Threat to our freedom?

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Thoughts of Horsey Mere spring to mind. Was that "DEFENDING" our freedom?, i think not.

[Guest]

So Peter starts a thread entitled "Threat to our Freedom", and pastes a very carefully trimmed quote from a BA document which makes it look as though the BA are about to ban navigation on Oulton Broad during powerboat racing.

 

As well as not providing a link to the source document for others to read for themselves, this summary turns out to be the opposite of what actually happened at the meeting.

 

When you take the trouble to read the minutes, you see that it was an agenda item to be discussed, which the BA then decided to not implement, thus they preserved the freedom in that case.

 

Ten people then "liked" that post, because they trusted the contents and were not able to read the actual document easily, due to it not being linked as the source.

 

...and now rather than concede that in this particular instance the BA did the right thing, we are again reminded of how untrustworthy they are.

 

When the BA do something wrong, (as often happens) criticize them by all means, but this constant "bashing" devalues the validity of the genuine grievances.

[ExMemberBobdog]

 

 

When the BA do something wrong, (as often happens) criticize them by all means, but this constant "bashing" devalues the validity of the genuine grievances.

 

i.e. Stop "crying wolf" until there is a genuine reason for concern.

[Matt]

Like a risk assessment perhaps?

[webntweb]

 

If this is the same BA document Peter, it then goes on to say:

 

"The risk assessment has been reviewed and it was agreed the risk assessment should be amended to introduce an additional control measure relating to boats leaving the pits to join the race course. No additional amendments are required.

As a result no further changes are necessary to the overall management plan for power boat racing for the 2015 racing season. The Broads Authority will continue to work with Oulton Broad Harbour Master, and LOBMBC to ensure that two patrols are provided to ensure safe transit of the broad for other users during power boat racing events and continue where necessary to restrict boat movements while a race is being undertaken."

 

from http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/534803/Power-Boat-Racing-Annual-Review-nc260215.pdf

 

So although it was on the agenda to be discussed, they appear to have decided against it anyway, in that same document.

.

 

Do the last 14 words of the quote from the document which begin "and continue when necessary etc" overrule the previous 14 words beginning "to ensure safe transit etc".

If, as I read it, they do then BA can stop navigation whilst power boat racing is in progress.

 

Roy

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Something else i think MIGHT be noteworthy is that it says for the 2015 season, and NOT for the 2015 season "and beyond".

 

That hints at the possibility of changes for 2016, and possibly beyond that?.

 

Still, it could be worse, they could always "re-brand" Oulton Broad. How about Oulton water park, or Oulton wildlife and country park, any other possibilities people can think of?.

[Guest]

Something else i think MIGHT be noteworthy is that it says for the 2015 season, and NOT for the 2015 season "and beyond".

 

That hints at the possibility of changes for 2016, and possibly beyond that?.

 

Still, it could be worse, they could always "re-brand" Oulton Broad. How about Oulton water park, or Oulton wildlife and country park, any other possibilities people can think of?.

 

Sorry Neil,  I don't believe many people would take that as a veiled inference of something already planned for the future.

 

It would be quite extraordinary for any committee to volunteer such a guarantee without being specifically asked for it.

 

I won't comment on the re-branding jests, that's something else that would only devalue the credibility of any valid public concerns about specific threats to navigation freedom.

[JennyMorgan]

Sorry Neil,  I don't believe many people would take that as a veiled inference of something already planned for the future.

 

It would be quite extraordinary for any committee to volunteer such a guarantee without being specifically asked for it.

 

I won't comment on the re-branding jests, that's something else that would only devalue any valid public concerns about navigation freedom.

We can only guess at what is or is not planned for the future. However, nothing is guaranteed but one thing's for sure, policies have been changed or adapted in the past to suit an agenda of the moment, and there is no guarantee that those policies won't be changed back in the future. Witness the desire to be a national park. Does anyone really think that issue is dead, that the rebranding is anything other than a tactic to achieve the required end result? Gently, gently catch the monkey, even if it takes a few years.

[Guest]

I'll try and stop replying to this thread again, (like others who have succeeded).

 

It's like fanning flames....

