Jump to content

I never did like Steve Haywood


nicknorman

Featured Posts

Steve Haywood was totally I the wrong, you moor facing into the current, especially with a 60ft plus narrow boat, he would have had to turn before mooring .

he is an arse, I’ve seen him in action before just the same attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stilllearning said:

Any news of what his Editor thinks of the whole thing yet?

 

I suspect they both had a good laugh about it and no doubt it will all be forgotten in a week or so.

 

Despite the many posts in this thread, it is probably only a small proportion of the boating public that are aware of it.

A shame he wasn't prosecuted for it though, then it could have got a bit more publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dunfixing said:

you moor facing into the current, especially with a 60ft plus narrow boat, he would have had to turn before mooring

 

This is of course, twaddle. 

 

It is FAR easier to moor going downstream. You engage astern, ferry glide the stern right up to the bank, then step off with the stern line and make fast. The current brings the bow in. No rushing up to the front to moor the bow first involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dunfixing said:

Steve Haywood was totally I the wrong, you moor facing into the current, especially with a 60ft plus narrow boat, he would have had to turn before mooring .

he is an arse, I’ve seen him in action before just the same attitude.

As has been said above (somewhere) there is very little flow on the Thames at present, in fact near the bank its probably less than some canals, absolutely no need to turn upstream unless there is significant flow.

The Kennet is more difficult, it has more flow and its not wide enough to turn :)

 

...............Dave

10 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

I see, so you are hiding behind Goliath in case Steve comes by? ?

Don't be daft, Goliath is only 49 foot long, how could we possibly hide behind him?

 

Currently heading up your way for the winter, could we hide behind you so that CRT don't see us doing a bit of continuous mooring???

 

................Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dmr said:

As has been said above (somewhere) there is very little flow on the Thames at present, in fact near the bank its probably less than some canals, absolutely no need to turn upstream unless there is significant flow.

The Kennet is more difficult, it has more flow and its not wide enough to turn :)

 

...............Dave

Don't be daft, Goliath is only 49 foot long, how could we possibly hide behind him?

 

Currently heading up your way for the winter, could we hide behind you so that CRT don't see us doing a bit of continuous mooring???

 

................Dave

48 foot !

 

And I’m the first to run away so there’d be no point hiding behind me. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is of course, twaddle. 

 

It is FAR easier to moor going downstream. You engage astern, ferry glide the stern right up to the bank, then step off with the stern line and make fast. The current brings the bow in. No rushing up to the front to moor the bow first involved.

That is a bit harsh; I suspect you really intended to say that you could suggest another way of doing it.:) I think both methods have pros and cons and the best way s the one that suits you best.

 

Hoeard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, dor said:

A shame he wasn't prosecuted for it though, then it could have got a bit more publicity.

Still time to prosecute, if anybody cares to.  The time limit for prosecution is 6 months from the time of any offence of criminal damage under s.1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, whether intentional, or simply being reckless as to the consequence of the action, and this incident was only back in June. The physical damage (if any) would be slight enough to classify the alleged offence as a summary one. Moreover if, as is arguable, it involved being "reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered", the alleged offence would be indictable, with no such time limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, howardang said:

That is a bit harsh; I suspect you really intended to say that you could suggest another way of doing it.:) I think both methods have pros and cons and the best way s the one that suits you best.

 

Hoeard

 

I think we can probably agree that heading for a spot that has just been occupied by another boat and proceeding into the mooring regardless is not the right way to do it though :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Goliath said:

48 foot !

 

And I’m the first to run away so there’d be no point hiding behind me. 

 

 

Get a bit welded on while your in the drydock, then you can win the BCN challenge.

 

And with all these forum people saying I am talking B*ll*x I really am feeling Holy Inadequate :)

 

.............Dave

41 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is of course, twaddle. 

 

It is FAR easier to moor going downstream. You engage astern, ferry glide the stern right up to the bank, then step off with the stern line and make fast. The current brings the bow in. No rushing up to the front to moor the bow first involved.

Not really thought about that before, you are correct......when single handed!

 

................DAVE

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, dor said:

I suspect they both had a good laugh about it and no doubt it will all be forgotten in a week or so.

 

Despite the many posts in this thread, it is probably only a small proportion of the boating public that are aware of it.

A shame he wasn't prosecuted for it though, then it could have got a bit more publicity.

You are probably right but any credibility Haywood may have had (from those who, like me, haven't actually met him) is totally shot. I'm not sure about prosecutions however, there is only merit in them for more serious incidents involving injury or loss of life, not for just being a dick (the courts would soon get clogged up if that were a defining factor). I'm sure however that if he has caused damage to the hire boat any civil/insurance claim against him would succeed on the basis of the damning video.

 

When you look at it the cruiser skipper didn't do anything wrong, not wanting to get involved in colreg arguments, but they do say that two vessels on collision course should turn to starboard to try to avoid one , the cruiser skipper having already pulled alongside, no longer had that option, to make any effort to avoid a collision he would have had to steer to port in which case a collision would have been held to be mainly his fault as he would then be turning across the bow of the approaching narrow boat.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

 

And with all these forum people saying I am talking B*ll*x I really am feeling Holy Inadequate :)

 

.............Dave

 

 

It’s all bollocks ?

 

well I know which pub you’re heading for. 

If I said I was ‘sinking’ a few too, where am I?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dor said:

I suspect they both had a good laugh about it and no doubt it will all be forgotten in a week or so.

 

Despite the many posts in this thread, it is probably only a small proportion of the boating public that are aware of it.

A shame he wasn't prosecuted for it though, then it could have got a bit more publicity.

It's on numerous facebook groups and maybe on twitter too. I belive the Other Place also has a thread on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

This is of course, twaddle. 

 

It is FAR easier to moor going downstream. 

It's certainly not twaddle if the boat is a cruiser

A cruiser usually has a flat stern and is not so good at going backwards and certainly difficult to control reversing against a river current.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dor said:

I suspect they both had a good laugh about it and no doubt it will all be forgotten in a week or so.

 

Despite the many posts in this thread, it is probably only a small proportion of the boating public that are aware of it.

A shame he wasn't prosecuted for it though, then it could have got a bit more publicity.

I would agree with this. I often ask passing peeps over the years if they are on or have been ont forum and its very rare anyone knows of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

It's certainly not twaddle if the boat is a cruiser

A cruiser usually has a flat stern and is not so good at going backwards and certainly difficult to control reversing against a river current.

 

 

But if you’re reversing against a river current then you’re going up stream. 

Why would you reverse up stream to moor headed down stream ?

 

9 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Or 3 feet lopped off.  It's possible to win in a 45ft boat ...

So 1 foot forward and 3 foot back. 

 

That makes me 46 foot. 

 

 

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...

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.