|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 31, 2020 16:20:22 GMT
I do wonder though how many letters will be charged to CRT from the solicitors over this, yet more money wasted which could be spent in better places. As long as you can have a laugh about it though its alright. Well to be fair it seems that in no way is it Tony's fault, and since it is a fait acomplis one might as well laugh at it. Or are you outraged, shocked and grossly offended by mirth on principle?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 31, 2020 16:21:31 GMT
I do wonder though how many letters will be charged to CRT from the solicitors over this, yet more money wasted which could be spent in better places. As long as you can have a laugh about it though its alright. Not quite sure about whatever point you're trying to make there ! Are you suggesting that I, and others, should be going out of our way to protect C&RT from the consequences of their own stupidity and incompetence ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 31, 2020 16:27:45 GMT
I do wonder though how many letters will be charged to CRT from the solicitors over this, yet more money wasted which could be spent in better places. As long as you can have a laugh about it though its alright. Well to be fair it seems that in no way is it Tony's fault, and since it is a fait acomplis one might as well laugh at it. Or are you outraged, shocked and grossly offended by mirth on principle? It's possibly that if damage has been caused to other vessels then mirth and merriment might not be the appropriate reaction. I don't know if boaters are different in that part of the world but on my mooring I can think of at least three boaters who would be visiting Mr Dunkley and removing property belonging to him to liquidate in order to pay for repairs, using physical violence if necessary, regardless of the fact that this might not technically be the correct legal procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 31, 2020 16:32:53 GMT
Well to be fair it seems that in no way is it Tony's fault, and since it is a fait acomplis one might as well laugh at it. Or are you outraged, shocked and grossly offended by mirth on principle? It's possibly that if damage has been caused to other vessels then mirth and merriment might not be the appropriate reaction. I don't know if boaters are different in that part of the world but on my mooring I can think of at least three boaters who would be visiting Mr Dunkley and removing property belonging to him to liquidate in order to pay for repairs, using physical violence if necessary, regardless of the fact that this might not technically be the correct legal procedure. Well, such action would be out of order. It wasn't Tony's fault. Send them to Milton Keynes.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 31, 2020 16:35:29 GMT
It's possibly that if damage has been caused to other vessels then mirth and merriment might not be the appropriate reaction. I don't know if boaters are different in that part of the world but on my mooring I can think of at least three boaters who would be visiting Mr Dunkley and removing property belonging to him to liquidate in order to pay for repairs, using physical violence if necessary, regardless of the fact that this might not technically be the correct legal procedure. Well, such action would be out of order. It wasn't Tony's fault. Send them to Milton Keynes. Well, assuming the boat was insured then it's academic anyway as the insurance company will pay out and then pursue CRT for the cost.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jan 31, 2020 16:39:43 GMT
Well, such action would be out of order. It wasn't Tony's fault. Send them to Milton Keynes. Well, assuming the boat was insured then it's academic anyway as the insurance company will pay out and then pursue CRT for the cost. You really don't have a clue about how anything works, . . do you ! Ever heard of something called proven liability ?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 31, 2020 16:45:02 GMT
Thank you for enquiring, . . but apart from the after effects of laughing myself sick since last Sunday evening at all the ill-informed claptrap and gleefully snide remarks emanating from certain people over on CWDF, and to an extent here as well, I'm absolutely fine ! Initially I was inclined to respond to the speculative tripe being posted over the last three days, but on reflection I thought it best to give the perpetrators some more time and opportunities to make themselves look even more stupid than usual, . . and I couldn't be more delighted with the results ! The vessel concerned, "Selby Michael", is a 250-ton carrying capacity barge owned by my commercial carrying company and has been laid-up out of commission on it's C&RT allocated commercial mooring at Hazleford, on the Trent eight miles upriver from Newark, since 2014. The mooring is in fact a wharf above Hazleford Lock formerly used for loading or unloading piling and other maintenance materials and equipment onto or from the now largely disposed of BWB fleet of Trent maintenance craft. The mooring was allocated to "Selby Michael" by C&RT's Newark office conditional on my permission for the Trust to temporarily move "Selby Michael" out of the way on the now very rare occasions when the wharf is needed for it's original purpose, and when it broke adrift last Sunday evening it was from where it had been temporarily moved to and moored by C&RT behind the bullnose below Hazleford Lock using only 2, or possibly 3, out of the total of 5 headropes, springs, and sternrope with which I had last left the vessel secured. There is also photographic evidence that when "Selby Michael" broke adrift the 'belt and braces' wire rope which had previously been rigged from the barge to the 'dropping down' bollard (for craneboats working on the weir) getting on for a boats length topside of the barge's wharf mooring was laying coiled up, along with