Jump to content

Boat Sinks after being moved by film company.


Featured Posts

15 hours 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).    

I did not think that Netflix were the production company?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at the amount of people on here who were never taught '2 wrongs don't make a right' when they were children.

 

The pitchforks and mob justice mentality on here is just depressing.  Predictable but still depressing.

 

 

Edited by doratheexplorer
  • Greenie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, doratheexplorer said:

I'm amazed at the amount of people on here who were never taught '2 wrongs don't make a right' when they were children.

 

 

One or two posts have amazed me this past week. Shiny verses Tatty.  Renting out and getting round the regs.  travelling or not traveling during a pandemic.

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours 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).    

Even if it is true that the boat was not lawfully on the waterway, (which I'm not sure has been proved) what on earth makes you think Netflix have any authority to cause it to sink?

 

That would be an easy way out for CRT on occasion wouldn't it! Boat not paid its licence? - sink it and remove the wreck. Boat too long on a 48 hr site? - sink it!

 

Tam

Edited by Tam & Di
emphasis
  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

Even if it is true that the boat was not lawfully on the waterway, (which I'm not sure has been proved) what on earth makes you think Netflix have any authority to cause it to sink?

 

Tam

Well quite.  If I walked round a car park and found a car whose ticket had expired, I doubt I'd have a legal defence if I set fire to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

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

Compensation due: four-fifths of feck-all, then?

16 hours ago, David Mack said:

is the owner keener on financial compensation?

 

I doubt that the appropriate compo would pay the salvage bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tam & Di said:

 

 

That would be an easy way out for CRT on occasion wouldn't it! Boat not paid its licence? - sink it and remove the wreck. Boat too long on a 48 hr site? - sink it!

 

Tam

I expect this will be appearing in the T&C soon. 

 

If you fail to license your vessel as required CRT will sink it, remove the obstruction  and bill you for salvage costs. 

 

Sign here to accept the t&c ...................

 

I bet this would have the effect of reducing the number of unlicensed vessels. 

I also suspect the majority of people consulted would probably agree this was a sensible solution.  

 

The exact method of sinking would need to be investigated and a heat sensitive scanning camera should be used to ascertain there are no fuel or electrical appliances operating or persons on board. 

 

 

Torpedoes innit.  Little ones. 

 

Or small limpet mines for steel boats. 

 

 

The amount of explosive needed would be very minimal . 

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

The pitchforks and mob justice mentality on here is just depressing.  Predictable but still depressing.

I must admit, from periphery of the community, that I find the entrenched 'grumpy old person' mentality that seems to prevail a bit depressing and off-putting. I've been actively involved in other online discussion forums for all of my adult life and most of my teenage life, and while they all get quite lively and personal when there's a difference of viewpoint, I can't remember any ever coming with quite the amount of vitriol and inability to consider the other side of the argument that seems to be the default here.

 

This forum, in my humble opinion, can be truly unpleasant really quite frequently. It makes me sad.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tehmarks said:

I must admit, from periphery of the community, that I find the entrenched 'grumpy old person' mentality that seems to prevail a bit depressing and off-putting. I've been actively involved in other online discussion forums for all of my adult life and most of my teenage life, and while they all get quite lively and personal when there's a difference of viewpoint, I can't remember any ever coming with quite the amount of vitriol and inability to consider the other side of the argument that seems to be the default here.

 

This forum, in my humble opinion, can be truly unpleasant really quite frequently. It makes me sad.

There are some members here who are indeed total members. I use the Ignore function for a small number of them when they get deeply personally offensive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Well quite.  If I walked round a car park and found a car whose ticket had expired, I doubt I'd have a legal defence if I set fire to it.

Nor would it matter if the car was an old banger and you did it by accident, perhaps by dropping a cigarette. A fire's a fire, and a sunk boat's a sunk boat. I'm sure if I were moored near the boat in question I'd inwardly think 'Good riddance to bad rubbish", but I'd nevertheless support his demand for recompense even if meant he'd be moored there again.

 

Tam

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tehmarks said:

.

 

This forum, in my humble opinion, can be truly unpleasant really quite frequently. It makes me sad.

Perhaps you mean that some people express views with which you agree, and which you therefore find pleasant, while others express views to which you are opposed, and which you therefore label "unpleasant". Yes, that's par for the course for a discussion forum. It would be tedious indeed if everyone agreed about everything all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Athy said:

Perhaps you mean that some people express views with which you agree, and which you therefore find pleasant, while others express views to which you are opposed, and which you therefore label "unpleasant".

No; I have all the time in the world for people who express different viewpoints. It's all in the manner of expression.

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

Sorry I'm not getting this. The guy has been taking the p*ss for 4 years, drives his neighbours round the bend with anti-social behavior, running a genny whenever, has a boat that is basically a scrap claims moving it was the cause of it sinking and people here expect all of us to feel sorry for him and hope he gets a payday. I truly hope he gets exactly what he deserves.

So just to be clear, are you saying that if anybody does any of the above, or any combination of your list, it is OK to sink his/her boat? Or in a broader sense, he/she deserves their boat sinking?

As to what he deserves, the company involved or the courts may decide he deserves a substantial payout. Or not.

Just to make my position clear, I don't feel sorry for him - I don't feel anything for him.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/12/2020 at 11:12, Athy said:

 

What did occur to me was, was this boat in such a parlous condition that being moved a few yards caused it to sink? Has it got a boat safety certificate? 

 

I don't know what sank the boat, but boat safety certificates don't cover things like hull condition, stability, underwater hull fitting integrity, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

So just to be clear, are you saying that if anybody does any of the above, or any combination of your list, it is OK to sink his/her boat? Or in a broader sense, he/she deserves their boat sinking?

As to what he deserves, the company involved or the courts may decide he deserves a substantial payout. Or not.

Just to make my position clear, I don't feel sorry for him - I don't feel anything for him.

Just to be clear I'm saying what I said above

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only input on this is he went to the press and stated he hadn’t been living on it while renovation was taking place but in another fight he is battling Camden council for housing benefit for the boat as his home. Neither thing is wrong to do but if your up against a council, saying in press you don’t live on boat is a opening for the legal team they can pry wide open.

 

Ive been on jobs where productions have splashed the cash to compensate for damages done. I once had to go door to door offering pictures of residents houses from above as one owner threatened to sue for invasion of privacy because the hoist was up and could see in garden  so we took pictures of all the houses that wanted them had them framed and then the only person complaining was a minority and the rest of street were our best friends and the complaining resident asked for photo in end. All before drone tech. Point is production would have worked out the problem they caused without the press. It may be that the spotlight he has drawn upon himself may light up other interested parties.  

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2020 at 17:38, magnetman said:

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..

 

 

I've only just found this post, so a bit late in commenting. From the outset when I saw the boat I felt it to be familiar. Then it came to me. It was moored on the towpath outside "The Constitution" pub in Camden for quite a few years. Every time I passed by I was surprised it was still afloat.

Edited by monkeyhanger
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I do wonder why that would have been. Handy for the vital "medicinal "top ups?

Didn't the article say that he was a musician? The Constitution is a noted music pub. I have never been but I know it by reputation. Mick Eve, former sax player with Georgie Fame & The Blue Flames, led a blues band who played there weekly until recent times, perhaps still does. So maybe our boater was playing gigs there.

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.

×
×
  • 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.