Wanderer Vagabond
Patron
-
Posts
3,702 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
231
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Wanderer Vagabond
-
-
Haha. If only you knew.
Did I say jog on? Where?
I will concede that I owe you an apology since the person who used the term 'jog on' was in fact Sabcat, who has a similar style of writing to yourself, hence the error. I do however accept the error of identification and apologise.
-
Did she appear to be in danger? You say they were both a bit drunk, was leaving them to sort it out themselves not an option? The way you described the situation makes it sound unnecessarily heavy handed, I was not there and have only your description to form an opinion from. Hope MJG in't an ex cop or I would think there was ganging up
Oddly enough, these days such situations are classified as 'domestic' in nature so walking away from it isn't an option. Since she was behind a locked door I had absolutely no idea of whether or not she was in danger (can you see people being held at knifepoint through a locked door??). The days of leaving domestic situations to 'sort themselves out' have long gone! So given that walking away isn't an option (unless you are walking away to a new job), what is your solution to the problem??
-
Like someone has pointed out, no wonder the police sometimes struggle to get respect.
It's not what you did, or how you did it, it's how you now present it in a thread where nothing whatsoever relates to your post.
Like I said last night, some use the internet because it's the only place they can get an audience.
Your little story may well have been a "Sweeney" moment for you, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the op.
Unfortunately from people such as yourself who cheerfully boast on this thread of telling the Police to 'jog on' you will find that that the Police don't actually want any respect from you, you are just one of life's problems that they periodically have to deal with.
-
Did you get a medal?
No, just a bit of job satisfaction
Me too, but why did the door have to come down?
Man behind reinforced door refusing to let female leave the premises, here lies the problem, what would you do? Oh and before you suggest that WE get the locksmith you will find that they don't come out these days unless it is clear who is going to pay, and WE were not going to do so (or perhaps I should say YOU as the taxpayer were not going to do so!!).
-
It is largely a matter of the common law, to which no links would be found because enshrined in case law such as Moore v Robinson, 1831, affirming that "the master of a ship might bring trespass " even "in the case of a mere boat plying on a canal."
The most specific Statutory legislation is within the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 -
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/21/section/104
104 Unauthorised presence on board ship.
Where a United Kingdom ship or a ship registered in any other country is in a port in the United Kingdom and a person who is neither in Her Majesty’s service nor authorised by law to do so—
( a ) goes on board the ship without the consent of the master or of any other persons authorised to give it; or
( b ) remains on board the ship after being requested to leave by the master, a constable, an officer authorised by the Secretary of State or an officer of customs and excise,
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
It needs to be understood that for this and one other section only, the term “United Kingdom ship” carries a different meaning to everywhere else in the Act. For the purposes of “Safety & health on ships”, s.85 provides;
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations (in this Act referred to as “safety regulations”) make such provision as he considers appropriate for all or any of the following purposes—
(a ) for securing the safety of United Kingdom ships and persons on them, and for protecting the health of persons on United Kingdom ships;"
Amongst such purposes are those governing: “( g ) the access to, presence in and egress from a ship, and different parts of it, of persons of any description;”
For these purposes the definition applying is:
“(2) In subsection (1) above “United Kingdom ship” means a ship which—
( a ) is registered in the United Kingdom; or
( b ) is not registered under the law of any country but is wholly owned by persons each of whom is—
(i) a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen or a British Overseas citizen"
I would argue that that the definition applies to provisions from 85 to 108, falling as they all do under Part IV SAFETY. That would embrace all boats of whatever sort owned by British citizens, but the Act provides that these regulations are also: “( b ) for securing the safety of other ships and persons on them while they are within United Kingdom waters”. Foreign vessels in transit are excepted.
It has been argued by others that the expanded definition applies only to regulations NOT listed in the Act but which are to be promulgated separately by the Secretary of State. If that is so, then you would need to fit the primary definition of UK ship, which is “if the ship is registered in the United Kingdom under Part II.”
Throughout the Act, “ 'port' includes place", which would cover any inland waterway [though as we know, CaRT have difficulties with defining it).
