"I'm told it creates a huge wash" says "Doctor" McKenzie, and on the basis of this unsourced hearsay his organisation opposes these ferries and uses any misinformation and exagerration it can get its hands on. "It will inimidate sailors..." Wightlink's St Clare on the Portsmouth route is more than twice as heavy as these vessels - so have all the blue capped sailors from Wootton Creek run for their lives yet? Perhaps any precious yachtsmen so intimidated should think twice about putting to sea at all lest they meet something a lot larger and faster. If you want more hard evidence "Doctor" I remember the MVs Farringford and Freshwater that preceded the Cenwulf class and though they were much lighter, their wash - especially the paddler Farringford - was far more severe. There is no direct correlation between displacement and wash - it's to do with shape particularly at low speed. Cenwulf and her sisters create very little wash when sailing past the Marinas and I saw this for myself just two weeks ago sailing on Cenred past the RLYC ....but on that subject, how much tidal erosion do dredged yacht basins cause down river, or would the Lymington River association prefer to deflect all the blame onto someone else? The Ferry route provides permanent - not seasonal - careers both directly and indirectly on both sides of the Solent. The LRA don't give a **** about anyone's livelihood unless they are rich enough to own a yacht - Something of hypocritical paradox there that perhaps summarises their outlook.

Typical bigotted views of yachty types. Wight Link are trying to boost their income, which in turn goes back to ordinary people who work for them. Will the likes of RYLM pay the wages of the workers who could lose their jobs? No, they want to dominate the land and the people around them.

...and a note to the Editor - the word censored by your automatic obscenity filter in my last post is d-a-m-n. It might be classed as offensive in the more bigotted parts of the American Bible Belt but I think here in Hampshire we're a little more enlightened. In view of some of the offensive immature tripe that gets onto a lot of your threads at the moment you should get yourself a better product or have someone edit the posts manually. Now perhaps I should go back to bed and get up again.

Last night the Royal Lymington Yacht Club warned that the vessels were likely to have an adverse impact on sailing in the river.

My heart bleeds for you

Unfortunately, it will never hit home to many of the well-to-do lot in this area that we are in an economic slow down and therefore, having investment such as a new ferry is something to be thankful for.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that if the ferry company said it was pulling out of Lymington, a lot of the yachties would be glad!

mmmm, sailors

The boat is bigger than I had imagined. Pity it couldn't have been built in Britain. I'm wondering if it might get stuck on the mud at low tide?

How typical of the yachties to only care for themselves and their precious hobby, which to them takes priority over the local working men and womens needs. And to use the environment as a tool because their real argument is to flimsy. That is one butt ugly ship though.

With regard to the RLYC's comments about sailing on the river, when we sailed to Yarmouth two Saturdays ago on Cenred every single yacht bar one wayfarer (outside the channel marker posts anyway) was under power, not under sail and all the yachts only put sails up as they neared Jack-in-the-Basket. This is not because of the ferries, this is because the yachties are either not skilled enough or are just too imaptient to get out to the Solent as quickly as possible. I challenge the LRA and the RLYC to deny that this is normal for Lymington River and pretty much always has been.

If these supposedly intimitated sailors are worried about this apparently massive new ship, perhaps they are not fit to be sailing at all. How about having a look at the super tankers, container ships and cruise liners that use the solent and Southampton Water every day and the cross channel ferries and naval ships that use the very narrow entrance to Portsmouth Harbour?

They may find something to be intimidated about then. Perhaps a lenght of string attached to their precious little yachts may be advisable? That should keep them from danger.

I would rather sail across The Solent in a yot ... yocht ... yoghurt ... yoh! .. yatch but don't have a spare £90,000 lying around, so like most would have to use the ferry servicee. For those of us without dingys what is the alternative?

Andy wrote:
With regard to the RLYC's comments about sailing on the river, when we sailed to Yarmouth two Saturdays ago on Cenred every single yacht bar one wayfarer (outside the channel marker posts anyway) was under power, not under sail and all the yachts only put sails up as they neared Jack-in-the-Basket. This is not because of the ferries, this is because the yachties are either not skilled enough or are just too imaptient to get out to the Solent as quickly as possible. I challenge the LRA and the RLYC to deny that this is normal for Lymington River and pretty much always has been.

Ignorant statement. Sailors drop their sails on entrance to the river (which officially starts at Jack in the Basket) because it is more controlled to motor down the narrow, bendy, shallow river, not because of lack of skill or impatience. There is a speed limit in the river of 6 knots anyway which most yachts could do under sail. Dinghies (such as a Wayfarer, sail down the river because they are more manoeuvrable and they have no engines. When the Royal Lymington refers to sailing in the river it means the use of the river by all craft, not explicitly travelling down the river with sails up.

sail or motor, who cares you are all harming the enviroment, I say the only thing that should be alloweed up and down that river be the ferry then the river bank is only exposed to wash for a set number of times a day. The yotties dont care they are up and down it all day and all break the speed limits. It is not right they could keep there boats moored out to see and get droped off by the ferry on route to the island, see how many want to sail then. Just a status thing with most of them look at me i got a yot, yeah well done if you decide to mortgage your 3 bedromm semi for a small boat well done, you aint no big shot. Get off the water and get the ferry it makes sence

sailor wrote:

Andy wrote:
With regard to the RLYC's comments about sailing on the river, when we sailed to Yarmouth two Saturdays ago on Cenred every single yacht bar one wayfarer (outside the channel marker posts anyway) was under power, not under sail and all the yachts only put sails up as they neared Jack-in-the-Basket. This is not because of the ferries, this is because the yachties are either not skilled enough or are just too imaptient to get out to the Solent as quickly as possible. I challenge the LRA and the RLYC to deny that this is normal for Lymington River and pretty much always has been.