[JennyMorgan]

Thank goodness       !!

[Paladin]

Sourced from various official documents (plus a bit of my own opinion):

 

There has been power boat racing on Oulton Broad since 1903.

 

(Opinion) As the racing has happily co-existed with navigation for over a century, it would be very difficult to make a substantive case for closing the broad. In the event of a disaster due to the presence of racing boats, it is more likely that the racing would be prohibited or curtailed, than general navigation be prohibited. There is, arguably, pro rata, more disruption to navigation, and more damage caused to non-competing boats, during the Three Rivers Race, than there ever has been during powerboat racing on the broad. It is worth noting that, while the idea of closing the broad was rejected, an additional control measure was introduced ”relating to boats leaving the pits to join the race course”.

 

Risk assessment is something that the Broads Authority is obliged to conduct. The Formal Safety Assessment (FSA) identified powerboat racing on Oulton Broad as being a priority for more detailed consideration. There has, for some time, been an annual review of the risks involved, so nothing new there.

 

(Opinion) By definition, risk assessment must take into account all possible courses of action available to mitigate any perceived risk. In this case, that would include the closure of the broad. It has been considered and rejected, but the consideration was totally appropriate.

 

Permission is requested annually by the club for the racing to take place (ergo,  it is not a right).

 

The same wording has been used in the annual Notice to Mariners that is published each year: “Note that vessels may be temporarily restricted and regulated in their movement in the vicinity of the power boat racing circuit at Oulton Broad during the 2*** summer season.”

 

Having read back through a number of NavCom minutes on this subject, it looks very much as if there is a template in use, to which minor changes are made each year.

 

This thread appears to have been started using the ‘light blue touch-paper and retire to a safe distance’ principle. Unfortunately, instead of a banger, it has been a damp squib. There are other, more questionable, activities of the Authority deserving of closer scrutiny than this one.

 

 

 

[Guest]

......This thread appears to have been started using the ‘light blue touch-paper and retire to a safe distance’ principle. Unfortunately, instead of a banger, it has been a damp squib. There are other, more questionable, activities of the Authority deserving of closer scrutiny than this one.

 

Nicely put Paladin.

 

(all of it)....

[Springsong]

Windermere speed week, which  WAS  I think an annual event certainly from early last century or even before that has gone forever, they wont  allow it full stop.   A great loss in my opinion no more Cobbs,  Campbells,  Lady Arans or any other of the great British heroes and heroines in the development of marine engines and hulls.,  So to say it is not under any threat would be in my opinion extremely naive.

[Paladin]

Windermere speed week, which  WAS  I think an annual event certainly from early last century or even before that has gone forever, they wont  allow it full stop.   A great loss in my opinion no more Cobbs,  Campbells,  Lady Arans or any other of the great British heroes and heroines in the development of marine engines and hulls.,  So to say it is not under any threat would be in my opinion extremely naive.

Once again, chalk is being compared to cheese.

[JennyMorgan]

 

 

There are other, more questionable, activities of the Authority deserving of closer scrutiny than this one.

 

Paladin, you are precisely right but unfortunately, in the past at least,  lesser issues have been used to bolster greater activities. For example it might be claimed that the principle of a matter was established previously but in reality it might have been over a very minor activity. 

[marshman]

Probably time this thread was put to bed - its almost as inappropriate as it was to blame the PP outbreak on the dredging on Hickling , which on enquiry, was found not even to have started!!

 

Oh well not long before someone dredges up a few other non facts to continue the anti BA tirade - not that occasionally it is not justified, but in all honesty some would do well to either read a little further, enquire a little bit more or not jump to the wrong conclusion!!!

[Guest]

.......There are other, more questionable, activities of the Authority deserving of closer scrutiny than this one.

 

 

Paladin, you are precisely right but unfortunately, in the past at least,  lesser issues have been used to bolster greater activities. For example it might be claimed that the principle of a matter was established previously but in reality it might have been over a very minor activity. 

 

....sorry Peter, with all due respect, you still seem unable to accept that indiscriminate criticism of everything to do with the BA is damaging your credibility for the issues that really are important, no matter how many people try to tell you.

