Overstaying On 24 Hour Moorings

[KaptinKev]

8 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I asked if it were possible that he might have Genuinely  thought that BA signs applied only to hire craft.

It seems to be a trend nowadays to getting out of paying parking fines, other motoring offences and even possibly out staying your right to a mooring by simply saying, I just don't or didn't understand the rules and basically plead dumb!

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, KaptinKev said:

It seems to be a trend nowadays to getting out of paying parking fines, other motoring offences and even possibly out staying your right to a mooring by simply saying, I just don't or didn't understand the rules and basically plead dumb!

Try pleading that in a court .

[MauriceMynah]

9 hours ago, Hylander said:

Pity someone at the mooring had not  got into conversation with the boat owner then he/she would have been put straight.

 

Indeed it is.

9 hours ago, KaptinKev said:

It seems to be a trend nowadays to getting out of paying parking fines, other motoring offences and even possibly out staying your right to a mooring by simply saying, I just don't or didn't understand the rules and basically plead dumb!

That is why I stated "Genuine" and I for one reckon our rangers are more than smart enough to tell whether such a claim IS genuine.

 

9 hours ago, Ricardo said:

Try pleading that in a court .

Spot on. If the BA pressed the case, I doubt the court would be fooled either.

[Hylander]

 

I asked if it were possible that he might have Genuinely  thought that BA signs applied only to hire craft.

 

I did have a chuckle to myself when I read this.    You would have to live in La La Land to think you could get away with that one.  So all of the 24hr moorings are to be used by private craft for as long as they wish and the poor old hirer can only stay for 24hrs.   For one the hirer would never get on a 24hr mooring if that were the case,   they would be clogged up with privateers.   No dont think that one would wash.

As a bit of fun may be we can think up a list of excuses that we can all use as to why we are overstaying -  only joking.

 

[Wonderwall]

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

 

As a bit of fun may be we can think up a list of excuses that we can all use as to why we are overstaying -  only joking.

My wife just nipped out to the shops 

My mother in law dosent know this mooring exists

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

I'm glad I have amused you Hylander, and you do successfully highlight how something can be taken the same way twice with different emphasis. You see it as

" So all of the 24hr moorings are to be used by private craft for as long as they wish and the poor old hirer can only stay for 24hrs"

Where I would have read it as...

"Hire craft may only use this mooring for 24 hours."

Either way, I thought I'd made my standpoint pretty clear. What I'd said was

"Ok, I admit I'm now playing devils advocate just a bit here, but Suppose the owners had thought that the sign applied to hire craft only, and I do mean Genuinely believed."

For some reason my laptop isn't allowing me to highlight the following words/phrases.   "Devils Advocate", Suppose, and Genuine

I'm not saying I would make that mistake, and heaven forbid that I'm suggesting that you would, I'm merely suggesting that he might have done.

Oh, all this has lead me to yet another thought or rather questions to which I do not have the answer. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.

We know that the BA does not own any 24 hour moorings, but lease them from the land owners. Are those land owners obliged to obey the 24 hour rule?  Are they exempt?   What about their friends? Would this be in the terms of the lease?

Again I reiterate I cannot condemn this man mooring where he did and for as long as he did without being aware of ALL the circumstances.

It is in all probability that he moored there in contravention of the by-laws, has received a ticket and will have to pay a fine. Great... so be it!    But what if he had good reason? Explains it to the authorities and the prosecution is dropped. We on this forum will not know, and there may well be some who think less of the man for the mistakenly perceived guilt. is that fair or reasonable?

 

 

[Meantime]

This thread has made me laugh

All this questioning of The BA! is he being let off because it's a private craft, would a hire craft get away with it, on another forum it's not ok for a liveaboard, but it is for a private craft

We all pay our tolls, hire or private, and part of those tolls is used by The BA to enforce the byelaws. Let them get on with it. They do patrol all the moorings every few days. They do take down reg numbers of over stayers. I'm fairly certain they see boats, and Not private boats, or hire boats, or boats with people living on board, and they react according to whether any byelaws have been broken by the owners or helmsmen of those boats.

None of us really know the circumstances of why that boat is there. None of us know whether The BA are taking action, and to be honest, is it any of our business. Does anyone here really believe The BA would turn a blind eye without VERY good reason to any particular boater, or section of the boating community?

I have a confession to make!! I've overstayed on a BA 24hr mooring. Did The BA know? Yes. Did I get reported? No. Did they give me permission to overstay? No, but they were fully aware and didn't move me on either. Was there any nosey parkers around ready to spill the beans to the authority? or worse, a forum? I don't know and I don't really care.

