Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle

Featured Posts

Still haven't seen a suggestion about what should be done about an unsafe, unlicensed, unlawfully moored boat that the owner hasn't bothered to check, survey, insure or manage properly trading in a public area that two people had already fallen/jumped off. Presumably wait until it kills someone and then blame CRT for inaction.

 

You're assuming rather a lot there, but in the event of any or all of your assumptions being remotely accurate or factual, do you not think that C&RT have decided on the most sensible course of action, . . . . ie. ~ in the abscence of an 'in date' Survey report, we have concerns as to the condition of the hull, so we're going to take it out of a sheltered dock and tow it the best part of 50 miles up the coast to Fleetwood ?

 

The truth is, there are no genuine safety concerns with regard to the vessel.

The 'safety' gambit is an overused piece of hypocrisy that C&RT trot out all too frequently when indulging in some underhanded activity to deprive someone of either their boat, or the use of it . . . . remember 'Tadworth' ?

Edited by Tony Dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still haven't seen a suggestion about what should be done about an unsafe, unlicensed, unlawfully moored boat that the owner hasn't bothered to check, survey, insure or manage properly trading in a public area that two people had already fallen/jumped off. Presumably wait until it kills someone and then blame CRT for inaction.

 

I would suggest that you need to think about what you have written you could be libelling the owner as there is no evidence to prove the boat is without a current survey, uninsured or or that the vessel was not properly managed while trading in a public area. The fact that two people had already jumped off would probably be beyond the control of the best managed waterborne thing to control if someone wanted to jump or dive. I thought in the UK people were innocent until proved guilty in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're assuming rather a lot there, but in the event of any or all of your assumptions being remotely accurate or factual, do you not think that C&RT have decided on the most sensible course of action, . . . . ie. ~ in the abscence of an 'in date' Survey report, we have concerns as to the condition of the hull, so we're going to take it out of a sheltered dock and tow it the best part of 50 miles up the coast to Fleetwood ?

 

The truth is, there are no genuine safety concerns with regard to the vessel.

The 'safety' gambit is an overused piece of hypocrisy that C&RT trot out all too frequently when indulging in some underhanded activity to deprive someone of either their boat, or the use of it . . . . remember 'Tadworth' ?

That may be so - you may well have some inside knowledge that we don't. But he obviously didn't have insurance, or a hull survey, he hadn't paid his fees, and people have certainly gone off it into the water which is probably disapproved of by the H&S bods. I think the owner had probably been told some time ago to either get the boat (and his debts) sorted out, or get out of CRT's water, and as this has been going on for nearly six months at least, he's had the time to do it if he intended to. I don't imagine for one moment that CRT gives a toss if it sinks, as long as it does it out of their dock.

Let's face it, all he had to do was pay what was due. What he actually did, as far as we can tell, was buy something he knew nothing about and then couldn't be bothered with till he was forced to.

And again, what else could CRT do? Pat him on the back, say never mind dear, stay there as long as you like, don't bother to pay your fees, keep running your business, we don't mind if you're not insured if someone falls off the thing and drowns, their family can just sue us? Even when I was busking in Albert Dock I had to have a million quid's worth of public liability insurance in case someone was so struck by my playing (one way or another) they fell in the water.

I suppose they could have taken him to court, and in a year or so he'd quit and go bankrupt and nothing would ever get paid, except CRT would have to do something about an abandoned hulk possibly sunk in their dock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be so - you may well have some inside knowledge that we don't. But he obviously didn't have insurance, or a hull survey, he hadn't paid his fees, and people have certainly gone off it into the water which is probably disapproved of by the H&S bods. I think the owner had probably been told some time ago to either get the boat (and his debts) sorted out, or get out of CRT's water, and as this has been going on for nearly six months at least, he's had the time to do it if he intended to. I don't imagine for one moment that CRT gives a toss if it sinks, as long as it does it out of their dock.

Let's face it, all he had to do was pay what was due. What he actually did, as far as we can tell, was buy something he knew nothing about and then couldn't be bothered with till he was forced to.

