Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 10:14:45 GMT
Whatever the condition of this man's boat, and his relationship, or lack of one, with C&RT, surely it doesn't alter the abhorrent behaviour of the hirers described.
I suspect hiring to the occasional group who prove unworthy of the trust will continue, as hire companies seek to make a living for themselves and staff. They're simply not going to turn down good money are they?
Available disposable income seems the main 'driver' of this type of incident, coupled with boating being much more in the public eye.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 26, 2018 10:18:27 GMT
CRT say they "are concerned". So, that's alright, then! I have serious reservations as to CaRT’s enthusiasm for acting to support Mr Ward. They spent £76,000 to get him off their waterways in the first year of taking over from BW. They succeeded in having the s.8 affirmed, but that proved a pyrrhic victory, because the sectioned boat had been sold and replaced by then, and the judge refused an injunction to force Mr Ward to remove his replacement vessels. kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-demand-76000-from-disabled-boater-denied-legal-aid/ It would be an excellent PR exercise if they did demonstrate in some active assistance, that they held no grudge, and pursued the miscreants responsible. Surely, if the boat only remained afloat because of a tarpaulin and a perpetually running bilge pump, much of the responsibility for the sinking lays with the owner himself?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 26, 2018 10:44:10 GMT
It would be a fun thing to do to have that printed out a few hundred copies and stand next to a 'Friends Chugger' and hand a copy to each prospective victim, so that they could see the kind of 'friends' they would be supporting with their money. I wonder if Damian has ever had that in his Boaters' Update. Every passer-by thinks the canals are so tranquil. They don't see the seething nastiness below the surface.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 26, 2018 11:08:33 GMT
that was an interesting article. they should be told bot to use a 45k qc to fight someone who has no clue, crt own legal team could of got the same outcome for free. they are indeed talking to a few boaters, it will be interesting to see it develop. It does appear that a long overdue change in thinking has developed in this respect. Possibly following on from the Ravenscroft case, Shoosmiths have been dispensed with, and their active waterways litigator has been poached from them – now Ms Lucy Barry is a CaRT employee, responsible for the conduct of all current litigation, in-house. That is a move I have long advocated, and hopeful signs are there that the ridiculous expenditure typical of the last decade and more will be abandoned, in favour of allowing their own more than capable legal team to deal with issues. Even more hopefully, with the absence of outside law firms with an eye only for their fees, the legal department are seeing the value of actually talking with boaters directly, as you say.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 26, 2018 11:22:22 GMT
Surely, if the boat only remained afloat because of a tarpaulin and a perpetually running bilge pump, much of the responsibility for the sinking lays with the owner himself? The boat was undoubtedly vulnerable by reason of its parlous condition, but it would have to be asked whether it would have remained afloat had the described incident not taken place. As to the hire boat activities, plenty of byelaws are applicable to the related circumstances - 13. Every vessel navigating on any canal shall at all times be navigated with care and reasonable consideration for all persons using the canal or being on the banks thereof and in particular in such a manner as will not obstruct the passage of any other vessel using the canal or involve risk of collision or endanger the safety of other vessels or their moorings or cause damage thereto or to the banks of the canal or to any part of the Board’s property.
14. No person shall navigate a power-driven vessel on any canal at a speed over the bed of the canal greater than the following:- (c) On any canal or part thereof other than those to which paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof apply, a speed of 4 miles per hour . . .
16. No vessel shall overtake or pass another vessel on any part of any canal without observing due precautions to avoid danger or risk to either vessel or the canal or to any works, person or property.
44. No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.
It is long past time for the CaRT legal department to start re-thinking the ludicrous and nasty-minded policy of abandoning prosecution of such byelaw offences in favour of the most punitive weapon in their arsenal. Perhaps now, with litigation conducted in-house, the EA example of diligently prosecuting such offences – with the comparative economy of such proceedings - will once again be seen as the best and most proportionate answer to exerting legitimate control.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 26, 2018 14:42:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Sept 26, 2018 14:52:02 GMT
apparently CRT have spoken. Is this part of CRT’s comment aimed at the pissed up tossers on the hire boat or the irresponsible, pisstaking CM’ers on the K&A?.... ‘In a statement, the charity said: "The Canal and River Trust is concerned to hear reports of a group acting inconsiderately on the Kennet and Avon Canal.’
