Boat sunk, by Stag Party?

[Athy]

Just now, Naughty Cal said:

No doubt he, or one of his "friends", has told them that in an attempt to cover up his lack of movement. 

 

Funny how the range is 20 miles. The same as CRT accept!

The distance was my guess, not their statement. Mea culpa.

[Midnight]

"The morons went past far too fast, bow wave nearly a foot high, and it seems to have sucked the staples out of a tarp that was covering a leaky patch. "

 

Morons indeed and I do feel sorry for the owner but come on, hardly credible to blame a speeding boat for sinking in this case.

[RichM]

8 minutes ago, Midnight said:

"The morons went past far too fast, bow wave nearly a foot high, and it seems to have sucked the staples out of a tarp that was covering a leaky patch. "

 

Morons indeed and I do feel sorry for the owner but come on, hardly credible to blame a speeding boat for sinking in this case.

Agree, it shouldn't have been in the water in that state so a little unfair to blame hire boaters.

 

Surely a boat in this state wouldn't pass a BSS?

[thebfg]

16 minutes ago, Cas446 said:

That boat has not moved in years!! 

I do believe that he has traveled the entire system. im not sure about recently however his boat is now in a different place to where I saw it last. 

 

 

[RichM]

Just now, thebfg said:

I do believe that he has traveled the entire system. im not sure about recently however his boat is now in a different place to where I saw it last. 

 

 

As in, resting on the bottom of the canal?

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, RichM said:

Agree, it shouldn't have been in the water in that state so a little unfair to blame hire boaters.

 

Surely a boat in this state wouldn't pass a BSS?

Hull condition is not part of the BSS inspection on a private boat

[MtB]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Hull condition is not part of the BSS inspection on a private boat

 

Indeed. It may well have a BSS. And thebfg just posted evidence this boat moves.

 

Just the 'unlicenced' assertion left to dismantle, and the boat will be shown to be fully legit.  

 

[Nut]

what ever the facts , he needs help so lets help, a little compassion goes along way

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, Nut said:

what ever the facts , he needs help so lets help, a little compassion goes along way

The one with a tree down on it at Rugby is looking for some monetary help as well

[Nightwatch]

I'm off to Plymouth for a weekend Naval reunion soon, I need monetary assistance. Any offers? 

 

 

 

I can do smilies.?????????☠️????

Edited September 26, 2018 by Nightwatch

[Sea Dog]

14 minutes ago, Nut said:

what ever the facts , he needs help so lets help, a little compassion goes along way

I think the help should have been given long before the boat sank. It looks like a long time since that vessel was fit for human habitation.

[Naughty Cal]

18 minutes ago, Nut said:

what ever the facts , he needs help so lets help, a little compassion goes along way

The help he needed was in getting his boat into state that it could float unassisted long before the hire boat went past him.

 

Where were his so called friends then?

 

Sticking a few quid in a fund is not compassion. 

[Dr Bob]

The issue we have here though is 2 separate problems. Sympathy or condemnation of an alledged non license payer (or non mover?) and the speeding idiots.

There have been endless threads on the sympathy issue and this thread isnt going to get us any further. Instead, maybe we need to think about the alledged drunken yobbos. Well done for the hire company throwing them off the boat.

It's always going to be a problem with liveaboards existing with holiday makers. We spent 3 years as liveaboard on a sailing yacht in the Med and finally gave up as in some of the nicer places to sail, it was 90% holiday makers and 10% liveaboards. Being kept awake at night (all night) by a group of 12 drunken Russians in a Greek marina was not our definition of fun. For Russians, substitute Germans...or other countries. On the canals we have not been bothered by the drunken hoards as they usually are gone as quick as they appear and unsurprisingly park as near to a pub as possible so choice of mooring avoids problems. The CRT or the boat hirer have to take control over these drunken crews. It is of course an offense to drive a boat under the influence. I am sure @Alan de Enfield can pop up the relevent legislation. Drunken skippering of a boat is dangerous and shouldnt be tolerated.

[Sea Dog]

4 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

I'm off to Plymouth for a weekend Naval reunion soon, I need monetary assistance. Any offers? 

 

 

 

Cant do smilies.

I'll buy you a beer! 

 

(Smiley - type :  and ) with no space between and hit return.

 Unless you mean in real life - in which case cancel that beer!) 