And again, what else could CRT do? Pat him on the back, say never mind dear, stay there as long as you like, don't bother to pay your fees, keep running your business, we don't mind if you're not insured if someone falls off the thing and drowns, their family can just sue us? Even when I was busking in Albert Dock I had to have a million quid's worth of public liability insurance in case someone was so struck by my playing (one way or another) they fell in the water.

I suppose they could have taken him to court, and in a year or so he'd quit and go bankrupt and nothing would ever get paid, except CRT would have to do something about an abandoned hulk possibly sunk in their dock.

 

Think mmaybe you should read https://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/download/article_libel_myths_social_media.html#.V-KpfPArK00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone spoken to the owner to confirm/deny the facts here? The Echo article's journalist was unable to contact the owner, but the other link on this thread points to the £10,000 appeal running since at least June - I am guessing they didn't raise all the money to get the items sorted out that Tony/Geo claims they may already have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would suggest that you need to think about what you have written you could be libelling the owner as there is no evidence to prove the boat is without a current survey, uninsured or or that the vessel was not properly managed while trading in a public area. The fact that two people had already jumped off would probably be beyond the control of the best managed waterborne thing to control if someone wanted to jump or dive. I thought in the UK people were innocent until proved guilty in the courts.

Well, he was asked for a survey and insurance back in May. There's no suggestion anywhere that either has been provided - Tony, who seems to know more about this than most (as in fact he usually does) hasn't indicated that they were submitted, so I think it's pretty unlikely. All this is speculation anyway. I'm still asking what CRT should do in these circumstances, and the only answer, as usual, is "not what they are doing because they are bad people". It's not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a discussion forum. We speculate on information available. I am happy to be corrected at any time. Odd how anyone who actually tried to discuss these things on a rational basis but who doesn't instantly go for the "Evil CRT" response get a bad attack of the flames. Try answering my question instead of just trying to curtail discussion - what should CRT do in the circumstances as they have been put in the public domain?

Anyway, enough. I'm off to play the trombone... for the fifteen grand he appears to owe CRT I could buy a really, really nice euphonium to go with it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the Echo were unable to speak to the owner, I found his contact details with no problems, they are here:

 

http://www.mrmsw.co.uk/location%20and%20opening%20times.html

 

You think so, do you ?

Try ringing the number, . . it doesn't work, and all you'll get is a ''number not recognized'' recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You think so, do you ?

Try ringing the number, . . it doesn't work, and all you'll get is a ''number not recognized'' recording.

 

Admittedly I didn't ring the number, after all I have no need to. Whilst I am vaguely interested in the outcome of the case, I don't want to interfere with it.

 

I did notice that the website hadn't been updated since around June. Maybe the owner has changed mobile number and not updated the website with his new contact details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a discussion forum. We speculate on information available. I am happy to be corrected at any time. Odd how anyone who actually tried to discuss these things on a rational basis but who doesn't instantly go for the "Evil CRT" response get a bad attack of the flames. Try answering my question instead of just trying to curtail discussion - what should CRT do in the circumstances as they have been put in the public domain?

Anyway, enough. I'm off to play the trombone... for the fifteen grand he appears to owe CRT I could buy a really, really nice euphonium to go with it...

Exactly what any other moorings provider would. Remove the boat from their premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did notice that the website hadn't been updated since around June. Maybe the owner has changed mobile number and not updated the website with his new contact details.

 

And, of course, there is always the possibility that whatever prevented him from updating the website, also prevented him from taking care of the administrative side of running the business as he would have wished to do, . . . . such as illness, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a discussion forum. We speculate on information available. I am happy to be corrected at any time. Odd how anyone who actually tried to discuss these things on a rational basis but who doesn't instantly go for the "Evil CRT" response get a bad attack of the flames. Try answering my question instead of just trying to curtail discussion - what should CRT do in the circumstances as they have been put in the public domain?

Anyway, enough. I'm off to play the trombone... for the fifteen grand he appears to owe CRT I could buy a really, really nice euphonium to go with it...

