Well Done BA On These Two Prosecutions

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Very true, I've even had a circling boat call out and ask if we were enjoying the buffeting that he gave us! Well, actually, no!

In truth we often turn into the wake of a speeding boat, not just for 'fun' but also comfort. 

if the wake is excessive you can roll a bit otherwise.

 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

I don't think an ocean 37 will "properly plane" so the wash would be enough to break the suction.

On the plane a Don Shead or Bernard Olesinski hull does not make that much wash. 

 

Very true,  n very certainly true given the engines that brooms out in originally .

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

Very true,  n very certainly true given the engines that brooms out in originally .

An Osleinski hull at 30+ Kts.

  

[JennyMorgan]

Cracking picture! Why the hurry to get back to the moorings though?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Cracking picture! Why the hurry to get back to the moorings though?

There was a G&T waiting for me.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Philosophical said:

There was a G&T waiting for me.

 

You need it testing?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jayfire said:

You need it testing?

Sorry, too late it has all gone, but sadly the testers did not reach a conclusion, so we need a re test, bring a bottle and you are very welcome to join us in the next round of evaluation.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Sorry, too late it has all gone, but sadly the testers did not reach a conclusion, so we need a re test, bring a bottle and you are very welcome to join us in the next round of evaluation.

Im sure i have a spare bottle rattling around here somewhere 

[Wussername]

On 12/01/2018 at 08:23, FreedomBoatingHols said:

I disagree. This was not an isolated incident and, believe me, when you get hit by that wash, the boiling water you're making your tea with is easily all over your legs, and that's if you're still on your feet. Unlike speeding on a road, excess speed on the water has an immediate detrimental effect on all other river users around you. It will wash baby birds out of nests, potentially flood and kill kingfishers in nests,  it will cause major erosion, and has the potential for considerable vessel damage too. I witnessed him fly past my boatyard having overtaken two (maybe three hire boats 30 yards away) and my fleet nearly landed on the bank. 

If holidaymakers find the level of fine high, it will serve as a major dissuasion from speeding. Nobody who is able to stick to the rules has anything to worry about. 

I am sorry Andy but I do not recognise any part of my post to the comments that you have made.

You state that you disagree. With what?

The OP stated that a private boat was seen speeding on the river Wensum and that a photograph was submitted showing the craft, at speed adjacent to the River Side complex.

Speeding, yes no doubt judging by the wash of the boat. How fast, what speed? Not been established. Bank erosion. Nil. Discomfort to the swans, evidently he overtook them. They did survive. Questionable as to if they were ever at serious risk.

Look at the picture of the boat, speeding. Ask yourself, is that a serious crime that has warranted a £2600 fine.

In order to justify this most extraordinary penalty some have stated that he had been warned, yes warned according to the account three times for speeding. Not fined, warned. He was however prosecuted and fined for exceeding the 5 mph limited at Whitlingham. By what? 2 mph, 4mph? Who knows? For such a draconian fine does not justice dictate a more rational explanation. Seemingly not.

Having been fined he then gets caught again. This time as stated £2600. An accumulative total. How is that arrived at? What is the base figure. How can one possibly justify that sum of money for two misdemeanours? What sort of message does that send out the visitors to Norfolk, indeed to the private sector.

After my post questioning the validity of such a penalty a whole raft of issues concerning the behaviour of this gentleman have appeared. On the face of it other genuine complaints of speeding and inappropriate behaviour.

Andy you have mentioned boats being virtually beached by his actions, which demonstrates the seriousness of the allegations.  The point that I am trying to make is that the fine was disproportionate to the offence as reported by the EDP and the OP. It is only in hindsight, after the initial publication and my subsequent post that additional information has given weight and a degree of credibility to the result.

Finally you state: “If holiday makers find the level of fine high. It will serve as a major dissuasion from speeding”.

 It may serve as a major dissuasion from coming.  The holiday makers do not have the facility of driving high speed boats but they still speed within their own limited parameters and drive irrationally. I believe it is incorrect to associate them with a dysfunctional private owner.

Finally it remains to be seen if the fine is paid. I suspect that the court would prefer to have confiscated the boat but may be a difficult legal call to make. However, defaulting over a court imposed penalty can have far reaching consequences, including the seizure of assets. The implication of such an action would I suspect provide a satisfactory solution for both of us.    

Andrew

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Wussername said:

I am sorry Andy but I do not recognise any part of my post to the comments that you have made.

You state that you disagree. With what?

