Photos prove that Boscombe surf reef works, says snapper Paul Humber (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Photos prove that Boscombe surf reef works, says snapper Paul Humber
10:00am Friday 8th October 2010 in News By Julie Magee
IT WORKS! Photographic proof that Boscombe surf reef is not a failure according to Paul Humber. Picture: paulhumberdesign.com.
THE camera never lies, according to one satisfied surfer who claims he has photographic proof that Europe’s first artificial reef does work.
Paul Humber from Southbourne took to the waves with an underwater camera to dispel criticism of the much-maligned £3 million Boscombe tourist attraction.
He said: “These pictures prove the reef is not a failure and can produce amazing waves. I believe all the negativity stems from a lack of understanding about waves, how they are created and what affects them.”
Click the image to see it full size....
Paul, 28, told the Daily Echo how he and his friends had surfed the reef many times. “From the beach it doesn’t look so great; people don’t believe us when we tell them how good the surfing is out there.”
Got a picture of the surf reef that you'd like to send us?
Click on the link at the bottom of this story for more
Click the image to see it full size....
The freelance graphic designer added: “I’ve surfed at Boscombe for about 15 years. Surfing conditions have definitely improved since the reef was built; it’s easily doubled the number of days I’ve been in the water.”
His stunning photographs of his friends James Blackwell and Paul Middlewick were taken earlier this month. He said: “There were 30mph onshore winds which helped but conditions weren’t unusual for this time of the year.
“It is not a perfect wave but they were never going to get it spot-on first time. It can be assessed and then tweaked.”
But his sentiments aren’t shared by experienced surfer and water sports photographer Chris Skone-Roberts who lives near Boscombe pier.
He said: “The camera does lie. You can capture the image but you can’t show the ride length. We are hitting the best swell of the year but the reef still isn’t creating a surfable wave you can ride onto the beach.
“What was promised was a five-star wave. The reef was built too steep and at the wrong angle; it’s still not working or produced a surfable wave better than the pier.
“The best thing they can do is pump thousands of tonnes of gravel onto the reef, split the bags open and let nature take its course. Then people could dive on it and it could become a marine haven.”
Comments(158)
Azphreal
says...
10:31am Fri 8 Oct 10
cpolak
says...
10:33am Fri 8 Oct 10
MikeFrench
says...
10:37am Fri 8 Oct 10
Syd Poumen
says...
10:48am Fri 8 Oct 10
HanM
says...
11:25am Fri 8 Oct 10
HanM
says...
11:27am Fri 8 Oct 10
Marge n Homer
says...
11:38am Fri 8 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
11:55am Fri 8 Oct 10
Me compliment to yer sir tis a pretty picture. How interesting that ye be a creative designer!! Also that on the 30th September ye still be stating that “IF” ye got a piccie of ‘surfing’ yer prove me wrong, also it be right fortunate that this ‘wave’ did arrive “earlier this month”. This be a lot of coincidences especially as in me former occupation I TOO worked fer 18yrs in ‘Print & Design’ even then they be clever little boxes of conjurors tools to plug in. No depth, no scale, no identifiable landmarks, in short sir thar only piece of unquestionable evidence that thy pic be offering is yer logo WWW.paulhumber.com, this not a question of sour grapes, trust me I be too old fer small games like that.
Schooners
says...
12:06pm Fri 8 Oct 10
1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future.
2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6")
3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work.
So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK.
If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong.
Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working.
Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide.
Video please next time, show us video!!!
SneakyB
says...
12:14pm Fri 8 Oct 10
@Schooners, why so obsessed with length? Power is way more important!
I swear you lot wouldn't know a decent wave if it slapped you in the face.
Schooners
says...
12:31pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Simple question, simple answer.....because I like to ride waves not jump on them and be thrown off immediately.
Surfable waves have many features, of which the reef sadly has none. In addition I have been slapped in the face by thousand of wave all over the world and all of them better than the reef. You cant beat the Piers for local waves unless you wanna go to K Bay.
Rearrange these words....'Straws You Clutching At Are!' :-)
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
12:37pm Fri 8 Oct 10
SneakyB wrote:Ahoy ‘SneakyB’,
It's not shopped or fake, they ARE footage grabs from a go pro.
@Schooners, why so obsessed with length? Power is way more important!
I swear you lot wouldn't know a decent wave if it slapped you in the face.
Tis with pleasure I read yer comment, I rather feel though yer have inadvertently proved us ‘critics’ correct, there be NO decent waves to slap us in thy face with!! Let me pose yerself and other supporters of ‘Weights Elephant’ a excruciatingly simple question IF it be thar £3.6m success ye claim, why oh stamp me ivory, why do thee keep defending it??? Its own performance would silence all.
P.S. another apt secrity word, grow-more
time nor Tide
says...
1:32pm Fri 8 Oct 10
peterpweb
says...
1:42pm Fri 8 Oct 10
HanM
says...
1:46pm Fri 8 Oct 10
BeLLeR1989
says...
2:42pm Fri 8 Oct 10
http://www.facebook.
com/album.php?aid=24
276&id=1359276231116
32&fbid=151102271594
167&ref=mf
You will find it was a very late take off and from being an experienced bodyboarder the drop was well recoverd and did not get lipped. The only danger in bournemouth's waters are kook's surfboards. Which is 99% of surfers??
We are really please with the reef's turn out, and hope to keep the inexperienced surfers to the shores where there are slow, weak waves that crumble. Just how you all like it!
So we can enjoy the heaviness, tubes and ramps in safety.
Ace shots Humber!
Bob49
says...
2:52pm Fri 8 Oct 10
.
Perhaps they could also be shown lovingly gazing towards the upmarket cafes and smart shops at the pierhead.
.
And, whilst credibility is being stretched, maybe Nessie could be seen poking her head round the end of the pier as well.
poolebabe
says...
3:00pm Fri 8 Oct 10
HanM wrote:Well said!! At least the council have tried to invest money in that area to create better use of that beach, that will in time generate more income for the town. Boscombe Beach has certainly improved a lot in recent years and I say hats off to the council for it. So the surf reef isn't perfect, but it seems to be doing the job for some who are taking time to comment on what they know, rather than what they don't. It's nice to hear some positive for once.
This is all so very laughable, Can't please all the people all of the time. Fair play to all those going out on the reef and enjoying it, more waves for you guys
SneakyB
says...
3:30pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Ask yourself this, when was the last time you had a true stand up barrel at the pier!? I've seen this many times on the reef now.
Also don't be afraid of a smackdown every now and again, your not made of glass.
Paul Humber
says...
3:36pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Schooner, your response was great, lets go through it in three simple steps.
1) James (the bodyboarder your talking about who caught that wave and your right, is extremely lucky not to have died!) made that wave and rode it all the way to the channel, if you'd also take a look at that same link above you'll see for yourself the wave didn't 'crash on his head'. It's nice your concerned for our safety, but take a look at this:
http://magicseaweed.
com/photoLab/viewPho
to.php?photoId=79190
You should find out where that wave is and get right onto their local council and tell them how dangerous it is!!! That's Mitch Rawlins, he's still alive, I dont think us Bournemouth surfers have too much to be concerned about.
2) How about you take perspective from the 6ft man stretched out from head to toe riding the wave!!!!!! would you prefer next time if i get a mate to swim out with a massive ruler for you to gauge how big it is?
3) "we have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight". That's how a wave breaks, when a wave suddenly hits an under water obstruction the bottom part slows down and is pushed up, the top part is moving faster and curls over ipso facto - you get a barrel. whether or not everybody can paddle fast enough and get to their feet quick enough to get a barrel is another matter.
regarding your quote "Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god." That's a little narrow minded and don't you think? The reef is a steep, fast challenging wave of consequence that will push everybodys surfing and make them better surfers for it. This is a wave that Bournemouth should be proud of. It is impossible to build a wave that will be everybodys cup of tea, if you don't like it, just stick to the beach!
flying envelope
says...
3:43pm Fri 8 Oct 10
TheDistrict
says...
3:56pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Schooners
says...
3:56pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Using a lens that is 10mm or 20mm will produce a large looking wave that bends perspective.
All the bickering in the world does not detract from the fact that it is a wave for bodyboarders and does not produce a quality class 5 wave THAT WE PAID FOR PEOPLE.
I just dont understand why people say the wave is good when it just is not.
I look at the reef every day from my window and it just does not produce a wave that you can catch and ride into the beach. Anyone who says they can or did is a liar.
Just click here to see what a camera lens can do to make a wave look bigger than it really is
NUFF said.
http://www.google.co
.uk/imgres?imgurl=ht
tp://www.odditycentr
al.com/wp-content/up
loads/2008/11/surfin
g_mouse.jpg&imgrefur
l=http://www.oddityc
entral.com/funny/the
-incredible-surfing-
mice.html&usg=__7j8A
jhJYX7-55oUs4W5403K0
JUI=&h=443&w=550&sz=
61&hl=en&start=0&sig
2=o4t8dVJamQw0Rqit54
k16Q&zoom=1&tbnid=ef
6gyd7L-xX96M:&tbnh=1
16&tbnw=144&ei=5TCvT
LrmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&pr
ev=/images%3Fq%3Dsur
fing%2Bmouse%26um%3D
1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3
Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw%
3D1024%26bih%3D505%2
6tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&i
tbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=73
3&vpy=65&dur=1109&ho
vh=201&hovw=250&tx=1
68&ty=132&oei=5TCvTL
rmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&esq
=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ve
d=1t:429,r:4,s:0
flying envelope
says...
4:01pm Fri 8 Oct 10
SneakyB
says...
4:02pm Fri 8 Oct 10
"A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m."
Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
bh6booger
says...
4:08pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Schooners wrote:schooners and all the haters you must be bored ! You sound like the rest of bournemouth standup's,, KOOKS.
