Whilst visiting various websites, I stumbled upon this new page today:-

http://www.broads-nav.com/news.html

If true, this is really alarming.

Should the bullet continue downwards with sufficient momentum, perhaps we'll witness a sinking ship?

SS

'The realisation is gradually dawning that I might be witnessing a real-time foot shooting ... in slow motion. OF'

Ah, but it aint the first one you have ever seen eh?

Having raised this issue with the BA on behalf of NSBA last week, I received the following reply from the Head of Waterways Strategy and Safety this afternoon:

"17th November 2008 6/B/L/1


Introduction of Hire Boat Licensing on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

Dear Mr. Ollier

Firstly thank you for your response to the consultation on the introduction of Hire Boat Licensing to the Broads, I can confirm that it was not the intention of the Broads Authority in the development of the hire boat licensing conditions to classify sail training boats, and boats offered by clubs to its members for use, as hire boats.

The definitions used in the proposed licensing conditions were a direct copy from the Code for Design, Construction and Operation of Hire Boats Part 1 for Motorised Craft (commonly known as the �Hire Boat Code�) which as you are aware has been jointly developed by the MCA, BMF and AINA. Although the Hire Boat Code is in its final drafting before publication, it is my understanding that there are no proposed changes to the definitions found within.

Clearly the Authority will need to further re-define the scope of the application of the proposed hire boat licensing conditions in order to ensure an appropriate application of the regulations.

We have noted your consultation response and will be answering your questions in detail when the consultation closes; however in the interim it would be appreciated if you would reassure your member organisations that the Authority had no intention of regulating sail training vessels through the proposed hire boat licensing.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention and the Authority would value your input in the further development of the proposed regulations.


Yours sincerely "

While there are still questions left unanswered by the letter, it is apparent that we are observing a c**k-up rather than a conspiracy.

Phil

No doubt it was indeed error, Phil.

Less thought than hurry we might suspect. Insufficient staff, perhaps.

Given the implications it's just as well it was 'caught' during the consultation stage.

So, with an Authority which (1) loves to compose and manipulate rules and regulations; (2) hates consultation;
just where does that leave the prospect for trust?

just where does that leave the prospect for trust?

To quote (& slightly paraphrase) a BA bod.....

"much is made of the word trust, it is a nebulous term, which I can't work with until it is defined or explained to me"

Mardler wrote:

GF said, "insufficient staff". With 170+ on the BA payroll, may I suggest, "insufficiently trained staff"?

Or insufficiently able, or insufficiently knowledgeable, or insufficiently interested or just plain insufficient.

riverineloddon wrote:

Pardon but is it not the role of knowledgable members of committees to ensure that such definitions make sense in the real world before they are subjects for press releases?

Especially if paid (from the public purse) for the benefit of their expertise,knowledge and experience