Jump to content

Double Mooring


Dalesman

Featured Posts

Dave has just got back from paying for his fuel and sees Carl, breasted up, refuelling...

 

Dave:

"Can you move your boat? I find people who breast up abominations of nature and I wish to proceed on my continuous journey around the system."

 

Carl:

"Sorry but I thought you'd be much longer, discussing the legality of insisting on a 60/40 split. I did not intend to hold you up. I'll just be 5 minutes."

 

No intent...No trespass.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the serious damage or dangerous situations I have had, has always involved sharing a lock.

 

1:- Dented roof. (Still there)

 

2:- Smashed wood burner. (New burner purchased).

 

3:- Jammed in lock twice, BW flushed us out. Very scary!!

 

4:- Bent swan. (Still there).

 

5:- Lots of bashes and scrapes.

 

:(

 

That's quite a list :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wot he sed ^^^^^^

 

OK, thank you for a definitive answer.

 

So let me pose a couple of followup questions;

 

 

 

  1. You ask, and he says "OK, I'll move", but in actual fact, he buggers about, and it is a full 10 minutes before he actually starts doing anything to move the boat
  2. He starts immediately, but the whole process of actually moving off takes 10 minutes.

Is there any trespass?

 

 

 

That is not what the definition of Trespass to chattels is, though, Dave.

 

There has to be intent to deprive you of said chattel for a period of time. Touching your boat does not fulfil that requirement.

 

 

 

 

Carl, you are far to intelligent not to understand the word "OR".

 

Trespass to Chattels requires deprivation for a period of time, OR damage to the chattel. Tying to a boat may cause no more than minor wear and tear, but cumulatively the effect of many boats doing so amounts to damage.

 

So, the fact that the paint was worn off my fender eyes by morons tying to them whilst waiting for diesel is "damage" caused by a whole raft of people who individually would claim that what they were doing wasn't causing any damage.

 

 

 

 

 

Dave has just got back from paying for his fuel and sees Carl, breasted up, refuelling...

 

Dave:

"Can you move your boat? I find people who breast up abominations of nature and I wish to proceed on my continuous journey around the system."

 

Carl:

"Sorry but I thought you'd be much longer, discussing the legality of insisting on a 60/40 split. I did not intend to hold you up. I'll just be 5 minutes."

 

No intent...No trespass.

 

No so.

 

You had intent not to allow my boat to leave immediately.

 

Your invalid assumption that I would have no wish to avail myself of the ability to leave right now doesn't alter the intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carl, you are far to intelligent not to understand the word "OR".

 

Trespass to Chattels requires deprivation for a period of time, OR damage to the chattel. Tying to a boat may cause no more than minor wear and tear, but cumulatively the effect of many boats doing so amounts to damage.

 

So, the fact that the paint was worn off my fender eyes by morons tying to them whilst waiting for diesel is "damage" caused by a whole raft of people who individually would claim that what they were doing wasn't causing any damage.

So you sue all of them?

 

Again you are choosing to ignore the vital "intent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinions are generally uncompromising, and aren't often popular!

 

The only pieces of advice that I can offer are;

 

  1. If you choose not to run with the crowd, you need to grow a thick skin (for there is a culture here, even amongst the moderators, that says that if you dare flout the groupthink on any subject, you are fair game).
  2. Never forget that if you share the majority opinion, it doesn't matter how crap your arguments are, because there aren't many people to blow them out of the water. If you have a minority view, you need to be damned sure of your position and be able to back it up with facts, because there will always be a groundswell of others who can spot a flaw.
  3. Always remember that if there's one thing that annoys people more than having an unpopular view, it is failing to be civil whilst expressing that view.
  4. Carl may well be wrong almost all the time, but he does argue his incorrect position well. He doesn't deserve respect simply because of his position as Il Capo di Capi, but because he actually takes the trouble to debate, rather than simply contradict. You may never accept his views, but you may find that you can hone both your views and the way you argue them from debating with him.