There is NO photoshoping on that image. Just turn the screen to the side and you can see how poor that wave is. Using a lens that is 10mm or 20mm will produce a large looking wave that bends perspective. All the bickering in the world does not detract from the fact that it is a wave for bodyboarders and does not produce a quality class 5 wave THAT WE PAID FOR PEOPLE. I just dont understand why people say the wave is good when it just is not. I look at the reef every day from my window and it just does not produce a wave that you can catch and ride into the beach. Anyone who says they can or did is a liar. Just click here to see what a camera lens can do to make a wave look bigger than it really is NUFF said. http://www.google.co .uk/imgres?imgurl=ht tp://www.odditycentr al.com/wp-content/up loads/2008/11/surfin g_mouse.jpg&imgr
efur l=http://www.oddityc entral.com/funny/the -incredible-surfing- mice.html&usg=__
7j8A jhJYX7-55oUs4W5403K0 JUI=&h=443&w
=550&sz= 61&hl=en&sta
rt=0&sig 2=o4t8dVJamQw0Rqit54 k16Q&zoom=1&
tbnid=ef 6gyd7L-xX96M:&tb
nh=1 16&tbnw=144&
ei=5TCvT LrmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&am
p;pr ev=/images%3Fq%3Dsur fing%2Bmouse%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3 Doff%26sa%3DX%26biw% 3D1024%26bih%3D505%2 6tbs%3Disch:1&um
=1&i tbs=1&iact=hc&am
p;vpx=73 3&vpy=65&dur
=1109&ho vh=201&hovw=250&
amp;tx=1 68&ty=132&oe
i=5TCvTL rmI4LHswaNy7mCDQ&
;esq =1&page=1&nd
sp=15&ve d=1t:429,r:4,s:0
Why so negative! It's clearly a good wave pictured, no it's not a cover shot but a video still from a go pro cam. Touch of green eyed monster I say. I love to see pics of you ripping, send them in?! Plenty of good pics on m'seaweed of the reef last winter. Why don't you have a look.
You and others say it's rubbish, truth is you can't handle anything more than a slow crumbly 2ft beach break.
See you on the reef 'surf dude'
captsanders
says...
4:55pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
5:03pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Tis not unexpected fer yer ‘Phantom surfers’ to be collectively all ‘surfing’ on here, even more new names as well!! Yer still aint answered me and I suspect a barrel load of more Brethrens questions………
.”If it do work as promised, fer £3.6m. Why (this truly cannot be a difficult word to interpret) do yer keep on defending it?????
As fer stating because of ‘Weights Elephant’ “Boscombe will benefit from more income…. in time” Will benefit from what? A pile of flotsam that have bin tossed overboard from an over active imagination? It already be a unmitigated disaster, how pray do thee draw that conclusion that in time it will ‘self heal’, do thee consider it reasonable that yer BBC spent so much of yer gold coins on the ‘utterances’ of, now I must get this part correct fer fear of castigation and slander, oh yes ‘experts’ thar very man that ‘launched a 3.6 million investment of gold coins that promptly sunk’.. some epitaph to carry through history eh?
Sir, upon me oath yer humour be truly beyond even me crews ‘Tangental musings’. As ye have refused to answer me question “Why do ye keep having to defend Weights Elephant” Believe me, as a viable investment fer thy collective Brethren, it don’t make sense when tis yer own perpetrator that confesses it do need a ‘Tweaking’, yer own BBC be consulting behind closed doors (still, in spite of promised openness) because it don’t ‘perform’, yer local surfers disagree with yerself and even yer much published Plymouth University agreed it AINT what were promised or paid fer. I cannot accept yer good selfs defence fer ‘Weights Elephant’ as admirable, do yer really believe that ‘£3.6m froth’ be a wave fer Boscombe to proud of? It be best to consider yer continued resistance to reality be inconsequential in any event.
Regards, Ahab.
rainbowkisses
says...
5:05pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Bob49
says...
5:48pm Fri 8 Oct 10
SneakyB wrote:WHAT A PILE OF DRIVEL !
A waist of money? "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
.
As well your admittance that these are only claims demonstrates.
.
The front was not a junkies paradise. They never ventured that far down Sea Road. It's not full of surfers, I walk along that part most days and there has been NO change in numbers, likewise with visitors. As to the wealthy professionals they drive into their gated complex and remain behind closed gates.
.
If there is to be a reasoned debate about the reef and the sea front then it needs to start from a basis of honesty - that is something that has been constantly missing from those trying to defend the Emperors New Clothes.
.
Read the original claims, read the earlier promises and on every point this sham has failed ...... even on the budget, where we now have a massive shortfall of £3m to find.
.
I wonder if these apologists on here will be so quick to conjure up new names so they can appear numerous times in the queue of volunteers willing to pay the cost of that overspend.
Was Charlie
says...
5:59pm Fri 8 Oct 10
.....
I can take a photo of my other half crawling along our flat drive and make it look like she's climbing up slope just by taking it at an angle.
.....
The camera definitely CAN lie.
Pro bono publico
says...
6:00pm Fri 8 Oct 10
***
Ha! Security word = very-many!
Max Green
says...
6:23pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Fine if you don't feel that the surf reef was the investment of your choice. But find something better to do than spend countless hours over- analyzing and discouraging the whole experience.
Anyone who calls themselves a surfer, especially one that lives in boscombe, and then goes on to say that the reef doesn't work - or is worse that the beach - is clearly a joke.
Even after photos of the reef clearly in action you still can't come to grips with reality - what a shame. Here's a news flash. The reef, the seafront, paul...this is the future of boscombe. And if you don't like it...crawl back into some dark dirty hole deep in bournemouth and stay there.
adman77
says...
6:25pm Fri 8 Oct 10
What "really" would they have to gain from faking pictures of the reef?
OK it cost 3 million, big deal, Id rather my tax money goes on something like this that people will enjoy than for it to go some work shy dirty chav that just pops out a few kids to blag money from the state.
All the Negativity(mainly from non surfers) is disappointing, come on its bringing in visitors improved the area a great deal, given us another spot to surf, and nice bars and restaurants to enjoy.
OK its not the wave they designed it to be, its faster, hollower and more challenging. The sport is about pushing yourself, getting better not wimping out.
And whats with the pirate style chat?
SneakyB your spot on with your comments.
BeLLeR1989
says...
6:25pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Or Humber just put up the video footage as this is where these pics are from!! It will shut all the surfer cool dudes up! haha
Here's the link AGAIN!
http://www.facebook.
com/album.php?aid=24
276&id=1359276231116
32&fbid=151102271594
167&ref=mf
captsanders
says...
6:33pm Fri 8 Oct 10
"Tweaked", it needs more than tweaking to justify the cost of this white elephant.
The waves do look impressive but then most photo's look impresive when taken at a certain angle, a six inch ripple can be made to look like a tsunami, the movie industry have been doing it for years.
Bob49
says...
6:49pm Fri 8 Oct 10
.
err no. There is NO verification of his figures, they are no more than claims. Why would that be ? Surely the council would have used a reputable market research company. Why did they not ?.
.
The claims of changed seafront use are also false, as did the proposed benefits turn out to be false. Nor are there bars and restuarants. the pub was there before. What happened to the cafes on the pier ?
.
And if a measure of the value of the argument being put up by these apologists for failure then the claim that the £12million has not been wasted as it has not been spent on a "work shy dirty chav".
.
So by that measure then the Imax, the Boscombe fountain and the money spent on hiring a barrister to investigate MacLoughlin was not a waste of money either - because the money was not spent on a work shy dirty chav".
.
The sad thing is I'm sure that some of these apologists actually believe that there are folk out there who swallow their fantasies.
flying envelope
says...
7:47pm Fri 8 Oct 10
ver
LoudCore
says...
8:53pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Schooners wrote:Scnooners you really are an idiot.. its people like you who get on my nerves, those pics are very real and not PhotoShoped!
Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps
1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future.
2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6")
3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work.
So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK.
If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong.
Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working.
Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide.
Video please next time, show us video!!!
You need to learn the mechanics of a wave before you start talking rubbish... As for who it was made for... it was designed to challenge all aspects of wave riding....
Keep your narrow mindedness to your self next time
Gazz43
says...
10:41pm Fri 8 Oct 10
Rally
says...
11:04pm Fri 8 Oct 10
So, exactly how high is this wave?
If the surfer is around 6 feet tall, then it looks like 20 to 30 feet, and that can't be right - or can it?
Azphreal
says...
8:26am Sat 9 Oct 10
Lord Spring
says...
9:14am Sat 9 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
9:59am Sat 9 Oct 10
"Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition.
Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available."
.
following is this
"In statistics
Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to actuall'
.
It is my opinion that by the above definitions MR Humber is "cherrypicking" his data and thus his conclusions are erroneus, misleading and perhaps even falacious. The project seems far from being "a success" when all the timeline is examined.
I suggest he look at every day every month and every year before putting forward any assertion of sucess.
.
Fortunately that is being done and its conclusions are already sensed by everybody.
.
One plump ripe cherry does not make a sucessfull harvest - no matter how you dress it up and display it.
bh6booger
says...
10:05am Sat 9 Oct 10
This has got me more amped to take more photos, record more footage and show all you KOOKS the reef gives us awesome waves in the right conditions.
mikal mhor
says...
10:14am Sat 9 Oct 10
One of the most familiar examples of contextomy is the ubiquitous “review blurb” in advertising. The lure of media exposure associated with being “blurbed” by a major studio may encourage some critics to write positive reviews of mediocre movies. However, even when a review is negative overall, studios have few reservations about excerpting it in a way that misrepresents the critic’s opinion. For example, the ad copy for New Line Cinema’s 1995 thriller Se7en attributed to Owen Gleiberman, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, used the comment “a small masterpiece.” Gleiberman actually gave Se7en a B− overall and only praised the opening credits so grandiosely: “The credit sequence, with its jumpy frames and near-subliminal flashes of psychoparaphernalia, is a small masterpiece of dementia.” Similarly, United Artists contextomized critic Kenneth Turan’s review of their flop Hoodlum, including just one word from it — “irresistible” — in the film’s ad copy: “Even Laurence Fishburne’s incendiary performance can’t ignite Hoodlum, a would-be gangster epic that generates less heat than a nickel cigar. Fishburne’s ‘Bumpy’ is fierce, magnetic, irresistible even… But even this actor can only do so much.” As a result of these abuses, some critics now deliberately avoid colorful language in their reviews.