The OP stated that a private boat was seen speeding on the river Wensum and that a photograph was submitted showing the craft, at speed adjacent to the River Side complex.

Speeding, yes no doubt judging by the wash of the boat. How fast, what speed? Not been established. Bank erosion. Nil. Discomfort to the swans, evidently he overtook them. They did survive. Questionable as to if they were ever at serious risk.

Look at the picture of the boat, speeding. Ask yourself, is that a serious crime that has warranted a £2600 fine.

In order to justify this most extraordinary penalty some have stated that he had been warned, yes warned according to the account three times for speeding. Not fined, warned. He was however prosecuted and fined for exceeding the 5 mph limited at Whitlingham. By what? 2 mph, 4mph? Who knows? For such a draconian fine does not justice dictate a more rational explanation. Seemingly not.

Having been fined he then gets caught again. This time as stated £2600. An accumulative total. How is that arrived at? What is the base figure. How can one possibly justify that sum of money for two misdemeanours? What sort of message does that send out the visitors to Norfolk, indeed to the private sector.

After my post questioning the validity of such a penalty a whole raft of issues concerning the behaviour of this gentleman have appeared. On the face of it other genuine complaints of speeding and inappropriate behaviour.

Andy you have mentioned boats being virtually beached by his actions, which demonstrates the seriousness of the allegations.  The point that I am trying to make is that the fine was disproportionate to the offence as reported by the EDP and the OP. It is only in hindsight, after the initial publication and my subsequent post that additional information has given weight and a degree of credibility to the result.

Finally you state: “If holiday makers find the level of fine high. It will serve as a major dissuasion from speeding”.

 It may serve as a major dissuasion from coming.  The holiday makers do not have the facility of driving high speed boats but they still speed within their own limited parameters and drive irrationally. I believe it is incorrect to associate them with a dysfunctional private owner.

Finally it remains to be seen if the fine is paid. I suspect that the court would prefer to have confiscated the boat but may be a difficult legal call to make. However, defaulting over a court imposed penalty can have far reaching consequences, including the seizure of assets. The implication of such an action would I suspect provide a satisfactory solution for both Andrew

Clearly you have never had any experience of this guy.  I have at 1am n what speed you tell me its a roughly 18 foot boat with a 40hp 2 stroke how fast ? Lord knows its way over any limit and he does sail flat out everywhere is iv witnessed many times , so yes it does justify the amount in fines , don't forget this boat is not tolled either its not as if speeding is his only offence , as for the message it sends out that's loud and clear ,, Behave !!! ,, who private or hire will be put off by this ? I doubt no one will and if they are then really should Norfol

 

57 minutes ago, Wussername said:

I am sorry Andy but I do not recognise any part of my post to the comments that you have made.

You state that you disagree. With what?

The OP stated that a private boat was seen speeding on the river Wensum and that a photograph was submitted showing the craft, at speed adjacent to the River Side complex.

Speeding, yes no doubt judging by the wash of the boat. How fast, what speed? Not been established. Bank erosion. Nil. Discomfort to the swans, evidently he overtook them. They did survive. Questionable as to if they were ever at serious risk.

Look at the picture of the boat, speeding. Ask yourself, is that a serious crime that has warranted a £2600 fine.

In order to justify this most extraordinary penalty some have stated that he had been warned, yes warned according to the account three times for speeding. Not fined, warned. He was however prosecuted and fined for exceeding the 5 mph limited at Whitlingham. By what? 2 mph, 4mph? Who knows? For such a draconian fine does not justice dictate a more rational explanation. Seemingly not.

Having been fined he then gets caught again. This time as stated £2600. An accumulative total. How is that arrived at? What is the base figure. How can one possibly justify that sum of money for two misdemeanours? What sort of message does that send out the visitors to Norfolk, indeed to the private sector.

After my post questioning the validity of such a penalty a whole raft of issues concerning the behaviour of this gentleman have appeared. On the face of it other genuine complaints of speeding and inappropriate behaviour.

Andy you have mentioned boats being virtually beached by his actions, which demonstrates the seriousness of the allegations.  The point that I am trying to make is that the fine was disproportionate to the offence as reported by the EDP and the OP. It is only in hindsight, after the initial publication and my subsequent post that additional information has given weight and a degree of credibility to the result.

Finally you state: “If holiday makers find the level of fine high. It will serve as a major dissuasion from speeding”.

 It may serve as a major dissuasion from coming.  The holiday makers do not have the facility of driving high speed boats but they still speed within their own limited parameters and drive irrationally. I believe it is incorrect to associate them with a dysfunctional private owner.

