|
Post by brummieboy on Aug 19, 2021 17:46:57 GMT
Whilst this may apply to EA moorings, won't it still apply to Reading B.C. and the other sites by Wolvercote?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2021 17:56:34 GMT
I wonder if in addition to the NBTA complaint the EA, the councils and DE have worked out they can't enforce it anyway.
I dislike the suggestion on the DE signs that one can not remain stationary or at anchor. This is contrary to the law as one can remain anchored unless causing an obstruction or a nuisance to a riparian resident.
I don't believe that a council is a riparian resident in this case.
What needs to happen is turn the clock back and get EA patrol boats out to hassle people on a daily basis. But that is the past and this is the present.
The River is blurry lovely !!
If the EA would contract me to cast the scrap grp vessels adrift then ram them under full power I could be persuaded depending on the pay !
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 20, 2021 10:33:30 GMT
Whilst this may apply to EA moorings, won't it still apply to Reading B.C. and the other sites by Wolvercote? It will certainly make the whole operation potentially less viable for DE. Their whole presentation to the EA was based on a lie - claiming to have resources that never existed - in the hope that if they could have enough sites it might pay to have patrols. I think the councils and others will now begin to ask some serious questions. Never the less, the nature and tone of DE's threatening signs will dissuade some boaters from otherwise lawful mooring while still being totally ignored by many long-stayers.
|
|