“ ‘Ship’ includes every description of vessel used in navigation.” [bona fide or not!]
For all classes of vessel whether Part II registered or not, the situation would be covered under common law, but the above is the statutory position so far as I am aware of it. Obviously, if you were anticipating any need to push the issue hard, then you would be well advised to register your boat and cover all bases.
The power for CaRT personnel to over-ride the common law right of a ship's Master is governed by the BW Act 1983, Part II, s.7(2)( b ) :-
“An officer SHALL NOT enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection UNLESS –
(i) not less than 24 hours’ notice of such entry had been given to the master of the vessel; or
(ii) the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.” [my capitalisation and bold for emphasis]
I did try looking for the post where had I listed all the statutory rights of entry onto ships, but I failed to find it, and I don't think there is sufficient interest to warrant my taking time out from what I am currently engaged on in order to work up a list all over again.
I haven't even had time to sip a whisky this evening.
Nigel, just to clarify I think that you 'll find for Police that Section of 17 PACE as authorisation to board a vessel will trump your MCA every time. The relevant Section begins by stating:-
"17 Entry for purpose of arrest etc.
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, and without prejudice to any other enactment, a constable may enter and search any premises for the purpose—....."
It then goes on list a a variety of grounds for entry including:- "....(e) of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property...." (covers looking for a misper)
In the preamble to the Act, Premises are defined as:-
"....In this Act— “premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—
(a)any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft....."
So I think entry to a canal boat would be well covered. Provided they have genuine grounds for doing so they will be coming aboard, whether I as skipper like it or not
Years ago a good school chum of mine who was an LA County Deputy Sheriff chased a fleeing suspect into one of my rental houses. He was telling me the story over a beer a few days later and he laughingly made the comment, "Yeah, I took the time to open the door because I knew it was your house. Usually we just kick them in. It's a lot more fun and makes a better impression on those inside."
The realities of police work....
I read an interesting statistic a few days ago. The police in South Carolina (pop. 8.3 million) have shot and killed more people in the last two years than the entire UK police forces have since 1900. (I don't know how that statistic jibes with what was going on in Northern Ireland for so long, but that's what the article said.) This country is becoming so fascist, so fast. I can't wait for the day I can leave here. The point is, any time you want to complain about your police, just be glad you don't have to put up cops who are racist veterans with PTSD who'll blow you away at the drop of a hat just because they can. If you've got the stomach for it, the first minute of this will make you want to cry.
Sorry if I wandered too far off topic.
You will find most Police Officers have a variety of stories of forced entries, my own favourite was following a call from a local alcoholic lady who was claiming that she was being held against her will at a local address. Upon arrival there sure enough from outside we could hear the two arguing inside of the flat where she was asking to leave and he (another alcoholic male) was telling her he couldn't find the door key. From outside I told him that he would either have to find the door key or call for a locksmith to open the door. He told me that he wasn't going to call any locksmith and he couldn't find the door key. He was advised that it wasn't a suggestion that he call the locksmith but an instruction! He didn't seem to take this on board and after about 25 minutes of negotiation I told him to either open the door, or I would and he would have to bear the consequences. Following his comment 'well do it then' I used what we used to call the big red key (official name 'Enforcer') which was rather effective in opening the door despite the fact that he had reinforced it since it took both the door and the frame into his flat (don't bother reinforcing the door if you don't reinforce the frame!). Once released the lady concerned decided that she didn't want to make any formal complaint against the male for False Imprisonment so having done necessary paperwork (it was classed as a 'domestic') we began to leave. The drunken male asked me who was coming to repair his door, to which the reply I gave was,"I don't know, who normally comes?" He did not seem to understand that since the entry was lawful and the occupant (him) was on the premises we had no obligation to repair the damage, so we didn't and the door remained wrecked for several weeks since he preferred to spend his money on alcohol rather than repairs.
Returning back to topic however, the etiquette of boating, I don't think I'd hold any particular malice against anyone who was unaware of the niceties. Having come from a sailing background how many people (unless they were specifically told) would be aware that if you are rafted up alongside another boat meaning you have to cross it to get ashore, would know to go across the bows rather than go across the stern? In sailing circles however it is considered 'very poor form' to do otherwise.