Ignorant statement. Sailors drop their sails on entrance to the river (which officially starts at Jack in the Basket) because it is more controlled to motor down the narrow, bendy, shallow river, not because of lack of skill or impatience. There is a speed limit in the river of 6 knots anyway which most yachts could do under sail. Dinghies (such as a Wayfarer, sail down the river because they are more manoeuvrable and they have no engines. When the Royal Lymington refers to sailing in the river it means the use of the river by all craft, not explicitly travelling down the river with sails up.

Excellent. So if you acknowledge that virtually all yachts are under power while in the river then what is the RLYC's point? There is no problem of manouevreability, yachts are not having to tack or jibe, and they can stick to a course. So if I am so ignorant (which I am palpably not) - then articulate exactly why the new ferries pose such as problem as to be banned from the river.

Look at that last post by Andy, this is typical of the yotty type of concil scum who think they are something there not, why on this thread has everyone found it nessesary to break out long paragraths and big words...............
...because they are all trying to be something there not.

Oh dear some-body's stuck a floating block of flats in the yachties Paradise at least yours will move ours will be permanent just another "blot on the landscape".

Correction - they are being something that you're not.

Andy wrote:

sailor wrote:

Andy wrote: With regard to the RLYC\'s comments about sailing on the river, when we sailed to Yarmouth two Saturdays ago on Cenred every single yacht bar one wayfarer (outside the channel marker posts anyway) was under power, not under sail and all the yachts only put sails up as they neared Jack-in-the-Basket. This is not because of the ferries, this is because the yachties are either not skilled enough or are just too imaptient to get out to the Solent as quickly as possible. I challenge the LRA and the RLYC to deny that this is normal for Lymington River and pretty much always has been.

Ignorant statement. Sailors drop their sails on entrance to the river (which officially starts at Jack in the Basket) because it is more controlled to motor down the narrow, bendy, shallow river, not because of lack of skill or impatience. There is a speed limit in the river of 6 knots anyway which most yachts could do under sail. Dinghies (such as a Wayfarer, sail down the river because they are more manoeuvrable and they have no engines. When the Royal Lymington refers to sailing in the river it means the use of the river by all craft, not explicitly travelling down the river with sails up.

Excellent. So if you acknowledge that virtually all yachts are under power while in the river then what is the RLYC\'s point? There is no problem of manouevreability, yachts are not having to tack or jibe, and they can stick to a course. So if I am so ignorant (which I am palpably not) - then articulate exactly why the new ferries pose such as problem as to be banned from the river.

The new ferries pose a problem because they are larger (less room for yachts), taller (more windshadow for those under sail), travel quicker (less time to manouevre) and displace around twice as much water as the former ferries (destroying Lymington River).

dont want to be MM, and thats a Walter Mitty, always got something to say hav'nt you, always implying your something you are not, well you are the same as the rest, bet your really mental really craaaaaazy, you are so small minded

ha ha mental mitty

Sailor's quote

"The new ferries pose a problem because they are larger (less room for yachts), taller (more windshadow for those under sail), travel quicker (less time to manouevre) and displace around twice as much water as the former ferries (destroying Lymington River)".

Who or what gives sailors the divine right to dictate the right to use Lymington river? You are both pompus and self-rightous. I think the dredging of Lymington Marina has caused more damage than the new ferry could. As for the displacement argument, Andy has already stated it is not proportional to wash generation. Stop being so selfish and think of all the people who truly benefit from this service

Sailor says the ferries travel quicker (less time to manouevre) but shipmate, the speed limit in the river is the same for all vessels whatever their size, I advise that you and your crew maintain a sharp lookout, carry flares, don life jackets, maintain a listening watch on vhf channel 16, don't drink Pimms before your return journey, check the wx forecast and never stand in a bite or coil. See you in The Gun Inn on completion for tea and medals.

You can't have it both ways "Sailor" - are the boats under sail or not? You talk about windshadow one minute and then berate me for ignorance the next because I pointed out that almost all yachts use motors in the river. regarding size, it's beam, not length that predominates in Lymington River - but if you think the enlarged footprint of a single vessel makes that much difference then perhaps we should also ban any increase in yachts and yacht sizes as well. Are you happy to sign up to that? And as to your point about estuarial damage, prove it. Could you compare that with the tidal suck caused by the Marina basins where your boat may be? Unfortunately you are not only prejudiced but you are also a bigot for prejudging (wrongly) that I know nothing about sailing. As it happens I have been instrumental in stopping my own sailing club from supporting the LRA in its false, selfish and hypocritical aims, which you wholeheartedly support. You are not only ignorant yourself. but something of a hypocrite too.

wow are they so clever, read the arguments carefully they dont have a clue

Yawn who cares how big the ferry is if the company feels it needs this size of ferry to turn a proffit then the economy of Lymigton can hardly afford to force the ferry company out by saying no. To all you yacht loving pims sippers out there what is going to be more annoying
1. A several hundred tonne 60ft high ferry moving very slowly and broadcasting its presence.
or
2. A load more jetskis that would not be put off by the presence of a ferry.

