Evictions on the River Thames

[Mr Badger]

 

... does the water company draw water from the Thames to use in their system?

 

 

 

Yes: http://www.waterprojectsonline.com/case_studies/2010/Thames_Hampton_2010.pdf

 

 

 

Wouldn't there be health concerns if they were flushing waste close to a water intake?

 

Absolutely! It's my drinking water! Discharging sewage into the non-tidal Thames from a boat is definitely illegal. But in practice the water treatment process would take care of it. It is an urban myth that when a Londoner drinks a glass of water it has been drunk several times before, but it seems recycling sewage water for drinking is coming.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Mr Badger

[John Williamson 1955]

 

Absolutely! It's my drinking water! Discharging sewage into the non-tidal Thames from a boat is definitely illegal. But in practice the water treatment process would take care of it. It is an urban myth that when a Londoner drinks a glass of water it has been drunk several times before, but it seems recycling sewage water for drinking is coming.

One confirmed by Thames Water at an open day I attended a while ago. A`proportion of Thames water is extracted for use by every town and city it passes through, and is returned below the extraction points. The water is treated at both ends of the cycle in each town and I have been on tours where the tour guide offered us the chance to drink a glass of the output from the sewage works. When, unsurprisingly, nobody took his offer up, he drank it himself.

Edited August 24, 2014 by John Williamson 1955

[Mr Badger]

I wonder if the treatment processes could be miniaturised for use on board. No pumping out or taking on water.

[John Williamson 1955]

I wonder if the treatment processes could be miniaturised for use on board. No pumping out or taking on water.

This is a start:-

 

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/lifesaver-products/lifesaver-disaster-pack

[Phil Ambrose]

 

Yes: http://www.waterprojectsonline.com/case_studies/2010/Thames_Hampton_2010.pdf

 

 

Absolutely! It's my drinking water! Discharging sewage into the non-tidal Thames from a boat is definitely illegal. But in practice the water treatment process would take care of it. It is an urban myth that when a Londoner drinks a glass of water it has been drunk several times before, but it seems recycling sewage water for drinking is coming.

Interesting about the "urban myth" years ago I was vice chairman of Pinner Anglers and recall having a guest speaker from Colne Valley Water who as part of his facsinating talk cited this myth as being fact, he also brought some samples of water ranging from before treatment, during treatment and after treatment, the latter he drunk.

Phil

[magnetman]

Aiui there is a byelaw which protects riparian owners by prohibiting activities which nay cause them annoyance.

 

As far as riverbed ownership i thought the river bank owner owned the bed to the centre of the river and the width of their land. But.. that is sbove Staines, with a different arrangement applies downstream but i don't know exactly what.

 

Btw the foot access to the moorings subject to recent eviction is via a modern private gated housing development - i moored there a few years ago and the gate was never locked. Maybe it is now !

[magnetman]

I am referring to the site at Thames Water on the Hampton bank just downstream of Porthampton Island.

 

Actually there are 3 boats still there and signs saying mooring penalty (mooring fee?) £275.

Thames Water did recently have a problem which a vessel moored ajacent to an intake and discharged some oil (bilge water). Part of the pumping station shut down. Obviously this could be a public health matter not a simple mooring problem.

[magnetman]

 

 

I don't think it is a situation of people not being able to afford housing, rather a situation of subletting the house/flat and living on a boat while they can get away with it. If 'no mooring' signs go up everywhere they don't care as they have land based dwellings available (sensible!)

 

I know this does not apply to all but i also know a lot of people who do exactly this and this is why they feel free to cause problems in this way.

 

/rant mode OFF/

[NigelMoore]

 

How did the people moored to the water company property get to land, do you know? Wouldn't there be separate ramifications of trespass on dry land if they were crossing water company property to gain access to and from their boats?

 

I presume that they will have been moored to the banks and crossing that land for access. It would otherwise be possible, but for most, impractical for any length of time.

 

Whether a separate issue or not, yes it is certainly trespass to cross the private 'dry land', but difficult to stop without fencing. I would have thought fencing along the bank would be a deterrent for those boats needing land access, but expensive, and possibly having planning ramifications due to being opposite the Thames Path?

 

Of course, for the truly dedicated it is possible to remain anchored in the river and ‘commute’ to public ‘shores’. Mr Hamilton lived on his archipelago of rafts in Richmond for over 20 years, with surprising public approval and even enthusiastic local support.

 

I never found out whether he managed to carry on with a re-build after he was burned out back in 2010, I haven’t been along that stretch since then.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=29463

[craftycarper]

My point in posting the Kajieme Powell execution video was to show Phil what real modern-day fascism looks like. About ten days prior to the Powell execution, a young black man in an adjoining town was shot and killed by a white police officer as he was in the process of surrendering. He had tried to run from a police officer, who stopped him for jaywalking. The police officer fired shots at him as he ran away. The young man stopped, raised his hand in surrender and turned to face the cop. He was shot dead on the spot.

 

Did you watch the Powell video? They put three more bullets into him after he was down on the ground, completely incapacitated from their gunshot wounds. Your conjecture that laying down on the ground, even if he had been given the chance, would have saved Mr. Powell's life, does not stand up to the reality as shown in the video.