-
Everything you've said about boats, relates also to houses.
The reality is, and take it from someone who'd told the cops to jog on, on a number of occasions when they've come for a "chat" that they can't just come into your boat because they want to.
This is a bit different from your original assertion. No they cannot just come into either a house or boat just because they want to but if they have a genuine reason to do so that fits Section 17 then you are not going to stop them coming in, take it from someone who has entered a lot of houses over the years in which the occupant told me I wasn't coming in without a warrant, always sadly disabused of this fallacy.
-
Here we go. It doesn't fit, so make it do so with some pointless scenario.
Ahahaha...
What doesn't fit was your assertion that they had to either have a warrant or permission to enter, utter rubbish!
-
Personally I can't see an issue with what has happened. Like other comments above boarding to knock on the door is like walking up the path to knock on the front door of a house. I don't know the legality of stepping aboard but I would not have given it a second thought particularly in the circumstance of looking for a missing person.
Accepting that it was just a query on the matter, I would think that a Police Officer could probably use Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)1984,Section 17(1)(e) to come aboard your boat when looking for a missing person if there was concern that they might be going to self harm.Similarly if you refused them access and they had reasonable grounds for believing the person was on your boat and they could reasonably believe that you were going to cause them harm that would also give them lawful access.
In reality however I imagine that the Police Officer was unaware of boating etiquette if it was just a general enquiry as to whether or not you had seen the missing person.
-
I recently looked into this with regards the T&C's CRT were bringing in, where they reckoned they could board your boat. I don't remember the term used by the police about it, but basically, they are not allowed within your living quarters without relevant warrant or permission to board.
Besides, using your truck as an example to justify your comment was just ridiculous.
What utter twaddle you are writng. So as a passing Police officer looking through the window of your boat and seeing you throttling your partner are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that I would either have to ask your permission to come aboard or go and get a warrant??? I don't think so!!
You need to check out PACE Section 17
-
1
-
-
I suspect Maffi's joke has passed you by!
Which is more than Maafi's boat would be able to do to Blackrose on that particular race
. -
I'll race you to the top of Farmers Bridge locks.
Cruel
he'll beat you however if he goes first -
I think that provided you work out your strategy for doing things you will be OK, the one area which may be problematic and has been mentioned by others is swing/lift bridges since, going back to the days of horse drawn boats, the lifting mechanism is often on the other side of the canal to the landing stage meaning you often have to moor on the bollard by the bridge and get off the bows, unless someone can tell me of a better strategy?
Edited to add that I haven't worked out how to do it if the bridge swings open towards me!
Yup, that looks like a better strategy than my original suggestion of hopping off the bows. Never as yet having done a swing/lift bridge single handed I haven't had to work it out but watching the vid I think I've got it
You do however need a hell of a long centre line to do it (for my 60 footer I would think I'd need nearly 60 feet of centre line, 30 feet to reach the front of the boat then another 30 feet to keep clear of the bridge) I'd probably need to tie all my mooring lines together!
-
Just a thought, not wanting to start a scrap but, if farming was such a God awful way of scratching a living, why do it? Please don't say for the glory or the good of the common msn, the only reason any of us work at any profession is to make a bob or two.
Phil
I would have thought that cleaning up vomit or the products of double incontinence which is what Care Workers do (often on little more than minimum wage) is hardly a desirable job and yet people do it. Perhaps some people DO actually work for the good of the common man, or why else would they take such work? The comparison with farmers is that they often handle industrial quantities of sh*t. Perhaps there may be a sense of achievement to it (which is rather lacking in most desk jockey jobs!)
-
1
-
-
By practical experiment, I have found that the L&L at Thorlby swing bridge in particular, is dredged to
*ahem*
just about the same depth as the distance from the bottom of my feet to my belly button.
You didn't mention whether or not you are a dwarf, could be relevant
-
I don’t believe I have misunderstood you, and am in perfect agreement that CaRT should be getting onto the owners to sort out sunken etc boats. The only bit I disagreed with was the portion I quoted: the suggestion that this was probably often not done because the contact details for all these sunken boats had been somehow mislaid.
