Thanks for NOTHING!

[tidal]

I think anyone would be only too pleased if I didn't stop to help - can you imagine the mess we would get into? and I certainly wouldnt go handing my children over to a complete stranger, nor would I abandon my boat unless it was necessary (and I would have done that the first time it broke down were the conditions that bad). I would phone someone as salty suggested, and I wouldn't waste time by explaining to all the other boats coming down stream that that was what I had done as it would be pretty obvious they would bump into them too. Then I would get on and get the on board vicar to his ceremony.

 

I would suggest then that you fall into this category

 

"You STILL try to help."

 

and I wouldn't waste time by explaining to all the other boats coming down stream that that was what I had done

 

whereas I would ............ so they knew somone had been alerted.

[Hobson]

No, help can't be demanded of every passer by. But there is a large amount of literature on the psychology of altruism. Some people think that the human race is successful (*) because of it's co-operativeness, rather than it's selfishness.

 

*Which must be why you sleep in a nice warm bed every night and three-quarters of a billion Indians don't have shoes.

 

Any twenty-something female will tell you that we don't even see ourselves when we look at ourselves.

 

Kant also expounded the belief (so wikipedia tells me) that 'using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions'. Who now has a farthing for epistemology? Meaningless dross when you consider the personality as only one component of a consciousness and the least subject to reason or consistency. Freud (for me) effectively de-bunked the soul myth and with it goes morality. As for altruism; most psychoanalysts will tell you it has masochistic underpinnings, before or shortly after they ask you how you feel about your mother.

 

- Hobbs

[Theo]

Just a thought from a non NB owner- if a bow thruster was fitted, would it be powerful enough to hold the bow in place against the bank and how long could you safeley run it? Would it help in any way if you were drifting mid stream?

About four minutes total in any hour to prevent overheating. If the engine is not running then you have no way to recharge the BT batteries.

 

I doubt if it would help anyway. It does not push you sideways. It rotates the boat.

 

N

[Bones]

As for altruism; most psychoanalysts will tell you it has masochistic underpinnings, before or shortly after they ask you how you feel about your mother.

 

- Hobbs

 

I am quite certain psychoanalysts arent meant to speak and wont tell you anything, they will just suppose it and gear you into thinking that yourself - unless, of course, you make the folly of being 'mad' AND an independent thinker... goodness me, the very thought is making me feel faint - I can feel the shock waves across the world.

 

********************************************************************************

*************************************************************

I would indeed help but in my own way, and just because (like the accused NB in the OP) I didn't tell everyone, or come on here to gloat, doesn't mean I didn't.

 

In addition, there is no way on this planet I would hand my wife and kids over to a stranger, and there is everyway I would have telephoned the *authorities* in addition, if the conditions were awful (and I doubt they were as I cant imagine being able to hold a widebeam on twigs in the current climate on the thames), I wouldn't take my wife and kids out, and I certianly wouldn't have done it in a failing boat. The thing is, the OP seems to be blaming others rather than accepting he made a mistake. Instead of coming back and telling us all to make sure you have a mobile phone/communication device on board and deploy your anchor etc and what to do, he comes on and disses another boater who cannot defend himself. We can only speculate, and that isn't always helpful (but I will admit it is terribly good fun, but it does have to be balanced)

Edited September 6, 2008 by Bones

[Bones]

The point is that I think it is possible to see in humans what is actually there and not necessarily what you would like to think is there.

 

if only it were easy to tell the difference.

[stort_mark]

Look, lets be fair here, it could have been beer they were rushing for

 

or to say the last rites to someone....

 

 

Ah yes....that old "my friend is dying so instead of rushing there by car, we'll take the boat at 4mph instead" ruse.

 

 

In addition, there is no way on this planet I would hand my wife and kids over to a stranger

Have you spontaneously reappeared from the 12th Century and not letting on?

 

What is this "not handing my wife over" crap? He wasn't planning on selling them, just getting them possibly to a safer place. Do you "let" your wife and children travel on the bus or train? becaue if you are, you are 'handing them over to a stranger' when they do.