. Yes I did watch the video and could clearly see the lad keep on walking toward them while they pointed there guns at him his choice,but really we are not here to sort out Americas crazy love affair with arming everyone as a deterrent for crime ,the rest of the world can see it ain't working ,it still boils down to personal choice we all make them and should stop looking at blaming everyone else when the outcome is not what we want, I have nothing against people doing as they see fit as long as your not causing grief to others I,m a bit of a free spirit myself but weather you choose to moor up on someone else's land or drive your car with no tax by all means get on and do it I care not ,but when it all comes on top it's up to each one of us weather we decide to stay and face the consequence or just accept it's over and move on without a fuss

[NigelMoore]

If the boats in question never moved, it's pretty safe to assume they are flushing their toilets directly into the river.

 

This is in fact an avenue that the EA could legitimately have pursued, under Byelaw 66 which says "No person shall discharge polluting matter into the river from any vessel or from any sanitary appliance used thereon." The penalty is up to level 3 on the standard scale - currently I think, £1,000.

[George94]

Well, the problem has been dispersed to other places presumably which is hardly a solution. Years ago boats were made of wood and had a finite life, nowadays boats are made from grp and steel and last forever, consequently there are a lot of cheap `end of life` boats about that offer the chance of some sort of home. Add that to the finite number of moorings available and the expense of those that there are and this is the result. I have no idea how many boats Colecraft and L`pool boats, for example have produced but its a hell of a lot. I think if you want a new boat you should first buy an end of life wreck, scrap it, prove to CRT that you have removed it and then you would be allowed to build a new one. As for the answer to people needing cheap housing, maybe you should prove that an old relative has died before you are allowed to make a replacement. Am now hiding behind the sofa.

 

As an "old relative", I am now eyeing my childless young relatives with a degree of trepidation.

[NigelMoore]

Aiui there is a byelaw which protects riparian owners by prohibiting activities which nay cause them annoyance.

 

Yes, byelaw 57(a) - but it refers only to nuisance to occupiers of riparian residences; hardly applicable to the water treatment premises.

[John V]

 

As an "old relative", I am now eyeing my childless young relatives with a degree lot of trepidation.

[magnetman]

There is fencing along the mooring but there are gates here and there.

 

As for the raft man he is still there but not on such a scale.

 

I imagine if 20 other people decided to do the same it'd be a different story !

 

Everyone likes an eccentric but nobody wants a '<insert your word> site near them

 

 

NigelMoore,

 

There are residents within earshot in a new housing development.

 

I know one of the boats has an open frame 5kw diesel generator running very often.

 

Imo this is a nuisance even if you are not on their bit of river bed

I am passing the raft man this afternoon so i will get a picture, weather permitting

[NigelMoore]

There are residents within earshot in a new housing development.

 

I know one of the boats has an open frame 5kw diesel generator running very often.

 

Imo this is a nuisance even if you are not on their bit of river bed

I am passing the raft man this afternoon so i will get a picture, weather permitting

 

Ownership of the riverbed is irrelevant to application of the byelaws, so in that case, yes, the £1,000 fines could be applied.

 

Will be cheered to see your up-to-date photo.

[George94]

 

My point in posting the Kajieme Powell execution video was to show Phil what real modern-day fascism looks like. About ten days prior to the Powell execution, a young black man in an adjoining town was shot and killed by a white police officer as he was in the process of surrendering. He had tried to run from a police officer, who stopped him for jaywalking. The police officer fired shots at him as he ran away. The young man stopped, raised his hand in surrender and turned to face the cop. He was shot dead on the spot.

 

Did you watch the Powell video? They put three more bullets into him after he was down on the ground, completely incapacitated from their gunshot wounds. Your conjecture that laying down on the ground, even if he had been given the chance, would have saved Mr. Powell's life, does not stand up to the reality as shown in the video.

 

How precisely does all this relate to the Thames evictions?

 

Whilst I can sympathise with your desire to leave America, I am not sure that your diversion into American policing methods is helping to illustrate the points at issue in this thread. America is, thankfully, a very different place from the UK.

[magnetman]

"PLEASE REMOVE YOUR VESSELS. YOU HAVE TWENTY SECONDS TO COMPLY"

 

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO OPERATION"

 

RoboCop becomes RoboMooringWarden

[luctor et emergo]

The crime is overstaying.

 

The verdict is guilty.

 

The punishment is death.

 

 

(Judge Dredd appointed mooring warden on the Western K&A)

[NigelMoore]

"PLEASE REMOVE YOUR VESSELS. YOU HAVE TWENTY SECONDS TO COMPLY"

 

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR CO OPERATION"

 

RoboCop becomes RoboMooringWarden

 

Fortunately [?] any such signs require the authorisation of the EA -

 

Prohibition of unauthorised signs

76 No person shall without the previous consent in writing of the Authority in, on or adjacent to the river knowingly display or knowingly cause to be displayed any notice or sign containing any statement relating to the use of the river, or towpaths or land of the Authority.

[Mr Badger]

The river used to be tidal as far as Staines before the construction of Teddington Lock which would account for different river bed ownership below Staines. The theory that the name "Teddington" is derived from "Tide End Town" is a load of rubbish.

[NigelMoore]

The crime is overstaying.

 

The verdict is guilty.

 

The punishment is death.

 

And these boats being in close proximity to a licensed repository of Class 5 firearms . . .

[mark99]

The river used to be tidal as far as Staines before the construction of Teddington Lock which would account for different river bed ownership below Staines. The theory that the name "Teddington" is derived from "Tide End Town" is a load of rubbish.

 

 

Teddington was named after two ton Ted.

[John V]

 

 

Teddington was named after two ton Ted.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Was he lysdexic?