Andy wrote:
You can't have it both ways "Sailor" - are the boats under sail or not? You talk about windshadow one minute and then berate me for ignorance the next because I pointed out that almost all yachts use motors in the river. regarding size, it's beam, not length that predominates in Lymington River - but if you think the enlarged footprint of a single vessel makes that much difference then perhaps we should also ban any increase in yachts and yacht sizes as well. Are you happy to sign up to that? And as to your point about estuarial damage, prove it. Could you compare that with the tidal suck caused by the Marina basins where your boat may be? Unfortunately you are not only prejudiced but you are also a bigot for prejudging (wrongly) that I know nothing about sailing. As it happens I have been instrumental in stopping my own sailing club from supporting the LRA in its false, selfish and hypocritical aims, which you wholeheartedly support. You are not only ignorant yourself. but something of a hypocrite too.

hang on a sec, you said yachts motor in the river because of lack of skill and impatience. I pointed out that neither of these are true, hence the ignorant comment. i'm not suggesting you don't know anything about sailing, i'm suggesting that your previous comments as to why yachts drop their sails are false. and yes i do believe the footprint of one vessel will make a difference, because it is drastically larger than any other vessel using the river. remember, yachts were using lymington river a long time before any ferries turned up. Neither am I ignorant or hypocritical.

bacon butty wrote:
Look at that last post by Andy, this is typical of the yotty type of concil scum who think they are something there not, why on this thread has everyone found it nessesary to break out long paragraths and big words...............
...because they are all trying to be something there not.

the real question is, why do you have such a problem with "big words"? feeling a tad inadequate? you can always ask an adult for help with any words you don't understand

Mental Mickey wrote:
Correction - they are being something that you're not.

You mean literate and articulate? Yep, that'd be my guess, too

rlyc will get no backing from me i know to well what they are like.
iow ferry in lymington been there a lot longer than any yacht club.
back in the late 50's and early 60's rlyc broke its own rules by exceding its own max membership limit and registering none local people,just so they could get a yacht basing build built in the 60,s
there is more than enough manouevre room. and if you need more room then you should learn how to sail and learn the rules of the sea.sail-be-for-stea

m do not apply in shipping lanes and channels.has most yachties seem to think.if you cant controll you vessel in a channel then you get out the tender and you tow it in.
most yachties now days are no more than sunday drivers on the water
(andy try spelling d-a-m-n,dam)

bacon butty wrote:
What did i ever do to you........dont have a go at me cause you were abused as a child, I aint done nothing wrong just airing my veiws minding my own business and you go calling me a name, you are so low, you like the boats do you shall we humour you shall we, daddt let you see big boat id you very good and suck this

A tantrum. Nice. Dishes out endless abuse, basically starts crying when he gets it back. What a turd

southy wrote:
rlyc will get no backing from me i know to well what they are like. iow ferry in lymington been there a lot longer than any yacht club. back in the late 50's and early 60's rlyc broke its own rules by exceding its own max membership limit and registering none local people,just so they could get a yacht basing build built in the 60,s there is more than enough manouevre room. and if you need more room then you should learn how to sail and learn the rules of the sea.sail-be-for-stea m do not apply in shipping lanes and channels.has most yachties seem to think.if you cant controll you vessel in a channel then you get out the tender and you tow it in. most yachties now days are no more than sunday drivers on the water (andy try spelling d-a-m-n,dam)

what the??? Can somebody translate this for me. I dont mind that Southys spelling aint allways all that but this is completely unintelligable.

what wrote:

southy wrote:
rlyc will get no backing from me i know to well what they are like. iow ferry in lymington been there a lot longer than any yacht club. back in the late 50's and early 60's rlyc broke its own rules by exceding its own max membership limit and registering none local people,just so they could get a yacht basing build built in the 60,s there is more than enough manouevre room. and if you need more room then you should learn how to sail and learn the rules of the sea.sail-be-for-stea m do not apply in shipping lanes and channels.has most yachties seem to think.if you cant controll you vessel in a channel then you get out the tender and you tow it in. most yachties now days are no more than sunday drivers on the water (andy try spelling d-a-m-n,dam)

what the??? Can somebody translate this for me. I dont mind that Southys spelling aint allways all that but this is completely unintelligable.

I wouldn't worry about it. most of his posts are just made up anyway

what wrote:

southy wrote: rlyc will get no backing from me i know to well what they are like. iow ferry in lymington been there a lot longer than any yacht club. back in the late 50's and early 60's rlyc broke its own rules by exceding its own max membership limit and registering none local people,just so they could get a yacht basing build built in the 60,s there is more than enough manouevre room. and if you need more room then you should learn how to sail and learn the rules of the sea.sail-be-for-stea m do not apply in shipping lanes and channels.has most yachties seem to think.if you cant controll you vessel in a channel then you get out the tender and you tow it in. most yachties now days are no more than sunday drivers on the water (andy try spelling d-a-m-n,dam)

what the??? Can somebody translate this for me. I dont mind that Southys spelling aint allways all that but this is completely unintelligable.

