|
Post by Jim on Nov 22, 2017 19:37:45 GMT
Just for the record I knew it has happened. I just believe its stupid and only puts money (When the easily led pay) into the thugs picked so they can chase more innocent victims. Not always innocent but yes, innocent people do get done over by hired thugs. Actually, to be fair, some of them aren't thugs either, some are actually very clever people driven only by money. That's just a thug who knows how to play the game, Shirley! Same lack of respect, empathy or care for others, just beats up others with brain rather than brawn!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 21:07:14 GMT
Not always innocent but yes, innocent people do get done over by hired thugs. Actually, to be fair, some of them aren't thugs either, some are actually very clever people driven only by money. That's just a thug who knows how to play the game, Shirley! Same lack of respect, empathy or care for others, just beats up others with brain rather than brawn! Agreed Apparently everyone has an address. Perhaps something we should all remember sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Dec 8, 2017 16:35:54 GMT
Some interesting information on the YBW Thames forum about the privately operated Thames Visitor Moorings Scheme for EA Moorings.
"Unofficial" figures given show that in the trial area there were approximately 2,250 'nights' registered and about half of these (1,125) were paid for as 'extra nights' exceeding the first free one.
That gives a total (allegedly) due to the EA in respect of payment for visitor mooring in the trial area of £5,625.00.
But, 50% of this (£2,812.50) is, according to the information on YBW, retained by the operator, TVM Management Ltd.
And the EA has also paid a separate upfront 'management fee' of £4,850 to TVM.
So while Rex has pocketed around £7,600, the EA has made a net loss of over £2,000 in the trial area.
No wonder Rex and his cohort in the River Thames Alliance, Danylo Kurpil of District Enforcement Ltd who will impose and pocket any penalty charges, are so keen to promote their scheme.
(Not to mention the fact that any reference to charges for 'overnight' mooring renders the whole scheme unlawful as Section 136 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 states "that (in respect of vessels using any of the moorings in the Thames belonging to the Conservators) no charge shall be made for vessels tied up or moored at night or for a reasonable time when not at work unless the traffic of the Thames is thereby impeded.")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 18:45:30 GMT
Bad shit
|
|
|
Post by patty on Dec 9, 2017 6:29:54 GMT
What would happen if someone else removed it? they are quite happy for some one else who doesn't own the car/has never driven the car/was not there when the ticket was issued to pay it.......guess how i know this??....
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 2, 2018 2:01:52 GMT
I saw one of these signs today on the long term mooring at Leighton Buzzard, which is on the TOWPATH side, I'm puzzled that it says " this land is privately owned by the canal and river trust " surely that is a mistake ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 2, 2018 7:20:22 GMT
I saw one of these signs today on the long term mooring at Leighton Buzzard, which is on the TOWPATH side, I'm puzzled that it says " this land is privately owned by the canal and river trust " surely that is a mistake ? the sign i took the photo of is on the towpath.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 2, 2018 10:01:43 GMT
I saw one of these signs today on the long term mooring at Leighton Buzzard, which is on the TOWPATH side, I'm puzzled that it says " this land is privately owned by the canal and river trust " surely that is a mistake ? Do you mean "mistake" as due to ignorance, or "mistake" as in trying on so demonstrably incorrect a claim?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:06:17 GMT
Who owns it then?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 2, 2018 10:16:10 GMT
You do, along with everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 10:24:23 GMT
It’s funny how folk on here don’t rant about how dreadful it is to have long term on line towpath-side moorings. And if someone kept their boat on such a mooring, popped down to the waterpoint and came back to find a rogue boat in their mooring space all locked up and empty, there would be a right whinge-fest. And yet when CRT take steps to try to prevent such mis-use, there is an equal whinge-fest. Perhaps it is a case of “don’t give a shit because it’s not my paid-for mooring?
Nigel is of the belief that BW/CRT are not empowered to annex towpath-side for private long term paid-for moorings. Perhaps he is right, but it has been custom and practice for many decades without much fuss.
As usual, it is a case of CRT are wrong whatever they do. How very tedious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:35:46 GMT
It’s funny how folk on here don’t rant about how dreadful it is to have long term on line towpath-side moorings. And if someone kept their boat on such a mooring, popped down to the waterpoint and came back to find a rogue boat in their mooring space all locked up and empty, there would be a right whinge-fest. And yet when CRT take steps to try to prevent such mis-use, there is an equal whinge-fest. Perhaps it is a case of “don’t give a shit because it’s not my paid-for mooring? Nigel is of the belief that BW/CRT are not empowered to annex towpath-side for private long term paid-for moorings. Perhaps he is right, but it has been custom and practice for many decades without much fuss. As usual, it is a case of CRT are wrong whatever they do. How very tedious. There are people employed by CRT who earn in excess of 200,000 quid a year. The fact that they react, and behave in a similar vein to minors with some of their working practice, makes them eligible for criticism. You can pay any amount of money to an idiot, but it will still behave like an idiot. Your reply is typical of someone with lack of knowledge and ignorance on such matters.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 10:39:02 GMT
It’s funny how folk on here don’t rant about how dreadful it is to have long term on line towpath-side moorings. And if someone kept their boat on such a mooring, popped down to the waterpoint and came back to find a rogue boat in their mooring space all locked up and empty, there would be a right whinge-fest. And yet when CRT take steps to try to prevent such mis-use, there is an equal whinge-fest. Perhaps it is a case of “don’t give a shit because it’s not my paid-for mooring? Nigel is of the belief that BW/CRT are not empowered to annex towpath-side for private long term paid-for moorings. Perhaps he is right, but it has been custom and practice for many decades without much fuss. As usual, it is a case of CRT are wrong whatever they do. How very tedious. There are people employed by CRT who earn in excess of 200,000 quid a year. The fact that they react, and behave in a similar vein to minors with some of their working practice, makes them eligible for criticism. You can pay any amount of money to an idiot, but it will still behave like an idiot. Your reply is typical of someone with lack of knowledge and ignorance on such matters. Your reply is typical of someone who doesn’t have a point to make but likes the sound of their own voice (or the sight of their own typing in this case!).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:42:04 GMT
There are people employed by CRT who earn in excess of 200,000 quid a year. The fact that they react, and behave in a similar vein to minors with some of their working practice, makes them eligible for criticism. You can pay any amount of money to an idiot, but it will still behave like an idiot. Your reply is typical of someone with lack of knowledge and ignorance on such matters. Your reply is typical of someone who doesn’t have a point to make but likes the sound of their own voice (or the sight of their own typing in this case!). My reply was typical of someone with more knowledge of the subject than yourself. Suck it up buttercup.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 11:00:03 GMT
Your reply is typical of someone who doesn’t have a point to make but likes the sound of their own voice (or the sight of their own typing in this case!). My reply was typical of someone with more knowledge of the subject than yourself. Suck it up buttercup. In other words, you don’t have anything to say. Not unusual!
|
|