The rest of the post was supporting the idea that WV’s rationale for leaving them be was the more likely. I did not imagine nor suggest that you were arguing for the financial viability of removing sunken boats – if that was what you thought?
However s.8 is there for when the owners cannot be found and that is when prompt action should be taken to involve themselves [regardless of the cost] - because that is part of their raison d'etre.
I think we seem to all be more or less in agreement that the first line of recovery of these boats should come through the owner/insurer. When the navigation itself is blocked I would also agree that CRT need to step in earlier than perhaps they would when a boat is merely sunken alongside the embankment, I do get a little uncomfortable with the 'regardless of cost' bit however (again unless the navigation is blocked). The more that we demand of CRT, the more we are going to end out paying in licence fee.
There seemed a bit of excitement generated on these boards earlier this year (or was it late last year) over a sunken boat on the Wyreley and Essington which numerous people were insistent should be moved 'immediately'. This was a boat that was not blocking the canal, it was a very lightly used piece of canal (at that time of year) and there was every possibility of the canal re-freezing thereby rendering it impassable again anyway. The number of people inconvenienced by this boat would probably have been in single figures and yet there was a cry for urgency to remove it. Similarly, looking at the photo at the start of this post, the boat concerned does not appear to be obstructing much. Yes I agree it makes the place 'look untidy' but then if that were grounds for taking urgent action there are a few boats in use that would have to look out, fortunately that is not a valid criteria!
-
I rather fail to see the point of the Waterways Ombudsman since, looking at the views expressed here, if he finds in the favour of a boater/complainanant it just 'proves' that CRT are just a corrupt bunch of wasters and if he finds against them it 'proves' that the WO is in the pocket of CRT. So whatever his findings will be are just two sides of the same coin.
Some people (no names mentioned) will be unhappy whoever is running the waterways, they despised BW when they did it, they despise CRT now they are doing it and they will despise whoever may possibly take over in the future. They are however unwilling to step up to the plate and offer to run the waterways themselves (presumably afraid of receiving precisely the criticism that they currently dish out!).
-
Personally I always think of the old joke re duck conversations:-
Duck (tapping on side of boat),"Got any bread?"
"No, go away"
Duck (still tapping on side of boat),"Got any bread?"
"I just told you no, go away"
Duck (still tapping side of boat), "Got any bread?"
"I'm not telling you again, no I haven't now go away"
Duck (still tapping),"Got any bread?"
"If you don't b*gger off I'll shoot you"
Duck,"Got a gun??"
"No"
Duck, "Got any bread then?"
-
Well ok then it also only cost me the fifty quid exess which is another no brainer, the drive plate alone woiuld have cost me more than that, I could do the job standing on my head with my eyes closed but having rcr on call for the small yearly charge is quite simply a no brainer. same as with roadside assistance for the car having that is also a no brainer however competent you are. Jeeeeeze get off your high horse I bet the op buys the cover lets ask em and find out.
Tim
I think when I enquired the service isn't quite like the car roadside breakdown. You'll find that the 'recovery' isn't really worth the paper it's written on since the 2 hour limit includes the time it takes them to get to you so unless you are moored outside their workshop you ain't going to get towed far. You state that the cost was 'only' £50 quid excess but you need to add to that the annual subscription (minimum of £55) so it's not quite so cheap. I was quite disappointed with my use of them since of both occasions I had to pay the marine engineer who turned out, first for failed oil sensor (not on their list of items covered) and second for a failed domestic alternator (again not on their list of items covered).On both occasions it took a week before I was mobile again. As I said earlier in the thread I have access to the internet on the boat so now I just look up the nearest marine engineer and call them out (which is effectively all RCR do anyway). If I manage 2 years without breakdown that'll be £280 saved (Bronze) which I can put towards any costs of marine engineers I need to call out. At the moment I'm in profit.
-
1
-
-
Based on the value of scrap steel quoted above, the idea that any one could make a profit from removing sunken boats is laughable. The cost of refloating, towing to a suitable location and then craning out and road transport to a scrap yard would be far in excess of the value of the scrap.