The European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits contextomy, and targets companies who "falsely claim accreditation" for their products in ways that are "not being true to the terms of the endorsement". It will be enforced in the United Kingdom by the Office of Fair Trading, and carries a maximum penalty there of a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment"
Sorry for the long quotes and you dont need to be PHD to understand it as you recognise the spruking behaviour and whats it mean to do.
beachcomber1
says...
10:17am Sat 9 Oct 10
southbourne-core
says...
10:28am Sat 9 Oct 10
mikal mhor wrote:zzzzzzzzz boring !!!!!
Then theres "Contextomy in advertising One of the most familiar examples of contextomy is the ubiquitous “review blurb” in advertising. The lure of media exposure associated with being “blurbed” by a major studio may encourage some critics to write positive reviews of mediocre movies. However, even when a review is negative overall, studios have few reservations about excerpting it in a way that misrepresents the critic’s opinion. For example, the ad copy for New Line Cinema’s 1995 thriller Se7en attributed to Owen Gleiberman, a critic for Entertainment Weekly, used the comment “a small masterpiece.” Gleiberman actually gave Se7en a B− overall and only praised the opening credits so grandiosely: “The credit sequence, with its jumpy frames and near-subliminal flashes of psychoparaphernalia, is a small masterpiece of dementia.” Similarly, United Artists contextomized critic Kenneth Turan’s review of their flop Hoodlum, including just one word from it — “irresistible” — in the film’s ad copy: “Even Laurence Fishburne’s incendiary performance can’t ignite Hoodlum, a would-be gangster epic that generates less heat than a nickel cigar. Fishburne’s ‘Bumpy’ is fierce, magnetic, irresistible even… But even this actor can only do so much.” As a result of these abuses, some critics now deliberately avoid colorful language in their reviews. The European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits contextomy, and targets companies who "falsely claim accreditation" for their products in ways that are "not being true to the terms of the endorsement". It will be enforced in the United Kingdom by the Office of Fair Trading, and carries a maximum penalty there of a £5,000 fine or two years imprisonment" Sorry for the long quotes and you dont need to be PHD to understand it as you recognise the spruking behaviour and whats it mean to do.
mikal mhor
says...
10:37am Sat 9 Oct 10
(argumentum ad hominem)" for bh6booger&Co.
.
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion .
*ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
.
*ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
.
@SBC, you have to have the patience to read, comprehend and then understand to not be a vulnerable target over and over? (the sting)
southbourne-core
says...
10:40am Sat 9 Oct 10
com/photoLab/viewPho
to.php?photoId=13493
0&browseSession=cce8
716cf343b86deb42f952
b204fe7b
southbourne-core
says...
10:45am Sat 9 Oct 10
ANYONE CAN COPY AND PASTE
If you have anything interesting to say please write it yourself, THE REEF WORKS
mikal mhor
says...
11:14am Sat 9 Oct 10
kangman2012
says...
11:32am Sat 9 Oct 10
Glashen
says...
11:43am Sat 9 Oct 10
-
Good job they don't burn heretics anymore, some of the contributors on here would be first to light the bonfire.
MikeFrench
says...
11:46am Sat 9 Oct 10
Paul Humber wrote:So one day - 355 to go......
Azphreal, MikeFrench, Syd Poumen, Capt. Ahab and anybody else questioning my integrity I suggest you take a look at the link BeLLeR1989 has posted above.
Schooner, your response was great, lets go through it in three simple steps.
1) James (the bodyboarder your talking about who caught that wave and your right, is extremely lucky not to have died!) made that wave and rode it all the way to the channel, if you'd also take a look at that same link above you'll see for yourself the wave didn't 'crash on his head'. It's nice your concerned for our safety, but take a look at this:
http://magicseaweed.
com/photoLab/viewPho
to.php?photoId=79190
You should find out where that wave is and get right onto their local council and tell them how dangerous it is!!! That's Mitch Rawlins, he's still alive, I dont think us Bournemouth surfers have too much to be concerned about.
2) How about you take perspective from the 6ft man stretched out from head to toe riding the wave!!!!!! would you prefer next time if i get a mate to swim out with a massive ruler for you to gauge how big it is?
3) "we have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight". That's how a wave breaks, when a wave suddenly hits an under water obstruction the bottom part slows down and is pushed up, the top part is moving faster and curls over ipso facto - you get a barrel. whether or not everybody can paddle fast enough and get to their feet quick enough to get a barrel is another matter.
regarding your quote "Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god." That's a little narrow minded and don't you think? The reef is a steep, fast challenging wave of consequence that will push everybodys surfing and make them better surfers for it. This is a wave that Bournemouth should be proud of. It is impossible to build a wave that will be everybodys cup of tea, if you don't like it, just stick to the beach!
MikeFrench
says...
11:50am Sat 9 Oct 10
SneakyB wrote:Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
A waist of money?
"A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m."
Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money..?
Really? - 5 years ago it used to be a nice place.
MikeFrench
says...
11:56am Sat 9 Oct 10
bh6booger wrote:In the RIGHT CONDITIONS?
This just gets' funnier, it's obvious the the negative posts are coming from all the KOOK surfers we see stretching and doing push ups on the beach before they paddle out to 1ft wind chop, probably never caught a real wave, and other people that don't even surf, stop being so negative and find something else to think about! Jeez none of you KOOKS have any idea what your'e are talking about.
This has got me more amped to take more photos, record more footage and show all you KOOKS the reef gives us awesome waves in the right conditions.
self-explanatory....
......
Bob49
says...
12:15pm Sat 9 Oct 10
.
SneakyB, Gazz43 and adman 77 share the same mispelling of you're - writing it as your.
.
How odd
mikal mhor
says...
12:23pm Sat 9 Oct 10
SneakyB
says...
12:34pm Sat 9 Oct 10
When its blowing a gale and most of Bournemouth's population are tucked up under a blanket, we are down there riding the reef. The general public wonder why they don't see it work?? It's because most stay way clear of the beach when the weather conditions actually permit it to work. That is the reality of UK surfing, it's not all six packs, beach babes and 30 degree heat! It never will be.
On another note, I think what you trolls are saying about paul is disgraceful. He like I and a LOT of others love the wave, this is the only reason why we stick up for it. We have no hidden political or financial agenda.. just a bunch of surfers that love to ride a good wave and feel that it is getting a completely undeserved reputation.
So to all you guys/gals with your pitchforks out: Chill the hell out and stop laying into a local surfer who took a bunch of photos while he was having fun with his mates. What's wrong with you people FFS!
SneakyB
says...
12:37pm Sat 9 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
12:53pm Sat 9 Oct 10
What possible reason does one have to defend a floundering commercial enterprise such as a artificial surfing reef? Other than to be a stooge in the audience for the clowns up front loosing their trousers? Dont give me any rubbish about unfair press to a contraversial surfing spot? They are a dime a dozen and nobody cares about them? this just smacks too much of "perception displacement effort' by a marketing arm of a enterprise.
Bob49
says...
1:09pm Sat 9 Oct 10
.
Or is it "because most stay way clear of the beach when the weather conditions actually permit it to work".
.
Amongst all the twaddle spouted by you apologists this has to be the most ridiculous. You claim you don't use it when it could work, which supposedly is the explanation as to why when I and many, many others walk past the reef there is no one ever on it.
.
The Brigadoon of surf reefs it would seem. The same as the invisible folk who inhabit the surf pods and like the upmarket shops and cafes on the pier only appear at night when all right minded, god fearing folk are safely tucked up in their beds.
.
Finally I accept you may not be posting under the names of adman and gazza, however cynics might suggest that Hans Christian Anderson might better suit.
SneakyB
says...
1:13pm Sat 9 Oct 10
The main problem is, because of the nature of the venture, not all of the public will understand whether or not the wave works at all. This has lead to the bad press you see everywhere. Every travelled surfer i have spoken to that isn't afraid of a bit of a beating every now and again loves it!
We are not a marketing team, we are not trolls or stooges. We are just surfers that love the wave.
SneakyB
says...
1:24pm Sat 9 Oct 10
Also, if you spent less time reading about Danish poets and more on oceanography, marine topography, meteorology and surfing in general. You may understand why it doesn't work all the time. It was never going to, no spot does.
Bob49
says...
1:57pm Sat 9 Oct 10
.
It was never about surf reefs or other such absurdities. It was about a bunch of greedy developers getting their hands ona prime piece of real estate. They got their way and have little interest outside of their gated community, that's why little is being done or anyone being held to account - other than on here.
.
That was something so many could clearly see way before the council bulldozed the plans through. Don't tell us that this council will take heed of protesters. Nor tell us that it is those same protesters that are the cause of so much disquiet elsewhere. The failure is clear for all to see. Your ridiculous claims merely highlight what a sham this idiocy is.
.
If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up. Nor expect others with a bit more of a social conscience to meekly touch our forelock and accept whatever our 'masters' hand over or (more importantly) take from us.
SneakyB
says...
2:16pm Sat 9 Oct 10
The thing is we are way past that, i understand your concerns even if i don't agree with some of them. But it is done now. Get over it and try and see some of the positives. If you cant do that, that's also fine. But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities.
Is there really such a need to be patronizing, disrespectful and to constantly question the integrity of the people who do like it? The kids remark is especially venomous as i'm sure you know that the majority of surfers round here are mid 20's plus. It is not our fault you disagree with the councils decisions .
Going back to the above article, it's simply saying "we" (Paul just happens to be the spokes person this time) actually enjoy the reef aka "it works from a competent surfer's perspective.." thats it. Nothing about beach pods, piers or likewise. This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers.
SneakyB
says...
2:24pm Sat 9 Oct 10
Bob49
says...
2:25pm Sat 9 Oct 10
.
Oh really ?
.
Sneaky - "A report to cabinet members claims the regeneration of Boscombe has led to a 32 per cent increase in visitor numbers, a 31 per cent increase in visitor satisfaction, a 40 per cent reduction in reported antisocial behaviour and private investment in the area of £48.8m." Just take a quick look around the front, 5 years ago was a junkies paradise. Now it's full of surfers, families and wealthy professionals. How can you say that is a waste of money"
Bob49
says...