You need to check your own grammar and spelling before you start criticising.

Unless you're trying to be ironic.

General Malaise, Nearby he not being ironic.he one of them people that keep changing there names and cant be counted

Forest Hump wrote:
Sailor's quote "The new ferries pose a problem because they are larger (less room for yachts), taller (more windshadow for those under sail), travel quicker (less time to manouevre) and displace around twice as much water as the former ferries (destroying Lymington River)". Who or what gives sailors the divine right to dictate the right to use Lymington river? You are both pompus and self-rightous. I think the dredging of Lymington Marina has caused more damage than the new ferry could. As for the displacement argument, Andy has already stated it is not proportional to wash generation. Stop being so selfish and think of all the people who truly benefit from this service

Was ready to compose a comment, then realised that this bloke had said it already, and far better than I'd have been able to articulate.

southy wrote:
General Malaise, Nearby he not being ironic.he one of them people that keep changing there names and cant be counted

Same old me again.

Same old you by the look of it - unintelligible.

southy wrote:

Tut tut wrote:

yachts were using lymington river a long time before any ferries turned up

You don\'t own the fricking river mate. Get over it and deal with it.

tut tut its the other way round the ferry been there longer than any yacht club,the ferry been around for a number hundred years now,first started up by a boat builder and fisherman

either way, neither of them own it and despite the arguments I'm sure it is big enough for both to go about their business

southy wrote:

Tut tut wrote:

yachts were using lymington river a long time before any ferries turned up

You don\'t own the fricking river mate. Get over it and deal with it.

tut tut its the other way round the ferry been there longer than any yacht club,the ferry been around for a number hundred years now,first started up by a boat builder and fisherman

sailor doesn't say yacht club, he says yachts. the ferry was NOT there before yachts used the river.

the ferry gets its first mention back in the tudor times.when this area was only used by fisherman,small men-of-warships and merchant shipping only,there was no yachts around in them days.first yachts seen in this country was not till charles II

southy wrote:
the ferry gets its first mention back in the tudor times.when this area was only used by fisherman,small men-of-warships and merchant shipping only,there was no yachts around in them days.first yachts seen in this country was not till charles II

Source please

a book call history of sea vessels vol 5.in there it say's:-Yacht from the Dutch word Jacht, was originally disigned in 1667 and used as a light, fast sailing vessel used by the Dutch navy to pursue pirates,smugglers and other transgressors around and into the shallow waters of the Low Countries. After its selection by Charles II of England as the vessel of choice for his return to Britain from the Netherlands for his restoration, it came to be used to convey important persons.And was used has a pleasure craft from the 1800's

I don't know a thing about sailing but its a joy to hear all you know it alls having an educated interested all things 'sails' keep going - I love to hear it.

clair

Same old story of the Politics of Envy amongst the sensible posts.

If somebody has the money to buy an expensive yacht and use it around our waters I say good luck to them.


They bring money to the area and all the spin-offs in brokering, mooring,maintenance and much more for the local economy.

We all know about the odd numpty that can hardly handle a paddle boat on Southsea Common then gets into 'difficulties' when jumping into his boat after a night on the gin.

Deal with it you Socialist suckers.

clair wrote:
I don't know a thing about sailing but its a joy to hear all you know it alls having an educated interested all things 'sails' keep going - I love to hear it. clair

A kindred spirit for Southy.

Stanley Unwin eat your heart out.

southy wrote:
a book call history of sea vessels vol 5.in there it say's:-Yacht from the Dutch word Jacht, was originally disigned in 1667 and used as a light, fast sailing vessel used by the Dutch navy to pursue pirates,smugglers and other transgressors around and into the shallow waters of the Low Countries. After its selection by Charles II of England as the vessel of choice for his return to Britain from the Netherlands for his restoration, it came to be used to convey important persons.And was used has a pleasure craft from the 1800's

mmm, so not specific to their usage on Lymington River then?

mmm, so not specific to their usage on Lymington River then?

nope it would of been well after this date would you off seen them in the lymtoning area,and would be still only used has a goverment vessel and not a pleasure craft,was not till the victorian times did yachts start to be used has pleasure craft.

Dr Don Mckenzie is away with the tooth fairies and a nimby and spoiling my fun

southy wrote:

mmm, so not specific to their usage on Lymington River then?

nope it would of been well after this date would you off seen them in the lymtoning area,and would be still only used has a goverment vessel and not a pleasure craft,was not till the victorian times did yachts start to be used has pleasure craft.

so when (approx obviously) were ferries used on the Lymington River?

Britain excels in yachting, rowing and sailing, and as an avid highly trained do no interferer, I’d say let's not nacy panct interfere, what’s a little slash of water here and there going to do, eh.

so when (approx obviously) were ferries used on the Lymington River?

well in a book first talk about a ferry in lymington river dates it in the tudor times,i think they range from 1485 (henry 7th )to elizabeth 1st (1603)so it be some time in this era

Ferry well then i say let the yacht loving fools have their own way no commercial ferry to spoil their fun. It will mean noone of the imbred freaks can escape the island which will make me feel much safer.

It will mean noone of the imbred freaks can escape the island

What about the route to Portsmouth?

Derek wrote:

It will mean noone of the imbred freaks can escape the island

What about the route to Portsmouth?

