I got hurt

[nb Innisfree]

You could always hang a car tyre or a fender from the T-stud, so it dangles down low and takes the impact from the cill- remove it once you've done the lock or flight!

 

Actually I did have a length of D section rubber fixed round the bow stem but unfortunately not long enough to extend to the bottom, anyway I ripped it to shreds icebreaking!

[mayalld]

Just to add I was refering to the lock by the lockhouse, going to Barbridge. Good point about leaves, tho some times it can be struggle to make headway anywhere in Autumn!

 

Ah, now that is a whole different kettle of fish!

 

That is not a lock where your prime concern is that your boat will be damaged. It is a lock where your prime concern is that your ego could be damaged if Maureen determines that you aren't working the lock properly :-)

[nb Innisfree]

Ah, now that is a whole different kettle of fish!

 

That is not a lock where your prime concern is that your boat will be damaged. It is a lock where your prime concern is that your ego could be damaged if Maureen determines that you aren't working the lock properly :-)

 

Yes I have recieved a lecture/instruction/b******ing from Maureen, just nodded and took it, best way

Edited July 2, 2009 by nb Innisfree

[mayalld]

How terrible is that risk? I understand the dangers of being flooded by premature and/or over-enthusiastic opening of gate paddles, which is clearly to be avoided. I also know that whipping any paddles up too fast can lead to a lot of buffetting and bouncing about. But on a steel boat, what is going to get smashed? I have very little sympathy with people who complain about crockery, ornaments etc getting broken - it is a boat, not a house, and they should always be secured against that sort of thing which is always a possibility, whether in a lock or in any number of other situations. If people realised this and behaved accordingly then they could relax and enjoy their boating a lot more.

 

Still it would be hard to beat the example recounted to me last night by OH who is single handing for the first time down the GU. He was sharing locks yesterday with someone who insisted on tying up with THREE ropes in every lock, and constantly climbing up and down the ladder to adjust them.

 

I have to disagree.

 

The overwhelming majority of boaters intend to use their boat to provide overnight accomodation, and it is to that extent a floating home.

 

Stuff should be secured against things that are reasonably likely to happen, but it would be overkill to protect against events that are unlikely.

 

If gung-ho morons keep their windlasses away whilst I'm in a lock, things being smashed is unlikely.

 

I should also point out that I have seen a boat crack a weld on the prow due to being thrown against the head of Rumps Lock.

 

(and I am nothing like the example quoted. Despite taking care of our boat, we go through locks fast, and if we are behind you, you can depend on us breathing down your neck)

 

Yes I have recieved a lecture/instruction/b******ing from Maureen, just nodded and took it, best way

 

If you do it right, she doesn't lecture you!

[grahoom]

if we are behind you, you can depend on us breathing down your neck)

 

shudder....

[RLWP]

and if we are behind you, you can depend on us breathing down your neck

 

Intersting that. If you are catching us up I would expect you to come and help us through. It would speed us both up.

 

What's your policy on helping other boats?

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Intersting that. If you are catching us up I would expect you to come and help us through. It would speed us both up.

 

What's your policy on helping other boats?

 

Richard

 

I've already mentioned that!

 

I always offer to help, but do so in a way that ensures that it is an offer, not a fait acomplis.

[RLWP]

I've already mentioned that!

 

I always offer to help, but do so in a way that ensures that it is an offer, not a fait acomplis.

 

Fair enough. That's what we do too.

 

Richard

 

Get your windlass out and whip 'em up then. If the boat isn't moving along, up or down then we aren't doing it right...

[Tillerman]

OK, did you make clear that what you were asking for was for them to review their training? If not, the natural assumption will be that you want them to "do something" about these particular offenders.

 

You say that they can't have that many crews from Stockholm in a week. Sorry, but yes they can. Many hire firms do a lot of overseas business.

 

You say that you want them to "do something", but what are they to do? Unless they can identify a reason why their customers didn't take on board all that they were told, anything they do would just be a knee jerk reaction.

 

A claim for compensation would be a start as you've obviously suffered a personal injury requiring hospital treatment.

