duties of the Authority are clearly defined in law. Granted that we are living though exceptional times but I do think that in this case the BA overstepped the mark, certainly in regard to the second lock-down. Mind you, in fairness, they did seek clarification on behalf of us boaters but I don't see it as being for the BA to interpret those guidelines and certainly not for them to uphold that interpretation, at least not without being instructed to do so by HMG. As for refunding tolls, only if HMG make up the resultant shortfall.

[Guest]

As livaboards we have been staying on our mooring during the current lockdown, we venture out in the car to do 5 days shopping at a time to reduce our covid footprint(that's as much as we can fit in the fridge with the wife's wine! 😁). Every 3 days we take the boat for a cruise for 2-3hrs to recharge the batteries, one of those days was yesterday(Sunday), we cruised from Horning round South Walsham Broad then on to Malthouse Broad to shower and top up with water, to get to the point we must have counted 15-16 private motor boats out cruising and 3 under sail, at Malthouse there were 3 livaboards that have been there at least since the lockdown, during the week apart from Pike fishermen in dinghys we have not seen any movement. So it would seem that some are "interpreting" the law in different ways. I would like to add that I am not being judgemental just observational for the sake of the original post

Ps....we cruise to charge the batteries because we have occupied properties on either side of the mooring and its intrusive to sit running the engine for 2 to 3hrs at a time.

John.

[grendel]

to me it seemed that lockdown 2 was an escalation of the tier system, so more restrictive.

Since travel between tiers was actively frowned upon under the tier system, especially if you were in a higher tier travelling to a lower tier destination, how could it possibly be seen that lockdown 2 allowed unrestricted travel between tiers for recreational purposes. all of the guidance I have seen that pointed to the new regulations sent me to a government page that said travel for recreational spaces was a local thing  'travel to a local outdoor space' i think was the wording. the exemptions for that were professional athletes travelling to coaching (one to one). 

so unless you are a professional athlete at motor cruising I dont see how you expect to travel to use your boat unless you live locally. the law doesnt give distance limits because it was allowing for the professional athletes travel.

the law is the law, but the guidance is important too, when we drive we follow the highway code (or should anyway) to tell us how to behave when arriving at roundabouts etc - the law doesnt say you must drive clockwise around a roundabout, thats dictated by the highway code, yet if you fail to follow that and drive the wrong way around the roundabout, you will be prosecuted for dangerous driving - because you didnt follow the guidance.

So here we have the barrack room lawyers insisting that the law says you can drive as far as you like., when the guidance is as clear that you should travel to a local open space. and avoid travelling at all whenever possible. 

OK so we only have a few days to go, and then may be back under the tier system, and you are complaining that under that you might not be able to travel to your boat, well in reality you shouldnt be travelling anything but locally to it anyway.

[Cheesey69]

Good point. 
However it does say unlimited travel. 
The point of this lockdown was to stop families and groups mixing hence the rule of six. 
As has been pointed out family groups generally break the 2 meter rule because that’s what families do. 
Introduce the virus into that and it spreads like fire. 

[rightsaidfred]

51 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I also think that they assumed responsibilities that were not theirs to to assume. The duties of the Authority are clearly defined in law. Granted that we are living though exceptional times but I do think that in this case the BA overstepped the mark, certainly in regard to the second lock-down. Mind you, in fairness, they did seek clarification on behalf of us boaters but I don't see it as being for the BA to interpret those guidelines and certainly not for them to uphold that interpretation, at least not without being instructed to do so by HMG. As for refunding tolls, only if HMG make up the resultant shortfall.

While you are basically right the same could be said about a majority of authorities nationwide, the problem is to many people wanting interpretation that suits instead of following government guidance.

Fred 

 

[floydraser]

Who has had the training to deal with a pandemic?

I thought I was a decent manager prepared to take on anything the job could throw at me but this pandemic would have knocked my confidence right out of the window. I am now witnessing those around me struggling to cope with it from a management point of view.

We've heard all the arguments about paying for stuff and not being able to use it so any more of that is a waste of time.

In management you sometimes get it wrong. IMO in trying to get it right quickly, the BA got it wrong in advising the marinas to close. Not a crime, just put your hand up and put things right. But they didn't. 

If only we could all be trusted to do the right thing all the time. I see the need to go and check over the boat, to protect our investments. Can be done without spreading the virus, apart from the danger of crashing and the extra visit to the petrol station but that's a very low risk. I don't see the need for cruising apart from cases like Jemaki above. Some people's only recreation is parties; if they see a rich bloke out on his boat they'll use that as motivation.

You can bring in as many laws as you like but people will do what they want to do with heir own justification, as we have seen here. 