2:32pm Sat 9 Oct 10
.
More nonsense. As I said, if the kids want to clamber about etc ....... ok, however when someone tries to sway the argument by posting up lies and distortions then expect those claims to be challenged.
.
As to the 'improving', the word currently is that the council are trying to delay removing it until after next years Mays local election.
SneakyB
says...
2:36pm Sat 9 Oct 10
You "caught" me out but so what, the point still remains.
You do know we are not in court right now don't you? More underhand tactics, attack my integrity to prove an outside point. Seriously.........
SneakyB
says...
2:48pm Sat 9 Oct 10
No lies told here from myself or Paul, the financial "facts" where taken from this website in a press release and the rest is our opinion.
peterpweb
says...
5:19pm Sat 9 Oct 10
SneakyB wrote:This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers."
"If a bunch of kids want to clamber about a pile of dumped sandbags then fine, but don't expect the rest of the town to cough up."
The thing is we are way past that, i understand your concerns even if i don't agree with some of them. But it is done now. Get over it and try and see some of the positives. If you cant do that, that's also fine. But lay off the people who can and do enjoy the new amenities.
Is there really such a need to be patronizing, disrespectful and to constantly question the integrity of the people who do like it? The kids remark is especially venomous as i'm sure you know that the majority of surfers round here are mid 20's plus. It is not our fault you disagree with the councils decisions .
Going back to the above article, it's simply saying "we" (Paul just happens to be the spokes person this time) actually enjoy the reef aka "it works from a competent surfer's perspective.." thats it. Nothing about beach pods, piers or likewise. This is about the quality of the reef not the financial plans of the council/apartment developers.
No we don't want that do we, the developers and Council don't want to be fingered for corruption, please just keep quiet about the deals done on property.
Schooners
says...
6:14pm Sat 9 Oct 10
The image is NOT photo shopped but it is misleading.
Tilt the image by 15-20* so the horizon is true and you will see that a 10-20 mm lens has been used off a GO Pro camera (which distorts and misrepresents what the wave actually looked like) I know this because we all use GO PRO HD and OST HD VCT (to be technical)
The wave shows as being vertical and the bodyboarder can clearly be seen dropping off the face of the wave, which is unsurfable. I am not interested in bodyboarders as is was a £3.6m wave for surfers.
Anyone who wants to challenge my experience and professionalism is more than welcome to come and meet with me and I will show you the 10,000's of images I have shot all over the world as a working surfing and kitesurfing professional.
I am employed as a watersports professional by various companies in the UK.
Furthermore, I have been to the two reefs in NZ (none of you have) and I know the people who has also been taken by ASR. I have kited and surfed on them both and NONE OF THE WORK. I will happily give you all the email addresses of locals in NZ who have never been able to surf their reefs either.
Please do not just slag each other off on here and if someone has the tenacity to get in touch and call me a KOOK to my face then I will be deal with them personally.
So, please dont miss the point, it is not about regeneration. It is about being sold a £3.6m Artificial Surf Reef that was supposed to produce a 5 STAR wave, and it just simply does not do it.
At not point has the reef EVER been better than the wave at the pier.
Please keep the comments nice on here because if you go all insulty, frankly you are a child and a coward. Stand toe to toe with any of our kitesurfing or surfing or SUP'ing folks and call us KOOKS. But call us it on the internet is just silly.
The best thing about down there is Shaun from Sorted and Surf Steps guys who all do a BRILLIANT JOB.
Go buy a Tshirt
SneakyB
says...
7:12pm Sat 9 Oct 10
To be honest i'm a little disappointed that someone that has so much respect in the wind sport community has such a poor opinion on bodyboarders. After all wind sports are in the same minority group as bodyboarders. The surfers generally class spongers as lesser wave riders. Like it or not thats the truth.
Your right though it's not a wind sport wave (most of the time) but if your argument is solid, that means you don't belong there anyway..?no? (re: a surf reef = stand up surfer reef)
I sponge and its something i don't and shouldn't have to feel ashamed about. In the same respect as your sports.
There's also no point in getting fighty, what the hell does that solve!?
I'm friends with a bunch of kite surfers and have no problem with any of them or what they do but there are massive differences in the waves we like. It just happens the the Bossy reef is more suited to us!
PS, don't forget Hengistkites. Get a T-shirt from there too! ;)
rogerwebby
says...
7:18pm Sat 9 Oct 10
southbourne-core
says...
9:53pm Sat 9 Oct 10
JUST SHOWS HOW MANY CLUELESS KOOKS THERE IS. JUST TO LET YOU KOOKS KNOW THE BODYBOARDER AMONGST OTHER LOCALS- (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE GUYS) ARE SOME OF THE BEST IN THE UK.
THE GUY IN THE PIC IS ONE OF THE UK'S TOP YOUNG BODYBOARDERS WHO HAS REPRESENTED THE UK IN PROFESSIONAL COMPETITIONS. THE GUY WHO TOOK THE PICS IS A WORLD TRAVELLED EXPERIENCED BODYBOARDER/SURFER AND PHOTOGRAPHER.
THE REEF HAS BEEN AWESOME WHEN THE SWELL'S BIG ENOUGH SINCE IT WAS COMPLETED. WHERE HAVE ALL YOU LOT BEEN? MORE THAN LIKELY TUCKED UP INDOORS WITH YOUR SLIPPERS ON. I RECKON 99% OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM MIDDLE AGED IDIOTS THAT CAN'T SURF ANYTHING OVER 1FT CHOP..OR IF THEY SURF AT ALL..GOTTA LAUGH
SO BORED OF THE NEGATIVE WAFFLE, WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH THESE GUYS COME OUT WITH -
COMPLETLEY CLUELESS.
I'M SURPRISED EXPERERIENCED KITE surfer
CHRIS SKOANE-ROBERTS
HASN'T GIVEN US HIS THOUGHTS AGAIN.
NONE OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR'E TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU COULD SURF, HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE OF REAL WAVES AND HOW WAVES WORK YOU WOULDN'T BE TALKING SO MUCH POINTLESS RUBBISH.
SO BORED OF THIS NOW SO WON'T BE BACK
-SO AMPED TO GET MORE PICS -
rogerwebby
says...
10:08pm Sat 9 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
11:00pm Sat 9 Oct 10
SneakyB wrote:Ahoy ‘SneakyB’
I'm going to ignore your little snipes and get to the point. Why do you honestly think we are sticking up for it then? I'm honestly curious.
Also, if you spent less time reading about Danish poets and more on oceanography, marine topography, meteorology and surfing in general. You may understand why it doesn't work all the time. It was never going to, no spot does.
I still be awaiting me simple and quite straightforward answer from yerself, AND yer other personalities, “why do ye constantly have to defend Weights Elephant as a success?? Yer differing pennants don’t disguise thar same words and construction of sentences they be a right give away to yer schizophrenia. Now lets concentrate on yer ‘delusions’ as soon as ye claim to ‘know’ more than what even thy Echo referred to as ‘experienced’ surfers condemnation of its performance then spout yer ‘credibilty?’Is a sure indication of lack of control, ye lose whatever ground ye think yer may have gained with yer limited intellect let alone yer illusion of ‘Weights Elephant’ being a £3.6 m success.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
11:19pm Sat 9 Oct 10
Gazz43 wrote:Ahoy ‘Gazz43’
I have made several contributions on various stories about the reef as and when they have come up, and basically have always seen the bigger picture of this whole project as being very positive for the area. So to all those fellow positive replies good on ya and also to photographer for standing up for himself against all the usual moaners and wingers that always come out to play. As for the pirate talk, what a complete tool you are, your not funny pal in any shape or form so just stop being a complete prat and winge on in normal language if you really must, yawn!!! See some of you guys on the reef on my turbo lilo (surf mat) soon, Gaz
How interesting yer comments could’ve have been if only they’d made sense!!
Spongerdudette
says...
1:15am Sun 10 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
8:06am Sun 10 Oct 10
reefworksfine
says...
12:04pm Sun 10 Oct 10
oh dear copy and paste mikal, one eyed willy and schooners-skoane roberts are back - is skoane- roberts your parrot or does he fly your kite ? perhaps he's your'e wooden leg?
All three of your are clueless in terms of real waveriding. Give up up knocking the reef schooners skoane-roberts your digging yourself an even deeper hole.
It amuses me your so inept on waveriding you have no idea what comes out of your mouth, and who the think the main men are .
You need to realise there is a group of well travelled experienced surfers and bodyboarders who aren't gonna sit back at let you amatuers ruin the best thing we have all wanted for years.
The reef works fine, you just aren't at the standard needed to surf it. If it was changed to a crumbler why have a reef at all. Don't know if you've noticed schooners the complaints are coming from the guys who can't surf
mikal mhor
says...
12:32pm Sun 10 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
12:45pm Sun 10 Oct 10
(argumentum ad hominem)" for
reefdoeswork
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion .
*ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
.
*ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
.
RDW you win the trifecta on all of the above -whats your bank account number to transfer the prize?
Spongerdudette
says...
3:21pm Sun 10 Oct 10
ists are actually going to be spending their very precious money in Bournemouth instead of elsewhere, and it's just that the council has made the initial payout, but it will definitely pay off and even made money. From the comments that I've read, I think that some people were expecting to see that the reef would create ''big waves'' such as the Peak or Mullaghmore head in Ireland and that will never happen. But the waves that the reef has created is definitely workable/ride able for the local wave riders, and to be honest probably the best decision that the council made by building the reef. Unfortunately you'll can't please everyone all the time and some people will continue to ''hate'' the reef, until they can actually see the prosperity and happiness that it has/will bring to the area.
flying envelope
says...
7:11pm Sun 10 Oct 10
ap flaaaaaaaaaaaapppppp
mikal mhor
says...
8:51pm Sun 10 Oct 10
Bob49
says...
11:10pm Sun 10 Oct 10
.
Contradictions in their arguments. it's not about the money says Sneaky, forgetting that he had earlier posted up some basless tosh from the council to prove that it actually WAS about the money.
