Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
David Mack

Another Thames Mooring Dispute

Featured Posts

if they get away with it why aren't we all doing it and having a free mooring without council tax. Bought up in East Molesey so know that area well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2019 at 14:43, Tonka said:

if they get away with it why aren't we all doing it and having a free mooring without council tax. Bought up in East Molesey so know that area well.

How much did they pay for you? Was it a bargain? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Riley said:

How much did they pay for you? Was it a bargain? 

Nothing it's a genuine question ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Just another example of a small (but increasing) number of newcomers to our waterways arriving for all the wrong reasons mucking it up for the rest of us - nothing will be done except they will tell their like minded mates how great it is and the mooring will end up overpopulated by breasting up - they will end up being kicked off and will move on with a huge chip on their shoulders about their "rights" being ignored and cause problems elsewhere...…………..

Yep. That just about sums it up.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Just another example of a small (but increasing) number of newcomers to our waterways arriving for all the wrong reasons mucking it up for the rest of us - nothing will be done except they will tell their like minded mates how great it is and the mooring will end up overpopulated by breasting up - they will end up being kicked off and will move on with a huge chip on their shoulders about their "rights" being ignored and cause problems elsewhere...…………..

It is illegal to Moor abreast on the Thames. Don't mock I have been done for it in the same area. " every vessel has the right to navigate from bank to bank and by mooring outside of a boat you have impeded their navigation "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I have been done for it in the same area. " every vessel has the right to navigate from bank to bank and by mooring outside of a boat you have impeded their navigation "

WHAT !!!!

 

If a single boat is moored against the bank then another boat cannot 'navigate from bank to bank'.

If another boat moors in front then that is twice the length of bank that cannot be used to navigate from 'bank to bank'

 

Breasting up uses the same amount of bank as a single boat.

 

No doubt some jobsworth with not an ounce of sense (common or otherwise)

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

WHAT !!!!

 

If a single boat is moored against the bank then another boat cannot 'navigate from bank to bank'.

If another boat moors in front then that is twice the length of bank that cannot be used to navigate from 'bank to bank'

 

Breasting up uses the same amount of bank as a single boat.

 

No doubt some jobsworth with not an ounce of sense (common or otherwise)

The thing about much law is that first you have to decide what it is that you want to do. Then you look at the law (s) from all angles and see how to justify what you want. Then you have to persuade a judge that your interpretation is consistent with the law. Of course, someone else might just get in first with a very different reading of the very same law - or more likely, quite a different subset of all the laws that might be quoted. Then, you have to have deep enough pockets to be able to manipulate a case so that it goes to a high enough court to establish precedent and then you can safely re-apply the outcome, not having to bother about the intermediate steps, when you want to achieve a similar outcome in the future.

 

In this case, perhaps, someone decided that the desired outcome was to prevent multiple mooring - there are interacting issues over access when undertaking enforcement. Not a case of a jobsworth lacking common sense, more a case of someone having enough clout (usually measured in pounds) to establish the desired outcome. The most important place to start is Cui bono?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

WHAT !!!!

 

If a single boat is moored against the bank then another boat cannot 'navigate from bank to bank'.

If another boat moors in front then that is twice the length of bank that cannot be used to navigate from 'bank to bank'

 

Breasting up uses the same amount of bank as a single boat.

 

No doubt some jobsworth with not an ounce of sense (common or otherwise)

That's a new one to me and I'm a Thames Boater....

The 1993 TNA bylaw 54(a) mentions "clear and free passage" .... "or otherwise obstruct...". Nothing about bank to bank. There are a very few places where breasting up might cause  an obstruction Molesey, Sunbury, Sheperton  head laybys and approaches come to mind.  It would be interesting to know where this alleged jobsworh operates?? 

There is a certain tonsurialy challenged gentleman with lot of gold braid whom I feel might issue such a comment....

Edited by OldGoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell Weir Steve aka "oh be joyful" is okay really once you get talking to him. Very predictable about licensing I once came through in a dinghy with an outboard but a rowing license. Came from cookham nobody bothered then he had a close look. I offered to pay cash as he had no card machine but he had no change so I suggested calling Penton and get them ready to take my money for a dinghy visitor license. 

 

It had to be Steve. He came he saw I offered to buy license he could not deliver. Technically you can buy a visitor license at any Thames lock for obvious reasons. 