[rightsaidfred]

4 minutes ago, Cheesey69 said:

Good point. 
However it does say unlimited travel. 
The point of this lockdown was to stop families and groups mixing hence the rule of six. 
As has been pointed out family groups generally break the 2 meter rule because that’s what families do. 
Introduce the virus into that and it spreads like fire. 

It was also to stop the spread between areas, simple really.

Fred

 

[JennyMorgan]

This topic opened as one mentioning the Authority. I would like to think that the BA issued the advice that they allegedly did with all the best intentions in the world and in regard to us, their customers rather than our fluffy friends. However, I do have my nagging doubts, all a matter of trust. The moorings and marinas that were, or were not 'advised', to lock their gates, are they still locked?

[grendel]

the exact wording 

Quote

to spend time or exercise outdoors - this should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)

from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

the legislation 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/pdfs/uksi_20201200_en.pdf

sections 4c and 4d

elite athletes is section 5

nowhere in the legislation is unlimited travel mentioned, the word unlimited doesnt appear anywhere either, or the word travel.

[Hylander]

The only travel mention is below certainly not unlimited.

[grendel]

yes, travel is mentioned in the guidance, but not in the legislation.

it seems people are reading 'you can travel to do so if necessary' as allowing unlimited travel, but the following paragraph asks you to walk or cycle where possible, which doesnt seem likely if they were expecting you to travel more than a few miles. 

 

[Paladin]

30 minutes ago, grendel said:

yes, travel is mentioned in the guidance, but not in the legislation.

it seems people are reading 'you can travel to do so if necessary' as allowing unlimited travel, but the following paragraph asks you to walk or cycle where possible, which doesnt seem likely if they were expecting you to travel more than a few miles. 

 

It is one of those situation in which it could be said, 'it all depends'. For someone living in a city, most facilities will be on their doorstep. So cycling/walking would be a viable form of transport.

I live in rural Norfolk. My nearest shops are 3 miles away. The next town, in which I might be able to obtain goods not sold in that town, is a further 5 miles. So an 8 mile journey for provisions is, for me, nothing unusual. But walking/cycling to shop is not an option.

Yesterday, I went past How Hill. The public car park was absolutely full. It is 2.3 miles for me to walk there, via public footpaths across fields, but my wife can't walk that far. It is 2.5.miles by road. We don't have any bikes, so that would mean using car, and, possibly, not being able to park. So I went by boat (4.4 miles).

I don't think I broke the spirit of the guidance and I am absolutely confident that I didn't break the law. But I wouldn't expect anyone to motor such a distance that they couldn't get home in the same day.

[floydraser]

This finer points of the law argument: is this three or four threads it's found it's way into and is this a record?

[grendel]

16 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Yesterday, I went past How Hill. The public car park was absolutely full. It is 2.3 miles for me to walk there, via public footpaths across fields, but my wife can't walk that far. It is 2.5.miles by road. We don't have any bikes, so that would mean using car, and, possibly, not being able to park. So I went by boat (4.4 miles).

now that travel i would be perfectly happy to accept under the guidance as local, its when people propose driving much further afield to use their boat i start having problems

[rightsaidfred]

29 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It is one of those situation in which it could be said, 'it all depends'. For someone living in a city, most facilities will be on their doorstep. So cycling/walking would be a viable form of transport.

I live in rural Norfolk. My nearest shops are 3 miles away. The next town, in which I might be able to obtain goods not sold in that town, is a further 5 miles. So an 8 mile journey for provisions is, for me, nothing unusual. But walking/cycling to shop is not an option.

Yesterday, I went past How Hill. The public car park was absolutely full. It is 2.3 miles for me to walk there, via public footpaths across fields, but my wife can't walk that far. It is 2.5.miles by road. We don't have any bikes, so that would mean using car, and, possibly, not being able to park. So I went by boat (4.4 miles).

I don't think I broke the spirit of the guidance and I am absolutely confident that I didn't break the law. But I wouldn't expect anyone to motor such a distance that they couldn't get home in the same day.

No argument with any of that especially as you didnt go from a tier 3 to tier 1 area but stayed within your reasonable locality.

Fred

[floydraser]

It reminds me of Bletchley Park and The Imitation Game: You've only got until December 2nd to sort this argument out, then Boris will change the code and you'll be back to square one! Better get the cogs turning on the Bombe quick!

[MauriceMynah]

3 hours ago, floydraser said:

This finer points of the law argument: is this three or four threads it's found it's way into and is this a record?

Not even close matey, not even close! "National parks" spring unaccountably to mind.,  :-)

[CambridgeCabby]

19 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Not even close matey, not even close! "National parks" spring unaccountably to mind.,  :-)

Which National Park is that