Boat Sunk.

[magnetman]

13 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

 

You may well be right there.

 

I'm probably not ! If it is this bridge. 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what happened another time. 

 

Something going on there with Boats not being tied up properly. 

 

Seems it got caught on the wooden bridge guard then crushed it and rolled over. 

[Tonka]

23 hours ago, robtheplod said:

vid on it

 

 

Looks like RCR made it worse??

Isn't that why Wyvern Shipping refuse to use RCR if one of their boats sink. 

[Stroudwater1]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

This is what happened another time. 

 

 

Something going on there with Boats not being tied up properly. 

 

 

Seems it got caught on the wooden bridge guard then crushed it and rolled over. 

Oh dear.how sad. 

Matty44 has pointed out that the pontoons up there are probably tied in and attached with string/hope and prayer. The line on that one looks like it’s bunched up by the t stud, so something could have been done between leaving its mooring and the pictures . 

8 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Isn't that why Wyvern Shipping refuse to use RCR if one of their boats sink. 

indeed not, RCR don’t cover there- more like land sea rescue or salvage firms required? 
 

https://www.canalholidays.co.uk/more-information/ocean-princess-cruise/

[Tonka]

9 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Oh dear.how sad. 

Matty44 has pointed out that the pontoons up there are probably tied in and attached with string/hope and prayer. The line on that one looks like it’s bunched up by the t stud, so something could have been done between leaving its mooring and the pictures . 

indeed not, RCR don’t cover there- more like land sea rescue or salvage firms required? 
 

https://www.canalholidays.co.uk/more-information/ocean-princess-cruise/

I was talking about their actual hire boats if they are called in a lock.

Were RCR about in 2003

[Chris Lowe]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

I'm probably not ! If it is this bridge. 

 

That is the bridge

[Stilllearning]

River boating is so different from canal boating, but if one has little experience of rivers, the differences and dangers are not always immediately apparent. 

In I think 1998 I went up the Thames from Reading to Oxford  on red then yellow boards, and that was interrsting to say the least, but once on the Cherwell section of the Oxford canal I realised just how much water had been flowing into the Thames. 

I was pootling along the canalised river, the levels entirely normal, and looked up into the branches of the trees on the bank above my head. The leaves were covered in dried mud and there was rubbish and vegetable detritus up about 10 feet above me ....

 

Edited January 6 by Stilllearning

[magnetman]

Its not just Boats which have problems.

 

Thames is claiming ownership of its flood plains. 

BMW driver. Went too fast killed the car. 

 

An over keen parking warden seems to have visited. 

Edited January 6 by magnetman
image

[blackrose]

3 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Matty44 has pointed out that the pontoons up there are probably tied in and attached with string/hope and prayer. 

 

Yes I've been up to Redhill Marina on the Soar and nearby are a load of DIY moorings that would be very dodgy in flood conditions. I had a garden end mooring on the Thames for 3 years and I was well aware that it wasn't flood safe, so as soon as I got there I set to work and made two two scaffold pole tripods to ensure my boat wouldn't go over the bank, plus a massive concrete anchor on the river bed because the mooring was at the head of an island so I couldn't take a rope very far forward of the bow. 

 

I think Stillearning is right. Often canal boaters with no experience of rivers find a river mooring in summer and they can't imagine what it could be like in winter flood conditions. They just have no idea. But it still amazes me that people who call themselves boaters don't think of making proper preparations.

Edited January 6 by blackrose

[Wanted]

Can you imagine being so angry that you think it’s wrong for someone to want to give to someone who has lost something? 
 

it’s very easy not to if it doesn’t ring to your tune, but to denounce it is weird. 
 

I don’t have much money, but have just slipped a tenner in the pot in tribute of all the demerit signallers on this topic who make the world a little more grey. 
 

We all know how much love and work goes into boat ownership, seldom matching the financial value or insurance payout. I feel really sorry for this owner, and I hope they are able to get back on the water one what or another soon. 

2 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Yes I've been up to Redhill Marina on the Soar and nearby are a load of DIY moorings that would be very dodgy in flood conditions. I had a garden end mooring on the Thames for 3 years and I was well aware that it wasn't flood safe, so as soon as I got there I set to work and made two two scaffold pole tripods to ensure my boat wouldn't go over the bank, plus a massive concrete anchor on the river bed because the mooring was at the head of an island so I couldn't take a rope very far forward of the bow. 

 

I think Stillearning is right. Often canal boaters with no experience of rivers find a river mooring in summer and they can't imagine what it could be like in winter flood conditions. They just have no idea. But it still amazes me that people who call themselves boaters don't think of making proper preparations.

I think I remember seeing pics of that Mike, or maybe your discrption on here? an impressive structure. 
 

I have friends on houseboats on the KandA at the moment who are paddle boarding to and from theirs right now! 

[blackrose]

5 minutes ago, Wanted said:

Can you imagine being so angry that you think it’s wrong for someone to want to give to someone who has lost something? 

 

I agree that it's odd to denounce giving (if that's what they were doing?), but what makes you presume that their motivation was anger? That seems like an odd thing to say too. How do you know what emotion the person who said that was feeling when they said it? They may have a perfectly rational reason for thinking what they said.

Edited January 6 by blackrose

[Wanted]

1 minute ago, blackrose said:

 

I agree that it's odd to denounce giving (if that's what they were doing?), but what makes you presume that their motivation was anger? That seems like an odd thing to say too. How do you know what emotion the person who said that was feeling when they said it? 

fair, it was an assumption, because I don’t understand why anyone would be so negative about this, that sort of behaviour usually stems from anger in my experience. If they were happy when they posted that, I think that makes it even weirder no? 

[blackrose]

Ok, you may be right but I really don't like the way some people denounce others as being full of "hate" or "anger" primarily because they don't agree with them. 

