Topic: Norfolk AND Suffolk Broads?

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 6:03 PM
  What do you think?
And do you think that the reporters name really is 'Jasper'!??

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

Bruyere    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 6:13 PM
  I think "The Broads" is fine.

If you are going to introduce the word "Norfolk".....then you have to also include "Suffolk".

I think the councillor for Waveney is right to feel indignant.

When everything seems to be coming your way.....
you're on the wrong side of the river.


pks1702    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 6:22 PM
  At a time the BA are pleading poverty and with on the cards increases of 13% for the near future I am incredulous that they have ?20,000 to spend on a report that says having the word Norfolk will help branding and identification in Marketing the region.

Talk about stating the b***dy obvious. More value would have been to work out how to brand the area without alienating one of the counties the area encompasses by effectively forgetting its there!

It strikes me that the BA feels it has to go through these hoops to prove to government that it can handle being a fully fledged qwanqo.

Attract more people? how about keeping fees within inflation, ensuring the broads are navigable giving discounts to Junior and School Club boating to encourage the next generation etc etc.

Logic of the current strategy appears to be a viscous circle of declining numbers = higher Broads fees to make up for the shortfall. Take that to its logical conclusion and call it the Broads wilderness.

Well done Simon Anholt a true master of 'knitting fog'

Rant over!


roya    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 7:01 PM
  is it just me,
or does any one else think that at the moment every thing in this country is being run by Folk who do not seem to have a clue?
As you know i defended the Toll increase,but that was before i knew that £20000 had been WASTED on stating the OBVIOUS.
If that had been spent on dredging or extra Ranger cover it might have been well spent.


A Day without a smile is a wasted day

bittern32    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 7:07 PM
  Well said   Roya CheersText


smbruce    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 7:10 PM
  You could have taken the words out of my mouth Roya!!



DaveB    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 7:11 PM
  Hi Roy,well done mate Playful Wink  you spotted it!
as far as i can see, for a long lime now,the only qualification for a job running any vital service eg government,the nhs,law enforcement,the BA?, appears to be a total lack of either ability or common sense,and a complete lack of experience in the relevent area.
Sorry,i'm about to start foaming at the mouth and ranting about the 'state of the country today'etc,etc
  Blush  Tinhat Tinhat Tinhat


This message was edited by DaveB on Jun-5-06 @ 7:13 PM

Poppy    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 9:36 PM
  What do we call the Broads?
If only that was all the Bill was about!

Packman must be jumping up and down with glee at the publicity that this, largely irrelevant clause is geting, whilst other, far more important issues are ignored by the media(along with many here  Mad ).

The real point is that, if passed, this piece of parliamentary mischeif can (and I have no doubt will) be used to greatly curtail OUR LEGAL RIGHT to navigate on the tidal waterways of the Broads, whatever you wish to call them!

In addition the legal right  will be conferred on Rangers to board and take charge of a vessel in certain circumstances. How many of them have the ability to handle a 30' gaff rigged yacht in a blow? I very much doubt it! And when they get it wrong, where will the liability lie?


Torty    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 10:06 PM
  Small point. When the name is changed - to whatever - how much is it going to cost for new logos, new stationery, new signboards, new job descriptions / titles, re-branding publicity campaigns etc.

There have to be better things to spend our money on.


expilot    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 10:26 PM
  Of course its the Norfolk Broads.  Always has been.  The BA may well be using a national government ploy(used by governments of all colours since politics began)  to distract the public from the REAL issues.

"There are old pilots.  There are bold pilots............."

nautiuser    -- Jun-5-2006 @ 11:17 PM
I don't want to upset anyone, but part of me hopes that no change of name is made, then the only question will be how many of his friends the honorable member for Waveney can persuade to vote against this nasty and unwanted piece of legislation. As I have stated before is it really good for us to be working and playing in a 'National Park'.


Richard    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 1:24 AM
  Having read a large number of the posts on the name change subject I think I can see the pros and cons of both sides.

I must have missed the line item in the 2006 budget for the 20K, could someone point that out to me?, and as Torty says, who's going to pay for this.

In fact lets go one one more step, how are any of the changes going to get paid for?

I might have said this before (apologies for my poor memory) but the way I read the act the Rangers will now basically have Police powers. Not saying that this is a good or bad thing, but I would assume that there must be some training required.

Popppy - could you fill in my pathetic level of knowledge on the subject, and explain about the curtailing the right to navigate. I'm sure I'm just being dense so please keep it simple !

