Double Mooring

[Naughty Cal]

Hi Phylis

 

Not seen many of your posts lately have you been busy doing that four letter word ? !!

 

Unfortunately.

 

Should have an interesting write up for your after the weekend. We are taking some narrowboatists out this weekend

[Sir Nibble]

Dont be silly. Those of us with, proper toilets are far too civilised to see the contents of our loos for a second time, that is why we pay someone else to do the dirty work for us

Some people have very strange ideas about elsan type bogs. You use it, it doesn't stink, it's just a toilet. Emptying time you take it to the disposal which is not an unpleasant place unless the self pump out vandals have been at it. You remove the cap and empty the bog down the disposal point. Notice I say "down the disposal point" not empty it over your head, not pour it down your shirt or drink it. There is nothing disgusting about it, or at least no more than what you had to do to fill it up. Washing hands is something carried out by custom and practice like any visit to the lavatory there is no need for biohazard decontamination and no need for aprons boots and gloves. I would consider emptying the toilet as a way nicer job than changing a nappy.

[WotEver]

... if you happen to be moored a distance away from the "drop off" point, then it's still a struggle dragging full cassettes in icy weather, especially of you've filled 2 or more. A hand truck is a huge help then.

How would you drag your full pump-out tank?

 

Tony

[Guest]

View Postdeletedaccount, on 10 November 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

[deleted]

 

Blast that wasted one of today's greenies...

[WotEver]

Elsan points seem to have random positions, some easy access, some problematic (i.e only from within the marina rather than the towpath), thus not so easy to get too when laden.

A huge problem for a pump-out then...

[AlanH]

Or hump a tank full of crap around until you eventualy find a pump out machine and PAY to have it emptied. But of course you could always use the Proper boat toilet that pump out brigade carry with them err " Just in case "

I'm beginning to believe that you are either obsessed with toilets and their contents or you are a Thetford employee. How on earth do you manage to divert a conversation about a survey to the usual boring pumpout/cassttre debate? A tiny mention of a toilet is enough to start you off.

[LoneWolf]

How would you drag your full pump-out tank?

 

Tony

 

dont be silly tony, those with pump outs use their spare (cassette) toilet in the icey winter

[WotEver]

I'm beginning to believe that you are either obsessed with toilets and their contents or you are a Thetford employee. How on earth do you manage to divert a conversation about a survey to the usual boring pumpout/cassttre debate? A tiny mention of a toilet is enough to start you off.

Well, it was actually me that started it

[carlt]

Can be a criminal matter if it is contempt of court, granted the offence would be contempt but it is arising from trespass.

 

Criminal trespass can also occur if the order of the court is pursuant to those previously mentioned.

 

However, your "simple trespass" argument is, subject to the tests above not applying, entirely correct . ������

Actually "Criminal Trespass" is a totally different thing to the civil wrong of trespass and is totally irrelevant to the waterways.

 

"Criminal Trespass" was introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, and only applies to specific sites:

 

(3)The Secretary of State may only designate a site for the purposes of this section if—

 

(a)it is comprised in Crown land; or

 

(b)it is comprised in land belonging to Her Majesty in Her private capacity or to the immediate heir to the Throne in his private capacity; or

 

©it appears to the Secretary of State that it is appropriate to designate the site in the interests of national security.

 

The only other places where criminal trespass applies is Railway land (with the exception of "Collective Trespass" discarded as irrelevant, in another thread)

Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840: it is an offence to wilfully trespass on any railway or premises connected therewith and to refuse to leave when asked to do so by any officer or agent of the railway company. 'Wilfulness' can be proved by the refusal to leave. The offence is punishable by one month's imprisonment

Section 23 Regulation of the Railways Act 1868: this prohibits passage upon or across any railway line except for the purpose of crossing the line at an authorised point. A person commits an offence by so doing after having once received warning by the railway company, their servants or agents, to desist

Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949: this penalises trespass on railway lines or property in dangerous proximity to such lines or electrical apparatus. Evidence is required of a notice exhibited at the station nearest the place of offence providing a clear public warning not to trespass on a railway. Punishable by a fine.

 

Obviously it could be argued that these laws can be changed, to suit any argument, however spurious. But as the reasons for the laws, as they stand, are national security and public safety it is extremely unlikely.

Edited November 10, 2011 by carlt

[WotEver]

dont be silly tony, those with pump outs use their spare (cassette) toilet in the icey winter

So true

[Guest]

I really, really feel for you.....oh wait, no sorry, it was just a bout of wind....

 

Told you before bud you are not my type....

 

now get over yourself please..

[deletedaccount]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by theguitardoctor

 

Ah, much better. No more delusional nutjob.

[WotEver]

Actually "Criminal Trespass" is a totally different thing to the civil wrong of trespass...

The Specials had a chat about it several years ago... http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?/topic/43175-civil-vs-criminal-trespass/

 

Tony

[Guest]

Why are you responding to him - don't you get it - he can't see it?????