 

Thanks for the pointers...maybe it should be a pinned topic...!!!! :cheers:

 

What surprises me is those that stand up for the rights of the "We don't want that family on the canals" as if it's a breach of their prospective Human Rights as future canal dwellers, are some of the worst anti-me protesters.

 

Inevitably they are doing just the opposite through this forum to a newcomer. If indeed I had moored within the reaches of some of the worst purveyors of "thou shalt shut up and sit there in silence until I deem thee worthy of an opinion", then I expect I would have been driven out by group force merely because I had a difference of opinion with them day to day.

 

I'm sure that they are very proud of themselves.... :rolleyes:

 

Tolerance is in excess when they think it is politically correct to have it, yet in very limited supply when put to the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No so.

 

You had intent not to allow my boat to leave immediately.

 

No I didn't, there was no intent whatsoever, but this is just a silly argument.

 

You yourself admitted that you wouldn't take such action because you'd be laughed out of court.

 

This is exactly why the tort of trespass to chattels has faded into obscurity. With no intent and no damage then the action would be unwinnable.

 

You cannot sue an individual for the accumulative effect of hundreds of others. It would be dismissed as fair wear and tear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to Mayalld's argument...how many would be happy with someone climbing over their wife to get to the TV remote...I doubt I'd be happy with my best friend doing that.

 

Or walking through your nicely mowed garden to get to their house as a short cut, to save 5 minutes...

 

It's not about law or words of law, but about respect. Every single argument old and new comes down to that one word, but I have already seen it's absence here.

 

I own the boat, I paid good money for it and the paintwork...keep your muddy boots off and wait 5 minutes until the pump is clear...simple as.

 

Insert disagreement/insult/argument/anything you like as your opinion is more valid here........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so now let's get to something a little more relevant to the real world than the law. What would jesus do?

Well Jesus would obviously forgive us our trespasses (would you not agree, Dave?).

It's a new double act Snibble and Carl! can we book you for the Xmas Panto?

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens, then, if you're low on fuel, the fuelling point is occupied, it's windy and there's nowhere else available to moor up and wait?

 

In a car, if you can't find a space somewhere, there are normally lots of other options. If all else fails, you can drive round the block. That's not generally true of the canals.

 

I'd be looking to breast up to another boat in a gentle and controlled manner, rather than attempting to bob mid-channel, because the latter is more likely to cause damage if it goes wrong, and is also far more likely to go wrong.

 

That may not be the correct answer in legal terms but it is the most considerate, in my view.

 

Discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens, then, if you're low on fuel, the fuelling point is occupied, it's windy and there's nowhere else available to moor up and wait?

 

Ah the classic "I haven't planned ahead, so I have to inconvenience others" argument.

 

Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course. He's getting the traditional CWDF welcome. Those who think they are at the top of the pecking order like to make sure that new people know that.

 

FYI, GD, CarlT is generally well-informed, but he does consider himself to be the godfather of the forum, and likes to be shown the respect that he considers his due.

 

MayallD (exit the dragon) is something of a control freak, who spends hours looking things up so that he can demonstrate his superior knowledge to all and sundry. This has the advantage for forum members that what he says is usually correct, but he's not somebody you would perhaps wish to invite round for dinner. Not if you wanted a convivial evening.

 

Cotswoldman is a brave colonial boy, who never flinches from offering his opinion on all sorts of matters, even ones he knows very little about. He is rather prone to telling people that they are talking rubbish, and though this is one area where he speaks from experience, he often gets it wrong there too. Whilst Messrs Mayall and Carl see themselves as authority figures, CWM wants to be regarded as wise, hence his carefully chosen avatar. It's rather touching.

 

In fairness, people tell me that Carl and CWM are actually nicer than their on-line personas sometimes suggest. I have yet to hear the same said of Mr Mayall, but nobody is all bad, and no doubt it is just a matter of time before somebody tells me he has a heart of gold and is kind to animals and old ladies. Note that Phylis (the bumptious tupper-sailor) is NOT an old lady.