Ask the hire company for the name of their insurance company and pass this information onto your insurers.

You could instruct a solicitor to do the donkey work for you and add their costs to the claim.

That's why people have insurance.

And don't expect the hire company to accept liability - its written into almost all hire agreements that hirers should not admit liability for any accidents.

If you read the hire agreements it will almost certinaly say that the hire company accepts no liability for anything (!) but the key wording is "reasonable control" and your argument would be that in this case the lack of correct instruction was not "resonable control"

 

Good luck!

[chieftiff]

Ah, this is excellent! A post confidently stating something to be a fact, when it is no such thing.

 

The skipper of a narrowboat does have certain legal powers, just like his sea going counterpart, and if the narrowboat is registered on the small ships register (a snip at £12 for 5 years), his powers are substantially the same.

 

Just take a read through the Merchant Shipping Act.

 

Sadly, we had to compromise on having a brig fitted, in favour of a larger bathroom! I have often wondered what we will do with somebody that I arrest under s105 of MSA 1995.

 

It is a condition of being aboard Mr Jinks that you accept that the skipper is in charge, and yes, I would remove people if they don't accept it.

 

And finally, the driver of a motor vehicle is NOT responsible for his passengers seat belts (unless the passengers are children).

 

I think you may have a lot to learn about what defines the master of a vessel in law, what it takes to become one ( a licensed Captain with the powers and authorisations that come with that and where and when those powers are restricted) where International Maritime Law applies in context and what registering your vessel actually means.... you are sadly deluded if you believe that owning a narrowboat and registering it under the small ships register offers you any powers at all let alone those which are substantially the same as a merchant vessels's Master. Have you actually ever been to sea?

 

The Law will hold you responsible for all the children in your car who do not wear their seatbelts and will fine you for allowing it, which Law will fine you for not keeping your narrowboat clean and free from disease amongst many other mundane and routine responsibilities? Again, a licensed Captain just might have a few things to say on that point and explain how he can be legally held responsible for the latter, he would of course have spent about 5 years studying the Law that holds him to his responsibilities in the area(s) within which he is licensed to operate a merchant vessel.

 

Do you have a little captains hat and like to be addressed as skipper?

[alan_fincher]

And finally, the driver of a motor vehicle is NOT responsible for his passengers seat belts (unless the passengers are children).

 

The Law will hold you responsible for all the children in your car who do not wear their seatbelts and will fine you for allowing it,

 

Good!

 

It's nice to see you both agreeing on at least one point!

 

(Although I think the law varies for some mini-buses, possibly, if we want to keep it going! - Could be wrong about that, though! )

[mayalld]

I think you may have a lot to learn about what defines the master of a vessel in law, what it takes to become one ( a licensed Captain with the powers and authorisations that come with that and where and when those powers are restricted) where International Maritime Law applies in context and what registering your vessel actually means.... you are sadly deluded if you believe that owning a narrowboat and registering it under the small ships register offers you any powers at all let alone those which are substantially the same as a merchant vessels's Master. Have you actually ever been to sea?

 

The Law will hold you responsible for all the children in your car who do not wear their seatbelts and will fine you for allowing it, which Law will fine you for not keeping your narrowboat clean and free from disease amongst many other mundane and routine responsibilities? Again, a licensed Captain just might have a few things to say on that point and explain how he can be legally held responsible for the latter, he would of course have spent about 5 years studying the Law that holds him to his responsibilities in the area(s) within which he is licensed to operate a merchant vessel.

 

Do you have a little captains hat and like to be addressed as skipper?

 

OK, several points there.

 

No, I don't have a little captains hat, or like to be addressed as skipper. I couldn't care less what people want to call me. Just as long as they understand that there is one person in charge on board (and that person might well be somebody other than me).

 

It actually seems that you are the one with a chip on your shoulder here, with your rather silly willy-waving about have I ever been to sea (yes, a couple of times), and bluster about licenced captains and the like.

 

You say that I have a lot to learn about what constitutes the master of a vessel in law. On the contrary, I am well versed in what the relevant acts say.