.
Spongehead claims it's working, then adds the reason it is NOT working is that there is not the right weather, eh ? Conveniently we have not had the right weather all summer.
.
He further waxes lyrically about the supposed financial benefits to the town in a manner that rather overlooks the truth. A hotel promoting itself as a surfers hotel recently stated that it had not taken ONE single booking due to the reef. A few weeks back I was chatting to one of the bar supervisors at the pub who openly said that trade was down this summer - and he added that he thought it was probably due to the lack of parking (it might well also be due to the lack of amenities). And there is not much there, unless watching the occassional handful of youths paddling about the shoreline clutching ironing board tops is of interest.
.
The reef doesn't work. That's why the council has set up a working party to investigate if it is possible to ever get it to work - the talk is currently on whether it can be just left to break up, as it is already doing, or will it need to be professionally dredged out.
.
The regeneration has been non existent and for all the £12m soent has left the town with a £3m hole in the finances which will have to be found by cutting back elsewhere. Just over half the flats have been sold, only 7 of the pods have been sold and they are now worth £15,000 less in only 12 months.
.
If the true figure of the money the council is spending to prop up this failure were to be added to the debt then we would be nearer £4m. That's going to mean massive cuts elsewhere. Cuts that are alteady showing as cleaning and maintenance in the rest of Boscombe is suffering.
.
Finally it should be remembered that we were told that this reef would provide for 153 days of surfing which would attract 10,000 surfers per year - roughly 70 a day, whose spending would generate 60 full time and 30 part time jobs. These were to be, in the main, well paid professionals from outside of the area.
.
This sham has left local taxpayers with the task of picking up the pieces, both literaly with the sandbags and finacially with the debts. Oddly enough for all the illiterate ramblings on here by them I have not hurt one of them say that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and pay for this failure. Talk is cheap it appears - unless it happens to be council plans.
MikeFrench
says...
12:35am Mon 11 Oct 10
MikeFrench
says...
12:57am Mon 11 Oct 10
om/watch?v=Icyougm-m
Rg&NR=1
Spongerdudette
says...
12:57am Mon 11 Oct 10
axes lyrically''....''he'
'......that did make me chuckle. I actually thought that my comments were polite as I tried to put my view over in an unabusive manner. But to call me ''Spongehead'' and then go even further and actually say ''he''...naughty, naughty. But there was me thinking that the ''Dudette'' in my user name denoted that I'm actually female....I know shocking innit. And not only that Bob49 you have deliberately or not twisted my words. What I said was that the reef was working but not necessarily to its full potential yet, as conditions all around the UK have been poor this summer. I was at a certain natural reef break in Cornwall where you can usually guarantee 6-8' waves, only to be confronted with a couple of foot instead, and talking to people that I know in the area, it had been like this quite a lot....it does help to have Mother Nature on your side you know.
You mentioned that the flats and surf pods aren't selling and that business at a bar is slow, but that's the same all over the country currently....it's called a recession but it doesn't mean that it will be like that forever does it. You should have a look around somewhere like Newquay for example, unsold flats/pods all over the place. But they're surviving and flourishing on the income that both tourists and surfers are bringing into the area. And just because a surfers lodge hasn't taken any extra bookings doesn't mean that people aren't using the reef just that they're travelling for the day to Bournemouth with their ''ironing board tops'' as you put it, and then there is even people who bodyboard as well!!!!!!
What fascinates me most though is that some people are moaning about the cost of building the reef in the first place, but then wants the council to basically destroy it!!!! How much money would that take to do that, what with the cost of the current working group, planning and then the contractors etc?? And the answer to that is one heck of a lot more than the £3m you talk about, and would mean more cuts made by the council then what there is now. But as for financial cuts being made........you can't blame the reef alone for that, as cuts are being made in every department of every council all over the country. Haven't you heard that all councils are wanting the streets lights off everywhere and Britain to be ''blacked out'' like the war years just to save money.
Leave the reef for the enjoyment of the surfers/bodyboarders and even tourists now that it's there, and it WILL pay for itself and help the local economy, just give it a chance.
mikal mhor
says...
7:58am Mon 11 Oct 10
.
Just leave it to the surfers again? Thats what happened last time dracula was given the keys to the blood bank and now its dry?
.
Dont remove it? Thats a matter of alternative cost/benefit scenarios being compared -maybe user pays fro the few that enjoy it might work?
.
It will pay for itself? yep just as it has!
The only ones valid to know what to do are surfers ? Go back to "leave it to the surfers " above.
.
Everyone who is negative hates the reef - the "haters"? Wrong , everyone hates that it does not do what it was sold to do. Thats not the reef thats the lack of delivery that is hated.
.
Either you are with us or against us? thats what our old enemy Adolph said with a bullet on the night of the long knives when anyone responded with less than 'salute - ya mein fuhrer" - to the simple question "r u with me".
.
then we quote from cherry picking again -"Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available."
trying to seperate into for and against camps is false and misleading when many more options are available. Thats what the tast force is doing with expert guidence from the local university.
.
Also its nice to see Tony Butt giving ocean theory to those that really want to learn. I wonder if the comments will be the same if everyne learnt from him?
martaaay
says...
11:38am Mon 11 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
11:44am Mon 11 Oct 10
And following your reasoning -and why?
.
sounds to me theres an angle and its not only on the photos?
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
12:21pm Mon 11 Oct 10
‘Peapod’ be scratching some weedage of her planking on Sun 10th Oct. 2010 at roughly 4pm NOT ONE person be enjoying ‘Weights Elephant’ Yet there be at least 30 boarders in thy SURF between ‘Weights Elephant’ and thy pier, having removed as much weed as those widening gaps in them sandbags could reach ‘Peapod’ then sailed downwind past yet another 30 to 50 boarders to thy west of thy pier!! How strange it be then that thar natural swell did avoid ‘Weights Elephant’ altogether but provided pleasure where nature itself creates it. Yer contradictory comments really defeat yer own cause, as fer ye be claiming, “Well travelled experienced surfers and body boarders” would they not have bin exhibiting their prowess on ‘Weights Elephant?’
As I recently replied to yer alter ego, ye have no idea regarding me experience relating to surfing or natural reefs, so thee be unable to pass comments like that with any authority. Again I state ‘Weights Elephant’ be decomposing NOW but yer still maintain thy Brethren will profit from it ‘in thy future?’
May suggest you gather all yer ‘Weights Elephant’ supporters from all over thar world, ye do state there be so many of yerselves, I’ll loan thee an empty barrel, ye toss in yer change and buy thy ‘Weights Elephant’ fer yer own use, ye maintain, advertise, organise any competitions, charge monies of people to ‘flounder in froth’ and keep it all to thy selves…….. So do yer have £3.6m plus interest fer lack of performance. I’ be right happy with that solution.
P.S. Yer have me word ‘Peapod’ not be ‘scratching’ herself against ‘W/E’ should ye purchase it.
Bob49
says...
1:00pm Mon 11 Oct 10
.
The reef has failed, not due to some tosh about mother nature, weather or any other limp wristed excuse but simply because it was only ever an afterthought to the real intention of money to being made on the moneycombe development. It was actually suggested to me by someone 'in the know' that I buy 'off plan some years ago, with the reassurance that I would make make easy money. So hear various 'ironing board bobbers' arguing over the merits of this failure is to listen to bald men fighting over a comb.
.
You don't seem to grasp the point about the £3m shortfall either. That has nothing to do with the removal of the sandbags but is the amount that has not been realised by projected sales and rentals of the surfpods. Any dredging cost will merely up that figure.
.
Takings are down as are visitor numbers. I have lived here almost all of my life and have, for the past few years walked along the seafront - often twice in a day. There have been far less people on the beach for the past couple of summers and the is certainly never anyone on the sandbags. It is NOT the recession. Almost universally the rest of the countrys seaside resorts are boasting of increased income - due to people staying at home rather than going abroad. So if anything the recession should have seen increased takings.
.
One of the reasons for lower visitor numbers is lack of carparking space. The development is like AFC Bournemouth claiming that the signing of a new star striker would boost their fortunes. Only problem is that it would require three of the stands to be pulled down to built flats to fund that player's acquisition.
.
This was not oversight on the part of the council, it was a recognition that to turn this small corner of the town into an upmarket developmemt it would require that it stayed that way upmarket. That's why there's virtually nothing in the way of facilities and amenities for families. Check back on the original outline as proposed in 2006. It pretty much states that. Therfore it is not the weather or the recession, it is the business model that was deeply flawed from the start.
.
"doesn't mean that people aren't using the reef". No. What it means is people aren't using the reef because NOBODY is ever on it. Stop trying to fool people who actually live here and can see what's happening with their own eyes.
.
If the sandbags do have to be dredged out at some point, which is now looking more and more likely, it is not because anyone has asked for it. It will be on of health and safety grounds. So don't twist words about people wanting it removed so as to be able to knock that 'argument' down.
.
This whole ventutre has been a massive flop which has failed to deliver on the targets set by those behind it. To claim that because cuts are being made elsewhere then it is perfectly ok to waste £12m on this is ridiculous. With cuts set to be harsh I shudder to think what else will be lost by this waste - and how the £3m debt will funded.
mikal mhor
says...
3:18pm Mon 11 Oct 10
. Longevity is a key requirement.
. Negative press doesnt help with new contracts.
Maybe thats the angle the spongers are pushing for the builders? There must be more than just sentimental feelings for a once in a season wave that has to be turned sideways to look larger?