Poppy    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 4:39 PM
Our right to navigate in tidal waters is enshrined in Magna Carta. Therefore, our progress on such waterways may not be impeded!

There are sections in the proposed Bill which will give the Bishop's right hand man the power to close the navigation, contrary to "Our right to navigate "

Poppy    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 4:47 PM
  Hi Nautiuser.

the only question will be how many of his friends the honorable member for Waveney can persuade to vote against this nasty and unwanted piece of legislation.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is a Private bill, sponsored (with our money!) by the Broads Authority.
For bills of this type to succeed, they must not be controversial, and a simple demonstration that this is not the case when it reaches Parliament is enough to see it fail.
However, our MPs of all persuasion have a history of saying one thing and doing another, hence the profound opposition from many sides that this Bill is generating. It is essential that as many of our Parliamentary representatives as possible know how each of us feel!

Jonzo    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 7:30 PM
  This one doesn't make a lot of sense. It always irritates me anyway when people refer to the area as "The Norfolk Broads".

Admittedly "The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads" doesn't roll off the tounge, but why not just call it "The Broads" as it seems to be mostly called these days or "Broadland National Park". At least that way it wouldn't alienate the Suffolk element, who are very much part of the area.

This message was edited by Jonzo on Jun-6-06 @ 7:31 PM

GaryCantley    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 7:44 PM
  Hi all,:tinhat:

I cant see the problem meself. Call it the Norfolk Broads as it is the name that everyone knows it by.

Then, we can redraw the line between Norfolk and Suffolk so Waveney District (and all other areas that are on the broads) are within Norfolk.

The plan is so simple!!!:tinhat::tinhat::tinhat:

Gary Tinhat

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 8:51 PM
  Clearly Poppy & I think alike. It is a nasty Bill, and the name issue nothing more than a smokescreen.
On the lines of Poppy's comments I have written and lodged my complaints with both J.P. and Bob Blizzard. Bob Blizzard has replied, on the copy you will see his address, the more people who write to him the better!

You will need to hit the green enlarge logo to read it!

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

[without permission image edited to blur posters address]

This message was edited by Richard on Jun-6-06 @ 11:07 PM

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 8:55 PM
  I replied to Bob with the following:

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

Speleologist    -- Jun-6-2006 @ 11:05 PM

Do you have any indication as to whether Bob Blizzard is likely to take notice of letters from people outside his constituency? I will be writing to my local MP, though not until the final draft is published as he has no direct interest, but I'm also happy to take any other routhe that might help quash or change this bill.


Richard    -- Jun-7-2006 @ 1:16 AM
  I'm not sure if this shows my ignorance, or the length of time I've lived abroad.

Can an Act be amended after it's signed into law, or does a new act have to replace it ?

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-7-2006 @ 7:35 AM
  Robin, Bob is aware that his interest is in a holiday area and that it effects folk from outside his constituency.

Richard, a Bill can revoke or repeal previous enactments.

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-8-2006 @ 8:48 AM
  Just a couple of thoughts on this one. When I visit the Peak District I visit the Peak District, not the Peak District National Park, so why the Broads National park? The same can be said of the other National Parks.

Secondly, since the Bill is probably dead in the water, where does that leave the Boat Safety Scheme? One way and another numerous folk have invested quite serious money in this scheme, yet the scheme needs the Bill to go through. So where does this leave us boaters? I'm certainly not going to the expense of BSS certification until we have a Bill that looks likely to succeed. The hurdles to be overcome are growing higher by the day!  

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

DaveB    -- Jun-8-2006 @ 9:02 AM
  couldn't agree more Peter Cheers Smile


Richard    -- Jun-8-2006 @ 2:54 PM
  Is there any way that the BA (or anyone else ) could require 3rd party insurance without having the Bill ? maybe as a requirement to get a toll sticker?

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-17-2006 @ 6:14 PM
  Apparently not.

And things get worse! See:;what-price-the-nav-com

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

A.J.B.    -- Jun-17-2006 @ 9:16 PM
  Forgetting the Bill for a moment,.... Not to have at LEAST third party insurance is just plain stupid and  asking for trouble.
Back to the Bill,
Some people I know  Wink  Wink  are very confident of its success, if not this year, certainly next. Indifferent


JennyMorgan    -- Jun-17-2006 @ 9:46 PM
  It will go through, Andy, indeed it must go through, but not the Bill as we know it! To be honest I can not see it making it this year. Unless there are some big changes it is effectively dead in the water. Was Green the architect behind it? There is some very clumsy and naive thinking behind the proposed Bill as worded. Perhaps you should come along to the meeting on Thursday. 2.00, County Hall, see you there? You could stand in for Adrian, I'm sure that he'd happily do that.