Won't matter anyway once the planning permission for the new bridge has been approved.

bacon butfy wrote:

what wrote:

southy wrote:
rlyc will get no backing from me i know to well what they are like. iow ferry in lymington been there a lot longer than any yacht club. back in the late 50's and early 60's rlyc broke its own rules by exceding its own max membership limit and registering none local people,just so they could get a yacht basing build built in the 60,s there is more than enough manouevre room. and if you need more room then you should learn how to sail and learn the rules of the sea.sail-be-for-stea m do not apply in shipping lanes and channels.has most yachties seem to think.if you cant controll you vessel in a channel then you get out the tender and you tow it in. most yachties now days are no more than sunday drivers on the water (andy try spelling d-a-m-n,dam)

what the??? Can somebody translate this for me. I dont mind that Southys spelling aint allways all that but this is completely unintelligable.

I wouldn't worry about it. most of his posts are just made up anyway

Spot on.

He makes up stuff. Did it for weeks with Tower Ice Rink fibs but got 100% busted by several posters. Churns out claims with monotonous regularity. They seem at first to be of substance, but when challenged, these spurious claims do not substantially meet the litmus test of truth. His trick is to throw in a small kernel of truth or fact but surround it with fairy stories. Challenges are usually met with even more wooly, vague, unsubstantiated references he cannot prove, and/or attempts to rubbish the challenger or convert the individual challenger in a multi id poster he believes is set on annoying him. He is a 100% fraud. Review his posts. Check them out for yourself. Try nailing him to a hard solid fact. You will grow old in the process. The folksy writing style masks a smart intelligent articulate person who for some reason cannot be honest.

What does palpably mean? What is a Dibden Purlieu?

harbour master aka local aka loads of other names.you never like it since i prove you wrong over a dock matter.keep changing your name to try and make look bad will not help you at all,keep to the one name and stand and be counted and stop putting words in to my mouth and slighty changing words in quotes.i not the first person you done this to and i dought if i be the last

sailor wrote:

Andy wrote: With regard to the RLYC's comments about sailing on the river, when we sailed to Yarmouth two Saturdays ago on Cenred every single yacht bar one wayfarer (outside the channel marker posts anyway) was under power, not under sail and all the yachts only put sails up as they neared Jack-in-the-Basket. This is not because of the ferries, this is because the yachties are either not skilled enough or are just too imaptient to get out to the Solent as quickly as possible. I challenge the LRA and the RLYC to deny that this is normal for Lymington River and pretty much always has been.

Ignorant statement. Sailors drop their sails on entrance to the river (which officially starts at Jack in the Basket) because it is more controlled to motor down the narrow, bendy, shallow river, not because of lack of skill or impatience. There is a speed limit in the river of 6 knots anyway which most yachts could do under sail. Dinghies (such as a Wayfarer, sail down the river because they are more manoeuvrable and they have no engines. When the Royal Lymington refers to sailing in the river it means the use of the river by all craft, not explicitly travelling down the river with sails up.

That's not the case is it when yacht racing is underway, as far as i recall i have seen many a yacht 'sailing' up the river on Thursday evenings causing mayhem to other river users. The yachts don't worry about the mayhem they cause to others, now that the ferries are here they are getting a taste of their own medicine. Notice no one worries about the over development in Lymington!!

southy wrote:
harbour master aka local aka loads of other names.you never like it since i prove you wrong over a dock matter.keep changing your name to try and make look bad will not help you at all,keep to the one name and stand and be counted and stop putting words in to my mouth and slighty changing words in quotes.i not the first person you done this to and i dought if i be the last

QED

I think you mean QE2

QED well that do explane a lot,they could never get any thing right.and never did like to be proved wrong.
tell ya what QED take a look on your site that you like to quote from so often
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Yacht
theres a little bit of yacht history there but it far from compleat

OUCH!!!! Southy that must of hurt him.http://en.wikipe
dia.
org/wiki/Yacht

Yacht (pronounced /ˈjɑː
t/, from Dutch Jacht meaning hunting, compare German Jagd) was originally defined as a light, fast sailing vessel used by the Dutch navy to pursue pirates and other transgressors around and into the shallow waters of the Low Countries. After its selection by Charles II of England as the vessel of choice for his return to Britain from the Netherlands for his restoration, it came to be used to convey important persons.

Later, the word came to designate a wider range of vessels, almost always in private use (i.e. not used for commercial carriage of cargo or passengers), propelled by sail, power, or both, and used for pleasure cruising or racing.

A ship carrying blue paint collided with a ship carrying red paint. The crews were marooned - ha ha !

A ship carrying blue paint collided with a ship carrying red paint. The crews were marooned - ha ha !

THIS IS FOR EVERYONE WHO HAS MOANED ABOUT THIS NEW FERRY

STOP LIVING IN THE PAST AND MOVE FORWARD

NOW PLEASE STOP MOANING

Hahaha, lol! Wait until those yotties hear about us in the docks buying up the harbour and dredging it so we can get our big boats in!!! We won't rest until we've completely ravaged the coast for industry!! Mwahhhh

Grace Darling wrote:
A ship carrying blue paint collided with a ship carrying red paint. The crews were marooned - ha ha !

