Drunk in Charge (fined £830)

[Alan de Enfield]

A man has been fined for being Drunk In Charge :

 

Appearing before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, Hodges admitted to breaches of Cardiff Harbour Authority by-laws – that he failed to have proper control and navigation of his boat whilst under the influence of drink and that he failed to navigate with care and consideration and caused nuisance and excessive wash to others.

Hodges, whose address was given in court as Lutra, Cardiff Marina, Watkiss Way, Cardiff, was fined £300 for each offence and ordered to pay costs of £200 and a £30 victim surcharge.

The Cardiff Harbour Authority by-law states that while operating in Cardiff Bay, “no person shall navigate any vessel or use pleasure craft whilst under the influence of drink or drugs whereby they are unable to take proper control of the vessel or pleasure craft.”
 

Seeing as C&RT have similar Bye- laws

 

No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to
be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.

 

Maybe this is one way to stop the 'booze-cruise' problems.

[rusty69]

Quote

to such an extent as to
be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.

What about the sober ones?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, rusty69 said:

What about the sober ones?

I'm sure we can find an excuse for you - wouldn't want you paying any fines now, would we?

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I'm sure we can find an excuse for you - wouldn't want you paying any fines now, would we?

Oi.The only thing I hit this year was a fast moving port hand buoy, bloody thing jumped out at me and put a hole in my prize sailing dinghy.

Edited November 1, 2018 by rusty69

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Oi.The only thing I hit this year was a fast moving port hand buoy, bloody thing jumped out at me and put a hole in my prize sailing dinghy.

Well - you should have changed hands at 99 !!!!

[rusty69]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Well - you should have changed hands at 99 !!!!

How did you know what I paid for it?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

How did you know what I paid for it?

Spies !!!

 

And - your rubber suit is 'wired'.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[zenataomm]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Seeing as C&RT have similar Bye- laws

 

No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to
be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.

 

Maybe this is one way to stop the 'booze-cruise' problems.

How would it be policed?

Who would enforce it?

In the event of a hire boat being involved, what would the hire company do to ensure the boat completes the ring with enough time for the next holiday makers after being delayed?

Police can't attend muggings or burglaries, how will they find a red boat with roses painted on it last seen after bridge 123?

 

We have enough laws in this country that aren't enforced and should be, we don't need more that are impossible to enforce.

[mayalld]

Just now, zenataomm said:

How would it be policed?

Who would enforce it?

In the event of a hire boat being involved, what would the hire company do to ensure the boat completes the ring with enough time for the next holiday makers after being delayed?

Police can't attend muggings or burglaries, how will they find a red boat with roses painted on it last seen after bridge 123?

 

We have enough laws in this country that aren't enforced and should be, we don't need more that are impossible to enforce.

This is a bye-law offence, and is prosecuted by CRT laying a complaint before a magistrate.

 

No police involved.

 

I suspect that this would be something that would be a useful use of time in some areas that have complained of a particular booze cruise problem.

[Naughty Cal]

6 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

How would it be policed?

Who would enforce it?

In the event of a hire boat being involved, what would the hire company do to ensure the boat completes the ring with enough time for the next holiday makers after being delayed?

Police can't attend muggings or burglaries, how will they find a red boat with roses painted on it last seen after bridge 123?

 

We have enough laws in this country that aren't enforced and should be, we don't need more that are impossible to enforce.

Agreed.

[mayalld]

Just now, Naughty Cal said:

Agreed.

Says the only person in recent memory to have been prosecuted for and convicted of a BW bye-law offence!

[Naughty Cal]

1 minute ago, mayalld said:

This is a bye-law offence, and is prosecuted by CRT laying a complaint before a magistrate.

 

No police involved.

 

I suspect that this would be something that would be a useful use of time in some areas that have complained of a particular booze cruise problem.

Someone has to collect and collate the evidence to present to the court though. 

 

That someone is most likely to be a solicitor at great cost to CRT.

 

Seeing as some people already don't think CRT are spending their money wisely,  would this be seen as a good use of limited funds?

 

I suspect not as the legal costs to CRT will far outweigh any fine imposed on the defendants.

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Says the only person in recent memory to have been prosecuted for and convicted of a BW bye-law offence!

And I am pretty sure that the legal costs to BW at that point were far more than the £66 per offence they were awarded.

 

A good use of money?

 

I think not.

[ditchcrawler]

Was there ever any follow up to the woman in Chester who had to be taken off her boat ether last year or the year before

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by ditchcrawler

[Machpoint005]

I foresee that the major disincentive to drunken boating, when an incident happens, won't be from law enforcement agencies or the CRT by-laws. It will be when one of the idiots has to bear the costs of the incident when he finds that his insurance cover is invalidated.

[howardang]

21 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Someone has to collect and collate the evidence to present to the court though. 

 

That someone is most likely to be a solicitor at great cost to CRT.

 

Seeing as some people already don't think CRT are spending their money wisely,  would this be seen as a good use of limited funds?

 

I suspect not as the legal costs to CRT will far outweigh any fine imposed on the defendants.

And I am pretty sure that the legal costs to BW at that point were far more than the £66 per offence they were awarded.

 

A good use of money?

 

I think not.

Maybe they thought that the costs would be worth it because it might be a deterrent to others who  break the rules?

 

Howard

 

 

[rowland al]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A man has been fined for being Drunk In Charge :

 

Maybe this is one way to stop the 'booze-cruise' problems.

I’m not sure those who run hire boat companies would like that idea. After all, if it wasn’t for them we’d all be stuck in a marina - apparently ?

 

I must admit there is a limit to these kind of things though. If they are doing criminal damage to other boats for example. 

[Athy]

Fines for the offences...tick. Costs....tick. But "£30 victim surcharge", what the heck's that? Is he the victim of the victim surcharge, or does it mean that someone else was a victim of his bad driving?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Athy said:

Fines for the offences...tick. Costs....tick. But "£30 victim surcharge", what the heck's that? Is he the victim of the victim surcharge, or does it mean that someone else was a victim of his bad driving?

Some ones G&T was spilt by his excessive wash.

[Graham Davis]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Fines for the offences...tick. Costs....tick. But "£30 victim surcharge", what the heck's that? Is he the victim of the victim surcharge, or does it mean that someone else was a victim of his bad driving?

All explained
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_surcharge
Standard in all fines now.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

All explained
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_surcharge
Standard in all fines now.

Lunacy :

 

The law journalist Joshua Rozenberg has reported cases where a surcharge levied against a young person became the responsibility of their parents - even when a parent was the victim of the crime in question.

[rowland al]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Lunacy :

 

The law journalist Joshua Rozenberg has reported cases where a surcharge levied against a young person became the responsibility of their parents - even when a parent was the victim of the crime in question.

This all went wrong when it became wrong to smack your kids when they were very naughty. 

 

Reading that back, what I just said sounds very wrong these days. It never did me any harm anyway [twitch - twitch].

 

So Is this all progress then?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, rowland al said:

This all went wrong when...……………...

the Common Market became the EEC, which became the EC which became EU ………………………………………………...

[WotEver]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

the Common Market became the EEC, which became the EC which became EU ………………………………………………...

Yeah, but we’re fixing that... oh, wait...

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Yeah, but we’re fixing that... oh, wait...

[rowland al]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

the Common Market became the EEC, which became the EC which became EU ………………………………………………...

Couldn’t agree more. If you allow a few people to have too much power - well look what’s happened throughout history. 

 

The thing is, I don’t totally blame the politicians, after all, most people are vulnerable to bribes. (Caveat alert - Not all politicians, especially those who don’t get paid).