 

I think the important thing is to my reading you have made statements of fact not statements of if this is correct or of opinion stating it is an opinion.

 

It is my opinion that xxx is a cruel person is not libel, it is your opinion. writing that xxx is a cruel person is libel unless you can prove and have proof that it is true. It is a question of the wording. As to this being a discussion forum that gives no protection at all under the law.

 

As to what CRT should do, maybe as a charity they should be thinking about preserving the vessel and seeing how they can help to preserve the vessel and the equipment aboard it. I must agree with TD my opinion to take a vessel they claim is unsafe to sea is not a sensible thing to do, particularly as if the forecasts that I have seen are correct forecasting winds poor weather. Also if it is correct that CRT do not have a court order to recover debt or anything else, seizure of the vessel could well be exceeding any powers they have.

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And, of course, there is always the possibility that whatever prevented him from updating the website, also prevented him from taking care of the administrative side of running the business as he would have wished to do, . . . . such as illness, for instance.

 

Yes indeed, if he's long term sick and unable to manage the admin then it could explain things. Unfortunately, if a key staff member in a business (and I see it as a business thing here) makes themself indispensible, then they are unable to continue, the business tends to suffer catastrophically.

 

Its a shame they're going to drag it 55 miles away or so (can't see any actual endangerment to the ship though, its a seagoing ship and its been checked?) if the end game is that they'll sell/auction it anyway. Perhaps if they leave it there and the owner can be persuaded to sell it, someone else can take up the reigns and give a much needed injection of cash and time into the business. But then its going to be much cheaper to buy it at auctioned-off price than as a going concern....so its possible no buyers were forthcoming. Its a shame there's no funding for this kind of thing but there's a lot of other "heritage" projects and business and a finite level of funding sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it has been towed http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/dramatic-moment-lightship-owner-threatens-11919138

 

 

ETA Looking at that hull as it went past on the video I could not see any major rust etc, looked to me like a reasonably well looked after vessel, better than some I have seen trading around the south coast.

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Peel Ports/Holdings don't own Canning Dock, or any of the other of the South Docks, . . . ownership was transferred to BW some years ago, so now it all belongs to C&RT.

I'm guessing that neither Canning Dock, nor any of the others, fall under the S.8 umbrella, being neither an "inland waterway" nor a "reservoir", as specified in S.8(1).

I was reacting to post #16 which seemed to have been accepted. Which parts are CaRT's and which are not?

 

I have now seen an archive document from BW in 2009 which states clearly that the South Docks were transferred in ownership to them. Nevertheless, I still wonder whether the space occupied by the ship in question is a navigation or a berth? It is clearly outside the main navigable channel - which might be relevant to another discussion . . .

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it has been towed http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/dramatic-moment-lightship-owner-threatens-11919138

 

 

ETA Looking at that hull as it went past on the video I could not see any major rust etc, looked to me like a reasonably well looked after vessel, better than some I have seen trading around the south coast.

 

Good to see The Echo have found the owner, shame they were unable to get a (coherent) statement from him though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its a shame they're going to drag it 55 miles away or so (can't see any actual endangerment to the ship though, its a seagoing ship and its been checked?) if the end game is that they'll sell/auction it anyway. Perhaps if they leave it there and the owner can be persuaded to sell it, someone else can take up the reigns and give a much needed injection of cash and time into the business.

 

Perhaps if they HAD left it at its berth and engaged the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, they could have helped preserve the boat, have got the owner out of his financial difficulties while recovering the sums they were owed, and gained some respect besides.

 

None of this has anything to do with section 8 or any British Waterways legislation [nor have they pretended that it does]; it is covered by national legislation though, and ignoring due processes in this fait accompli will have landed CaRT in a legally parlous situation.

 

Sad to read the mocking comments over the owner’s distress when watching his boat towed away; “They’ve killed me . . .” CaRT’s modernised version of scaphism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT is a Charitable Trust.

 

Canal & River Trust is a charity registered with the Charity Commission no. 1146792

You omitted to add:

 

and a company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales no. 7807276.

 

Therefore a limited company and hence a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.