Jump to content

Boat Sinks after being moved by film company.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, vicafloat said:

Various quotes from people who moor nearby about the state of the boat and rowdy behaviour. Not licensed for 4 years etc:  Large generator running

at all hours and rubbish on towpath.

I take it in that case he deserves to have his boat sunk,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been past the boat loads of times over the last ten years at Camden. Every time I went past I was impressed that it was still afloat. 

 

I did at one stage consider buying shares in whoever it is who makes closed cell expanding foam..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very bizarre quote in an article in the Metro 

 

---

 

A friend of Mr Beanlands said: ‘Everything he had was on that boat, which has been sunk after a film crew was shooting scenes for Top Boy for Netflix.

‘He had been putting a lot of hard work in repairing the flooring, which is why he wasn’t on it at the time."

 

---

 

I don't understand the last bit. 

 

How do you put in a lot of hard work repairing flooring while not being on the boat ?? 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

No, it would probably be my fault if it sank,  by not maintaning it properly or similar reason as it may well have been in this case.

If a boat sinks just by being moved a few yards then something was seriously wrong with the boat in the first place.

How about if it sinks having been moved into the middle of a multiple-boat argy bargy with a load of heavy steel things? Again, just going on the 'facts' as reported — it may have been in poor condition, but it may also not have sunk if it were remoored appropriately. We will likely never know.

 

Ultimately the production company have created the problem for themselves by moving it without permission. If they hadn't moved it and it had sunk on its mooring, this conversation would not have happened. They've implicated themselves in a situation where it will be impossible to prove that they are innocent.

 

Licences and the general attitude of the owner are separate problems. Conflating them only creates confusion.

 

Edit: what if it were your pristine, wooden classic motor cruiser that had sunk as a result of their poor mooring skills? The production company need to be held to account for their actions to dissuade them from taking liberties with other property in future. This is important regardless of whether the boat had the right to be there in the first place.

Edited by tehmarks
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

How about if it sinks having been moved into the middle of a multiple-boat argy bargy with a load of heavy steel things? Again, just going on the 'facts' as reported — it may have been in poor condition, but it may also not have sunk if it were remoored appropriately. We will likely never know.

 

Ultimately the production company have created the problem for themselves by moving it without permission. If they hadn't moved it and it had sunk on its mooring, this conversation would not have happened. They've implicated themselves in a situation where it will be impossible to prove that they are innocent.

 

Licences and the general attitude of the owner are separate problems. Conflating them only creates confusion.

 

Edit: what if it were your pristine, wooden classic motor cruiser that had sunk as a result of their poor mooring skills? The production company need to be held to account for their actions to dissuade them from taking liberties with other property in future. This is important regardless of whether the boat had the right to be there in the first place.

Hear hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

Conflating them only creates confusion.

I'm not so sure. Imagine if Netflix refused to pay and the boat owner decides to pursue a claim through the county court. I'm not sure his claim would be successful when the Netflix legal team explain the boat wasn't lawfully on the waterway in the first place (no license and presumably no BSS).    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, booke23 said:

I'm not so sure. Imagine if Netflix refused to pay and the boat owner decides to pursue a claim through the county court. I'm not sure his claim would be successful when the Netflix legal team explain the boat wasn't lawfully on the waterway in the first place (no license and presumably no BSS).    

Unfortunately the law frequently doesn't line up with what is actually right and moral. That said, I'm not entirely sure you're right. Netflix don't have the right to remove unlicensed craft from the waterways. Going back the car analogy, what the outcome be if someone stole my untaxed car from outside my house? I suspect they would get done for theft of a motor vehicle, and I'd get done for not having any tax. I don't think that they would get out of the theft charge on the basis that I hadn't taxed my car.

 

It's not the perfect analogy because obviously stealing a car is a criminal offence, but I could see it being argued like so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

what if it were your pristine, wooden classic motor cruiser that had sunk as a result of their poor mooring skills? The production company need to be held to account for their actions to dissuade them from taking liberties with other property in future. This is important regardless of whether the boat had the right to be there in the first place.