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

4 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

I think the help should have been given long before the boat sank. It looks like a long time since that vessel was fit for human habitation.

Crossed posts with you but yes fully agree.

[dmr]

4 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

I think the help should have been given long before the boat sank. It looks like a long time since that vessel was fit for human habitation.

He does have two boats I believe , the other boat is literally a  (possibly)  mobile scrap yard. I think one plan is to use the money donated to put a cabin onto this boat, but I don't know if he will part with the crap. These boats are a major eyesore. I have very mixed feelings about how boats on the cut should look but as the Canals are dependent upon public money to survive I have limited patience for those who go out of their way to aggravate or upset the public. 

 

I was having my anti-high speed cycling rant to CaRT again recently and a point raised is that many towpath visitors want to see more "pretty" boats and less scruffy ones. We all have our part to play in protecting our way of life.

 

...............Dave

[Naughty Cal]

2 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

The issue we have here though is 2 separate problems. Sympathy or condemnation of an alledged non license payer (or non mover?) and the speeding idiots.

There have been endless threads on the sympathy issue and this thread isnt going to get us any further. Instead, maybe we need to think about the alledged drunken yobbos. Well done for the hire company throwing them off the boat.

It's always going to be a problem with liveaboards existing with holiday makers. We spent 3 years as liveaboard on a sailing yacht in the Med and finally gave up as in some of the nicer places to sail, it was 90% holiday makers and 10% liveaboards. Being kept awake at night (all night) by a group of 12 drunken Russians in a Greek marina was not our definition of fun. For Russians, substitute Germans...or other countries. On the canals we have not been bothered by the drunken hoards as they usually are gone as quick as they appear and unsurprisingly park as near to a pub as possible so choice of mooring avoids problems. The CRT or the boat hirer have to take control over these drunken crews. It is of course an offense to drive a boat under the influence. I am sure @Alan de Enfield can pop up the relevent legislation. Drunken skippering of a boat is dangerous and shouldnt be tolerated.

Unfortunately without hire boats on CRT waters we would all be expected to pick up the loss in revenue and pay more in the way of increased licence fees. 

 

Can't see many being in favour of that.

 

Byelaw 3 states that "no person shall bring use or leave any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used"

 

Byelaw 38 goes on a bit further " no person shall wilfully or negligently suffer any vessel to run aground or sink in any canal"

 

In both cases it would seem this chap is in breach of these byelaws. 

 

 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

 

Byelaw 3 states that "no person shall bring use or leave any vessel which is not in every respect fit for navigation on the canal or part thereof where it is intended to be used"

 

Byelaw 38 goes on a bit further " no person shall wilfully or negligently suffer any vessel to run aground or sink in any canal"

 

In both cases it would seem this chap is in breach of these byelaws. 

 

 

CRT have a policy so I understand, of not prosecuting byelaw infringements. Time this changed, perhaps. 

 

 

[Dr Bob]

8 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Unfortunately without hire boats on CRT waters we would all be expected to pick up the loss in revenue and pay more in the way of increased licence fees. 

 

Can't see many being in favour of that.

 

I am not saying hire boats should be banned. They are an important part of canal boat life and essential for the continuation of the network. I am saying that they should not be under the control of someone 'under the influence' as per the law.

[dmr]

13 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

The issue we have here though is 2 separate problems. Sympathy or condemnation of an alledged non license payer (or non mover?) and the speeding idiots.

There have been endless threads on the sympathy issue and this thread isnt going to get us any further. Instead, maybe we need to think about the alledged drunken yobbos. Well done for the hire company throwing them off the boat.

It's always going to be a problem with liveaboards existing with holiday makers. We spent 3 years as liveaboard on a sailing yacht in the Med and finally gave up as in some of the nicer places to sail, it was 90% holiday makers and 10% liveaboards. Being kept awake at night (all night) by a group of 12 drunken Russians in a Greek marina was not our definition of fun. For Russians, substitute Germans...or other countries. On the canals we have not been bothered by the drunken hoards as they usually are gone as quick as they appear and unsurprisingly park as near to a pub as possible so choice of mooring avoids problems. The CRT or the boat hirer have to take control over these drunken crews. It is of course an offense to drive a boat under the influence. I am sure @Alan de Enfield can pop up the relevent legislation. Drunken skippering of a boat is dangerous and shouldnt be tolerated.