Finally it remains to be seen if the fine is paid. I suspect that the court would prefer to have confiscated the boat but may be a difficult legal call to make. However, defaulting over a court imposed penalty can have far reaching consequences, including the seizure of assets. The implication of such an action would I suspect provide a satisfactory solution for both of us.    

Andrew

k want then in the first place ? .

As for the fine being paid that up to the HMCS as to the action they take , they can cease the boat or any assets that's true , and they can also take him back to court for none payment and find an alternative sentence which is quite possibly custodial .

Don't blame BA or the courts , the only person to blame is the owner of the vessel who received warnings and refused to listen , all in all it sends out a brilliant message in my book , ie , if you don't  behave then we can and most likely will make you pay .

[Guest]

I don't know where any confusion is in my post  Wussername as you appear to be defending the said speeding boater , as I have said I do not find the fine disproportionate to the offences , of which there were many and who knows how many reports of his actions , he and he alone chose that route that ended in court n one forced him to speed , and the fact is Andy at freedom will have seen him many times as have I and others , I can well see how those without first hand knowledge of him will see it as a bit OTT but those that have been victim of his speeding antics don't I can assure you of that .

[Wussername]

27 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

I don't know where any confusion is in my post  Wussername as you appear to be defending the said speeding boater , as I have said I do not find the fine disproportionate to the offences , of which there were many and who knows how many reports of his actions , he and he alone chose that route that ended in court n one forced him to speed , and the fact is Andy at freedom will have seen him many times as have I and others , I can well see how those without first hand knowledge of him will see it as a bit OTT but those that have been victim of his speeding antics don't I can assure you of that .

Thank you for your post Ricardo. Appreciated. May I get back to you in the morning with my reply.

Forgot to add that sometimes one runs with the fox and hunts with the hounds but I would like to make it very clear that I do not support this individuals actions in any way whatsoever.

Andrew.

[Vaughan]

I thoroughly agree with Wussername but I too, would prefer to wait until the morning before replying.

[ExSurveyor]

I am not sure how anyone can claim the fine is disproportionate based just on a report in the EDP.

The court will have considered all the evidence and the defendant will have had his say in mitigation.

Having been subjected to his outrageous speeding I would suggest horse whipping is too lenient

He is a danger to other river users and his behaviour is anti social in the extreme.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

I am not sure how anyone can claim the fine is disproportionate based just on a report in the EDP.

The court will have considered all the evidence and the defendant will have had his say in mitigation.

Exactly.

[Vaughan]

I am glad I took the opportunity to sleep on this one, as Wussername and I seem to be viewing this from a slightly different perspective. This may be because we both grew up when there were no speed limits on the Yare or the Bure, except in the villages, so the sight of a fast open launch speeding down the river was commonplace. It was also commonplace of course, to slow down for moored boats.

We also remember the loaded sea-going coasters that came up to the port of Norwich and they were no respecters of moored boats, or boatyards! In their case, their wash disturbed the entire river with the suction, or squat effect, which often snapped mooring lines or pulled cleats out of the deck. They would pull rhond hooks out of the bank every time. A little 18ft Shetland with a small outboard couldn't possibly do that kind of damage.

I speak as someone who won prizes for speedboat racing on Barton Broad, during the regatta. I was also on board with Tom Percival when trying out his new racing boat "Little Guy" when he got from Horning Ferry to Acle in ten minutes. So I suppose my first reaction on seeing that photo in the EDP was "so what?"

Now that we know a lot more about the full story behind this, it is clear that this person's behaviour is not acceptable. He is speeding past moored boats and he is speeding at night. Trouble is, what are you going to do about it? You can't take away his licence or put points on it as there is no requirement for a licence. You can't take away his boat unless you can obtain a lien on it for unpaid fines. Then there would be nothing to stop him buying another one. You can't refuse to register his boat because he doesn't pay the toll anyway.

This is clearly antisocial behaviour, so I suggest that he should be pursued for public order offences rather than just the navigation byelaws. How about wilful damage, or a breach of the peace? That way, he could well end up in jail.

[Labrador]

It has been expressed that the fine was "excessive". There is a top level for fines for various offences, surely this fine was at the upper limit at most, so cannot be excessive.

[JennyMorgan]

Back in 2016 a mother & child suffered horrific, life changing injuries on Oulton Broad when a speedboat crashed into a moored boat. People need protecting from themselves.