I think that when Packers joined the BA he made a fatal mistake, or so it seems. He neither listened nor asked. Now he must, and if he does, it will go through, eventually.

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

A.J.B.    -- Jun-17-2006 @ 10:23 PM
  Ive only just read this thread properly this evening Blush , and noticed this line from one of Poppy`s rants....How many Rangers would have the ability to handle a 30ft gaff rigged yacht in a blow........Answer... All of them.... the rigg would be dropped and the vessel taken in tow.
How difficult is that. Confused


PeteSanders    -- Jun-17-2006 @ 11:09 PM

Well, I`ve logged in as I was tempted to make comment here, but have since thought better of it. You`ll probably guess which way I was going with it, but must be careful what I say!! Gasp  Playful

I feel that I`ve shown considerable restraint!!


This message was edited by PeteSanders on Jun-17-06 @ 11:12 PM

Poppy    -- Jun-18-2006 @ 3:58 PM
  "How many Rangers would have the ability to handle a 30ft gaff rigged yacht in a blow........Answer... All of them.... the rigg would be dropped and the vessel taken in tow.
How difficult is that."

Well, first of all, you need to know which bit of string does what!
If you don't know whether to pass under the bows or behind a racing yacht, part of a fleet in restricted water, I suggest that would be very difficult indeed.
But perhaps the Doctor will put you all through a course (funded out of the Nav. Account, of course).

If a Ranger is unable to demonstrate competence in such matters, I am sure that the Insurers would have a very easy time in the event of damage or injury

A.J.B.    -- Jun-18-2006 @ 7:09 PM
I havnt a clue what your talking about, pm me, or tell me on here, I dont mind either way, but dont say something that leaves everyone guessing.

again you have lost me, "pull the right string"!!! at least I would use the correct name for the piece of string.
When did sailing become rocket science. boat-sail


This message was edited by A.J.B. on Jun-18-06 @ 7:29 PM

kfurbank    -- Jun-18-2006 @ 7:49 PM

Total thread drift here, were you on duty at the end of The New Cut on Thurs lunchtime? I was coming out from Reedham and thinking whether to take the long route back to my mooring, but the flood tide was putting me off, or whether to take the short cut done the New Cut. The dredging work taking place ultimately made the decision for me Smile


A.J.B.    -- Jun-18-2006 @ 8:35 PM

Yes it was me, the cut wasnt closed as such, between 11.30 and 12.50 Plaudit (a large tug) was pushing unifloats from the Haddiscoe end of the cut.
If you had gone down the cut, you would of had to go hard against the side and probably run aground.
All traffic from the other end was only held up behind Plaudit.

PS, Why didnt you stop and say hello. Smile


Poppy    -- Jun-18-2006 @ 9:02 PM
again you have lost me, "pull the right string"!!! at least I would use the correct name for the piece of string

I wanted to keep it general, but if you wish, here goes.

How many of the current crop of Rangers would know the topping lift from the throat, the throat from the peak, what they do and in which order or where the furling line is ( and what it does).
Then there is the issue of sorting this out on a yacht with which they are not familiar on a downwind run with a healthy 3 - 4 wind up your transom !

When you are then"dropping the rig", who is going to take the helm, find the crutches, ensure that all drops in place cleanly etc? (BTW, I won't be helping, as I have every right to expect that you are qualified for this.)

I am sure, that full risk assessments will have been carried out.......

This message was edited by Poppy on Jun-18-06 @ 9:03 PM

kfurbank    -- Jun-18-2006 @ 9:08 PM
  Hi Andy,

I wasn't sure if it was you, and I was single handed this trip. The tide was ripping through there, so would have been a bit tricky staying alongside for long. Was a steady plod down to the Berney Arms and then things got a lot easier all the way back to the WRC. Nice afternoon for it though. Shall see you next week if your at the meet.


jaguar    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 10:15 AM
  hi all,

As has been pointed out elsewhere, this is a Private bill, sponsored (with our money!) by the Broads Authority.
For bills of this type to succeed, they must not be controversial, and a simple demonstration that this is not the case when it reaches Parliament is enough to see it fail.
surely the way forward is to acquire some high profile help!
after all that has been said on here why not Roy Hudd? plus any other celebs./stars with broadland  connections.