 

You're actually aiding JP, by making it easier for him to discount all of your criticisms.....

 

Accurately focussed criticism has much more chance of being effective.

[Paladin]

Probably time this thread was put to bed - its almost as inappropriate as it was to blame the PP outbreak on the dredging on Hickling , which on enquiry, was found not even to have started!!

 

Oh well not long before someone dredges up a few other non facts to continue the anti BA tirade - not that occasionally it is not justified, but in all honesty some would do well to either read a little further, enquire a little bit more or not jump to the wrong conclusion!!!

I have no problem that this issue was raised, nor that it continues to be discussed. Surely, it is better to know that closure of the broad is actively considered at each annual review, rather than to learn, after the closure decision has been made, that it was ever being considered in the first place.

 

This thread has enabled 'what if' situations to be discussed and opinions formed. JennyMorgan is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else. That others may disagree with it is a natural function of the forum.

 

Suggesting a thread be closed on the grounds that there is BA bashing occurring is counter-productive, IMO. Let the bashing continue, as, if it is simply gratuitous, clear and persuasive arguments against it can be put forward. Closing a thread, because the content doesn't meet with an individual's approval, is simply censorship.

 

However, I know that the Broads Authority is not above acting beyond its powers, and is not above concurring with misapplication of rules when it suits them. This is not part of any anti-BA tirade. It is a fact.

 

I hope issues (real or imagined) continue to be brought to the forum for discussion. I agree that crying 'Wolf!' can detract from genuine criticisms, but, let us not forget that, in the story, the wolf did actually appear and wreaked havoc!

[Springsong]

Paladin I don't understand why you condemned my post out of hand as chalk and cheese. Both involved motor boats racing in confined spaces the only major difference I see is of course Windermere is in a National Park.

[Guest]

....... I agree that crying 'Wolf!' can detract from genuine criticisms, but, let us not forget that, in the story, the wolf did actually appear and wreaked havoc!

 

Which is the whole point of the fable.

 

Crying "wolf" helped the wolf....

[Paladin]

Paladin I don't understand why you condemned my post out of hand as chalk and cheese. Both involved motor boats racing in confined spaces the only major difference I see is of course Windermere is in a National Park.

springsong, you have answered your own question.

[Paladin]

Which is the whole point of the fable.

 

Crying "wolf" helped the wolf....

Perhaps my point wasn't made clearly enough. That someone cries 'Wolf!' when the wolf is not present doesn't mean that the wolf does not exist or should not be guarded against.

 

I would prefer that someone draws attention to the danger, even inappropriately, than they sit doing nothing but watch the flock being ravaged.

[Guest]

Perhaps my point wasn't made clearly enough. That someone cries 'Wolf!' when the wolf is not present doesn't mean that the wolf does not exist or should not be guarded against.

 

I would prefer that someone draws attention to the danger, even inappropriately, than they sit doing nothing but watch the flock being ravaged.

 

 

Why did you say this earlier on this same thread then ?

 

 

.......There are other, more questionable, activities of the Authority deserving of closer scrutiny than this one.

[Pete]

....sorry Peter, with all due respect, you still seem unable to accept that indiscriminate criticism of everything to do with the BA is damaging your credibility for the issues that really are important, no matter how many people try to tell you.

 

You're actually aiding JP, by making it easier for him to discount all of your criticisms.....

 

Accurately focussed criticism has much more chance of being effective.

I think you've struck the nail on the head there. I've seen too many posts incorrectly accusing the BA of this, that, and another, that I now take everything I read from those posters with a pinch of salt - like you say, it's only damaging their own credibility.

[Paladin]

Why did you say this earlier on this same thread then ?

Oh dear, perhaps I'm guilty of not focussing on a single issue.

 

I'll try, for one last time. The wolf (aka JP) exists. A false(?) cry went up that he was attacking the flock (aka OB). He wasn't, so he is dismissed as not being a problem, and the shepherd boy (aka JM) is derided.

 

Meanwhile, the wolf is attacking a different flock (aka BNP), but the shepherd boy's warnings will be ignored, because no-one believes him any more.

 

Grrrrrr, yum, yum, Succulent lamb chops