Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
NigelMoore

London gets tough

Featured Posts

5 minutes ago, carlt said:

12foxtonshome0502b.jpg

No gunwales and door facing out onto the water (or opening onto railings).

If that is their actual choice of mooring site then their lack of knowledge of waterways legislation could be the least of their intellectual failings.

More likely it was a convenient spot for the press photo on its way to the craning out site.

There is a brown coloured door at the other end - not so daft as to not have an emergency exit.

The homemade shelter was destroyed

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

An interesting point. How DID they get on and off it?

They must own another boat!

Nope - just a door at each end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is a brown coloured door at the other end - not so daft as to not have an emergency exit.

The homemade shelter was destroyed

and yet you still can't see that this is where CRT chose to crane out the boat, not where they chose to moor it...

Never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to sneer at the less fortunate.

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

An interesting point. How DID they get on and off it?

They must own another boat!

or that wasn't their mooring spot.

Ignorance breeds contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is a brown coloured door at the other end - not so daft as to not have an emergency exit.

Nope - just a door at each end.

If that was their mooring then the door wouldn't have opened due to the railings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, carlt said:

If that was their mooring then the door wouldn't have opened due to the railings.

 

Not that it really matters - but - if you look closely, it appears that the estate agents sign edge is outside/overlapping of the (brown) door so it would look as if the door opens inwards.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Not that it really matters - but - if you look closely, it appears that the estate agents sign edge is outside/overlapping of the (brown) door so it would look as if the door opens inwards.

Stop digging Alan.

It is quite clear that your prejudice makes you determined not to acknowledge that the photo is taken at the craning out site, not the mooring.

There are those who choose to think the best of people and those who think the worst.

I am happy to be the former.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, carlt said:

Stop digging Alan.

It is quite clear that your prejudice makes you determined not to acknowledge that the photo is taken at the craning out site, not the mooring.

There are those who choose to think the best of people and those who think the worst.

I am happy to be the former.

I am not questioning that it is the craning-out site, but what evidence can you provide that suggests it was towed there from somewhere else ?

I don't accept that I am 'digging' just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, and, I know you are passionate about such subjects and that your 'buttons' are easily pressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

They must own another boat!

Probably one with Fake rivets.

10 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

There are those who choose to think the best of people and those who think the worst.

 

And somewhere between the two camps lies reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

And somewhere between the two camps lies reality.

Indeed and this reality is that someone who tried to improve his lot has lost his shelter and has scorn poured on him for his efforts.

Hopefully the publicity will demonstrate his ingenuity when facing adversity and someone will give him a job.

The least he could be doing is fancy log cabins in posh gardens. 

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I don't accept that I am 'digging' just as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours, and, I know you are passionate about such subjects and that your 'buttons' are easily pressed.

You are indeed entitled to your opinion but don't worry my buttons have not been "pushed".

I am perfectly happy and calm discussing this subject whilst avoiding the blinkered condemnation of someone just trying to keep warm this winter.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I am not questioning that it is the craning-out site, but what evidence can you provide that suggests it was towed there from somewhere else ?

I have no evidence but I am willing to accept that anyone with the practical skills and nous to design and build the shelter would also have the common sense not to moor where the door opens directly onto railings necessitating climbing over them every time you wanted to get off the boat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as Boris Johnson, Elton John lives up there somewhere in his mansion too. Both being a bit bohemian, if they'd spotted it I'm sure they would have loved it. And indeed so would Noah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably moored opposite where there is a long trot of live aboard boats and moved across opposite to fish it out.  That tow path stretch just before the tunnel used to be a good over night stop over mooring which I've used two or three times and was secure at night as the gates at either end of that towpath stretch were locked at night, BW lock so one could go in and out.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I'm guessing that you have no evidence to dispute the rest of my quote that you omitted either...

39 minutes ago, carlt said:

.....I am willing to accept that anyone with the practical skills and nous to design and build the shelter would also have the common sense not to moor where the door opens directly onto railings necessitating climbing over them every time you wanted to get off the boat.

 

 

12 minutes ago, bizzard said:

It was probably moored opposite where there is a long trot of live aboard boats and moved across opposite to fish it out.

How dare you introduce common sense into a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that has not been clarified is whether the people demolishing the craft were CaRT employees, sub-contractors, or a mixture of both. It also remains unclear as to what powers they were purporting to exercise.

Taking the facts as related in the article as true, it is obvious that the occupants were somewhat ignorant as to the legislation – or at least hazy over the details. I can understand that; I had much the same idea nearly 40 years ago, when knowing nothing of the legal ramifications. In fact, if they were seeking registration, they knew more, though conceivably the order of steps to be taken were not known; carlt’s comments [#92] are apposite.

Taking the facts as related in the article as true, it became immediately known to the wrecking crew that people were resident aboard. The question that arises from that is whether the crew were as ignorant of the pertinent legal situation as were the occupants. If the crew were solely sub-contractors, then it may be understandable that they were ignorant – but that reflects upon the management decision to instruct them; it is the responsibility of the legal/enforcement departments to ensure that anybody they use in this way is fully aware of the law.