That joke was funny 30 years ago, and both times tonight ha ha!

southy wrote:
QED well that do explane a lot,they could never get any thing right.and never did like to be proved wrong.
tell ya what QED take a look on your site that you like to quote from so often
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Yacht
theres a little bit of yacht history there but it far from compleat

QED = quod erat demonstrantum

quod erat demonstrantum = it has been demonstrated you cannot be taken seriously.

I am one person. I am not several people. I certainly am not “george”

Read on . . .

Posted by: George on 8:22am Mon 1 Sep 08

southy wrote:
for you to belive you need to go there your self or are you to lazy to get out of that chair and look for places.

george wrote:
Come off is, Southy, it doesn't work like that and you know it. He's looked it up, as have I. The ice rink at Tower Park closed down years ago and you know it. Claiming it's there and refusing to accept that anyone else might ever be right about anything is a bit pointless, and saying "go find it", well, now you're just pretending you're flat-out denying. Or have you moved on from custom-fitted definitions of the word "conjecture" to re-defining the word "exists"? Come on, Southy, there's no ice rink at Tower Park and you know it. Just admit it!


Posted by: southy, redbridge on 12:34pm Mon 1 Sep 08

its still there george,and the only way is to get your coat on and take drive down there.you can see it from the fittness center,whitch is where i go 1 mth for there warm swimming pool.weather if it was going to be closed down or closed for refrubishment that i cant tell you,but people who just quote from the internet is going to give out wrong info a lot of the time,thats why all web sites have disclamers for,old ibm saying rubbish in and rubbish out

Posted by: George on 12:55pm Mon 1 Sep 08

george wrote :
Ah, the old "the Internet is wrong" get-out. Well, I just phoned Tower Park and asked about their ice rink, and was told that they had one years ago but it's no longer there. Nor is there one in the vicinity. So presumably this is all just some massive conspiracy to keep details of this ice rink secret from everyone, is it? The defence rests.

PS. The quote "rubbish in, rubbish out" is actually "garbage in, garbage out" and it isn't an IBM slogan, it was a term used by someone who at one point was an IBM engineer, but he really got it from Charles Babbage. If you're gonna hide the truth behind a soundbite, make sure you've got the right soundbite


Posted by: George on 3:17pm Mon 1 Sep 08

southy wrote:
sorry you are right there it is garbage and not rubbish.but george drive down there and come in from the by pass end and not town end

George wrote:
Sorry Southy, I'm not going on some fools errand because you're in denial. Unless there's some gateway to an alternative reality at that end of Poole, I'm doubtful it'll yield any new results. There is no ice rink there, it's been confirmed by a real, actual human being who is there, and in a position to know. Not some website you can dismiss as being "wrong" because it's on the Internet. An actual employee of the leisure facility in question. You're making stuff up, pure and simple, and even when caught out on this, you still persist. If there was a way to shake ones head in baffled pity over the Internet, I'd employ it right now. I can only hope that this is mere stubbornness on your part, and not an actual delusion.

So there it is, readers. The reason this ice rink campaign is doomed to failure. Those behind it have repeatedly proven they're not in the least bit concerned with factual information, reality, or truth. Some ice-rink "facts" for you:

1) 5000 people out of 204,000 is a landslide. Those who did not sign the petition, would have, had they not not signed it. Or something

2) The result "7-3" by an ice hockey team is irrefutable proof that an ice rink would be economically viable

3) The word "conjecture" has a different meaning, dependent upon whether it is applied to ice rinks or not

4) Anything other than a flat-out denial of a proposal can be considered a "100% success"

5) Anyone who follows a sport on TV would actively participate in it, if the facility existed in the local area

6) There is an ice rink in Tower Park, Poole. The fact that it has not actually existed for the best part of twenty years is irrelevant. It exists nonetheless, but is being kept a secret by all involved, for reasons that are yet to be adequately explored

7) Anyone who concerns themselves with concrete facts, rather than whimsy, has a negative attitude. Probably linked to the fact that cartoon characters don't realise they're walking on thin air until they actually measure this fact. It's amazing what one can accomplish when one is ignorant of outside limitations. Apparently

8) If one wishes for something hard enough, and ones heart is pure, rational arguments are utterly meaningless

9) The only way a campaign can fail, is if an equal and opposite campaign to the contrary succeeds. Quite how this paradox manifests itself is as yet unknown.

10) The Internet is wrong, except in situations where it can be shown to support an ice rink in Southampton

Quite an amazing amount of denial, really

Posted by: George on 4:58pm Mon 1 Sep 08

southy wrote :
you mean the call centre for the company that runs tower park,if you want evidence drive down there on the last firday of the mth and i pay for your fuel


george wrote:
Last Friday of the month? Sorry, can't make it. I'm taking my magic carpet to the new intergalactic hypermarket on the Moon. My unicorn needs re-hoofing.

It ain't there. I spoke to them. Not a call centre. An actual employee at Tower Park. Why would there be absolutely no way of finding this ice rink, other than by some mysterious directions known only to you? It's not in the back of a wardrobe is it? Fancy some Turkish Delight?

Posted by: George on 7:21pm Mon 1 Sep 08

southy wrote:
i was refering to the multi names that local use.
any way it dont matter about tower park,i know there is one,i will ask question about it next time i down there.any way look at it like this if theres not one there then that makes southampton ice rink even more viable and more likey to make a bigger profit has this would increase the size of the catchment area

george wrote:
It does matter! You've been using that non-existent ice rink in your arguments for weeks. I just googled +"poole park" +"ice rink". Guess what the first hit was? Another Echo story where you claim you take people to this massively profitable ice rink at Tower Park about once a month.

