Another sunk boat gets help

[Alan de Enfield]

Mayalld. I'll crowd fund you a pint out of my insurance savings for next renewal. If you do same for me.

 

Sounds a good plan

[MtB]

 

Erm herm.... family forum... feck up please.

 

 

Honestly I'm sure any child capable of working the internet is not going to be corrupted by my use of the 'f' word. I hate it when people get offended on on behalf of others.

 

I've edited my post to disguise the word. I suggest you edit your quote of it. I hope no-one can guess what I originally wrote.

[Guest]

Honestly I'm sure any child capable of working the internet is not going to be corrupted by my use of the 'f' word. I hate it when people get offended on on behalf of others.

 

I've edited my post to disguise the word. I suggest you edit your quote of it. I hope no-one can guess what I originally wrote.

Plenty of people have had their use of that word moderated and edited though.

 

It doesn't offend me because I agree with you 100% but some seem to get away with things these days on here and others do not.

[Peter X]

Personally I think homeopathy is a con trick, based as it is upon the absurd notion that diluting a substance, even to the point where only a few molecules or even none at all are present, can make it much more effective. On this basis, if some of this unfortunate boater's stock found its way into the waters "off Regent's Canal", it must by now have some very potent healing powers and I'd like to suggest that anyone who believes in all that tosh jumps in.

 

Having said that, her foolish beliefs are no reason not to feel some sympathy for a boater who has suffered the loss of her home, however naïve she may have been in failing to maintain it properly and/or insure against it sinking. I won't be contributing to her appeal, but at least unlike Gopal Das she has been honest about the extent of her loss, and has thus, as far as I can see, not committed an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

[David Mack]

at least unlike Gopal Das she has been honest about the extent of her loss, and has thus, as far as I can see, not committed an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

And, according to the press reports, she didn't set up the appeal herself, it was done by a friend.

[GreyLady]

 

 

Content removed by mods

 

 

No way did you just do that Dave Clinton , it put a smile on my face and started my day off with a bang for that alone you get a greenie.

 

Ps Good luck to the lady who's boat sunk, the fact that she did not set this crowfund up her self speaks volumes she must be very well liked by her freinds.

Edited September 7, 2015 by DeanS

[cotswoldsman]

 

Content removed by mods

 

 

Sorry I am going to give this one a miss but will watch with interest

Edited September 7, 2015 by DeanS

[mayalld]

The problem.is Dave people have to want to contribute to crowd funding because they think it is a good cause. Now I was happy to contribute to this lady as have many others not sure you would get the same result

 

And I would agree with them. It wouldn't be a good cause.

 

If people want to bail others out when those others took the risk of not insuring, that's fair enough.

 

If I wish to point out that others pay insurance to be bailed out whan things go wrong, then that too is fair enough.

 

Except that it isn't, apparently. Daring to suggest that people should take a bit of personal responsibility, and pointing out that it just isn't sustainable for people to opt out of insurance, because somebody will pay up anyway, earns you a whole load of vitriolic abuse.

[cotswoldsman]

 

And I would agree with them. It wouldn't be a good cause.

 

If people want to bail others out when those others took the risk of not insuring, that's fair enough.

 

If I wish to point out that others pay insurance to be bailed out whan things go wrong, then that too is fair enough.

 

Except that it isn't, apparently. Daring to suggest that people should take a bit of personal responsibility, and pointing out that it just isn't sustainable for people to opt out of insurance, because somebody will pay up anyway, earns you a whole load of vitriolic abuse.

 

Dave I do not insure my boat as I can afford to take the risk myself. Now it might not have occurred to you but some do not take insurance because they do not have the money to take that insurance.

[Dave Clinton]

 

Dave I do not insure my boat as I can afford to take the risk myself. Now it might not have occurred to you but some do not take insurance because they do not have the money to take that insurance.

 

I am not quite sure what Dave believes the next steps for Ms Dunne should be, the workhouse presumably.

[mayalld]

 

Dave I do not insure my boat as I can afford to take the risk myself. Now it might not have occurred to you but some do not take insurance because they do not have the money to take that insurance.

 

Opting out of comprehensive insurance, because you can afford to take the risk yourself is absolutely fine.