 

MSA1995 s313(1)

"master" includes every person (except a pilot) having command or charge of a ship and, in relation to a fishing vessel, means the skipper;

"ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation;

So, any person who has charge of a narrowboat, even if he hasn't done the things that YOU think make him a "real" master, is the master of a ship.

MSA1995 s1(3)

A ship is a "United Kingdom ship" for the purposes of this Act (except section 85 and 144(3)) if the ship is registered in the United Kingdom under Part II

So, if a narrowboat is on the SSR, it is a United Kingdom Ship (I am assuming that we can skip proving that entry in the SSR is registration in the UK under Part II)

MSA1995 s24

(1) With the exceptions specified in subsection (2) below, this Part applies only to ships which are sea-going ships and masters and seamen employed in sea-going ships.

 

(2) Those exceptions are sections 43, 46 to 52, 54, 55, 58, 61 to 68 and 69.

 

So, in Part III of the act, the sections listed are applicable, whilst the sections not listed do not apply, in respect of my boat.

 

I am consequently not obliged under s53 to make medical provision.

 

Part IV (safety) contains no exclusions, and consequently I do have, for example, the powers granted by

 

MSA1995 s105

 

The master of any United Kingdom ship may cause any person on board the ship to be put under restraint if and for so long as it appears to him necessary or expedient in the interest of safety or for the preservation of good order or discipline on board the ship.

[chieftiff]

OK, several points there.

 

No, I don't have a little captains hat, or like to be addressed as skipper. I couldn't care less what people want to call me. Just as long as they understand that there is one person in charge on board (and that person might well be somebody other than me).

 

It actually seems that you are the one with a chip on your shoulder here, with your rather silly willy-waving about have I ever been to sea (yes, a couple of times), and bluster about licenced captains and the like.

 

You say that I have a lot to learn about what constitutes the master of a vessel in law. On the contrary, I am well versed in what the relevant acts say.

 

 

So, any person who has charge of a narrowboat, even if he hasn't done the things that YOU think make him a "real" master, is the master of a ship.

 

So, if a narrowboat is on the SSR, it is a United Kingdom Ship (I am assuming that we can skip proving that entry in the SSR is registration in the UK under Part II)

 

 

So, in Part III of the act, the sections listed are applicable, whilst the sections not listed do not apply, in respect of my boat.

 

I am consequently not obliged under s53 to make medical provision.

 

Part IV (safety) contains no exclusions, and consequently I do have, for example, the powers granted by

 

You might want to try and act out that power at some point on your narrowboat and see just how deep a hole you can dig yourself with the Law

This really is getting silly and probably deviating from the thread topic, I'll send you a pm to explain why I probably understand this a little better than you appear to!

[mayalld]

You might want to try and act out that power at some point on your narrowboat and see just how deep a hole you can dig yourself with the Law

This really is getting silly and probably deviating from the thread topic, I'll send you a pm to explain why I probably understand this a little better than you appear to!

 

I am not in the habit of arresting the crew.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't have that power.

 

Now, you have lectured me on how I have much to learn. I have quoted you chapter and verse.

 

Yet somehow, you claim that your superior knowledge trumps what the law actually says.

 

Please feel free to explain here just how that comes to be. Your PM will not be accepted.

[chieftiff]

I am not in the habit of arresting the crew.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't have that power.

 

Now, you have lectured me on how I have much to learn. I have quoted you chapter and verse.

 

Yet somehow, you claim that your superior knowledge trumps what the law actually says.

 

Please feel free to explain here just how that comes to be. Your PM will not be accepted.

 

Fair enough.

 

When this topic first came up I e-mailed a good friend of mine who I spent 25 years in the Royal Navy with, he is now a globally licensed Captain of a VERY large Merchant vessel currently off the gulf, he also has a narrowboat that he uses occasionally as do I. Here is most of his reply.....

 

Hi Chris,

Why do you get embroiled in these arguments you haven't bloody changed I thought you left to sloooooow down :-)

 

I looked at the link to the canal site you sent and it's a typical answer, I meet "Captains" on the canals all the time who claim to understand their rights and responsibilities, some of them should know better but few do, the training many of the inland waterways croud get is p!ss poor.