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/mostpopular.v

ar.2432571.mostcomme

nted.ice_rink_dream_

up_to_developers.php



Then there's a story from the Bournemouth Echo about a Bournemouth lass lamenting that she'll never be an Olympic skater unless Bournemouth gets an ice rink. Apparently, the nearest one is....Gosport, 52 miles away.

http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/mostpop

ular.var.1761735.mos

tviewed.ria_turns_up

_heat_on_ice_rink_de

bate.php

That's 2 stories on the first google page alone. One claims you go to an ice rink in Bournemouth/Poole on a regular basis, the other is from an Olympic hopeful from that same area who can't find an ice rink within 50 miles! Now you're trying to back-pedal a bit here, saying it doesn't matter, and maybe there isn't one after all, but the first thing you find when searching for "poole park ice rink" is you claiming you go there all the time! You're quite clearly making this stuff up! There's little point carrying on the charade any longer

Posted by: George on 7:29pm Mon 1 Sep 08
Here's another one from the Bournemouth Echo. A load of people bemoaning that they have to travel to Gosport or Basingstoke to ice skate. Why would they have to, when there's one right there in Tower Park?

http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/mostpop

ular.var.2084608.mos

tcommented.operator_

in_bid_for_permanent

_ice_rink.php

And a petition for an ice rink in Bournemouth

http://www.ipetition

s.com/petition/iceri

nk4bournemouth/

And another story lamenting the closure of the ice rink in 1991

http://www.thisisdor

set.net/display.var.

920399.0.0.php

And a press release from Bournemouth Borough Council about the possibility of maybe opening an ice rink in Bournemouth

http://www.bournemou

th.gov.uk/News/press

_office/Press_Releas

es/May_2008/ice_rink

.asp

Seems odd that all these people are so desperate for an ice rink in Bournemouth, when there's one a coupe of miles up the road in Tower Park

Many, Many yaers ago in Lymington River used to be a small Boatshed near the Sea Water Baths that was owned by the Local famous Dan Bran.

In the 1950's he was known to take pot shot at the "Lymington", or most likely the "Farringford"!.

I heard when the "Wight Light" arrive on Monday night it was escorted by two Harbour Launches and Wightlink had drafted in extra Secruity as there were romours that some Snob Yachties were planning to blockade the river to prevent the new ferry arriving.

They should try the "SS Sheidhall" fully loaded with it's former Carge and open up the Boilers at the RLYC :).

If it makes such a great wash...think i'll do my laundry on the riverbank :)

why amitt aload out and only pick on what favable to you harbour aka local and other names why not say what claire said about the place,why not say to that i offered to take some one there to see for them selfs seeing is beliving is it not.
rule in life.dont belive what you dont see and only half belive in what you see.
oh i forgot this rule dont apply to you do it,you like to sit in your chair and quote from the internet and beliving all that you read on the net is true and never wrong.got news for you read the sites disclaimers even this site,echo site has a disclaimer.if books can get wrong some times and they are proof check,web sites are not proof check.
and please keep to the topic

i give denzil his dues he might be a right pain but he do stick to one name has far has i know.
so he has more creditabilty than you do harbour aka local and any other names

southy wrote:
why amitt aload out and only pick on what favable to you harbour aka local and other names why not say what claire said about the place,why not say to that i offered to take some one there to see for them selfs seeing is beliving is it not.
rule in life.dont belive what you dont see and only half belive in what you see.
oh i forgot this rule dont apply to you do it,you like to sit in your chair and quote from the internet and beliving all that you read on the net is true and never wrong.got news for you read the sites disclaimers even this site,echo site has a disclaimer.if books can get wrong some times and they are proof check,web sites are not proof check.
and please keep to the topic

The quoted extracts are your words.

Readers can go to the online Echo article: " Temporary Ice Rink Wins Planning Permission" dated Friday 29 August 2008 and read your words and the factual rebuttals.

QED, sunshine.

Posted by: Claire, Poole on 8:36pm Mon 1 Sep 08
Maybe I can clarify,Southy is right and wrong.The ice rink that at Tower Park was sold off.And the company that took it over,Cut the rink in half.It now has a restaurant and a half size ice rink.

Posted by: southy, redbridge on 6:39pm Mon 1 Sep 08
there is one there george i gave you the offer to see for your self up to you if you want to take it or not.

harbour now please keep to the subject

'harbour master' re your very,very long last comment:
GET A LIFE PAL!

My mate from the Isle of Wight says the only reason that they have not built a bridge is the effect that it would have on the crime rate, I don't think that the mainland would notice it that much! There are a lot of criminals on the Island after all....

southy wrote:
Posted by: Claire, Poole on 8:36pm Mon 1 Sep 08
Maybe I can clarify,Southy is right and wrong.The ice rink that at Tower Park was sold off.And the company that took it over,Cut the rink in half.It now has a restaurant and a half size ice rink.

Posted by: southy, redbridge on 6:39pm Mon 1 Sep 08
there is one there george i gave you the offer to see for your self up to you if you want to take it or not.