Edited by magnetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We use to Moor legally on the water works coal wharf at Hampton and we're moored abreast. It is just downriver of the foot bridge to platts eyot. They then decided to get rid of the pile of coal and build the control centre which they did. Then they singled my father in laws boat and I due to the aforementioned right. This meant that we overhung a fence line. This was then considered to be a security risk so we had to be moved onto platts eyot. This was about1995. I used to work for Nra #4 district as a boatman years before and had not heard of it either 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Bell Weir Steve aka "oh be joyful" is okay really once you get talking to him. Very predictable about licensing I once came through in a dinghy with an outboard but a rowing license. Came from cookham nobody bothered then he had a close look. I offered to pay cash as he had no card machine but he had no change so I suggested calling Penton and get them ready to take my money for a dinghy visitor license. 

 

It had to be Steve. He came he saw I offered to buy license he could not deliver. Technically you can buy a visitor license at any Thames lock for obvious reasons. 

Confused, I am - Bell Weir is Dismal Dave - I concur with the rest...

Steve is Shepperton and if he,  then it's 'cos he has his management (not his wife)  in a portacabin to the rear of his lovely house so has to be seen to toe the line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve  shepperton is cool it wasn't him it was the bell weir man. He (Bell Weir) is  a proper river enthusiast if you get him talking about history. Bit of an odd manner with the public though. 

 

Steve. Dave. Easily confused. It should be over the door of the lock office so easy to check. 

 

Eta yes its David Andrews at Bell Weir. My error.

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

The thing about much law is that first you have to decide what it is that you want to do. Then you look at the law (s) from all angles and see how to justify what you want. Then you have to persuade a judge that your interpretation is consistent with the law. Of course, someone else might just get in first with a very different reading of the very same law - or more likely, quite a different subset of all the laws that might be quoted. Then, you have to have deep enough pockets to be able to manipulate a case so that it goes to a high enough court to establish precedent and then you can safely re-apply the outcome, not having to bother about the intermediate steps, when you want to achieve a similar outcome in the future.

 

In this case, perhaps, someone decided that the desired outcome was to prevent multiple mooring - there are interacting issues over access when undertaking enforcement. Not a case of a jobsworth lacking common sense, more a case of someone having enough clout (usually measured in pounds) to establish the desired outcome. The most important place to start is Cui bono?

Simple solution. All moor stern on instead.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was was told off a few years ago for going along breasted up with another powered narrow boat, I was told you only move another boat by towing it astern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's interesting. There might be something in the old bye laws about it. Were you claiming a "towed and unused" vessel? There is some sort of arrangement where you pay per lock rather than buy a visitor license but I think that only applies to commercial tugs. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a daft construction - towing another NB downstream was a bit 'wobbly' until we had to slow down; then it was quite hairy. If' we'd been breasted dup I would have had more control.

I suppose the issue happened in long lock cuts where there isn't (nowadays) good manoeuvring space for a berated pair and a large plastic boat coming the other way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

Seems a daft construction - towing another NB downstream was a bit 'wobbly' until we had to slow down; then it was quite hairy. If' we'd been breasted dup I would have had more control.

I suppose the issue happened in long lock cuts where there isn't (nowadays) good manoeuvring space for a berated pair and a large plastic boat coming the other way...

But a breasted pair is no different from a 14 ft wide boat in that respect.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were told off for mooring abreast on the grass at Henley. Apparently we could have been hit by a rowing boat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Old Son said:

We were told off for mooring abreast on the grass at Henley. Apparently we could have been hit by a rowing boat!

Do you get many rowing boats on the grass ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“A number of boats have been moored at West Molesey for a considerable length time without consent from the landowner, which is required for stays of more than 24 hours.

“By doing so they’re obstructing the other 20,000 boaters who pay to use the Thames. We have taken action out of consideration for all licenced boat owners.”

 

In this case there is no identifiable landowner, and the law provides for registration by those who have exerted sufficient control over the land for the requisite term of years. Clearly, on the facts presented, that was never the EA.

 

There is a severe non-sequitur in the quoted statement – if landowners can give consent, as acknowledged to be the case with all registered riparian owners with boats on their own banks, in what way are those boats NOT obstructing the navigation for the other licensed boat owners, whereas these licensed boats are?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, J R ALSOP said:

I was was told off a few years ago for going along breasted up with another powered narrow boat, I was told you only move another boat by towing it astern.

Thames ... Byelaws 1993.  44(b) "The master of a power-driven vessel may tow another vessel secured alongside ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

“A number of boats have been moored at West Molesey for a considerable length time without consent from the landowner, which is required for stays of more than 24 hours....

Who has the obligation re consent?  If it is on the landowner to grant/withhold consent, then these boats arguably have a case, because they haven't been asked or told to move on (until now).  But if the obligation is on the boat owner to identify the landowner and obtain consent, then they clearly haven't done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.