 

I spent 5 years gaining my tickets and I still spend much of my time referring to the library of books on international and regional maritime law, nobody knows it all and a little knowledge is dangerous. Many laws are contradictory especially within sovereign or privately owned waterways (The Thames for example has its own rules), my rights and responsibilities to the company are clearly defined but my powers are not so clear which is why they are re-defined in the crews terms and conditions of service (yes it's just like the mob) There are real problems around retaining people in custody and many skippers have come a cropper under human rights and local laws of unlawful detention, it's a minefield.

 

All captains are legally responsible for their craft with respect to the damage it can cause and that's fairly clear cut, it's why we are insured! The question of authority over the crew on the other hand is questionable and you can only hand out punishment if the crew will accept it - terms of contract or if it's absolutely clear cut - physical assault and the like, but I still have a 24 hour legal hotline I can consult if it's not so clear cut! I'm basically limited to restrictions on pay and firing people on the spot from which point I have to treat them as a passenger believe it or not. Their responsibility to me and my responsibility for their actions are pretty much the same as for any employer, if they are passengers I am solely responsible for their safety but if they are hurt by a crew member's stupidity then the level of responsibility will be apportioned and it's all about what I do to prevent stupidity - look to incidents like Zebrugge if you want examples.

 

If I get a chance I'll pop in and put them straight but to be honest it would be a complete waste of my time, their responsibilities are nearer to that of a car driver than a master but I doubt many of the weekend warriors would understand or accept it.

 

The rest of the e-mail is personal so I haven't written it up.

 

I don't think Ian will be popping in as that was sent a couple of days ago, he's a busy guy but I'm meeting him in Bahrain next week so am more than willing to pass on your questions.

 

No offense intended by the way I just felt it was important that narrowboat steerers don't go around believing they are in some way legally responsible for the actions of their crew except in the same way they are responsible for the actions of others under UK law.

[sociable_hermit]

It isn't about treating everybody like an idiot.

 

It is about not allowing somebody whose skills you are unsure of take risks with your boat.

 

You may be willing to risk being smashed about a bit in the name of being non-confrontational. I'm not.

 

The risk is VERY low, because:

* I always pay attention to what is going on, and so do my regular crew when they're about.

* the boat is responsive so I can adjust position in a lock quickly if needed, and at 40' there is room to play with

* the majority of people we meet are very good anyway

* if all else fails I have a very loud voice and I'm quick on my feet!

 

I'm quite happy to give people the benefit of the doubt, but we will step in very quickly if anything untoward occurs. If things should ever get dangerous, I'd rather sort the problem out quickly and then argue about it afterwards, if it comes to it. But I like being able to trust people and get on with the job, rather than interviewing everyone before going into a lock. If there's an issue we'll resolve it, but I'm not paranoid enough to assume that every situation spells trouble until it doesn't. Life's too short.

 

So far, although I've been bounced around a bit by careless paddle use, it's always been controllable and no damage has occurred. The only times we've had serious words, it's been for fundamental errors rather than the finer points of lock control. A chap on the Soar opening the bottom paddles on Sileby lock while we were entering at the top, both gates having been left open for us by the previous pair of boats going out, for example. Or the hire boaters moored in Cropredy lock at 3pm waiting for their Tescos delivery.

 

I've been told off once, for bad lockwheeling. First lock of the day (I'm not good with mornings) I went straight for the gate paddle rather than starting at the side - no idea why. The other crew shouted a quick "No!" before I had the chance to start, and I realised straight away what I had nearly done, and apologised and kicked myself a bit, and then we got on with doing it correctly. They were right and I was wrong, but they were very nice about it, and nothing got damaged.

[mykaskin]

I went straight for the gate paddle rather than starting at the side - no idea why.

 

You're not the only one, I've seen it done so many times! Usually the worst that happens is the boat gets pushed about, but it could be so much worse. The sooner people on the lock realise they have the power of life and death in their hands the better.

 

Mike

[mayalld]

Fair enough.

