|
Post by quaysider on Dec 30, 2019 18:32:55 GMT
I saw that on your excellent blog ... do you know, is it a mooring and the boat's risen on flood water, or has it washed down stream to that point quaysider ? It looks very precarious either way. Rog I've often gone by the boat in various places "moored" along the canal... the latest of which was/were the rings on the river at Allerton Bywater... ergo, it's broken loose and washed away in the recent flooding... I suspect crt are gonna have to pick up the bill as tbh, from the look of it BEFORE it appeared here, it's probably not licenced etc.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2019 10:17:12 GMT
I saw that on your excellent blog ... do you know, is it a mooring and the boat's risen on flood water, or has it washed down stream to that point quaysider ? It looks very precarious either way. Rog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I suspect crt are gonna have to pick up the bill as tbh, from the look of it BEFORE it appeared here, it's probably not licenced etc. On the contrary, . . the fact that this boat has ended up where it is in that photo means unless and until it ends up slipping back into the river that C&RT have, for the moment, escaped immediate responsibility for it. On the other hand, the fact that it got there in the first place can be laid firmly at their door for allowing it to remain on/in the navigation in contravention of Byelaw 28. The question of whether or not a current boat Licence was in force is has no bearing on the fact that C&RT have once again failed in their duties as a navigation authority to exercise the powers they have to deal with unlicensed, ostensibly abandoned, and improperly or inadequately moored vessels.
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Dec 31, 2019 10:59:50 GMT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I suspect crt are gonna have to pick up the bill as tbh, from the look of it BEFORE it appeared here, it's probably not licenced etc. On the contrary, . . the fact that this boat has ended up where it is in that photo means unless and until it ends up back into the river that C&RT have, for the moment, escaped immediate responsibility for it. On the other hand, the fact that it got there in the first place can be laid firmly at their door for allowing it to remain on/in the navigation in contravention of Byelaw 28. The question of whether or not a current boat Licence was in force is has no bearing on the fact that C&RT have once again failed in their duties as a navigation authority to exercise the powers they have to deal with unlicensed, ostensibly abandoned, and improperly or inadequately moored vessels. yeah, perhaps we should welcome an increase in licence fees to cover the cost of refloating, recovering, storing and eventually scrapping abandoned boats. if such activities are to be undertaken in accordance with the usual elfinsafety and 'proper legal procedures' bollox we can expect each such boat to cost us the licence-payers at least £10K which can never be recovered because the current owner will never be identified. perhaps we could have a vote on whether that is what the legitimate boat-owning public want? (PS: please could they make a start on the Bristol Avon?)
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Dec 31, 2019 14:28:35 GMT
On the contrary, . . the fact that this boat has ended up where it is in that photo means unless and until it ends up back into the river that C&RT have, for the moment, escaped immediate responsibility for it. On the other hand, the fact that it got there in the first place can be laid firmly at their door for allowing it to remain on/in the navigation in contravention of Byelaw 28. The question of whether or not a current boat Licence was in force is has no bearing on the fact that C&RT have once again failed in their duties as a navigation authority to exercise the powers they have to deal with unlicensed, ostensibly abandoned, and improperly or inadequately moored vessels. yeah, perhaps we should welcome an increase in licence fees to cover the cost of refloating, recovering, storing and eventually scrapping abandoned boats. Lets be honest though they make a proper meal of boat clearance, they seem to revel in making simple things complicated and expensive and also seem to ignore sensible ways of recovering their costs (costs ? think of a number, double it add 90% for contingencies then add a couple of grand for consultancy fees to see if it was safe to tow )
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Dec 31, 2019 14:51:42 GMT
yeah, perhaps we should welcome an increase in licence fees to cover the cost of refloating, recovering, storing and eventually scrapping abandoned boats. Lets be honest though they make a proper meal of boat clearance, they seem to revel in making simple things complicated and expensive and also seem to ignore sensible ways of recovering their costs (costs ? think of a number, double it add 90% for contingencies then add a couple of grand for consultancy fees to see if it was safe to tow ) unfortunately that is the consequence of our own insistence on what we perceive to be the right and proper way to do things. It also applies to most areas where public interest clashes with the duties of public bodies including the police, the courts, local authorities and infrastructure improvements. We (some of us at least - but that's too many) challenge everything that they try to do on the streets and in the courts - with the result that they have to be seen to apply all the currently popular but ridiculous politically correct elfinsafety and youmanrites procedures. if common sense was allowed to prevail we would not have lost so many lives at Grenfell, we would still have stocks on the village greens where anti-social behaviour would be punished by those who are affected by it and we would not be afraid to legalise and control drug use to eliminate most petty crime and gang violence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 15:47:21 GMT