[deletedaccount]

 

ah, bliss.

[Guest]

No but the rest of you can, and many put their oar in.

 

Just because you can't see your penis at this moment, it doesn't mean it's not there.....

 

If you need to check yours a glance in the mirror should do it, it's that thing at the top of your neck.

 

I will wager in six months if you carry on the way you are you will be on that many ignore lists (Virtual or otherwise) that your participation in the forum will be pointless.

 

So my advice for what it's worth is to wind your neck in, stop trying to provoke an argument at each and every turn, learn from some of the more experienced members on here instead of trying to pick a fight with them.

 

Anyway over to you for the last word, I know you won't be able to resist, because I'm done with you -

[carlt]

Steering back on topic...

 

The question of breasting up being an act of trespass was covered some time ago.

 

It would not be trespass on land but trespass to chattels and the important distinction is that this requires intent to interfere or deprive the owner. Not relevant in a breasting up scenario.

[Sir Nibble]

Ah, much better. No more delusional nutjob.

Yea, now if people can refrain from quoting the delusional ramblings............

[mayalld]

Steering back on topic...

 

The question of breasting up being an act of trespass was covered some time ago.

 

It would not be trespass on land but trespass to chattels and the important distinction is that this requires intent to interfere or deprive the owner. Not relevant in a breasting up scenario.

 

Trespass to Chattels does indeed require an intent to interfere. I fail to see how a deliberate act of breasting to another boat could fail to have the requisite intent to interfere.

 

Surely nobody could actually imagine that breasting up can be done without interfering with the other boat, or the owners use of that other boat.

[Sir Nibble]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by theguitardoctor . View it anyway?

No.

[soldthehouse]

That's fine by me, but if you care to take a couple of minutes out of your day of being perfect, you will see that your comments have often been the ones to "start" the irate exchanges as you purposely try to antagonise the situation.

 

By implying that I am a dickhead, when my comment was that because someone hides your posts it doesn't mean they can't undo that action each time anyway and see them, than I put it to you that indeed you have now cast the first insulting stone.

 

If you can't fathom this, then I expect your comments are irrelevant to me anyway, so please go ahead and ignore me also as it will save me the effort of continually putting you in your place. The problem you all seem to have is that you can't stand to be pointed out as infallible, which it's obvious that you and others in your crew are...the very thing you have implied with me, amongst other things.

 

There is no hierarchy here, except the ones you seem to have self imposed. Unfortunately I have no respect for people that try to use that very self imposed superiority as a means to justify whether I can be here or not. If this indeed was the world/forum you wish it to be, then I expect I will have to run all future comments through you for prior approval. Last I checked, we had free will.

 

You disagree with my opinion, fine...tell you what, ignore it and post something relevant to the topic instead of trying to get a rise from me, and it will be a happier place for you. In the meantime I suggest you have a nice relaxing bath with some scented candles....

Just a minor point I think you have fallible and infallible mixed up, or was it a compliment

[wrigglefingers]

You should be more clear in that this is not aimed at me as the delusional party, otherwise you've just ratified everything I said to MJG....

 

In which case does it not go down the "trying to start an argument" route again...??

 

Right, I'm utterly fed-up with your baiting of respected members of this forum this so you've been added to my ignore list. Total number of participants = 1 since 2005. Well done.

[sam pig]

Hey Guitar doctor,

 

Just be wary of getting drawn into ludicrous debates / arguments on here. Your post count on here in little over a month suggests that is happening already.

 

Post counts speak volumes regarding contributions which unfortunately, can be significantly in the negative, from a significant amount of the "forumistas"..

 

This place is excellent if you want advice and assistance from folk with a vast amount of experience. Unfortunately, as I have learnt on more than one occasion, it is also frequented by a few cantankerous internet trolls who will argue that "black is white" on just about anything.

 

Use is at as useful reference point but don’t get drawn in.

 

As I said, post counts speak volumes. If folk have not got anything constructive or pleasant to contribute, then perhaps keeping it to themselves would make for a less crabby read. Keep the glass half full and not half empty. I personally have witnessed enough real pain and anguish after several trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to not take the argumentative folk on here very seriously. It’s about perspective and it seems this forum is place where that is often lost.

 

Thanks for the advice from the helpful, friendly folk...

[Sir Nibble]

Isn't the debate of the laws of trespass irrelevant? Whatever the answer surely no one actually believes that there is ever the slightest possibility of a case being brought. Might as well debate what Jesus would do, or Harry Potter for that matter.

[carlt]

Trespass to Chattels does indeed require an intent to interfere. I fail to see how a deliberate act of breasting to another boat could fail to have the requisite intent to interfere.

 

Surely nobody could actually imagine that breasting up can be done without interfering with the other boat, or the owners use of that other boat.

But you are misinterpreting the word "interfere". You have to prove interference to possession so, if I breast up against your boat and you ask me to allow you to leave and I say no, then that would constitute trespass to chattels.

 

You would also have to prove actual damages to said chattels.