 

(and I doubt they were as I cant imagine being able to hold a widebeam on twigs in the current climate on the thames)

It wasn't the current climate and it wasn't the Thames

 

I wouldn't take my wife and kids out, and I certianly wouldn't have done it in a failing boat.

I think you are quite the man. Do you do Superman impressions at bar mitzvahs and parties?

 

The thing is, the OP seems to be blaming others rather than accepting he made a mistake. Instead of coming back and telling us all to make sure you have a mobile phone/communication device on board and deploy your anchor etc and what to do, he comes on and disses another boater who cannot defend himself.

The thing is, whether he made a mistake and whether he aplogises to anyone (why on earth should he apologise to you??) the fact remains that - as the story has been told - a person passing someone else in trouble failedto pass on a cry for help. As I have said before, it is like telling someone you will call the ambulance and not doing so. Lack of mobile, not using anchor, engine situation - all absolutely 100% irrelevant. In our civilised country, we do not make judgements about why people need emergency assistance.

[Bones]

Ah yes....that old "my friend is dying so instead of rushing there by car, we'll take the boat at 4mph instead" ruse.

you may jest, but my clergyman friend is sometimes telephoned to go and say the last rites in the local unit. You could say then he shouldn't be on a boat, but then if all clergymen limited their life to guarding the telephone and being on hand 'just in case' they would never do anything and would get sectioned pretty quickly.

 

Ah yes....that old "my friend is dying so instead of rushing there by car, we'll take the boat at 4mph instead" ruse.

 

 

 

Have you spontaneously reappeared from the 12th Century and not letting on?

 

What is this "not handing my wife over" crap? He wasn't planning on selling them, just getting them possibly to a safer place. Do you "let" your wife and children travel on the bus or train? becaue if you are, you are 'handing them over to a stranger' when they do.

 

 

It wasn't the current climate and it wasn't the Thames

 

 

I think you are quite the man. Do you do Superman impressions at bar mitzvahs and parties?

 

 

The thing is, whether he made a mistake and whether he aplogises to anyone (why on earth should he apologise to you??) the fact remains that - as the story has been told - a person passing someone else in trouble failedto pass on a cry for help. As I have said before, it is like telling someone you will call the ambulance and not doing so. Lack of mobile, not using anchor, engine situation - all absolutely 100% irrelevant. In our civilised country, we do not make judgements about why people need emergency assistance.

 

 

and relax...

Edited September 6, 2008 by Bones

[stort_mark]

and relax...

Oh I do....

[Bones]

Oh I do....

splendid.

[magnetman]

Ah yes....that old "my friend is dying so instead of rushing there by car, we'll take the boat at 4mph instead" ruse.

 

 

 

Have you spontaneously reappeared from the 12th Century and not letting on?

 

What is this "not handing my wife over" crap? He wasn't planning on selling them, just getting them possibly to a safer place. Do you "let" your wife and children travel on the bus or train? becaue if you are, you are 'handing them over to a stranger' when they do.

 

 

It wasn't the current climate and it wasn't the Thames

 

 

I think you are quite the man. Do you do Superman impressions at bar mitzvahs and parties?

 

 

The thing is, whether he made a mistake and whether he aplogises to anyone (why on earth should he apologise to you??) the fact remains that - as the story has been told - a person passing someone else in trouble failedto pass on a cry for help. As I have said before, it is like telling someone you will call the ambulance and not doing so. Lack of mobile, not using anchor, engine situation - all absolutely 100% irrelevant. In our civilised country, we do not make judgements about why people need emergency assistance.

 

 

Just a point to make here, I find trying to shout to someone on another boat is sometimes totally pointless as they don't hear anything due to engines rattling etc. If they are travelling the right way then they will get to the stricken boat anyway and if the owner of said boat is able to communicate his situation clearly they will probably stop and help. It is quite easy to fail to understand the gesticulations of another boater and IF there is some aggressive body language you might well make a judgement that it is perhaps better not to go back and interact with them.

