Mersea marina.

Anyone had dialogue with the Mersea Harbour Protection Trust ? Seems strongly linked to the RSPB and with an interesting financial profile
 

Attachments

  • Mersea Harbour Protection Trust.png
    Mersea Harbour Protection Trust.png
    93.7 KB · Views: 33
What an appaling bit of journalism (no criticism of the OP)! Dredging at Mersea Harbour - No. £120m on Mersea Harbour - No. The project spending millions is deepening Harwich Approaches and Felixstowe Docks!

Save Mersea Harbour
Surely not. I would prefer to think that the burghers of Mersea have exerted their influence and made a windfall.

As it stands, the article is not itself misleading. It looks as if the article was submitted and a sub-editor added her own headline.
 
Surely not. I would prefer to think that the burghers of Mersea have exerted their influence and made a windfall.

As it stands, the article is not itself misleading. It looks as if the article was submitted and a sub-editor added her own headline.

Sorry. I disagree. The Mersea Harbour project doesn't cost £120m. It did get a little early funding from the EA and may have benefitted from 'free' spoil from Harwich Haven Authority. The 'burghers' - that is primarily local fishermen and yachtspeeps (although there are a couple of local councillors involved), identified the need, took years of research, work debating and arguing and had to raise a substantial amount of money just to get the permission and licensing. The budget has not exceeded £1m yet although it could be argued it is over £1m collectively of the separate RSPB and Tollesbury Wick projects. The Headline says "Dredging begins on the Mersea Harbour £120m Project. No. How about "Environmental needs of Mersea Island is benefitting from spoil from the Harwich Haven Authority Dredging £120m Project". Umm, where did the 'her' come from?

A proper researched article should be announcing ten years of hard work by normal working people successfully getting the licences, funding and winning the Project.
 
I think that my comment was taken more seriously than was intended. Maybe the hard work of locals is worth celebrating, but the article was probably too short to include this. I still think that without the headline the article reads OK, and wonder if it was the work of someone else, as was often the case in newspapers.
 
Just seems that the journalist doesn't know the difference between dredging and recharging and seems to think Harwich Harbour are doing £120M worth of dredging for the express purpose of protecting W Mersea Harbour. That' s quite enough to justify Tillergirl's original accusation with which I wholly concur.
 
Today's Gazette explains it all. There is a much longer report in the paper which is fine and accurate including some quotes from participants. The report seen by the OP has been taken and (probably hastily) cut down without regard for the real point.

There is an on-line report by Viktoria Yordanova. That in itself is cut-down from the 'paper' version.

Vital habitats and oyster beds saved as part of multi-million pound project

A great aerial picture worth seeing.
 
That is real. I was going to take a piccy at LW yesterday from the Coast Road across the three 'headlands' but my digital camera is objecting to the cold (in the autumn of its life I fear) and I was able to stop on the red route (yes the red route!) and the car behind me was the 'Park Safe' car (i.e. the traffic warden!) - good bit of marketing there by the traffic wardens :D
 
Today's Gazette explains it all. There is a much longer report in the paper which is fine and accurate including some quotes from participants. The report seen by the OP has been taken and (probably hastily) cut down without regard for the real point.

My post #1 is a copy/paste of an article in the February 2022 edition of Yachting Monthly (page 8).
 
Top