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 15:18:08 GMT
Surely, if the boat only remained afloat because of a tarpaulin and a perpetually running bilge pump, much of the responsibility for the sinking lays with the owner himself? The boat was undoubtedly vulnerable by reason of its parlous condition, but it would have to be asked whether it would have remained afloat had the described incident not taken place. As to the hire boat activities, plenty of byelaws are applicable to the related circumstances - 13. Every vessel navigating on any canal shall at all times be navigated with care and reasonable consideration for all persons using the canal or being on the banks thereof and in particular in such a manner as will not obstruct the passage of any other vessel using the canal or involve risk of collision or endanger the safety of other vessels or their moorings or cause damage thereto or to the banks of the canal or to any part of the Board’s property.
14. No person shall navigate a power-driven vessel on any canal at a speed over the bed of the canal greater than the following:- (c) On any canal or part thereof other than those to which paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof apply, a speed of 4 miles per hour . . .
16. No vessel shall overtake or pass another vessel on any part of any canal without observing due precautions to avoid danger or risk to either vessel or the canal or to any works, person or property.
44. No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.
It is long past time for the CaRT legal department to start re-thinking the ludicrous and nasty-minded policy of abandoning prosecution of such byelaw offences in favour of the most punitive weapon in their arsenal. Perhaps now, with litigation conducted in-house, the EA example of diligently prosecuting such offences – with the comparative economy of such proceedings - will once again be seen as the best and most proportionate answer to exerting legitimate control. I can't help thinking that if CRT prosecuted on the four points Nigel mentions that a small claims court claim for damages would succeed. Some publicity would then shake up the Hire Companies who would then point out what could happen to hirers (especially pointing out that insurance would not cover the damage - probably the most important point).
Regarding CRTs effort previous efforts to fight the man through the courts, would love to see the Daily Wail trying to decide whether to rant about the waste of public money or a rant about the 'unwashed'...
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 26, 2018 15:26:00 GMT
It's a tricky one: "CRT Annual Meeting 26th September – book your place now! This is an opportunity to tell the CRT Trustees and Council what you think of CRT’s enforcement policy against boaters without home moorings; the behaviour of CRT staff; and the forthcoming price rises resulting from the recent licence review which will see CRT gaining an additional £500,000 in revenue at the end of the three-year implementation period." ( kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/crt-annual-meeting-26th-september-book-your-place-now/ ) or "There will be an emergency meeting at 7pm on Wednesday 26th September 2018 at the Canal Tavern, Bradford on Avon to discuss action following the sinking of a historic wooden narrowboat by a stag party on hire boats from ABC Leisure at the weekend. CRT, hire companies and Wiltshire Council have been invited. ( kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/stag-party-crew-sinks-liveaboard-community-meeting-this-wed-26th-september/ ) Looks like the CRT Trustees and Council will get off lightly this evening...
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 26, 2018 15:33:35 GMT
Lovely canal. Shame about the idiots and moored boats. We cruised from Devizes to Bath and back. As this part of the canal realistically goes from below the gruelling Caen Hill flight of a days worth of locks to Bath it is ideal for the novice boater. There are many hire boats. This means there are quite a few people attempting to steer large 70ft long boats - narrow and wide beamed around other boats and round bends. The locks are horrible to do as they are geared and take ages to wind up. They are wide enough for two boats so be careful letting the water into locks when travelling uphill or the force of water in will knock your single boat about. There are also a lot of swing bridges which are a pain to stop at, open, move the boat up and jump on again. However, it keeps you fit and hones your boating skills. The canal is scenic and has the attraction of not too many locks with beautiful Bath to visit. There are also many excellent canal side pubs along the way. This makes for it being popular for hen and stag boaters who are not always the most responsible people. Between Bath and Bradford on Avon (another very pretty place and very popular) moored boats, many of them `live a boards` line the canal. Sadly many of these are in a state of disrepair and are adorned with woodpiles and rusting bikes etc. This is a shame as the scenery all around is very pretty.www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g7183415-d263728-r233265895-Kennet_Avon_Canal-Durley_Hampshire_England.html#
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Sept 26, 2018 15:44:42 GMT
The boat was undoubtedly vulnerable by reason of its parlous condition, but it would have to be asked whether it would have remained afloat had the described incident not taken place. As to the hire boat activities, plenty of byelaws are applicable to the related circumstances - 13. Every vessel navigating on any canal shall at all times be navigated with care and reasonable consideration for all persons using the canal or being on the banks thereof and in particular in such a manner as will not obstruct the passage of any other vessel using the canal or involve risk of collision or endanger the safety of other vessels or their moorings or cause damage thereto or to the banks of the canal or to any part of the Board’s property.