And a happy new decade to you too sir !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Dec 31, 2019 16:18:14 GMT
On the contrary, . . the fact that this boat has ended up where it is in that photo means unless and until it ends up back into the river that C&RT have, for the moment, escaped immediate responsibility for it. On the other hand, the fact that it got there in the first place can be laid firmly at their door for allowing it to remain on/in the navigation in contravention of Byelaw 28. The question of whether or not a current boat Licence was in force is has no bearing on the fact that C&RT have once again failed in their duties as a navigation authority to exercise the powers they have to deal with unlicensed, ostensibly abandoned, and improperly or inadequately moored vessels. yeah, perhaps we should welcome an increase in licence fees to cover the cost of refloating, recovering, storing and eventually scrapping abandoned boats. if such activities are to be undertaken in accordance with the usual elfinsafety and 'proper legal procedures' bollox we can expect each such boat to cost us the licence-payers at least £10K which can never be recovered because the current owner will never be identified. perhaps we could have a vote on whether that is what the legitimate boat-owning public want? (PS: please could they make a start on the Bristol Avon?) Well, . . C&RT's lies, bullshit, and brain-washing have worked a treat on you haven't they ? The plain and simple truth is that all the powers needed to deal with unlicensed, badly moored, ostensibly abandoned, or vessels which are or could become a hazard to navigation, were inherited from from their predecessors by C&RT, and, if used properly and as intended by Parliament, would result in zero cost to the navigation authority with regard to taking charge of and removing and/or disposing of offending vessels. Instead of posting the sort of irrational claptrap that's likely give rise to unbridled delight when reported back to the upper echelons of the C&RT management, why don't you take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the the powers that C&RT have, and always have had, to deal with rogue vessels and their owners but, perversely, choose never to deploy ?
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Dec 31, 2019 16:18:18 GMT
And a happy new decade to you too sir ! Thankyou - and I hope that the whole of mankind including you and yours have a happy new decade. I will continue to cruise my favourite bits of our favourite waterway in my vapour-free velocity-challenged camping cruiser whenever the weather is compliant and hope to cross paths with one or more of your fleet of varied versatile vessels. I look forward to reviewing the progress we have made towards sustainability at the end of the new decade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 16:19:46 GMT
I'll drink to that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 16:28:42 GMT
yeah, perhaps we should welcome an increase in licence fees to cover the cost of refloating, recovering, storing and eventually scrapping abandoned boats. if such activities are to be undertaken in accordance with the usual elfinsafety and 'proper legal procedures' bollox we can expect each such boat to cost us the licence-payers at least £10K which can never be recovered because the current owner will never be identified. perhaps we could have a vote on whether that is what the legitimate boat-owning public want? (PS: please could they make a start on the Bristol Avon?) Well, . . C&RT's lies, bullshit, and brain-washing have worked a treat on you haven't they ? The plain and simple truth is that all the powers needed to deal with unlicensed, badly moored, ostensibly abandoned, or vessels which are or could become a hazard to navigation, were inherited from from their predecessors by C&RT, and, if used properly and as intended by Parliament, would result in zero cost to the navigation authority with regard to taking charge of and removing and/or disposing of offending vessels. Instead of posting the sort of over emotional claptrap that must give rise to unbridled delight within the upper echelons of the C&RT management, why don't you take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the the powers that C&RT have to deal with rogue vessels and their owners but, perversely, choose never to deploy ? irony (noun) the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. "‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony" ETA Still, its not all bad. Personally I think its a good thing that the police are more publicly accountable than in days gone by. Sometimes it seems things haven't gone far enough. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-50949061
|
|