I applaud the clear message that these prosecutions bring and hopefully that message will attract folk to the Broads that are welcome and dissuade those that are not. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Back in 2016 a mother & child suffered horrific, life changing injuries on Oulton Broad when a speedboat crashed into a moored boat. People need protecting from themselves.

I applaud the clear message that these prosecutions bring and hopefully that message will attract folk to the Broads that are welcome and dissuade those that are not. 

I agree, this was not a case "of sorry Mr. BA Ranger I did not realise I had the tide with me and maybe I was doing six in a five limit", it was a case of a repeated blatant disregard for the rules and other people. I would also voice the opinion that a similar blatant disregard for the rules, was a significant contributory factor in the unfortunate incident on Oulton Broad to which you refer.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Back in 2016 a mother & child suffered horrific, life changing injuries on Oulton Broad when a speedboat crashed into a moored boat. People need protecting from themselves.

I applaud the clear message that these prosecutions bring and hopefully that message will attract folk to the Broads that are welcome and dissuade those that are not. 

You would have thought that the reporting, prosecution and conviction after the Oulton Broad incident would have sent a clear message to all, yet plainly the guy who was fined in Norwich has paid no attention to that incident. So what is the best deterrent?

[Wussername]

14 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

I am not sure how anyone can claim the fine is disproportionate based just on a report in the EDP.

The court will have considered all the evidence and the defendant will have had his say in mitigation.

Having been subjected to his outrageous speeding I would suggest horse whipping is too lenient

He is a danger to other river users and his behaviour is anti social in the extreme.

I am not sure how anyone can claim the fine is disproportionate based just on a report in the EDP.

I am not sure how anyone can make any form of judgement based on the EDP report. The headline stated that: Speeding river offence costs boat driver more than £2600. A man has been found after he was caught speeding past swans in a boat on the River Wensum.

That is really all that we were told. On the face of it a picture of an individual, albeit driving above the speed limit, overtaking some swans. Fined £2600. To me it sounded extreme. That is why I questioned the matter. It was not until other people like Andy at Freedom Boats expressed concerns and Ricardo made his contribution that members of the forum and others that there was the realisation as to how serious the incidents were. But that was not evident in the EDP report.

The court will have considered all the evidence and the defendant will have had his say in mitigation.

I am confident that this took place. But why has the Broads Authority's legal department not reported on the case.

It is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that the BA can and will be proactive under extreme circumstances. It would have the opportunity to assure visitors, and private owners alike that the rivers and the broads are controlled, there are disciplines and if you transcend there will be consequences.

But perhaps one needs to be told of the standards of behaviour which are required and in some cases reminded. 

This is an opportunity which has not been missed. 

 

[Meantime]

4 minutes ago, Wussername said:

I am not sure how anyone can claim the fine is disproportionate based just on a report in the EDP.

I am not sure how anyone can make any form of judgement based on the EDP report. The headline stated that: Speeding river offence costs boat driver more than £2600. A man has been found after he was caught speeding past swans in a boat on the River Wensum.

That is really all that we were told. On the face of it a picture of an individual, albeit driving above the speed limit, overtaking some swans. Fined £2600. To me it sounded extreme. That is why I questioned the matter. It was not until other people like Andy at Freedom Boats expressed concerns and Ricardo made his contribution that members of the forum and others that there was the realisation as to how serious the incidents were. But that was not evident in the EDP report.

The court will have considered all the evidence and the defendant will have had his say in mitigation.

I am confident that this took place. But why has the Broads Authority's legal department not reported on the case.

It is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that the BA can and will be proactive under extreme circumstances. It would have the opportunity to assure visitors, and private owners alike that the rivers and the broads are controlled, there are disciplines and if you transcend there will be consequences.

But perhaps one needs to be told of the standards of behaviour which are required and in some cases reminded. 

This is an opportunity which has not been missed. 

 

You mean like this, although still relatively light on facts.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/successful-prosecutions-for-speeding-boats

 

[JohnK]

... which should send a clear message to the small number of careless boaters that speed

The implication being careful boaters can speed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, EastCoastIPA said:

You would have thought that the reporting, prosecution and conviction after the Oulton Broad incident would have sent a clear message to all, yet plainly the guy who was fined in Norwich has paid no attention to that incident. So what is the best deterrent?

Removal of their favorite playthings, if only to ensure the decline in the gene-bank is disadvantaged! 

[grendel]

56 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

You mean like this, although still relatively light on facts.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/successful-prosecutions-for-speeding-boats

 

Actually, though light on facts, it does give a more accurate picture of the nature of the repeat offences in the second instance. as well as clarifying the distress and damage caused in the first.