I don't agree, there is no problem with reasonable liveaboards co existing with holiday makers. We generally love them (except when they drain the pounds that we are moored on). They are mostly happy, willing and keen to learn when you point out their mistakes, keen to find out about liveaboard life, and if you share a lock flight with them might even take you out for a few beers.

Its hard to grasp the stag boat issue unless you have actually witnessed it. Go and spend a few days in Bradford on Avon. They are not holiday makers, they are often drunken selfish thugs with a mission to get seriously pissed with no respect for anybody else and sometimes with a deliberate second mission to taunt, abuse and threaten other boaters and towpath walkers.

 

...............Dave

 

[Up-Side-Down]

3 hours ago, Victor Vectis said:

More here:

https://nbareandare.com/2018/09/25/when-hire-boaters-make-life-worse-by-water/

A beautiful piece of writing for, albeit, a sorry tale. Would love to be able to write like this (says one who makes his living at the job)!

[Dr Bob]

Just now, dmr said:

I don't agree, there is no problem with reasonable liveaboards co existing with holiday makers. We generally love them (except when they drain the pounds that we are moored on). They are mostly happy, willing and keen to learn when you point out their mistakes, keen to find out about liveaboard life, and if you share a lock flight with them might even take you out for a few beers.

Its hard to grasp the stag boat issue unless you have actually witnessed it. Go and spend a few days in Bradford on Avon. They are not holiday makers, they are often drunken selfish thugs with a mission to get seriously pissed with no respect for anybody else and sometimes with a deliberate second mission to taunt, abuse and threaten other boaters and towpath walkers.

 

...............Dave

 

Absolutely agree 100%. See my previous post.

The 'holiday makers' I was refering to in my first post in the med was about this type of 'thug' (as you describe it).

My point in posting in this thread was to focus on those 'thugs' rather than re-debate the 'no license' issue...which has been discussed at length in many threads.

[NigelMoore]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Not really.  There's more here than meets the wotsit: https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/10631998.Disabled_Wiltshire_man_faces_losing_narrowboat_home/

 

So he's already sold one boat because he was going to be turfed off for not having a license or Safety Cert, and according to other info the sunk boat wasn't licensed either.  Doesn't stop it being a shame, but the shame is really that people are now so desperate for a roof over their heads they have to try to live in these conditions in the first place.

 

Not sure whence the “other info” derives, but the article you linked to is now over 5 years old, and certainly back then, it is recorded that he had attempted to pay in full for licensing the ‘new’ boats, only to have CaRT refuse to accept it.

 

As to the initial boat, the subject of the court case, he had belatedly obtained the BSSC, and paid both the fee and disputed late payment charge, but at that stage CaRT refused to accept it and served a s.8 regardless.

 

It would be a little surprising if he invited further s.8 proceedings for non-payment under the circumstances, following the judge’s refusal to grant the requested injunction to remove Mr Ward with the non-sectioned boats he had offered licence payments for.

 

All things are possible of course.

[Rebotco]

In the 3 years that object has been there, it has never been a boat.  It has been a heap of rotting scrap held together with plastic sheeting. Sinking was not an accident, but an inevitability.  There are numerous similar objects on the K&A west end.

As for the other element, stag and hen hire boat parties along here are a bigger problem. They impact along many miles whereas the slum boats stay put in one place.  The local boat hirers are entirely responsible for the mayhem wreaked by such hirers. They actively promote such activity, even supplying the booze in some cases and the "pirate" outfits.  It has become so anti social along here that we avoid boating as much as possible at weekends when the hire day boats are let loose for such purposes.  It may boost the hirers' profits but it deters many private boaters.  CRT should urgently address this growing practice.

[Nightwatch]

39 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

I'll buy you a beer! 

 

(Smiley - type :  and ) with no space between and hit return.

 Unless you mean in real life - in which case cancel that beer!) 

 

 

I smile all the time in real life and people ask if I'm alright. Cheeky buggers.

cant do smilies on my iPad as I can't do smilies on my iPad. I can on emails and text messages but not on here.  But I'll try now

Are in Guz? Yes to the beer then. I may even buy you one back!!

?

It bloomin' well worked. Hadn't tried for yonks.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Nightwatch