 

When this topic first came up I e-mailed a good friend of mine who I spent 25 years in the Royal Navy with, he is now a globally licensed Captain of a VERY large Merchant vessel currently off the gulf, he also has a narrowboat that he uses occasionally as do I. Here is most of his reply.....

 

Hi Chris,

Why do you get embroiled in these arguments you haven't bloody changed I thought you left to sloooooow down :-)

 

I looked at the link to the canal site you sent and it's a typical answer, I meet "Captains" on the canals all the time who claim to understand their rights and responsibilities, some of them should know better but few do, the training many of the inland waterways croud get is p!ss poor.

<snip>

No offense intended by the way I just felt it was important that narrowboat steerers don't go around believing they are in some way legally responsible for the actions of their crew except in the same way they are responsible for the actions of others under UK law.

 

So the reason that your knowledge trumps the actual law is that you have a mate, who also has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about him being a "real" captain, and me not.

 

Fine, I don't claim to be a captain. I do claim to be the master of a vessel, and the law is entirely clear on that point.

 

It may well be that some of the powers that a master has are less than clear, but with the exception of those powers which are stated not to apply on my vessel, we have equal powers. My power of arrest, for example, is identical to his (and whilst I would agree that the power may fall foul of the HRA, incompatibility doesn't actually make a law invalid).

 

In many ways, I am able to use my powers as master more effectively, because I am seldom far from land, and should any of the "crew" play up, I can remove them without delay.

 

Finally, I have never suggested that the master bears some direct legal responsibility for the actions of his crew. I do suggest that he has ultimate responsibility for the safety of the vessel, and that should an accident occur that results in death or bodily injury, the master could be found liable if it is shown that he failed to act when his crew did something dangerous.

[howardang]

Finally, I have never suggested that the master bears some direct legal responsibility for the actions of his crew. I do suggest that he has ultimate responsibility for the safety of the vessel, and that should an accident occur that results in death or bodily injury, the master could be found liable if it is shown that he failed to act when his crew did something dangerous.

 

This is the key point and one which I attempted to point out in relation to the by -laws which appertain to BW waterways. I suggest that chief tiff and his sea going friend should read the BW by-laws (and if necessary the various BW acts) which quite clearly spell out the responsibilities of what BW and the MSA (not me) define as the Master of a vessel on their waters. International marine law is interesting but irrelevant in this context.

 

 

Howard

[chieftiff]

This is the key point and one which I attempted to point out in relation to the by -laws which appertain to BW waterways. I suggest that chief tiff and his sea going friend should read the BW by-laws (and if necessary the various BW acts) which quite clearly spell out the responsibilities of what BW and the MSA (not me) define as the Master of a vessel on their waters. International marine law is interesting but irrelevant in this context.

 

 

Howard

 

It's not the key point at all, regardless of the acts which place the title of master upon the "person for the time being having or taking command, charge, possession or management of a vessel whether lawfully or unlawfully", done so to ensure that a person can be held responsible for the safety and licensing of the vessel - and I'm not arguing that the title is wrong or the responsibility of the individual is in any way diminished. That act does not in any way remove the responsibility of operating a lock paddle from the person doing so and somehow transfer his/her responsibility to the skipper in some sort of Master & Commander scenario. The Law will hold individuals responsible for their actions when they aren't on the boat, not their skipper, they are therefore responsible for what they do. Our entire legal system is based on the premise that individuals can be held responsible for their actions, there are occasions when liability can be shifted but these are almost always related to employment and prosecuted under H&S or Employment legislation, not the argument that "my husband will take responsibility because he was the vessels master in accordance with such and such a legislation" Your authority to tell your crew what to do on or off your narrowboat is limited to what they are prepared to do for you, unlike a real captain they don't work for you, you can't fire them (divorce is always an option of course but a bit extreme for opening a paddle too quickly)

 

