Hit and run

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

Yes. Mob rule.

 

Tutt Tutt young man.

[Victor Vectis]

A'noon Tim.

Have you got a new boat?

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

A'noon Tim.

Have you got a new boat?

No mate I aint but had it painted so changed le name

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Timx said:

He appears out of full control,speeding along can cause unnecessary accidents.( on recent reports.)

Have you seen RCR bit on boat joy riders? From the other place http://www.narrowboatworld.com/10290-boat-joy-riding-and-torching-on-the-increase

[Timx]

Yeah read that, not nice, I don't think this man is joyriding though, albeit he is in a hurry to get somewhere fast. He appears not to have control of his vessel , but must have come down the atherstone locks ok and has come from rugby way, so too long for a joyride I would of thought. Particularly if he is bringing attention to himself .

[john6767]

As an aside earlier today we passed the boat that was hit.  I could not see the damage as it was towpath side but the boat is very smart, either almost new or recently repainted.  I would expect that the owners are rightly upset by the damage and the manner in which it happened, and that the person responsible had not made contact with them.

[Andy Healey]

19 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I quite agree. For the record as most posters seem to have misunderstood me, I was objecting to the damage being described as "horrendous", not the POS boater's behaviour which definitely IS horrendous. 

The damage is nothing of the sort, it is trivial in my opinion. I'll find some photos of boats with 'horrendous' damage for comparison if anyone disagrees with me if necessary. 

Horrendous is not the word I will agree, but certainly not trivial and going to cost, the Aluminium Frames are bent, possibly leading to leaks, approx £200 each + fitting,  so say £500 plus inconvenience, cannot ascertain paint damage from photos. if they are unable to make an insurance claim because of insurance excess (I know ours is in the region of £500) it would have to come from the owners pocket. Lots of hassle due to a liability of an ignorant person. 

[roland elsdon]

Maybe he will go round a corner and hit an admiral royalty or town class head on 

vaisseau abandonné.....

problem solved

 

[matty40s]

5 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Have you seen RCR bit on boat joy riders? From the other place http://www.narrowboatworld.com/10290-boat-joy-riding-and-torching-on-the-increase

Lots of porky pies there by the narrow minded crew.

The sea otter wasn't joy ridden or stolen. The new owners only had it a day or so before it set on fire....in June.....RCR swiftly attended ..in September...

The two stolen boats had nothing to do with fire or RCR, they were discovered by CRT and this forum.

The boat at Fradley had nothing to do with Arson.

The other boats,  I don't know enough of to disparage the article further, but make your own mind up.

[haggis]

Are you sure about the Sea Otter? The story from the owner on the Sea Otter Owners Club site says that he had been unwell and hadn't visited his boat for a couple of months and when he did (planning to go cruising) he found it had gone and also that about the time of its disappearance from the marina, other boats had been tampered with.  Up to that point, the name and number of the Sea Otter were unknown and the owner had not therefore been contacted. It was then that things moved and the boat was attended to by RCR, towed away and scrapped.  Apparently although the owner of the Sea Otter Owners Club web site had told the Police and Fire Brigade where to find the hull number, they said the boat was unsafe for them to go on board and look. Hence the delay in finding who the owner was.

Fortunately, the insurance company has paid up but as Sea Otters are no longer built, the owner is unable to get another one.

Haggis

[Boat&Bikes]

1 hour ago, john6767 said:

As an aside earlier today we passed the boat that was hit.  I could not see the damage as it was towpath side but the boat is very smart, either almost new or recently repainted.  I would expect that the owners are rightly upset by the damage and the manner in which it happened, and that the person responsible had not made contact with them.

I'm fairly sure we spoke to the couple who own this boat about 3 years ago. They walked past our boat and stopped to chat. They were excited as they were having this boat built new at the time. They told us the boats name to be and the image of the swans to be. It stuck in my mind somehow...lovely couple and I'd be hopping mad at the chap who caused the damage.

Ian.

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, haggis said:

 

Fortunately, the insurance company has paid up but as Sea Otters are no longer built, the owner is unable to get another one.