the unused mooring ropes, on the barge's foredeck. I'm sure that the more intelligent and perceptive amongst those now reading this can see where this is going, . . but I'm afraid I'm beginning once again to convulse with uncontrollable laughter, . . and I'll have to finish this off later ! Sorry, . . . more uncontrollable fits of laughter beginning again, . . . I'll try again later ! So... £20,000 worth a damage to pontoons? Says who? An insurance inspector? As Stabbers says, will the bill be coming to you as owner, and your insurance company squeezing the dosh out of CRT's insurers? Who is responsible? You, as owner of the 'boat', or CRT as the people who wanted to move the boat but didn't (allegedly) tie it up properly? At the end of the day it's facts and the real consequences that matter. I do agree with the Main Navigable Channel outlook, however - if it is the MNC from side-to-side, what the fuck are all these pontoons and boats doing in it??!! Like a hedgehog on a motorway. It is clearly irresponsible to have pontoons stretching out into the Main Navigable Channel, creating a hindrance to craft!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 17:09:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 31, 2020 17:10:11 GMT
Well, assuming the boat was insured then it's academic anyway as the insurance company will pay out and then pursue CRT for the cost. You really don't have a clue about how anything works, . . do you ! Ever heard of something called proven liability ? If this vessel has damaged other vessels then the claim will be against the vessel's owner, then by extension his insurer, not against CRT. If you choose to believe something else then that's your prerogative I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 17:17:50 GMT
I assume that ultimately it will be up to the owner of a boat to ensure it is securely moored even if someone else moves it.
It's quite interesting to consider what the insurance status would be if some scrotes untied your boat and it ended up killing someone. Perhaps blocking the whole river and colliding with a winter swimmer resulting in death by hypoxia and possibly hypothermia as they slowly drown in the cold water under the weight of the large boat.
I guess the claim would be against the owners 3rd party insurance despite the owner being in no way responsible for the accident other than owning the boat in the first place.
Of course another quite plausible scenario would be someone asleep on a small grp boat impacted by the large barge causing splintering of the fibreglass leading to death from crushing injuries and exsanguination.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Jan 31, 2020 17:20:29 GMT
Here's a simple analogy for the hard-of-thinking.
If I get a garage to fit a new handbrake cable to my car, then I park it on a hill and go shopping and the cable snaps and the car runs away damaging other cars, then the claim will be against me, not the garage or the manufacturer of the handbrake cable. The fact that I have not been negligent in any way is neither here nor there.
Naturally I will pass on the claim to my insurer, and they may or may not attempt to recover their costs from the negligent party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2020 17:22:18 GMT
Well, assuming the boat was insured then it's academic anyway as the insurance company will pay out and then pursue CRT for the cost. You really don't have a clue about how anything works, . . do you ! Ever heard of something called proven liability ? Along with something equally important - vicarious liability en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 31, 2020 17:22:19 GMT
Well to be fair it seems that in no way is it Tony's fault, and since it is a fait acomplis one might as well laugh at it. Or are you outraged, shocked and grossly offended by mirth on principle? It's possibly that if damage has been caused to other vessels then mirth and merriment might not be the appropriate reaction. I don't know if boaters are different in that part of the world but on my mooring I can think of at least three boaters who would be visiting Mr Dunkley and removing property belonging to him to liquidate in order to pay for repairs, using physical violence if necessary, regardless of the fact that this might not technically be the correct legal procedure. Shouldn't these angry boaters be after those who didn't tie the boat up properly? Shouldn't those fuckwits be named-&-shamed first? That is, assuming this to be the case, that some lazy prats couldn't be bothered to secure the boat-barge-tub properly. Then to their employers for employing such incompetents. Still waiting for the facts to appear.... all is hearsay as to date.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 31, 2020 17:22:50 GMT
Here's a simple analogy for the hard-of-thinking. If I get a garage to fit a new handbrake cable to my car, then I park it on a hill and go shopping and the cable snaps and the car runs away damaging other cars, then the claim will be against me, not the garage or the manufacturer of the handbrake cable. The fact that I have not been negligent in any way is neither here nor there. Naturally I will pass on the claim to my insurer, and they may or may not attempt to recover their costs from the negligent party. Here’s a simple analogy for you. I borrow your knife and stab someone with it. It is your fault and you go to prison because it was your knife. Hmmmmmm.....
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 31, 2020 17:24:16 GMT
Well, such action would be out of order. It wasn't Tony's fault. Send them to Milton Keynes. Well, assuming the boat was insured then it's academic anyway as the insurance company will pay out and then pursue CRT for the cost. Yes, but CRT's insurance is paid for BY US. The idiots who (allegedly) didn't tie the boat up should be made to pay the £20,000 out of their own pockets. Why should we pay for their stupidity and laziness?
|
|