Two years ago we got stuck the wrong side of Wroxham bridge for six days, and after bouncing back and forth between Hoveton and Coltishall moorings waiting for the tide to drop, we were going stir crazy, and towards the end of the week worried about getting the boat back to it's home mooring so we could go home and back to work. The last few days we just stayed at the Hoveton moorings and did days out by train to Sheringham, North Walsham and Aylesham. I wasn't worried about blocking the mooring as very few, if any boats were coming through the bridge, and as soon as they did, we would more than likely have the clearance to secure our transit of the bridge. The local rangers were fully aware of ours, and a couple of others predicament and shock horror, didn't issue us with notices or tell us to move to another mooring.  

[Meantime]

25 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

We know that the BA does not own any 24 hour moorings, but lease them from the land owners. Are those land owners obliged to obey the 24 hour rule?  Are they exempt?   What about their friends? Would this be in the terms of the lease?

I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that the BA DO own some moorings. The 24hr mooring at The Locks is owned by the BA as was the woodland next to them, until just recently when they sold the woodland. They also own one of the stretches of mooring at The Berney Arms. The mooring at Ranworth is also owned by the BA having been given is as a gift some time back. This was particularly contentious when the subject of the possible introduction of mooring fees at Ranworth was raised some time back. There may be others that are owned by the BA as well, but they are the ones I know of.

[MauriceMynah]

27 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

 but I do know that the BA DO own some moorings.

Fair enough. My question now just applies to the ones they lease.

[MauriceMynah]

32 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

This thread has made me laugh

All this questioning of The BA! is he being let off because it's a private craft, would a hire craft get away with it, on another forum it's not ok for a liveaboard, but it is for a private ...

In fairness it's not the BA I'm questioning it's the "trial by forum",   but I'm doing it by posing open questions rather than direct questioning. I find that to be less confrontational and as a result more constructive.

I am also mindful that I suspect the owner of the craft may well be a member here and perhaps on the other forums also.

[Timbo]

 

At the end of the day, even a one-eyed weasel is right at least twice a day! If the party of the first part had indeed spotted the bear out of the window on the south side then the baby would have had blue eyes even if his mother did get on the bus first and left second. Is that right? Of course, it isn't. But then he was flying the wrong flag. What degree of trust can you have when the flag shows the beach is clean, only to be eaten by a shark? If it had been me I would have employed a net no matter who profited. Okay I know someone will point out that net profits still need adjustment which only begs the question 'if you have to adjust your prophet is he actually a bonafide prophet or did he predict he would be brushed aside'? The thing is if you set them aside, the prophet margins are soon going to fill up and who will profit from that?  The key thing to remember is that, and I am quite adamant...well more your Prince Charming so stand and deliver...about this is that... will we, nil we, it's all pretty much of a muchness of a to do...and as we all know a bit of a to-do requires a 'list' and at the top of my Liszt, at the end of the day, is the Hungarian Rhapsody. But when all is said and done, I prefer a mug of cocoa.

[Wildfuzz]

Good meds your on Timbo!!!!!!

[Vaughan]

I hope your'e still taking the tablets, Timbo?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Timbo said:

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Timbo said:

 

At the end of the day, even a one-eyed weasel is right at least twice a day! If the party of the first part had indeed spotted the bear out of the window on the south side then the baby would have had blue eyes even if his mother did get on the bus first and left second. Is that right? Of course, it isn't. But then he was flying the wrong flag. What degree of trust can you have when the flag shows the beach is clean, only to be eaten by a shark? If it had been me I would have employed a net no matter who profited. Okay I know someone will point out that net profits still need adjustment which only begs the question 'if you have to adjust your prophet is he actually a bonafide prophet or did he predict he would be brushed aside'? The thing is if you set them aside, the prophet margins are soon going to fill up and who will profit from that?  The key thing to remember is that, and I am quite adamant...well more your Prince Charming so stand and deliver...about this is that... will we, nil we, it's all pretty much of a muchness of a to do...and as we all know a bit of a to-do requires a 'list' and at the top of my Liszt, at the end of the day, is the Hungarian Rhapsody. But when all is said and done, I prefer a mug of cocoa.

It sounds to me, as though someone has dropped something 'a little stronger' in your cocoa...