 

However, if you don't have the funds to pay for insurance, and (self-evidently therefore) you don't have the funds to stand the loss, it rather follows that you can't actually afford the lifestyle that you have chosen.

[MtB]

Maybe she was working at the 'pop festival' to raise money for insurance - I see your assumption and raise you another

 

 

Yes good point!

 

But in my world, I'd have raised the money before buying the boat...

[Dave Clinton]

A privileged world.

[MtB]

A privileged world.

 

 

Yes. In the scenario you paint, she is allowed the privilege of owning a boat but excused paying for insurance, unlike the rest of us. Privilege indeed.

[Dave Clinton]

 

 

Yes. In the scenario you paint, she is allowed the privilege of owning a boat but excused paying for insurance, unlike the rest of us. Privilege indeed.

 

Again you assume she was without insurance. Are you alleging the boat was unlicensed too?

 

And I'll ask you. What should she do now? Sleep on the streets?

[Alan de Enfield]

A Reply from Ms Dunne

 

Hi lovers and haters, it is I, Miss Genevieve Dunne! I am insured yes, however they have picked out loads of issues in the survey report and not aimed at any settlement as of yet! My sister and her best friends wife set this page up for me which was linked to my Facebook, only friends and friends of friends were donating, people I had never met etc. I am not looking for a sob story, nor am I a squatter! I left home when I was 15 and my 'daddy' hasn't given me money for as long as I can remember. Try to go about your days with LOVE folks! I did like the joke about my beloved loveboat Bryony being filled with my Homeopathic pharmacy of remedies and water ¿¿ hahaha...unfortunately they had to ALL be binned due to cross contamination

It looks as if any work highlighted in the survey was not undertaken so the Insurance co are not wanting to pay out.

Apparently there is a 'big hole' in the side of the boat which is a skin fitting that was not capped off, so, as soon as the water level went up (and the boat didn't) water could 'flood in'.

 

Maybe a wake up call to everyone that has a survey to ensure that the work highlighted is actually done.

[tidal]

*looks at some of the posts so far and sighs*

 

Not getting the skin fitting blocked was a serious mistake but like most of us I pretty sure that the owner didn't really expect her boat to be heeled over to a degree where it would matter.
You can argue that we should all expect the unexpected but having sunk one boat to a faulty skin-fitting myself (just after a full survey that didn't spot the fault) I have a deal of sympathy for this boater.

Excrement occurs and when it does you often have friends family and perfect strangers rallying round to help. Mine was refloated by myself and fellow boaters (many of whom I didn't know) and for weeks people turned up and helped me get things put back to rights. Often with gifts of spare materials bedding and importantly dry clothes and food.
I even got places to sleep.

 

So yes, whilst I recognise that many of the criticisms have some basis in fact, I was minded to (and did) contribute to the fund.
That may make me "gullible" and "overly soft-hearted" to some of you.
But you know what? I don't give an airborne act of sexual congress.

[Arthur Marshall]

And so back to topic. She obviously had insurance, but they don't want to pay out. Is that really any great surprise with insurance companies? The crucial thing here is that this turned up just after the other one and she got bitumined with the same brush. Unfair, really now a few more facts are out though they do get in the way of a good slanging match. I think we should all go back to slagging off CRT as usual and leave the poor lass alone, although I'm quite happy to jeer at homeopathy in general if it would help.

[DeanS]

thread unlocked. I'm doing a small cleanup of posts. Please note that mods are volunteers, so if it says "Content removed by mods" without further explanation, it probably means we were slightly busy at the time and what was removed wasn't acceptable. Likewise, I've hidden a number of posts to help the thread get back on track, without notifying each poster. This post should be explanatory enough.

Edited September 7, 2015 by DeanS

[David Mack]

Not getting the skin fitting blocked was a serious mistake but like most of us I pretty sure that the owner didn't really expect her boat to be heeled over to a degree where it would matter.

 

It should help her case with the insurance company, if she can show that the open skin fitting was at a height which meets the BSS requirements for hire boats (and which was formerly required for all boats) i.e. 250mm/10inches above the normal water line. If the skin fitting was above that level, then she ought to have a pretty good case. But if lower I can see them arguing that her boat was not in a suitable condition, although its not hard to find boats with much larger ventilation openings in the hull sides lower than this - such boats can be very vulnerable in the heeling situation.