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
4:19pm Mon 11 Oct 10
I do agree, in this day and age it be right confusing to confirm some ones ‘gender’ by name alone, actually it still be confusing to me Boson even when he be ‘face to face’ but then them meetings usually in darkened alleyways (less said thar better I think) I be right sure ‘Bob49’ not being sexist in any manner perhaps it be that ye just do not agree with his, mine and perhaps thy other Brethrens point of view and that be pure realism on our part not sexism on yers. At thar risk of sounding condescending, yet I do feel ye may offer a reasonable nay even a accurate reply to me everlasting question “WHY” keep defending thy ‘Weights Elephant?’ ye have stated……… “. I was at a certain natural reef break in Cornwall where you can usually guarantee 6-8' waves, only to be confronted with a couple of foot instead, and talking to people that I know in the area, it had been like this quite a lot.... it does help to have Mother Nature on your side you know.”…. Dear Lady aint ye bin a listening to what me crew bin a saying?? Yer ‘Weights Elephant’ AINT a natural creation, it don’t even have thar correct ‘configuration’ of a ‘natural reef’ it be, as Bob49 bin stating (with yer permission sir?) a smoke screen to absorb land fer Developers to make monies. Thar ‘Weights Elephant’ aint gonna heal itself, it be on thar wrong coastline, it be designed fer seagulls nesting, it aint as natural reefs form which do run, in thar main, ‘parallel’ to thy beach line. As fer IT being a ‘Surf magnet?’ Mmmmm it have ‘attracted’ curiosity, bad press, little usage (due to its HIGH and experienced performance rating Har) condemnation from yer ‘realistic’ surfers, have not generated any more ‘competitions?’ has even caused thy very Mr Weights to agree it do require MORE gold coins be spent (cos thy Brethren aint got what already cost £3.6m) to tweak, yer BBC have set up a committee because Plymouth University proved ‘Weights Elephant be substandard to it promised requirements and be asking thy very constructors(ASR) to return and FIX it, fat chance in any event. Pray do tell me have I not stated the case correctly?? Stamp me ivory I forgot thy 365 day safety coverage from thy RNLI, what if an injury be caused to a lucky or luckless user of ‘Weights Elephant’ do thy BBC have thy necessary insurance to cover usage of a local synthetic attraction on a public beach etc?
Regards Ahab.
P.S. security, plan-soon, Har
Gazz43
says...
4:48pm Mon 11 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.) wrote:Still acting a tool I see Captain retard,yr still not funny, yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!! As for Sunday 10th the waves were easterlies, completely the wrong direction for the reef, I am so surprised you did`nt know that being such a tool speaking smart arse. As for me being one of the same as other positive posters on here, perleeeese. There just happens to be some other people out there that happen to prefer to see the glass as half full, unlike yourself and Bob49 and all the other boring negative, wineing wingers. You lot must be great company at a dinner party eh. I`m a 44 year old surfer Bob49, and know that to insult all surfers as being kids shows how little you actually know about waters sports/surfing and justifies to me why your opinions are so irrevelant but thanks for the back-handed compliment about being a kid, my moisturiser and positive outlook on life must be working then ;)
Ahoy ‘reefworksfine et al’ ‘Peapod’ be scratching some weedage of her planking on Sun 10th Oct. 2010 at roughly 4pm NOT ONE person be enjoying ‘Weights Elephant’ Yet there be at least 30 boarders in thy SURF between ‘Weights Elephant’ and thy pier, having removed as much weed as those widening gaps in them sandbags could reach ‘Peapod’ then sailed downwind past yet another 30 to 50 boarders to thy west of thy pier!! How strange it be then that thar natural swell did avoid ‘Weights Elephant’ altogether but provided pleasure where nature itself creates it. Yer contradictory comments really defeat yer own cause, as fer ye be claiming, “Well travelled experienced surfers and body boarders” would they not have bin exhibiting their prowess on ‘Weights Elephant?’ As I recently replied to yer alter ego, ye have no idea regarding me experience relating to surfing or natural reefs, so thee be unable to pass comments like that with any authority. Again I state ‘Weights Elephant’ be decomposing NOW but yer still maintain thy Brethren will profit from it ‘in thy future?’ May suggest you gather all yer ‘Weights Elephant’ supporters from all over thar world, ye do state there be so many of yerselves, I’ll loan thee an empty barrel, ye toss in yer change and buy thy ‘Weights Elephant’ fer yer own use, ye maintain, advertise, organise any competitions, charge monies of people to ‘flounder in froth’ and keep it all to thy selves…….. So do yer have £3.6m plus interest fer lack of performance. I’ be right happy with that solution. P.S. Yer have me word ‘Peapod’ not be ‘scratching’ herself against ‘W/E’ should ye purchase it.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
5:21pm Mon 11 Oct 10
Control yerself man? (I be smiling at that raw nerve I be touching with ye) fer fear ye may wake up to reality. Yer didn’t fer all yer nonsensical ramblings answer me statement or even call it in to question, yer called me all sorts of other names but eluded to correct me on a simple point of fact. On Sunday at 4pm there were NO, NO ‘surfers’ on ‘Weights Elephant’ plenty around east of thy pier and as I stated, cos I were there, sailed WITH thy wind past surfers just to thy West of thy pier then even more surfers to thy westwards down thy coastline BUT yet again NOT ONE person on ‘Weights Elephant’ but it all be thy same swell that ye need or be thee now pleading thy ‘Weights Elephant’ need a differing wave motion.
Let me help ye to concentrate yer observations it were not me that referred to you as kids at all, check yer facts afore yer anger sets in. What ye does with yer moisturiser is between you and another well known local celebrity.
Gazz43
says...
5:36pm Mon 11 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.) wrote:I suggest ye Captain retard check ye facts as too what I said above before accusing me, own goal you baffoon!! I too was in the water and know exactly what I am talking about unlike you clearly do
Ahoy ‘Gazz43’ Control yerself man? (I be smiling at that raw nerve I be touching with ye) fer fear ye may wake up to reality. Yer didn’t fer all yer nonsensical ramblings answer me statement or even call it in to question, yer called me all sorts of other names but eluded to correct me on a simple point of fact. On Sunday at 4pm there were NO, NO ‘surfers’ on ‘Weights Elephant’ plenty around east of thy pier and as I stated, cos I were there, sailed WITH thy wind past surfers just to thy West of thy pier then even more surfers to thy westwards down thy coastline BUT yet again NOT ONE person on ‘Weights Elephant’ but it all be thy same swell that ye need or be thee now pleading thy ‘Weights Elephant’ need a differing wave motion. Let me help ye to concentrate yer observations it were not me that referred to you as kids at all, check yer facts afore yer anger sets in. What ye does with yer moisturiser is between you and another well known local celebrity.
Max Green
says...
7:51pm Mon 11 Oct 10
As an obvious expert on the value of social investment, what $$ amount would you assign the publicity related to the surf reef in just two years since it's completion.
And what would be a reasonable expenditure for a social investment that might produce publicity for the coming decades?
How would you have spent $$ to regenerate Boscombe's seafront for future generations and to appeal to outside tourists?
Boscombe has one of the only working artificial surf reefs in the world. What $$ amount would you attach to that kind of attraction? 3.6 mil is a small amount for a social investment that will provide value for many years to come.
If the surf reef continues to break as it has been for 20 years to come (probably more) that's a pretty reasonable investment for an attraction that creates this amount of attention, publicity, and community value which is undeniable.
Calling yourself mikal mohr is a bad joke - your comments reek of defensiveness. Its obvious that you're disappointed to find that the reef works as well as it does. Why would you want to fight that.
Fact is, the reef adds value to the community. Paul and his friends add value to the community. The publicity surrounding the reef adds value to the community. What value do you add? From what I see, the answer is none.
stinky
says...
8:40pm Mon 11 Oct 10
LoudCore wrote:It was bournemouth council that said the reef would cater for the more experianced
Schooners wrote:Scnooners you really are an idiot.. its people like you who get on my nerves, those pics are very real and not PhotoShoped!
Okay so let's go through this in three simple steps
1) The bodyboarder is practically in freefall as the wave has formed and pealed so fast it has dumped him off the top of the wave as it about to crash onto his head (not shown but video would). This is where injuries and possible paralysis/death will occur at some point in the future.
2) The camera position massively exaggerates the wave as you have nothing to take perspective from. I could recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub. Currently there is a man making a surf movie using MICE on surfboards and the waves look like 20 foot faces (in reality they are 6")
3) If you adjust the angle of the image capture by tilting your head to get a straight horizon you will see 100% what the issue is. We have a flat faced wedge of water which is moving so slowly it cannot support its own weight, thus it breaks super fast in a dumping fashion. Ipso facto the reef does not work.
So in short, instead of having a slow breaking fast wave, we actually have a fast breaking slow wave THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WORK.
If anyone wants to put their reputation on the line, show me video of incontrovertible evidence of 1 single surfer riding a wave on the Reef for longer than a surfer can ride a wave by the Pier and I will say I am wrong.
Incredible how a poor quality image shot with a wonky horizon with the camera jammed up in the peek of a breaking wave can be taken as showing a £3.6m pile of rubbish to be working.
Oh and it wasn't built for Body Boarders, it was built for surfers for the love of god. Spongers are the only people who ever go out there and sit on the thing at low tide.
Video please next time, show us video!!!
You need to learn the mechanics of a wave before you start talking rubbish... As for who it was made for... it was designed to challenge all aspects of wave riding....
Keep your narrow mindedness to your self next time
surfer, and it was the council that commisioned a study of the reefs performance, the results of which made not very good reading, and it was the council who because of the results were in talks with the builders to decide what could be done how much £££££s it would cost and who was to pay. The front of the peir is mank walking along the pier a pointless exercise, and a sure fire way of ruining an area is to build blocks of flats. I did quite fancy one of they beach huts sorry pods/flats whatever but the price tag was just that teeny bit over 100,000 more than I could afford. still enjoy = enjoy/ not enjoy = not enjoy L.A.L.L
mikal mhor
says...
10:29pm Mon 11 Oct 10
.
mikal mhor, boscombe says...
9:59am Sat 9 Oct 10
.
mikal mhor, boscombe says...
10:14am Sat 9 Oct 10
and then again especialy for your lathered self
'
reprint for Maxgreen to study
-Then theres "Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)" for
reefdoeswork
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion .
*ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
.
*ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
.
maxgreen wins the second trifecta on all of the above -whats your bank account number to transfer the prize?
Max green wins a special mention as his tecnique is sophisticated and worthy of a class 1 award. His techique suggests a link to the techniques displayed in the first two posts and that gives him a "amazing -super -research .." trifecta. The photos are nice, the enjoyment they get is also nice its also nice that you feel so vehement about protecting those nice things. Its the V word that gives you the class in winning the award.