If the crew included CaRT employees, then it is less understandable that they could be ignorant, but some most certainly are, and again, it is the responsibility of their employer to ensure against that.

Taking the facts as related in the article as true, what should have done was to immediately cease operations, and refer the matter to the legal department, while apprising the occupants of their responsibilities under the law. They ought to have been given the opportunity to regularise their position, if possible.

It is understandable that, having committed funds and manpower to the exercise, everybody was more interested in completing the task regardless of legalities, so creating a fait accompli, but this is not a legitimate justification for CaRT to act against the law. They do seem to believe that it is, as witness their arguments in Jones v CaRT, agreed with by the County Court judge – as the Appeal Court noted: “Ground 3 is directed to the County Court judge’s view that it would “impose a quite significant burden” on the respondent by requiring it to deal in every enforcement case with any possible Article 8 points raised on behalf of a defendant.  [my bold] McCombe LJ: I do not consider that the judge was correct in identifying the “burden” of dealing with Article 8 defences as a reason for striking them out summarily.

The argument that the navigation authority should not be expected to comply with law where that would be expensive for them, is not new; the British Transport Commission offered the same argument in the High Court back in 1955. “ ‘Is it right?’ Sir Andrew Clark had asked during the course of the hearing, ‘to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a canal merely because one man wants to sail a couple of boats on it?’ "

His (his Lordship’s) answer to that tendentious proposition was: if that was the law, then it was the duty of a statutory monopoly to obey it, just as much as anybody else;”

Perhaps [again, accepting the veracity of this story] CaRT were also relying on the same hope as their predecessor – “The defendants well knew, he (his Lordship) was sure, that their failure to repair it was unlawful, but they hoped, he supposed, that no bargee would be able to find the means to contest their inaction in the High Court.

Edited by NigelMoore
missed quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the legalities - as a logistic exercise - one man with a cordless chainsaw could have demolished the shed in a few minutes - it did not need a gang of men with two barges and a crane - that in turn would have needed to be carefully planned in advance - a pity the effort and cost was not properly applied in a leisurely economic fashion - what was urgent about it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, and again ignoring the legalities and moral issues, one man and his chainsaw would have to face the two guys on it and get them to leave, drag the structure out of the water, break it up and get rid of all the barrels and other debris. C&RT's method may not have been the cheapest, but it did get the job over and done with fairly quickly.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, carlt said:

Hopefully the publicity will demonstrate his ingenuity when facing adversity and someone will give him a job.

 

As a gas engineer apparently, getting a job will be one of the less onerous difficulties he faces.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, carlt said:

More likely it was a convenient spot for the press photo on its way to the craning out site.

 

6 hours ago, carlt said:

and yet you still can't see that this is where CRT chose to crane out the boat, not where they chose to moor it...

But as CRT, (or more accurately their contractors, I would say) are doing the craning from a barge with a crane mounted on it, why would they need to move it anywhere from where they found it moored in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

But as CRT, (or more accurately their contractors, I would say) are doing the craning from a barge with a crane mounted on it, why would they need to move it anywhere from where they found it moored in the first place?

Less potential for trouble. Get it away from the site and dismantle at your leisure

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RLWP said:

Less potential for trouble. Get it away from the site and dismantle at your leisure

Richard

It doesn't appear to have taken long!

Fair point. though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It had slowly developed from a raft to what you see there since last December and had moved from kingscross to the east end of Islington tunnel , the owners had been made aware of it's intended destruction, I cycled past it almost every day upto  middle of January when we came through and cruised past it heading to the Lea, it had no roof then and was just a frame, there was some upset on London boaters but the local rangers said due process was followed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The photo of the removal is only a few yards from where I saw it moored, so I don't think the contractors moved it more than those few yards.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just need to have a little rant because this has been bugging me since the thread was first posted.

I have all the empathy for any body living on the streets but I don't think that hoosie was lived in by anybody.

They said that the guy who built it was a plumber, now I know that plumbers don't slate roofs anymore but FFS one good rain shower and it's running straight through those green plastic "slates".

Stagger your For Sale signs' People - overlap!

There we go I'm good now.

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I just need to have a little rant because this has been bugging me since the thread was first posted.

I have all the empathy for any body living on the streets but I don't think that hoosie was lived in by anybody.

They said that the guy who built it was a plumber, now I know that plumbers don't slate roofs anymore but FFS one good rain shower and it's running straight through those green plastic "slates".

Stagger your For Sale signs' People - overlap!

There we go I'm good now.

In the broken roof picture you can see 2 (or maybe even 3) layers deep with an offset of 1/3rd of a sign.

I do agree that offsetting the joins on alternate rows would have been a better job though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

In the broken roof picture you can see 2 (or maybe even 3) layers deep with an offset of 1/3rd of a sign.

I do agree that offsetting the joins on alternate rows would have been a better job though!

When I look at the picture before its broken up I get that feeling like my shoes are on the wrong feet.

I'll take your word that there is more than one layer but it still gives me the heebee jeebees. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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.