 

OK so here goes:

If I was stuck with a broken down car at 2 in the morning the first person I would call is Dave Mayall, while we were frozen in in winter he brought us water in a caravan water container daily until it thawed, even though he had to drive through ice and snow, he has offered incredible advice whenever asked to people who don't have his eye for detail and smallprint, he was the first person to take the trouble to befriend us when we bought our boat and has remained a friend ever since. He has faced down extraordinary trials over the past 2 years with patience and humour and contiues to do so, I would trust him and the fair Mrs M with my life - is that the sort of thing you were thinking of.

Edited by kiki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the classic "I haven't planned ahead, so I have to inconvenience others" argument.

 

Well done.

So, every canal has fuel for sale every 5 miles, does it?

 

Everyone knows exactly how much of their tank is diesel and how much is water and crud?

 

It is always possible to measure the fuel level accurately?

 

Fuel lines and filters never start to leak unexpectedly?

 

Fuel never gets contaminated?

 

The wind never blows?

 

Canals always have lots of empty mooring spaces wherever you go?

 

"Sod's Law" simply doesn't exist???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the classic "I haven't planned ahead, so I have to inconvenience others" argument.

 

Well done.

But surely he/she has planned ahead in that they have reached the fuel replenishing depot and still have a little fuel in the tank? To my mind "I haven't planned ahead, so I have to inconvenience others" would me a more likely scenario if they had run out of fuel before reaching the facility and thus required a tow or similar.

 

Edited to add: There are many reasons why a journey may take more fuel than anticipated and could leave one low on fuel. Low water levels would be a good example.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swing bridges anyone?

 

 

When I last visited the U.K.canals, I was surprised to see long rows of boats tied up at both sides of swing-bridges, curious as I am, I asked if they all belonged to the so called "bridge-hopper" brigade. It worked out I was completely wrong, as they were real CCers, and long date experienced pleasure boaters, their only reason for waiting to go through those bridges was because of the "OFFICIAL RULES" of operating and passing swing-bridges that were going to be published shortly by a certain CWDF-member. My visit there was a couple of months ago, but I heard they are all still waiting for the "OFFICIAL RULES" because they don't want to be called "tossers" if they do it wrong. BTW many of those waiting had been on the canals for 20 years, some of them even longer, and always used to do it their way, without any problem whatsoever.

 

All I can hope for is that those "OFFICIAL RULES" will be published soon, as it would be terrible if all those boats are going to be blocked be the ice when the canals freez-up.

 

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I last visited the U.K.canals, I was surprised to see long rows of boats tied up at both sides of swing-bridges, curious as I am, I asked if they all belonged to the so called "bridge-hopper" brigade. It worked out I was completely wrong, as they were real CCers, and long date experienced pleasure boaters, their only reason for waiting to go through those bridges was because of the "OFFICIAL RULES" of operating and passing swing-bridges that were going to be published shortly by a certain CWDF-member. My visit there was a couple of months ago, but I heard they are all still waiting for the "OFFICIAL RULES" because they don't want to be called "tossers" if they do it wrong. BTW many of those waiting had been on the canals for 20 years, some of them even longer, and always used to do it their way, without any problem whatsoever.

 

All I can hope for is that those "OFFICIAL RULES" will be published soon, as it would be terrible if all those boats are going to be blocked be the ice when the canals freez-up.

 

Peter.

 

Is there any particular size of wooden spoon that you find useful Peter, or will any one do? :lol:

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any particular size of wooden spoon that you find useful Peter, or will any one do? :lol:

Roger

 

 

I would say :"The bigger, the better", I do have a couple already and could maybe light my fire with them, that is if I ever get to installing a SF stove in my boat, to avoid the too expensive diesel fuel. Just paid 0.90 €/ltr for heating fuel, and price is expected to go up even more.

 

Peter.

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.