The topic is the new ferry. You wrote your usual fluffy, muffly, woofly, willynilly, nonsense in relation to this topic. Commenting on this is within the topic and justified. Otherwise, logic suggests its OK for you to write nonsense unchallenged, no matter what the topic is that you write nonsense about. And that is as silly as you are.

The exchange of quoted extracts is unnecessary. Why? Because Readers, if they have the inclination, the time, or insomnia, and a large pot of coffee to-hand, can go direct to the “Temporary Ice Rink” article, read all your words, and make up their own minds if you are a blatant, transparently dishonest, literary rogue.

QED, Pal.

Posted by: George on 8:48pm Mon 1 Sep 08

Claire wrote:
Maybe I can clarify,Southy is right and wrong.The ice rink that at Tower Park was sold off.And the company that took it over,Cut the rink in half.It now has a restaurant and a half size ice rink.

george wrote
Nice try, Southy. I'm not about to believe that someone who has not previously commented on the story at all has suddenly happened upon this story from 4 days ago, some 10 pages or so deep in the Daily Echo news site, and decided to comment both in support of your lies, and in the aid of your back-pedalling, exactly a minute before your next response. And look, she just happens to come from Poole, and is also making similar grammatical errors to yourself. You concentrated on making the spelling good, but your grammar - and the massive coincidence, and the utter lack of any other supporting evidence whatsoever - give you away

harbour aka local and other names,your doing your self no favours at all,do like maddog says
get a life

southy wrote:
harbour aka local and other names,your doing your self no favours at all,do like maddog says
get a life

I have a full, rewarding life.

Try telling the truth sometime.

That's all.

It's that simple.

QED, m8

Harbour master - Southy actually does think he is telling the truth, I think he is Tony Blair !

Morning Southy - I see you've been getting a bit of a rough ride on this thread! You are right that the western bank of Lymington river was a commercial port centuries before it became a "leisure amenity". Apart from the ferries I think the last commercial usage (apart from the declining commercial fishing industry) was the old Mew Langtons barge that sailed across from Newport every week to Lymington Quay with ales for the mainland. It must have stopped around 1970 and apart from the fishing and seafood that was the last cargo handling. Nothing to do with the ferries but thought I'd throw it in in case anyone else remembers it. the Quay was a very different place then - you wouldn't have gone to the Ship Inn and asked for scampi with rocket in those days (not unless you were George Michael anyway).

I've got to say that I'm not a fan of the Harbour Master, he does seem to be a bit of a cyber bully. Which particular harbour are you the master of?

I need some help here guys.
Am I the only one on here that finds'Southy'
a bit of an enigma he seems very clued up on a lot of subjects is he for real ?

Woah! What's with all the dragging up my posts?

Shes a pretty "little" thing. I think you pompas bastards that own yachts should see it in action first and let the enviorment lads do there work. I say **** wafis!

morning george and andy
he still trying to find his old chestnut george.
andy m8 got a book here that discribe :- If traveling to isle of wight,lymington port,fishermen will run you across to the other side for a price of a simple meal and ale cir/date 1598,

Lymo makes a good point when he says "let the enviorment lads do there work".
The problem is they will not do any work.
Lymington Harbour Commissioners, Natural England, New Forest District Council, New Forest National Park, Hampshire County Council, Maritime and Fisheriea Agency and DEFRA have all refused to require an "Environmental Impact Assessment" before the ferries are put into use.
They are all 'washing their hands' of the affair. Could it be that they are frightened that Wightlink, backed by their Australian Management, the Macquary Bank, will have more money and clout to take them to the Legal cleaners?
In 1991 the then Lymington Harbour Commissioners got an environmental report which showed that the current ferries were damaging the river environment. That stopped bigger Sealink ferries in 1991. Since then Wightlink have run roughshod over any Environmental consideration and are going to bring in bigger ferries.
So don't "let the enviorment lads do there work" as they won't.
The Lymington Harbour Commissioners have recently put out a Press Release saying "Lymington is Losing It's Harbour - A Call for Help". Yet the biggest cause of this damage is the current small ferries. Think how much worse it will be with ferries of twice the displacement.
Sorry Lymington - your Environment is d-a-m-n-e-d !!!

Environmentalist, Sway the damage was done back in the 1960's when the yacht club wanted a new yacht basin.yacht club broke its own rules so they could get a new place to have there club house and moorings.and its only the yacht club members that are complaning.no one else is down there.

Bit confused... why is everyone going on about events that happened years ago?? The point is that the new ferries NOW are going to make a difference to the river.

Why should the ferry be able to potentially limit sailors from taking part in their hobby? Look where three of our Olympic Golds came from. Also (I know I'm not going to change your minds) but why does everyone assume that yachties are up their own ar*es or incompetent? Surely it is safer for other river users if they come up the river under engine instead of sail power.

And lastly, it wont affect the yachts so much anyway - it's the little boats that will be limited. On Wednesdays, the RLYM run a sailing club for kids. Each child pays a pound for two hours of sailing and guess what? They don't have to be rich members... Imagine how cool it is to take a boat out sailing in the river all on your own when you are 8 or 9.

So, with the ferry being so much bigger, imagine how scary that will be. Looks like all the kids will have to come off the water every time a ferry goes past because there won't be room for them.

Yeah its good if local businesses are able to make big investments when money is getting tighter, but they shouldn't go about it in a bulldog way.