Bob49
says...
12:07am Tue 12 Oct 10
.
There is no one ever on the sandbag heap.
" It's the easterlies, that's what it is"
.
You said it was mother nature.
"Yes that, as well".
.
It doesn't work.
"errr, it just needs the right conditions ... or a bit of tweaking, perhaps"
.
It never has word
"that's because it's stunned"
.
Stunned !
"yes it's pining for bjords, the surf bjords.
.
The bjords !
"Remarkable reef the boscombe artificial squire, lovely wastage"
Listen mate, it's not pinin'! 'It's passed on! This reef is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and the money has gone to its maker!
.
'It a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in pieces! If you hadn't tied it to the beach it'd be washed up on the promenade. It's economic benefits are now 'istory! 'It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off 'its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible ! ! *
.
* Dedicated to Max Green who has written a far better send up of those who still believe in the Emperors new clothes than ever I or anyone else could have. I take my hat off to you sir. A comic genius.
Max Green
says...
12:21am Tue 12 Oct 10
Bob49
says...
12:24am Tue 12 Oct 10
.
Why are the buildings in the background leaning at such an angle ? Is it fear of the approaching tsunami ?
.
Why is the shadow of the surfer behind him ? That would require the sunlight to be coming from the beach ..... northwards.
.
Why is the water on the surfers right got the texture of surface water when it is supposedly falling almost totally vertical ?
.
Why is so much of the foreground water simply gray with no texture ?
.
Either this is a half decent hoax designed to poke fun at the towns nationwide embarrassment (as with Max Green's spoof post) or it is serious and should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality.
SneakyB
says...
1:39am Tue 12 Oct 10
The whole set of frame grabs (posted for the 3rd time i might add).
http://www.facebook.
com/album.php?aid=24
276&id=1359276231116
32&ref=mf
mikal mhor
says...
8:01am Tue 12 Oct 10
.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Miniature_f
aking#Digital_postpr
ocessing
.
Selective focus via tilt is often used to simulate a miniature scene, though as noted above, the effect is somewhat different from the shallow DoF in close-up photography of miniature subjects. Many such images are described as employing "tilt-shift", but the term is something of a misnomer because shift is seldom involved and is usually unrelated to the effect produced. The term may derive from the tilt-shift lens normally required when the effect is produced optically.
Basic digital postprocessing techniques can give results similar to those achieved with tilt, and afford greater flexibility, such as choosing the region that is sharp and the amount of blur for the unsharp regions. Moreover, these choices can be made after the photograph is taken. One advanced technique, Smallgantics, is used for motion-pictures; it was first seen in the 2006 Thom Yorke music video Harrowdown Hill, directed by Chel White. As is often the case in commercials and music video, the idea was taken from an artist. In this case, the idea is from artist Olivo Barbieri who had become well known for his miniature-faking stills in the 1990s.
.
do you as yet realise that you are undermining and not helping those that are trying to get the reef repaired properly?
.
there was no need at all to do this and leave yourdelves open to this expose?
mikal mhor
says...
8:14am Tue 12 Oct 10
there you go - answers all4U.
.
U can be sure that no stone will remain unturned.
Spongerdudette
says...
11:13am Tue 12 Oct 10
ns. But AGAIN I say that to get something that visitors want to see/use the council has to pay out first and THEN reap the rewards, and the £3m shortfall as YOU call due to the reef should be classed as an investment and not a lost.
@Capt, firstly I would like to thank for your politeness to me in your comment. So to answer your question as to why I and others continue to support the ''weigh elephant'' as you call it, and the answer is purely and simply that we believe in it and can see that it is actually working. The reef IS producing waves which surfers (by this I mean users of all modes of wave crafts) are more then able to ride, and Paul Humber's photo definitely shows this. Some doubters on here are saying that the photo has been ''angled'' in such away to made it look steeper and to use one of Bob49's words that is a lot of tosh. The photographic evidence shows that the reef IS working and producing waves as the photographer is actually on the waves taking the shot.. how much more evidence do you need??!! And ONCE AGAIN I say, to try to discredit Mr Humber's photos as photoshopped or ''tampered'' with is a total disgrace, and if that were me I would be taking legal action against you for slanderous/libellous accusations.
And lastly @Mikal mhor. You say that this is being sorted out by ''very capable, experienced and qualified people'', but my questions to you are ...are they and how do you know that? And has the the surfing community and users of the reef been fairly represented with a cross section of surfers ranging from bodyboarders to standup's through to SUP's. Or is just one person's views beening used, which I might add is totally unfair!!
mikal mhor
says...
11:38am Tue 12 Oct 10
The vertical and the horizontal is not correct in most if not all of these photos -so sue me! ( get a spirit level and a plumb bob and you might understand the principals of vertical and horizontal -these photos do not comply with vertical and level the way they are displayed). This does not discredit anybody but states a fact of reality. If anything I believe the fact that they were chosen to be displayed that way discredits anyone who made that choice as it misrepresents the real world. SSM!
Spongerdudette
says...
12:16pm Tue 12 Oct 10
There is one and only one thing that I agree with you here Mikal mhor and that is to quote your words '' Negotiations mean nothing unless all options are on the table''. And even though Mr Weigh's ''reputation'' is at stake, is he 100% knowledgeable of all modes of craft riding? I mean a SUP can go out onto the water and have an enjoyable time on a millpond, however surfers/bodyboarders needs waves. So if Mr Weigh is the ''best'' representative for the surfing community, then why is he the unpopular choice? I still believe that there should be more then one person representing the users of the reef.
Kamanchi Sly
says...
12:46pm Tue 12 Oct 10
Oh look - all the keyboard warriors are out to play...
"Ooooo look - the cameras tilted at an angle"
"I can make waves in my bath look like that"
"copy n' pasted crap from some random site"
"That's no Boscombe - look you can't see all the drug addicts shooting up on the beach"
"another repeated paragraph that I warrior typed 5 times now"
"blah blah blah bored in my old age"
Haters keep hating...
mikal mhor
says...
12:54pm Tue 12 Oct 10
smithy34
says...
1:08pm Tue 12 Oct 10
"recreate a pealing 'Tubing wave' in my bath tub"
grab your boards and get round schooners house!
What is all your obsessions about the photo not being straight? If it concerns you that much, tilt your head a little, as others have suggested... and what do you see??? still looks like a bodyboarder dropping into a sick wave better than anything the piers or beach have ever produced.
.
What's it like living in such a negative world where you see the worst in everything and as soon as somebody comes out with a positive view you shoot it down and do everything you can to discredit it?
.
You people are an embarrassment to the town.
.
the suns out today, why don't you go and find somewhere to moan about that, or find a child's ball to pop.
mikal mhor
says...
1:24pm Tue 12 Oct 10
smithy34
says...
1:32pm Tue 12 Oct 10
Spongerdudette
says...
1:58pm Tue 12 Oct 10
As for the ''straightening'' of the photo, I do hear what you're saying. However, if that was done I could guarantee that someone is still going to cry photoshop. But how this shot has been taken and shown is true to how it is actually working. I do agree with Smithy34 that basically all that's needed is a tilt of ones head. But even if the photo was turned to prove to a non surfer or doubter, it still shows a good wave with a bodyboarder actually riding it successfully and that the reef working.
As for the lack of true information, the council has to take responsibility for that as they are the ones who should of gathered and informed the public correctly and everything out in the open. I do think that other reefs will be built else where, but lessons learnt from this...err....mess.
SneakyB
says...
2:44pm Tue 12 Oct 10
Our major point and the reason why most of the pro-reef comments are posting on here is that we don't want it tampered with much ... if at all.
We know exactly what the council would do if they had there way/could get the money. They would turn it into a slow crap wave that any ol person could go and surf to maximize the amount of people on it at any one time. Not only would that be more dangerous than having a heavy reef (as it is now), due to collisions and even violence. It would completely undermine the project and therefor interest would drop off completely.
The reef as it is, is a special kind of beast and it is unlike anywhere else i have ridden in the world. If they soften it, it would lose that uniqueness and blend in with the the rest of the surf around here.
mikal - "I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean "
There has already been a new one in india....
As for people still going on about the photo integrity. I'd like to see any of you guys out there taking shots/video with perfectly straight horizons ...lol!
Tilted or not, it still has a 6 foot man falling down it for comparison. It also has another man behind him on the peak (the larger part of the wave). The focal point of the shot is probably only 2/3's of the original wave height (where the other guy is).
mikal mhor
says...
7:39pm Tue 12 Oct 10
Max Green
says...
7:44pm Tue 12 Oct 10
mikal mhor wrote:It already has happened and it throws up an impressive wave. http://www.youtube.c
I believe that this will never ever be allowed to happen again anywhere anytime in any ocean on this planet.
om/watch?v=mGYuj-Ow1
rk
SneakyB
says...
8:16pm Tue 12 Oct 10
In the words of the late MR Coleman
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_
9k
Now i'm off to fuel up my private jet! Hahaha!!!
rogerwebby
says...
8:34pm Tue 12 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
8:36am Wed 13 Oct 10
.
@all Anyone looking at that should think well for the Indian people as we paid for it and if some get their way will keep paying for it.
.
@SB - didnt someone say that world travelled pros use and prefer it?
.
@RW -relax he probably cant help it.
@RW
Paul Humber
says...
9:50am Wed 13 Oct 10
Bob49 wrote:hahaha are you joking Bob49? You make rediculous accusations about the legitimacy of my photos and then go on to say that it "should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality". You want to take a long hard look at yourself mate!! I do apologise for not getting the horizon perfectly straight, after swimming through 250 metres of whitewash to get out there, sitting in the impact zone for hours, scrambling into position when a wave comes through I forgot to get my protractor out and check the horizon line. You rotate that picture so the horizon is straight, then you find a picture of a better wave that's broken in Bourneomuth Bay in the last 100 years and I'll start listening to what you've got to say. Your cynicism is laughable. I'm not responding any more to these rediculous claims and arguments. I take everybodys claims of photoshop and tampering as a compliment as you obviously think the photos are too good to be real! they are real. The reef produces great waves. deal with it.