Myalld is the one who started to bang on about how he had the power of a bloody captain and as much as I hate to burst his narcissistic bubble he doesn't; even if he chooses to believe that registering his boat on the small ships register endows him with such powers, the context of the law misleads people all the time, that's why we employ lawyers who specialise in The Law, just what training do most narrowboat owners have which offers them the expertise to decide that they can restrain a person to protect the safety of their vessel (you would get ripped to shreds in court and it could cost you your freedom trying to enact those "powers"), it was humorous but it's stepped over the line to become ridiculous. All your likely to get is a broken nose and a day in court if you start acting like Jack Aubrey on the inland waterways. The statement that best sums up what "powers" a narrowboat steerers has were in Myalld's last post I think and I apologise for paraphrasing as I really can't be arsed to go back and read the drivel but something along the lines of 'I have all the powers of a captain except the powers of a captain that I don't have' The reality is you have all the "powers" that any other citizen has and are answerable to the law in exactly the same way as any other citizen, full stop.

[nb Innisfree]

It's not the key point at all, regardless of the acts which place the title of master upon the "person for the time being having or taking command, charge, possession or management of a vessel whether lawfully or unlawfully", done so to ensure that a person can be held responsible for the safety and licensing of the vessel - and I'm not arguing that the title is wrong or the responsibility of the individual is in any way diminished. That act does not in any way remove the responsibility of operating a lock paddle from the person doing so and somehow transfer his/her responsibility to the skipper in some sort of Master & Commander scenario. The Law will hold individuals responsible for their actions when they aren't on the boat, not their skipper, they are therefore responsible for what they do. Our entire legal system is based on the premise that individuals can be held responsible for their actions, there are occasions when liability can be shifted but these are almost always related to employment and prosecuted under H&S or Employment legislation, not the argument that "my husband will take responsibility because he was the vessels master in accordance with such and such a legislation" Your authority to tell your crew what to do on or off your narrowboat is limited to what they are prepared to do for you, unlike a real captain they don't work for you, you can't fire them (divorce is always an option of course but a bit extreme for opening a paddle too quickly)

 

Myalld is the one who started to bang on about how he had the power of a bloody captain and as much as I hate to burst his narcissistic bubble he doesn't; even if he chooses to believe that registering his boat on the small ships register endows him with such powers, the context of the law misleads people all the time, that's why we employ lawyers who specialise in The Law, just what training do most narrowboat owners have which offers them the expertise to decide that they can restrain a person to protect the safety of their vessel (you would get ripped to shreds in court and it could cost you your freedom trying to enact those "powers"), it was humorous but it's stepped over the line to become ridiculous. All your likely to get is a broken nose and a day in court if you start acting like Jack Aubrey on the inland waterways. The statement that best sums up what "powers" a narrowboat steerers has were in Myalld's last post I think and I apologise for paraphrasing as I really can't be arsed to go back and read the drivel but something along the lines of 'I have all the powers of a captain except the powers of a captain that I don't have' The reality is you have all the "powers" that any other citizen has and are answerable to the law in exactly the same way as any other citizen, full stop.

 

When I meet Myalid I will use my powers of arrest as a citizen for bringing the reputation of narrowboat captains into disrepute

[mayalld]

Myalld is the one who started to bang on about how he had the power of a bloody captain and as much as I hate to burst his narcissistic bubble he doesn't; even if he chooses to believe that registering his boat on the small ships register endows him with such powers, the context of the law misleads people all the time, that's why we employ lawyers who specialise in The Law, just what training do most narrowboat owners have which offers them the expertise to decide that they can restrain a person to protect the safety of their vessel (you would get ripped to shreds in court and it could cost you your freedom trying to enact those "powers"), it was humorous but it's stepped over the line to become ridiculous. All your likely to get is a broken nose and a day in court if you start acting like Jack Aubrey on the inland waterways. The statement that best sums up what "powers" a narrowboat steerers has were in Myalld's last post I think and I apologise for paraphrasing as I really can't be arsed to go back and read the drivel but something along the lines of 'I have all the powers of a captain except the powers of a captain that I don't have' The reality is you have all the "powers" that any other citizen has and are answerable to the law in exactly the same way as any other citizen, full stop.

 

You really do like to try and put words into my mouth don't you.

 

I don't claim to have the powers of a Captain, and you repeatedly use the word in an attempt to make out that I am trying to make believe that I am the captain of a supertanker.