 

 

That seems a bit like feeble 'victim' behaviour. There are second hand Sea Otters for sale from time to time. Why not buy one of those?

[haggis]

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

That seems a bit like feeble 'victim' behaviour. There are second hand Sea Otters for sale from time to time. Why not buy one of those?

Sorry, I should have said that the owner wouldn't be able to get another Sea Otter built to his specification . Yes, I  know that second hand ones come up from time to time and no doubt that is the route he will go down.  My fault, I was putting myself in the owners shoes and how I would feel if our Sea Otter was similarly destroyed. I don't think he said anything indicating "victim behaviour". That was me, sorry :-( 

Haggis

[Mac of Cygnet]

9 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

 

What did you not understand re the last referendum? I found it very straightforward and the effects easy to understand also.

Perhaps you should be Prime Minister.  No-one else seems to understand what's going on.

[Timx]

I am sure things are possibly ok, but it's also possible it could come up on police 5, with the headline anyone seen my boat ??. I could only answer "very briefly."

[mrsmelly]

19 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Perhaps you should be Prime Minister.  No-one else seems to understand what's going on.

Ahh although its not the right thread left me briefly explain. We were asked one very easy to understand question Remain or leave it realy was that simple. Lets say you find that awkward to undesrstand so if say a bus pulls up at a bus stop you are standing at you can either get on or not get on it realy is that simple honest.

[Jerra]

24 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Ahh although its not the right thread left me briefly explain. We were asked one very easy to understand question Remain or leave it realy was that simple. Lets say you find that awkward to undesrstand so if say a bus pulls up at a bus stop you are standing at you can either get on or not get on it realy is that simple honest.

Not quite that simple.  You have to know the bus is going in the direction you want etc.  I know you will say the direction is simple in or out.   As you are well aware I feel people need to know more.  For example in your analogy they need to know not only the destination but is a train, taxi, walking etc a better way.  They also need to know if they can affords the fare, so not as simple as you suggest.

Couple that with the bus conductor telling lies saying they will give your fare to a charity when they wont/can't and things get even more complex.

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Not quite that simple.  You have to know the bus is going in the direction you want etc.  I know you will say the direction is simple in or out.   As you are well aware I feel people need to know more.  For example in your analogy they need to know not only the destination but is a train, taxi, walking etc a better way.  They also need to know if they can affords the fare, so not as simple as you suggest.

Couple that with the bus conductor telling lies saying they will give your fare to a charity when they wont/can't and things get even more complex.

I purposely used the bus in my post as the thing is the question we were asked had nowt to do with were the bus was going or how it gets there, they are things dictated after it sets off. The only question is get on/don't get on or remain/leave it realy was that simple.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

I purposely used the bus in my post as the thing is the question we were asked had nowt to do with were the bus was going or how it gets there, they are things dictated after it sets off. The only question is get on/don't get on or remain/leave it realy was that simple.

Of course it did getting out of the EU was a complete change of political direction so it had everything to do with direction.

[mrsmelly]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Of course it did getting out of the EU was a complete change of political direction so it had everything to do with direction.

I give in. Best leave it here. This is not the right thread and I am sick of bashing my head against a wall.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I give in. Best leave it here. This is not the right thread and I am sick of bashing my head against a wall.

As am I!

[Mac of Cygnet]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

As am I!

But I'm not!  Since I gave up on the Brexit thread several months ago, things have got ever more convoluted and fraught in the real world.

I'll agree with Tim on one thing:   the QUESTION was very simple!  Everything else has become very difficult, as I forecast immediately after the simple question was asked.

[MtB]

The thing is, a lot of people voted OUT believing we would be saving £350m a week on contributions. 

No-one told them we would have to pay £200 BILLION up front to leave.

[Murflynn]

but if we stayed, how long would it take for our cumulative contributions to climb to 200billion?

[Jess--]

21 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

but if we stayed, how long would it take for our cumulative contributions to climb to 200billion?

10.98 years (based on 350 million per week)

although since the 350 million figure would probably have increased each year due to inflation the actual break-even date would likely be much sooner