A few of points about this 'photo'
.
Why are the buildings in the background leaning at such an angle ? Is it fear of the approaching tsunami ?
.
Why is the shadow of the surfer behind him ? That would require the sunlight to be coming from the beach ..... northwards.
.
Why is the water on the surfers right got the texture of surface water when it is supposedly falling almost totally vertical ?
.
Why is so much of the foreground water simply gray with no texture ?
.
Either this is a half decent hoax designed to poke fun at the towns nationwide embarrassment (as with Max Green's spoof post) or it is serious and should be seen as a measure of how desperate some folk are in their bid to deny reality.
mikal mhor
says...
10:09am Wed 13 Oct 10
.
it throws up better there! You helped pay for it and are still paying.
.
taking the picture that way may of been a bit wish -fulfilment - but they are nice little shots when corrected for the difficult circumstances you were in.
.
Its a nice little drop and turn place.
'
sort -of cute!
The Liberal
says...
10:10am Wed 13 Oct 10
reefwatching
says...
10:33am Wed 13 Oct 10
The point of spending that much money, well actually the point of spending the original £1m odd budget before ASR screwed the council, was to attract surfers from far afield to surf the reef, spend their money, and generally generate a watersport centre to assist Boscombe’s economy and image, creating a catalyst for further investment.
Unless anybody can demonstrate any differently (like evidence of surfers from London going to Boscombe rather than Cornwall, businesses set up due to the reef’s effects, etc), the reef can only be seen as a failure since the investment is not providing the return anticipated. In fact it could be seen to have had a negative effect. The council are therefore quite rightly being criticised for both proceeding with the project despite the evidence of failures elsewhere, and the mismanagement of the contract which led to the cost trebling.
The fact that the local bodyboarders like it on the infrequent occasions it ‘performs’, which I don’t doubt and hope they enjoy it, is only an unintended benefit and has to be seen as such.
mikal mhor
says...
10:54am Wed 13 Oct 10
Value for every penny is also required.
That may be the real issue, no I think that is the real issue. ? Where is the real value for that expenditure?
all seeing cat
says...
12:23pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
12:33pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Ye really do have a comprehensive problem!! Or perhaps it be a problem with comprehension? I thought me words were honed right down to thar bone and composed as simplistically as possible just fer thee to read but yet again alas……. On Sunday at 4pm there be between 50 and 80 people surfing NONE including you were availing yerself of thy £3.6m pounds worth of ‘Weights Elephant’
As fer ye stating “I too was in the water (as if that alone justifies £3.6m) and know exactly what I’m talking about unlike you clearly do” Well!!!!! What be thar point? Yet again you choose to limit yer vocabulary to churlish comments rather than positive replies. If ye still have enough energy about yerself I suggest ye re-read me comments again and s l o w l y, I stated all thy surfers were on thy WEST side of thy empty ‘Weights Elephant’ and Peapod sailed DOWN wind so I do be well aware from where thar wind be coming from (even allowing fer thy blusterings) so yer have wasted even more of yer imagination. Oh yes one very positive point ye did make was that ‘Weights Elephant’, along with its other limitations wont work if thy wind from thy East, I don’t remember thy BBC, Mr Weights, ASR, you et al as transcontinental surfers making that point at thy planning stage. Well I congratulate thee sir fer yer statement “Thy ‘Weights Elephant’ DON’T work if it be an Easterly wind” Now be that ‘positive or negative?’
SneakyB
says...
1:50pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Maybe if there was less bad press about the wave itself more people would come and give it a go. Argument aside, shouldn't you guys be supporting that to get your "value for money"?
Let the voices that actually ride the wave have their say and it may actually start to improve in visitor numbers, instead of criticizing our every word publicly and no doubt putting people off.
Also, people do come down from London, Brighton etc. I have no proof but then why would i!?
To the Oxford Pirate. I stopped reading your cobble about 4 posts ago. Regardless of what you have to say, if you can't type properly i'm not going to take you seriously.
Over and out..
Glashen
says...
2:09pm Wed 13 Oct 10
-
These photos are good publicity for the reef, so what do the anti brigade do, Rubbish them, claim they are fake etc. etc., surely if you want the best for Boscombe you would be pleased by this demonstration of the reef can do, and the subsequent good publicity.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
2:33pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Tis as I suspected re ‘et al’ I reply to ‘Gazz43’ and ye answer on his behalf. Yer grasp of history be as abysmal as yer pontifications of ‘Weights Elephant’ being a success, Captain Ahab not a ‘pirate’ at all, no wonder thy Brethren do doubt what yer be saying. Now ye be suggesting it bad press that causing ‘Weights Elephant’ to malfunction, what next, it don’t work when there be an ‘e’ in thy month, please, oh please do try to be more imaginative. Upon me soul, YE have taken umbrage with me speakings and will not take me seriously any more, well I’ll instruct me scribe to announce that right piece of disturbing news to Peapods crew, I’m not sure they’ll be too many sleepless nights though.
mikal mhor
says...
4:05pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
4:13pm Wed 13 Oct 10
Thank ye fer yer ‘enclosure’ but I really must insist an answer to my perfectly straightforward, honest, simple question “Why, when 50+ surfers enjoying naturally created waves to thy West of ‘Weights Elephant’ and that ASRs Managing Director stated quite clearly that thar ‘reef’ don’t “create waves it enhances a natural swell” that NOT one of thee ‘regular or advanced’ surfers be seen either by eye, a camera, a tourist, a lifeguard or even (in desperation) a herring gull. It bin offered by yer colleagues that ‘Weights Elephant’ NOW unable to function ‘cos of an Easterly’ wind YET look about yerselfs 50+ people enjoying thar ‘Easterly’ wind, naturally generated surf, oh minus of course £3.6m. Now yer ‘et als’ be stating that yer newly set up committee not be ‘expert’ enough to make decisions regarding, I can’t believe this part,’tweakings?
these experts, in thar main were thar ones responsible fer its go ahead in thy 1st place.
Does ye really believe that one, dubious, photo do offer a credible sanction of ‘Weights Elephants’ successful history, surely they’d be so many pretty pictures in evidence, no doubt regaling its international popularity, thy BBC would indeed have paid a pretty price to have silenced Peapods crew months ago yet it is themselves that have gone ‘quiet’ Har well not exactly quiet they be on here under all these new names that be ‘awash’ with such vehement repudiations of any valid critique. Even a new slant being to leave, not ‘tweak’ ‘Weights Elephant’ as that be about spoiling such an exalted achievement, that sound like a ruse to me.
Be happy, dear lady, in yer surfing, content to know that Cornwall be far more reliable, challenging and usually warmer than thy loveable Boscombe fer this activity.
mikal mhor
says...
4:15pm Wed 13 Oct 10
.
Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many UNDERCURRENTS WELLING TO THE SURFACE with this one -that can interfer with your navigation.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
4:36pm Wed 13 Oct 10
mikal mhor wrote:Ahoy ‘mikal mhor’
errata for last post.
.
Who fears for that and why? carefull Captn many UNDERCURRENTS WELLING TO THE SURFACE with this one -that can interfer with your navigation.
Tis with interest and rightly heed thy warnings, almost a sense of Déjà vu with me reply to thee and no doubt our ‘Mutual’ friends albeit undercover, on thar scent of another pressing case! Will take heed of these new ‘tactics’ that be employed to defend such a waste of gold coinage.
Spongerdudette
says...
6:01pm Wed 13 Oct 10
.I'm outta here.
Moby Dick
says...
8:34pm Wed 13 Oct 10
It's called publicity...The beach draws no international surf interest. The reef is what drives most if not all the attention to the seafront.
mikal mhor
says...
9:45pm Wed 13 Oct 10
rogerwebby
says...
10:29pm Wed 13 Oct 10
you u r a bellend i wanna ram u up the backend ye old prirate
mikal mhor
says...
9:35am Thu 14 Oct 10
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
9:44am Thu 14 Oct 10
Moby Dick wrote:Ahoy 'Moby Dick'
@mikal @cap't ahab
It's called publicity...The beach draws no international surf interest. The reef is what drives most if not all the attention to the seafront.
Can I have me leg back please.
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
9:52am Thu 14 Oct 10
rogerwebby wrote:Ahoy ‘rogerwebby’
Capt. Ahab (ret.),
you u r a bellend i wanna ram u up the backend ye old prirate
Be there a ‘lot’ of inbreeding from whence thee came??
Capt. Ahab (ret.)
says...
9:55am Thu 14 Oct 10
Yer haven’t answered me questions at all but I can see yer losing control as yet another ‘Weights Elephant’ proponent goes home to get ‘changed’
Being such a well-travelled lady, well at least to Cornwall, I’d thought ye be well aware of a small natural occurrence called thy Gulf Stream!! Which in thar main, along with similar warm air currents, helps keep Ireland and the western coast of Great Britain a couple of degrees warmer than the east.
Regards.
a.g.o.g.
says...
10:28am Thu 14 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
10:35am Thu 14 Oct 10
(safe-rich) omg!
mikal mhor
says...
10:31am Fri 15 Oct 10
sorry if the right thing and the truth offends anybody -that just life!
smithy34
says...
2:21pm Fri 15 Oct 10
goodnight.
mikal mhor
says...
2:44pm Fri 15 Oct 10
you, sir are a namecaller!
SneakyB
says...
5:05pm Fri 15 Oct 10
You should change your nickname to Jeremy Kyle.
mikal mhor
says...
5:27pm Fri 15 Oct 10
mikal mhor
says...
10:05pm Fri 15 Oct 10
****
"Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individua
ls who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.
Idiot as a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own"). In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person." Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet and prophecy. The word has cognates in many other languages.
That is so funny , ironic and self defeating in your use of it? Have a nice day.
mikal mhor
says...
11:56am Mon 25 Oct 10
thecho.co.uk/news/fe
atures/surfreef/
is where you can see real video evidence of how the reef works.
MikeFrench says...
10:15am Fri 8 Oct 10