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Its not just Boats which have problems.

 

Thames is claiming ownership of its flood plains. 

BMW driver. Went too fast killed the car. 

 

An over keen parking warden seems to have visited. 

More likely a police aware sticker.

 

[Wanted]

16 minutes ago, blackrose said:

Ok, you may be right but I really don't like the way some people denounce others as being full of "hate" or "anger" primarily because they don't agree with them. 

It’s OK not to like things. I’m sure you’ll be fine. 

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, blackrose said:

Ok, you may be right but I really don't like the way some people denounce others as being full of "hate" or "anger" primarily because they don't agree with them. 

 

Seconded. 

 

 

[blackrose]

I have a fairly cynical view of the charity sector these days because it's become such a self-serving industry over the last 20 or 30 years. But that doesn't come from a place of anger. I'm just basing my views on what I see. 

 

About 12 years ago I had a couple of dates with a very middle class, privately educated woman who owned a big house in Putney. She worked as a consultant for an independent charity fundraising agency. So for example Scope might engage the services of her agency in order to raise their profile and find ways of increasing its revenue in the form of contributions from the pubic, businesses, or possibly govt funding. 

 

The charity would have to pay the agency nearly £1000 per day for this service which strikes most people as slightly wrong because they think that money contributed by the public should be going to the cause and not into the pockets of consultants. But of course if those consultants manage to raise the overall funding of the charity then I suppose it can be justified. However, it still leaves a slightly bad taste in the mouth and it illustrates how corporatised the whole charity sector has become. Long gone are the days of kids with PDSA charity boxes.

 

On our second date we were in a pub in Putney and she told me she was going for a job interview with the WWF as their dedicated in-house head of fundraising. She told me she was a bit anxious as she'd never worked directly for a charity before. I was supping my pint and asked her whether the salary was much better at WWF? She replied "Another £30K". I almost spat my beer back in my glass! At the time I was earning £7.50/hour in a boat yard and I reckon she must have already been on about £60K at the agency. My next thought was "Why the f@ck am I paying for everything?" 🤣

[magnetman]

It seems bizarre to me that the operator of the 'platform' which is after all just a website wants their cut. 

 

If it was actually altruism, which is a Good Thing, then someone would be running one of these platforms without demanding a commission. 

 

It is an -ism but it doesn't start with altru. 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

26 minutes ago, matty40s said:

More likely a police aware sticker.

 

I remember seeing footage on a TV news programme a few years ago of a village in a narrow valley, I think in the West Country, where a heavy flash flood had ripped through it, entering some houses well above windowcill height,  and leaving parked cars unusable. The programme showed footage, filmed by a resident while the road was still partially flooded,  of a parking warden ticketting the previously-submerged and  therefore  undrivable, cars. 

Edited January 6 by Ronaldo47
Revised for conciseness.

[blackrose]

9 minutes ago, Wanted said:

It’s OK not to like things. I’m sure you’ll be fine. 

 

Ok. Thanks for the condescending tone.

[magnetman]

I think the people who make money out of others generosity should be taken out and shot. 

 

I did actually once do a training course around running a charity. It was going to be a Boat related charity (museum). Anyway during the course it was made very clear that the aim is not to gain financially. I thought this was obvious but apparently people need telling. I got chatting to one of the other people and he was explaining to me all the potential ways one could make money running a charity. When I said I was not interested in personal gain he looked at me like I was some stupid [word removed]. Maybe I am ! 

[matty40s]

11 hours ago, Ange said:

The person who constantly talks about virtue signalling clearly has no idea about the real meaning.

It's not about people stepping forward to help others (obviously what Nick thinks is virtue signalling).

It's about people pretending to help 

Glad to be of help 🙂

The classic example is all the Tory MPs turning up at their local hospital with a box/2 boxes of chocolates on Christmas Eve.....with photographer present....

Edited January 6 by matty40s

[Paul C]

20 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems bizarre to me that the operator of the 'platform' which is after all just a website wants their cut. 

 

 

 

Firstly, "gofundme" isn't necessarily for charitable funding, in the narrowest sense. Its a platform for people to give money to others, for any reason. There are non-charitable things too. For example would you class the running of this forum, as a charity?

 

Secondly, a site (any website) has running costs - it has hosting costs for a webserver (or the equivalent if they are doing it themselves - computer, electricity, software, connectivity etc). And it has developers and operators who spend time on working on it, who need paying a salary because they have mouths to feed etc. 

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

 

 

Secondly, a site (any website) has running costs - it has hosting costs for a webserver (or the equivalent if they are doing it themselves - computer, electricity, software, connectivity etc). And it has developers and operators who spend time on working on it, who need paying a salary because they have mouths to feed etc. 

 

 

 

 

Yes I realise that. Its just a shame that an endlessly wealthy 'philanthropist' hasn't covered this by giving loads of money away. 

 

Maybe I am cynical but I think the commission probably pays more than ordinary wages. 

 

As for charity or not charity it seems to me that giving away money without a service or product being returned is charity.

[Paul C]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

As for charity or not charity it seems to me that giving away money without a service or product being returned is charity.

 

In the broadest sense, yes.

[Ronaldo47]

A couple of decades ago, the school where my wife was then teaching, did a fundraising event for what was then a well-known national charity.  Some of the sixth formers were concerned about how much some of their promotional goodies being given to the participants would have cost, and on investigating, apparently found that well over 90% of the funds raised by the charity went to administration costs. They never had any involvement with that charity again, and decided to only support those where most of the money raised was actually used for charitable purposes.  My recollection is that subsequently,  negative publicity about how little of that charity's income actually got used for charitable purposes, led to it changing its name and (hopefully) a change in its behaviour. 

Edited January 6 by Ronaldo47
typos