Question Question

never forget;- Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life.

mike and angie.

Antares_9    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 2:09 PM
  I wonder if contrary to normal situations, local M.Ps can be persuaded to take into account the views of non constituents. The contribution made to the local economy by non constituents is particularly high in the Broads area; furthermore a boat is a movable asset, we for instance find it a logistical inconvenience to keep our boat on the Broads, we do so ONLY because we enjoy the relative freedom of the Broads and anything that jeopardises that freedom will give us serious reason to consider a move. Currently on many weekends (say 25 a year) we spend no money in London at all, it all goes to Broadland enterprises. We even bought our new boat from a Broadland business which the in turn gained further revenue from the sale of our old boat, I do not wish to quote numbers but it is a material sum. All we need is this or a similar bill, a weather window, one day and it’s all gone somewhere else.

Just look at what the powers that be (other non listeners) have done to the local economy of Windermere and look at the reduction in tolls for boats there, each loss of toll equals a further loss in local spend, apart from the local boat transport companies who have been doing brisk business (not many return loads though). I do realise that the reasons for the Windermere exodus are slightly different but it proves that people will, If frustrated too far, vote with their feet (or keels in this case),

Rant over


Keyboard not any key to continue

dannyboy    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 2:16 PM

I have some sympathy with Poppy... I have seen rigs 'dropped' on many occasions. It can be done well and with care, safely and efficiently. It can be done in a way that is downright dangerous... I don't think it is unreasonable to ask whether all rangers are actually competent to perform the task?


Boatboy    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 2:58 PM
  Now my two penny worth on dropping the gaff, rigging my transom and managing a force 4 in the peak, or whatever. Surely the whole point is mute? If the situation arose then a Ranger could instruct the master of a boat to lower his rig and prepare to be taken in tow. The last time I looked the master of any vessel was required to abide by the instructions of a properly appointed ranger.

Have things disintegrated so far that people feel this should no longer be the case, that they know better than a qualified ranger and that it is in order to ignore such instructions? If so I suggest those people should reconsider whether they should be on the river at all. Better still put them before a magistrate and have the priviledge removed formally.

Poppy    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 4:50 PM
  And if it could be shown that the "properly appointed ranger" was issuing an instruction which, in the conditions, could be shown to be unsafe?

It surely is not a case of if the Ranger is properly appointed, more a case of properly qualified in the first place.

Another thread shows that they don't know the sound signals (but I'm not sure that I do  Blush )

Is there a programme of continuous improvement or even ad hoc training in place for any Broads Authority Staff?

roya    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 4:57 PM
  On a serious note,
I have been out with Andy on the Launches,and his expertise in boat handling is second to none, i am sure there is not a situation on the Broads,he could not meet.
Im not saying 60 metre ocean going Craft ,But just normal Broads boating Craft.
I think we tend to get carried away ,perhaps we like to think cos we use the local rivers ,it makes us experts in world class boating.
Just INMHO a thought.


A Day without a smile is a wasted day

A.J.B.    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 8:30 PM
  Let me just say this ,with regard to Poppys attitude of "Id let em get on with it"
I would asses what I was capable of doing, and if I thought it beyond me, I would bring in an expert, and believe it or not, but there is always someone in the BA capable of helming ANYTHING thats ever been on the broads, or may arrive in the future.(Cantley oil tankers)

So dont worry, if your in trouble in your little 30 footer, just call and we`ll be happy to help.


Poppy    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 9:03 PM
  Let's bring this back on track - the thread started with a reference to the Broads Bill - a poorly drafted piece of proposed legislation, which, were it to pass into law, would endow officers of the Broads Authority more powers than a Police Officer in certain aspects. In particular rights of entry on to private vessels and of entry to private property appear far greater than required by the situations require, either now or in the future.
My point is that if this draconian Bill is passed, considerable training will be required, lest the Authority finds itself liable in law for negligent loss and damage.
I do not doubt that there is a considerable body of skills within the body corporate, but I have seen some glaring examples of behaviour which might just be excusable from a novice on holiday, but from a uniformed ranger in a boat with a blue light on the top - never!

I would be grateful Andy if you could please not take my animosity to the Broads Authority as a personal attack on you, or anyone else at the coal face - that is as far as it possibly could be from my intentions.
My views have developed over a considerable number of years spent observing the politics of Broadland as they have developed within the portals of 18 Colegate.
That goes for any one else who takes a different view to me on these VERY important matters - we may disagree, but it's NOT personal!