 

I am not a captain. I am the master of a vessel. Your friend is a captain, and is also the master of a vessel. Would you like me to draw it as a bloody diagram for you?

 

The law gives a whole series of powers and responsibilities to the masters of vessels. Some of those powers and responsibilities apply to the masters of all vessels. Some apply ony to the masters of certain classes of vessel.

 

It is beyond any doubt that (for example) s104 and s105 of the MSA 1995 are applicable. You might argue that the master of a narrowboat will not have sufficient expertise to know whether a particular act is within their powers, much as many people lack sufficient expertise to understand their power of arrest as a citizen under PACE. That may well be the case. It is not, however, relevant.

 

It is simply the case that any person who is a master of a vessel needs to be certain that he or she is acting within their powers. That applies to me, and to your friend the captain. Your apparent belief that only those who have gone to sea will have the requisite knowledge and expertise is nothing more than snobbery.

 

Oh, and allow me to quote another bit of the law at you...

British Waterways General Canal Bye-laws 1965

52. The master of any vessel using any canal shall be responsible for

the safety and security of the vessel and its mooring and shall be

answerable to the Board for any damage done by such vessel or

by any person employed about the same to the canal, vessels,

goods and property of the Board in or on any part of the canal;

 

When I meet Myalid I will use my powers of arrest as a citizen for bringing the reputation of narrowboat captains into disrepute

 

There are no narrowboat captains

[chieftiff]

You really do like to try and put words into my mouth don't you.

 

I don't claim to have the powers of a Captain, and you repeatedly use the word in an attempt to make out that I am trying to make believe that I am the captain of a supertanker.

 

I am not a captain. I am the master of a vessel. Your friend is a captain, and is also the master of a vessel. Would you like me to draw it as a bloody diagram for you?

 

The law gives a whole series of powers and responsibilities to the masters of vessels. Some of those powers and responsibilities apply to the masters of all vessels. Some apply ony to the masters of certain classes of vessel.

 

It is beyond any doubt that (for example) s104 and s105 of the MSA 1995 are applicable. You might argue that the master of a narrowboat will not have sufficient expertise to know whether a particular act is within their powers, much as many people lack sufficient expertise to understand their power of arrest as a citizen under PACE. That may well be the case. It is not, however, relevant.

 

It is simply the case that any person who is a master of a vessel needs to be certain that he or she is acting within their powers. That applies to me, and to your friend the captain. Your apparent belief that only those who have gone to sea will have the requisite knowledge and expertise is nothing more than snobbery.

 

 

Oh, and allow me to quote another bit of the law at you...

 

 

 

 

There are no narrowboat captains

 

Ok, we are getting nowhere here.

 

You can extract as many "laws" as you like and quote them, I have no intention of trying to put them all in context. What I'm saying is that despite these "laws" your powers as the master of a narrowboat are ostensibly the same as anybody else, your responsibilities for your vessel are explicit. The laws you have quoted are duplicated in other legislation applicable whether or not you are the master of a vessel and therefore there are no particular additional powers afforded to you which would encompass your wife, friend, child operating a paddle as previously discussed. Cutting and quoting only half my post won't change that and stating that you believe something to be without doubt does not make it so or lawyers would be out of a job.

 

I'm happy to leave it at that because arguing on the internet is just pointless; I believe that the person operating a lock paddle should take responsibility for what they are doing as they are in a position of control, you believe that as the narrowboat's steerer that responsibility falls to you.... we differ, nothing new.

[mayalld]

Ok, we are getting nowhere here.

 

You can extract as many "laws" as you like and quote them, I have no intention of trying to put them all in context.

 

You don't "put things in context"

 

You simply assert that anything that you and your capain mate says trumps the law as written because you have been to sea.

[chieftiff]

You don't "put things in context"

 

You simply assert that anything that you and your capain mate says trumps the law as written because you have been to sea.

 

I fail to see how your perceptions of me are relevant, are you upset that I have mates or that I've been to sea (rhetorical don't bother answering)

 

You've just reached stardom as the first person on my ignore list.