[stort_mark]

you may jest, but my clergyman friend is sometimes telephoned to go and say the last rites in the local unit. You could say then he shouldn't be on a boat, but then if all clergymen limited their life to guarding the telephone and being on hand 'just in case' they would never do anything and would get sectioned pretty quickly.

 

Ah...that well known "vicar who won't go to the aid of a person in distress" situation. Yep. Know it well. Would certainly explain what was going on!

 

Bones! I think you have solved the conundrum.

 

The person who refused to call for assistance when we said he would, was a member of the clergy who had just been called to read the Last Rites to someone and the caller had thought it was OK for him to finish his cruise. Perhaps it was more the Penultimate Rites than the Last Rites.

[Bones]

Ah...that well known "vicar who won't go to the aid of a person in distress" situation. Yep. Know it well. Would certainly explain what was going on!

 

Bones! I think you have solved the conundrum.

 

The person who refused to call for assistance when we said he would, was a member of the clergy who had just been called to read the Last Rites to someone and the caller had thought it was OK for him to finish his cruise. Perhaps it was more the Penultimate Rites than the Last Rites.

 

oh good, finally we agree. I imagine the caller thought it better he got home, than sent out a helicopter.

 

As for the other offending narrowboat, they should probably make sure they deploy their anchor more and have a good supply of gin on board.

 

(replace narrowboat with generic term boat in all my posts.)

Edited September 6, 2008 by Bones

[Maffi]

It seems to me that everyone is losing the big picture.

 

A man sets off on a big boat ill equipped for the journey with girlfriend and young children on board. His engine breaks down, he fixes it then continues on his way. He hasn't gone far when his engine breaks down again. He gets the boat to the side near two trees. Even though the trees were too spindly to tie a rope to they were still able to hold the 70 x 12 foot boat and stop it drifting back down the river. Not doing anything himself to improve his situation he waits for someone else to come along and help him. He then complains that the help he expected was not forth coming.

 

Now the fact that they were able to hold a 70 x 12 on two spindly trees would seem to suggest that the river was quite calm and the trees were not so spindly.

 

"We decided to remain holding on and stay calm while I decided the next move... I was about to jump in to the water with a rope." I might suggest that in the water was the place to be with a rope irrespective of whether another boat may come along and save his sorry ass, or is it possible that good ropes and pins were not to hand.

 

"Dropping our 60Lb anchor was going to be a last move but I was prepared to do it...."

He says that like he was thinking of blowing up the bridge. If in doubt anchor out. At least that would have stopped the situation from worsening, then and only then do you have time to take stock and assess what to do next.

 

To come on here and berate someone else for his own failings is the lowest thing he could do. We are only given one side of the story and a biased on at that.

 

Were I in this situation there are two courses of action to take after the event.

 

A. Write a 'I learned about boating from that', post highlighting my short comings and maybe a simple line at the end that says, 'Some boaters wouldn't or couldn't help'.

 

or

 

B. Keep my head down in case Social Services wanted to have me charged with Child Endangerment, which in my opinion is the biggest crime here.

 

Of course this is only my opinion and would bear no scrutiny.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Maffi

[stort_mark]

B. Keep my head down in case Social Services wanted to have me charged with Child Endangerment, which in my opinion is the biggest crime here.

 

Of course this is only my opinion and would bear no scrutiny.

 

Indeed, it will not. "Child Endangerment" in a legal/social services context is used only in terms of child abuse, and then only in some states in the USA.

 

I think it is you who is missing the point, as many have already made largely the same points you have with regard to their competence and decision to continue after one engine failure. Even the decision of the passing boat not to directly assist can be forgiven for all kinds of good reasons already explained.

 

What is unforgivable is that the passing boaters allegedly used their lack of time as a reason for not assisting and then allegedly did not call for assistance when they had said they would.

[bottle]

Seven pages of discussion on two wrongs, perhaps we can find a right.

 

First wrong:

 

Boater in situation, boat with no power on a river, does not deploy his anchor.

 

Second wrong:

 

Passing boat does not give assistance.

 

The right:??