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-19-2006 @ 11:43 PM
  Andy, I echo the spirit of Poppy's last post. I don't doubt that amongst the BA staff there is someone who could handle so and so boat in so and so condition at so and so time. But they might not be on hand when required.

I met one fellow last year who was ex merchant marine, well, something about the suitability of ex Royal and Merchant marine sailors, snooker tables and lawn-mowers on small boats came to mind. Nice bloke though!

But that is all besides the point, it is not the staff at the sharp end that worries us mere small boat users. By and large most of us have a very high regard for most of the troops.    

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

Richard    -- Jun-20-2006 @ 2:56 AM
  Let's get back on track indeed. The Bill, love it or hate it, there's something in there for everyone.

But I can't see bashing anyone, BA employee, or not, does anything to help any one side of the debate.

Actually it does the reverse.

In a democracy every vote counts, but we're not counting votes yet. We're discussing a change in the way the Broads are run, financed and promoted.

If I was an MP (I've never slept with my secretary, so I will never be able to hold that office), I would be looking at this thread, and be scratching my head, and thinking "what a bunch of yocals". If I was a holidaymaker I'm thinking Iraq might be a better place to visit.

If you've got ideas to help the area, lets hear them.

Maybe the bill won't pass, maybe it will. All I'm seeing here is some informed comment and a great deal of checking the wind direction at the hip level.

If politics are your thing, then this might not be the best place in the world to air your views if you are  unable to  do what a politician must do - sell your idea. Lets face it - you're not selling.

JM - You plant a link to speakerscorner that doesn't get picked up by anybody, even "old what's his name name", seems to be unable to cough up anything.

Poppy - I'll just PM you !

I've never met AJB but I'll stake a weeks wages that he could handle a boat as well as anyone here, probably much better. I also doubt that he can write good software, but he doesn't do that every working day.

I do, and still write rubbish code, and make mistakes, but I'm still try to be the best at what I do. Until the rangers have been given extra powers, what's the point in giving them a hard time ?

Give me a good reason to listen to the logic of your position. Then I and everyone else will listen.

Ranting against one person, or one entity is like teaching a pig to whistle.

Back to brass tacks. IF the bill is dead, there are still some issues that are really positive.

Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Here endith the lesson.

btw - I've been informed by better people that I , that I'm a moron. So please feel free to ignore the above.

This message was edited by Richard on Jun-20-06 @ 5:12 AM

JennyMorgan    -- Jun-20-2006 @ 9:19 AM
  Richard, the link that I posted to S/C has had a slight pick up, not that that matters. A statement that black is black and white is white is hardly likely to engender much response! The point being though, it is there for folk to read and decide for themselves.

I think that most Broads folk would agree that the statutory Navigation Committee is not welcomed by the senior executives of the Broads Authority. Afterall, it has been disbanded once and was only reformed because of Ministerial intervention.

A visit to the Broads Authoriy website can be an arduous job, but reading the proposed Bill is no bad idea. Taking it at face value hardly instills confidence in the future! Yes, there is some good stuff in there. But for a private Bill to go through it needs to be non contentious. And that it is not!

Requesting the ability to be able to tell folk where, when and how they must go about their boating is hardly non contentious!

Demanding the ability to enter a boat, it might be someone's home, without a warrant is hardly non contentious.

Demanding the ability to close a navigable channel is hardly non contentious.

Changing the international rules for the prevention of collision at sea, rules that serve the rest of the world quite ably, should not pass without question.

The threat of the Sandford Principle via the back door is hardly non contentious.

Okay, so politics is not everybodies' cup of tea. But they can always ignore such threads.

From my political perspective these forums serve two purposes. They are a means of canvassing opinion, and a means of informing.

Poppy's opinion, sometimes direct in its approach, is not without foundation. I don't know his true identity but clearly he is pretty astute when it comes to Broadland politics. Unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, Andy appears to take it personally. Shame, because I don't intend that it should be, and I really don't think Poppy does either.

Jenny Morgan, the Oulton Bard!

Spider    -- Jun-20-2006 @ 9:27 AM
  Well said, JM.

Richard    -- Jun-20-2006 @ 9:31 AM

What you've just done is a great help to all.

Most of us look at the bill as just a pile of goverment paperwork.

There's positives and negativies, pros and cons, but when you start to line item things people, not just those with a local axe to grind, but the visitors, who do in someway add to the scheme of things can add their voice. In a calm and logical manner.

The KISS  principle always works Smile

The Norfolk Broads Forum :