14. No person shall navigate a power-driven vessel on any canal at a speed over the bed of the canal greater than the following:- (c) On any canal or part thereof other than those to which paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof apply, a speed of 4 miles per hour . . .
16. No vessel shall overtake or pass another vessel on any part of any canal without observing due precautions to avoid danger or risk to either vessel or the canal or to any works, person or property.
44. No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.
It is long past time for the CaRT legal department to start re-thinking the ludicrous and nasty-minded policy of abandoning prosecution of such byelaw offences in favour of the most punitive weapon in their arsenal. Perhaps now, with litigation conducted in-house, the EA example of diligently prosecuting such offences – with the comparative economy of such proceedings - will once again be seen as the best and most proportionate answer to exerting legitimate control.
Regarding CRTs effort previous efforts to fight the man through the courts, would love to see the Daily Wail trying to decide whether to rant about the waste of public money or a rant about the 'unwashed'...
While I have every sympathy with the boater on a personal basis for the straitened circumstances he found himself in, it's difficult to see what else CRT can do with regard to a boat which has neither a valid licence or a BSS, other than take enforcement action. If it became known that they took no action, then no-one would bother with either thing. It's possibly a shame that the folk who have contributed to the Justgiving fund didn't step in earlier and possibly pay for the gentleman's boat to be lifted out and repaired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 15:49:26 GMT
Regarding CRTs effort previous efforts to fight the man through the courts, would love to see the Daily Wail trying to decide whether to rant about the waste of public money or a rant about the 'unwashed'...
While I have every sympathy with the boater on a personal basis for the straitened circumstances he found himself in, it's difficult to see what else CRT can do with regard to a boat which has neither a valid licence or a BSS, other than take enforcement action. If it became known that they took no action, then no-one would bother with either thing. It's possibly a shame that the folk who have contributed to the Justgiving fund didn't step in earlier and possibly pay for the gentleman's boat to be lifted out and repaired. I don't particularly disagree with you. 75k for no result though is a disgrace....
Edited to add - they were not even up against a professional legal team.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Sept 26, 2018 15:53:42 GMT
If I may borrow yours and alter it:
"It's a shame that the folk who have contributed to the Justgiving fund didn't step in earlier and pay for the gentleman's boat to be lifted out and repaired."
Yes, why didn't they? Hippies - all Peace and Love.... until it comes to their own money.
(however, I am also on Nigel Moore's side. my personal view is that this K&A 'community' are 'all right' as they just seem to be minding their own business, however, I DO NOT LIKE THIS:
from murflynn of Canalworld "There were several grumpy men who insisted that any disturbance to the water surface in 'their' patch of the NAVIGATION canal meant I was travelling much too fast."
Just who do they think they are? Do they have permanent moorings, or are these '2 week spots' which have been squatted on for donkey's years??!!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 16:01:24 GMT
I suppose there could be a light at the end of the tunnel.
If these are grumpy old gits (I'm not sure that's the case) then time will take care of the problem.
It would be a much more serious issue if the canal was filled with young gits with entitlement complexes !
I have noticed the change from people enjoying living on boats to people who think its some sort of chore.
Seems a shame
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 26, 2018 16:13:17 GMT
apparently CRT have spoken. Is this part of CRT’s comment aimed at the pissed up tossers on the hire boat or the irresponsible, pisstaking CM’ers on the K&A?.... ‘In a statement, the charity said: "The Canal and River Trust is concerned to hear reports of a group acting inconsiderately on the Kennet and Avon Canal.’ unlike your style. true though in some cases.
|
|