But it isn't 

Whatiffery is just (word removed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the boat was moved and it sank. It was not moved with the owner's permission, nor was there any legal power to move it such that CRT may have if they Section a boat. The guys that moved it cannot even claim any expertise in moving boats - they were just told by their boss to move it and did so. The amount the owner might win in damages could be problematic given the boat's condition, but the liability itself is clearly there.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its a case of "There. There"  then "serves him right then" judging by the comments.

 

How much better would it have been if the problem had never arisen because the boat had already been removed from the waterway.

Irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Its a case of "There. There"  then "serves him right then" judging by the comments.

 

How much better would it have been if the problem had never arisen because the boat had already been removed from the waterway.

True, at least then there would have been due process before it was scrapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thing about it being tied between other boats. 

 

That seems more like an attempt to keep it floating to me than how someone moved it. 

 

The photo shows the boat moored bankside and sunk. No boats on either side of it. 

 

It would be quite difficult, while not being present, to haul it over to the side and get it to lean over like that once it has sunk between other boats. 

 

EnMns2aWEAA-0Wf-113b.jpg?quality=90&stri

 

At the end of the day the boat has sunk where it is moored. Probably because it was a sinker. 

 

Whether anyone moved it will obviously come out in any investigation but that one didn't sink after being tied up between two steel boats did it ;)

 

 

The other thing is boats have to be sound. But then that's only if you are licensed. 

 

This unlicensed thing sounds like quite a nice solution. I wonder if it ought to be given more positive publicity so a lot more people can do it. 

 

It seems to remove an awful lot of complicated nonsense like BS scheme, moorings, insurance etc etc. 

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Loddon said:

But it isn't 

'It wasn't my property so I don't care'.

 

It's not what-iffery. It's the general principle, applied fairly to all, that people generally don't have the right to damage their property. And it's important that this is unerlined regardless of the licensed state of the craft because otherwise tomorrow it may well be your boat that they're damaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tehmarks said:

'It wasn't my property so I don't care'.

 

It's not what-iffery. It's the general principle, applied fairly to all, that people generally don't have the right to damage their property. And it's important that this is unerlined regardless of the licensed state of the craft because otherwise tomorrow it may well be your boat that they're damaging.

None of us know what happened, its all only hearsay.

DILLIGAF about some boat that appers to be a sinker and unlicenced and whose owner appears to be an objectionable freeloader.

I will answer that with a two letter one word answer

NO

 

My boat would not be left in that state or position so more whatifery.

Edited by Loddon
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

 

EnMns2aWEAA-0Wf-113b.jpg?quality=90&stri

 

At the end of the day the boat has sunk where it is moored. Probably because it was a sinker. 

 

Whether anyone moved it will obviously come out in any investigation but that one didn't sink after being tied up between two steel boats did it ;)

 

None of us know what actually happened, but it seems quite possible that while multiple  boats were being moved, this boat got squashed between others, sprang a leak and began taking on water. A smallish leak would mean the boat slowly settling deeper into the water, but it wouldn't sink completely for some time. While still floating it was moored to the bank, the inflow of water continued until it sank sometime later.

 

From the pictures it looks as if the use of a couple of tarpaulins and two or three pumps it would come up fairly easily (assuming it isn't too badly holed below the waterline). Does anyone know if refloating has been attempted, or is the owner keener on financial compensation?

Edited by David Mack
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tehmarks said:

How about if it sinks having been moved into the middle of a multiple-boat argy bargy with a load of heavy steel things? Again, just going on the 'facts' as reported — it may have been in poor condition, but it may also not have sunk if it were remoored appropriately. We will likely never know.

The photo showing it sunk doesn't show it surrounded by steel boats though, does it? It shows only a steel boat behind it and a fibreglass cruiser in front. Even his claim/story says that.

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.