 

The original boater would not put himself into danger in the first place, perhaps not always possible but should be able to cope with the situation.

 

(I am sure that if the situation occurred again he would deal with it differently, that's experience)

 

All passing boaters would be Good Samaritans, ideal but not possible.

[Maffi]

Indeed, it will not. "Child Endangerment" in a legal/social services context is used only in terms of child abuse, and then only in some states in the USA.

 

I think it is you who is missing the point, as many have already made largely the same points you have with regard to their competence and decision to continue after one engine failure. Even the decision of the passing boat not to directly assist can be forgiven for all kinds of good reasons already explained.

 

What is unforgivable is that the passing boaters allegedly used their lack of time as a reason for not assisting and then allegedly did not call for assistance when they had said they would.

 

If social services think a child is in danger they will take action whether on not any abuse has taken place.

 

At the end of the day some ass expected someone to take more care of his life than he was prepared to do for himself. He should not have the temerity to come here and slate the other guy.

[stort_mark]

If social services think a child is in danger they will take action whether on not any abuse has taken place.

Good to see someone prepared to do that. Unlike the passing boater.

It is absurd to suggest that the social services would ever get involved before, during or after a boating incident like this.

 

At the end of the day some ass expected someone to take more care of his life than he was prepared to do for himself. He should not have the temerity to come here and slate the other guy.

 

For someone who weighed in by suggesting we were all missing the point, you are doing an excellent job at it.

We live in a society that values people helping each other; it is a cultural norm to the extent that lack of assistance is socially unacceptable. One would not refuse emergency assistance to anyone, no matter how incompetent their actions may be deemed after the event.

I do not think the OP was expecting too much - just that the passing boat get assistance at the next practical point.

Edited September 7, 2008 by stort_mark

[Bones]

Good to see someone prepared to do that. Unlike the passing boater.

It is absurd to suggest that the social services would ever get involved before, during or after a boating incident like this.

 

 

 

For someone who weighed in by suggetsing we were all kissing the point, you are doing an excellent job at it.

We live in a society that values people helping each other; it is a cultural norm to the extent that lack of assistance is socially unacceptable. One would not refuse emergency assistance to anyone, no matter how incompetent their actions may be deemed after the event.

I do not think the OP was expecting too much - just that the passing boat get assistance at the next practical point.

 

and as you said in your previous post 'alleged' perhaps they did.

 

this all reminds me of that lovely little doo dar about God and helicopters.

 

God's Help!

 

There once was a flood and everyone had reached safety except for one man.

 

He climbed to the top of his house with the water lapping at his feet.

 

A helicopter flew over his head and hung down a rope for him to climb, but the man was deeply religious and said, "It's alright! The Lord will save me!"

 

So the helicopter flew away. The water continued to rise and a boat came to him but, once again, the man shouted, "No! Go AWAY! the Lord will come and save me!" and, once again, the boat sped off.

 

The water was getting dangerously deep by now so the helicopter came back and, on cue, the man repeated, "I don't need saving! My Lord will come"

 

Reluctantly, the helicopter left.

 

The rain continued to pour, the water continued to rise and the man drowned.

 

At the gates of heaven, the man met St. Peter. Confused, he asked, "Peter, I have lived the life of a faithful man - why did my Lord not rescue me?"

 

St. Peter replied, "For pity sake! He sent you two helicopters and a boat!"

 

Author Unknown

 

 

 

Often we get help, but not often in the way we regonise, but that doesn't make the help any less.

[alan_fincher]

This one will, I suspect, run and run, and I'm not sure the continued debatin is achieving anything.

 

I find it difficult, because to some extent I have sympathy with arguments being put from opposing sides.

 

I guess my greatest discomfort is that we have heard the original poster's side of events, but that the boat that has been "named and shamed" has not had an opportunity to say what it thought the situation was, nor to defend any action it did, or didn't, take.

 

So we are left making judgements just based on one side of the story - something that can lead to you getting things very badly wrong.

 

I still have no idea...