That sort of returns to my original point, raising and removing these sunken hulks is likely to cost CRT bucket loads of money. Some of the sunken boats I have past probably have no scrap value at all since they have been, sadly, wooden boats. Loads of work, no return for it.
-
28 days from service of the Notice.
As with all these things, context is key, and you need to read the whole Act. In this case, the options when serving notices are provided in s.17: -
( d ) if in the case of a notice relating to a vessel the name and address of the person upon whom the notice is to be served cannot after reasonable inquiry be ascertained, by exhibiting it in a conspicuous position on or near the vessel;
But then how long does a 'Reasonable enquiry' take? How long is a piece of string!! If they could just post the notice on the boat at the outset things might be simpler. I still don't really understand why it was written into the Act that the owner can re-appear after 12 months and have a claim on any profit. The 6 week transfer of title to the Board should have been the point at which ownership was lost.
-
I begin to see why these sunken craft often remain in position for so long now. Under Section 8(2) the Board (now CRT) can remove the boat but have to give the owner 28 days notice, so how long do they leave it if they can't find out who owns it? Let's assume a floating shed that has been sold on several times since the last time anyone admitted ownership to BW/CRT by buying a licence. And to add insult to injury after they've recovered the boat and scrapped it someone can come forward, up to 12 months later demanding a share of the scrap value. CRT then have to evidence how much they've spent in recovering the boat to prove that the owner owes them money rather than the other way around. Talk about a long drawn out job!
Having looked up the scrap value of steel these days (about £110 per ton) there must be someone capable of making money out of disposing of these hulks on behalf of CRT so that there is zero cost to them.
-
In fact, title to the vessel passes to C&RT six weeks after removal.
If title passes to CRT six weeks after removal, why do they have to re-imburse the 'owner' for up to 12 months? If title had passed to CRT they would be the owner.
Edited: Seen the above update clarifying that CRT don't actually become the owner.
-
Nothing much wrong with your suggestions – but you are re-inventing the wheel.
With a boat in this situation, CaRT must take all reasonable steps to identify the owner and get them to do something with it. Failing to identify the owner they post a s.8 Notice on or nearby the vessel giving 28 days to remedy the situation.
If after expiry of that time no-one accepts responsibility, CaRT remove the vessel from the waterway. If no-one turns up within 6 weeks, title vests in CaRT and they do what they like with it.
If the owner turns up within 12 months of seizure, CaRT either give the boat back after re-imbursement of the cost of retrieval and storage, or, if already sold/scrapped, give him what they received for it less the costs of retrieval, storage and disposal. If those costs exceed the amount they received, then the owner gets nothing but the bill for the outstanding amount.
It is all provided for under s.8.
My query would by why should an owner who has abandoned his boat on the cut and doesn't bother to show up for 11 months be entitled to anything at all?
-
I think it would possibly simplify things if there were some provision whereby if your boat has sunk you have 15 days to notify CRT of this and what arrangements you are making for it's recovery.The 15 day period covers the excuse "But I didn't know that my boat had sunk", since it shouldn't be left unattended on the cut for more that 14 days. After 15 days of non-reporting it should be a declared that the boat is legally abandoned and CRT or their contractors can dispose if it in whatever way they consider appropriate (cut it up for scrap value if they wish). As a follow on from this, if you had notified CRT of the sinking you would then get a period of 28 days to recover the boat after which CRT (or their contractors) WILL recover it and all costs (and risks) of doing so will be passed to the owner. If the boat is further damaged during this recovery the owner should have no comeback on CRT.
The Act gives CRT the responsibility and powers to clear these hulks but should they do so prematurely the owner can then come forward to claim he was making his own arrangements and make some spurious claim for damage or loss, the above additions to the Act would mean that everyone would know exactly where they stood.
.
he'll beat you however if he goes first 
Police boarding your boat - is this allowed?
in General Boating
Posted
It wasn't bragging, it was demonstrating how things go wrong for people who mistakenly believe that a warrant is necessary to force entry to premises. The male concerned thought it was all a big joke until his door came in (releasing the female), from then on he didn't find it quite so funny.