 

. How dangerous the situation actally was

. What the other boat thought the situation was

. Whether they had any idea young children were aboard

. etc, etc

 

I do know just how many times I'm at the tiller of my boat, and people shout things to me, where I have not a shred of an idea of what's being said, (and that's on canals, not rivers).

 

Unless the other boat suddenly pops up here to give their version of events, I think the best I can do is keep an open mind about the whole unfortunate incident.

 

We should be carful of condeming people as guilty, who have not had a fair trial.

 

Alan

[magnetman]

and as you said in your previous post 'alleged' perhaps they did.

 

this all reminds me of that lovely little doo dar about God and helicopters.

 

God's Help!

 

There once was a flood and everyone had reached safety except for one man.

 

He climbed to the top of his house with the water lapping at his feet.

 

A helicopter flew over his head and hung down a rope for him to climb, but the man was deeply religious and said, "It's alright! The Lord will save me!"

 

So the helicopter flew away. The water continued to rise and a boat came to him but, once again, the man shouted, "No! Go AWAY! the Lord will come and save me!" and, once again, the boat sped off.

 

The water was getting dangerously deep by now so the helicopter came back and, on cue, the man repeated, "I don't need saving! My Lord will come"

 

Reluctantly, the helicopter left.

 

The rain continued to pour, the water continued to rise and the man drowned.

 

At the gates of heaven, the man met St. Peter. Confused, he asked, "Peter, I have lived the life of a faithful man - why did my Lord not rescue me?"

 

St. Peter replied, "For pity sake! He sent you two helicopters and a boat!"

 

Author Unknown

 

 

 

Often we get help, but not often in the way we regonise, but that doesn't make the help any less.

"God" doesn't exist

[Bones]

"God" doesn't exist

 

if there wasn't a God he wouldn't

[Maffi]

Good to see someone prepared to do that. Unlike the passing boater.

It is absurd to suggest that the social services would ever get involved before, during or after a boating incident like this.

 

Not absurd just fortunate for the OP. Maybe social services should be involved if the situation was so dangerous. If it wasn't then I don't know what the OP's point was starting this off in the first place.

 

We live in a society that values people helping each other; it is a cultural norm to the extent that lack of assistance is socially unacceptable.

 

We live in a society where each individual has the right to decide whether to risk his life.

 

I do not think the OP was expecting too much - just that the passing boat get assistance at the next practical point.

 

You don't think the OP was wrong to expect someone to take more care of his life than he did, quite simply I do.

 

And reading futher through the thread he was only in two feet of water he could have, should have walked ashore with a rope and a pin. Problem solved.

 

Had the OP written an "I learned about boating from that" it would have been far more beneficial for all rather than slagging someone off because he didnt get the required response when he fuqt up. I am feeling that he is blowing this up out of all proportion.

 

Again I say "Of course this is only my opinion and would bear no scrutiny".

 

 

 

I was called to give assistance last week to a boat grounded in the middle of the Thames. I didn't hesitate, but had the 'stricken boat' known the rules of the bouys in the river (as laid out in the book that is given when you get on the thames) he would never have got stuck in the first place.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Maffi

[Maffi]

if there wasn't a God he wouldn't

 

Of course there is a God I know this because he has an Airforce and Navy which he sent to save the man on the roof in the flood.

[stickleback]

Having re-read the entire thread - and particularly the OP's two posts - I cannot imagine that the boat slagged off for not stopping could, if really pressed for time, have done any more than deploy the anchor of the OP's boat, then waded through two feet of water to fasten up with pins and ropes, securing the boat, allowing the OP to phone for assistance. All of which the OP could have done in any case? Anchor out, quick plunge to the bank - unpleasant perhaps, but not disaster. Why slag off the "other boat" who may have assessed this to be the case? And in any case,perhaps the Other Boat had phoned someone to alert them to the situation.

 

Stickleback

[bargiepat]

Hi Stickleback.

You need to re-read the original post.........

 

What does this say . "Then a red narrow boat came upstream. The owner (Trevor) didnt hesitate and immediately offered to help and tow us to safety."

 

Try and get it right .

 

Patrick.