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Timbo said:

 

At the end of the day, even a one-eyed weasel is right at least twice a day! If the party of the first part had indeed spotted the bear out of the window on the south side then the baby would have had blue eyes even if his mother did get on the bus first and left second. Is that right? Of course, it isn't. But then he was flying the wrong flag. What degree of trust can you have when the flag shows the beach is clean, only to be eaten by a shark? If it had been me I would have employed a net no matter who profited. Okay I know someone will point out that net profits still need adjustment which only begs the question 'if you have to adjust your prophet is he actually a bonafide prophet or did he predict he would be brushed aside'? The thing is if you set them aside, the prophet margins are soon going to fill up and who will profit from that?  The key thing to remember is that, and I am quite adamant...well more your Prince Charming so stand and deliver...about this is that... will we, nil we, it's all pretty much of a muchness of a to do...and as we all know a bit of a to-do requires a 'list' and at the top of my Liszt, at the end of the day, is the Hungarian Rhapsody. But when all is said and done, I prefer a mug of cocoa.

Whatever you have been taking, have you any left?

 

[grendel]

I do hope you havent been driving.

[Hylander]

At the end of the day - yes I know night comes - I bet whoever the skipper is , his ears will be burning and he is probably wondering why.

 

 

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Hylander said:

At the end of the day - yes I know night comes - I bet whoever the skipper is , his ears will be burning and he is probably wondering why.

 

 

Or even incensed if there is a very logical reason for his over staying. We may never know, but it might have perhaps been better if the truth had been sought before trial by forum. This thread was started by MM with a view to clarifying a legal position and asked a number of hypothetical questions. I don't think he started it as a witch hunt abut the boat in question at Sutton. That is probably best left for another forum to do. I hope this forum still does innocent until proven guilty?

[C.Ricko]

7 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

This thread has made me laugh

All this questioning of The BA! is he being let off because it's a private craft, would a hire craft get away with it, on another forum it's not ok for a liveaboard, but it is for a private craft

We all pay our tolls, hire or private, and part of those tolls is used by The BA to enforce the byelaws. Let them get on with it. They do patrol all the moorings every few days. They do take down reg numbers of over stayers. I'm fairly certain they see boats, and Not private boats, or hire boats, or boats with people living on board, and they react according to whether any byelaws have been broken by the owners or helmsmen of those boats.

None of us really know the circumstances of why that boat is there. None of us know whether The BA are taking action, and to be honest, is it any of our business. Does anyone here really believe The BA would turn a blind eye without VERY good reason to any particular boater, or section of the boating community?

I have a confession to make!! I've overstayed on a BA 24hr mooring. Did The BA know? Yes. Did I get reported? No. Did they give me permission to overstay? No, but they were fully aware and didn't move me on either. Was there any nosey parkers around ready to spill the beans to the authority? or worse, a forum? I don't know and I don't really care.

Two years ago we got stuck the wrong side of Wroxham bridge for six days, and after bouncing back and forth between Hoveton and Coltishall moorings waiting for the tide to drop, we were going stir crazy, and towards the end of the week worried about getting the boat back to it's home mooring so we could go home and back to work. The last few days we just stayed at the Hoveton moorings and did days out by train to Sheringham, North Walsham and Aylesham. I wasn't worried about blocking the mooring as very few, if any boats were coming through the bridge, and as soon as they did, we would more than likely have the clearance to secure our transit of the bridge. The local rangers were fully aware of ours, and a couple of others predicament and shock horror, didn't issue us with notices or tell us to move to another mooring.  

I know who it is,  (if its the boat I think it may be)  I wouldn't  want anyone to loose sleep over this so if it is the boat I have in mind he knows he can move to one of my moorings when the Sutton mooring fills up but as its quite nice there  I'm assuming that it will hang about.. 

[YnysMon]

Timbo, you have surpassed yourself!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Or even incensed if there is a very logical reason for his over staying. We may never know, but it might have perhaps been better if the truth had been sought before trial by forum. This thread was started by MM with a view to clarifying a legal position and asked a number of hypothetical questions. I don't think he started it as a witch hunt abut the boat in question at Sutton. That is probably best left for another forum to do. I hope this forum still does innocent until proven guilty?

Mostly the problem I have with all this is the boat was left on a water point and electric point , if it needs electric for charging etc then fine but move it away from the water point , a notice in the window of the said craft would also have helped  considerably but defiantly get in touch with BA if its legitimate they will help you or at least I've found that to be the case .

The legality side has been explained as has the reality side which is in effect slightly different due to BA being flexible to an extent , I for one totally dislike trial by forum and indeed have been a victim of it ( not here ) and I certainly don't think that was the intention of this thread in anyway .

To reiterate BA will help you should you unfortunately breakdown I know that as a fact but I also know people who have taken the Mick and they do and rightly so come down on them hard  .

[MauriceMynah]

11 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

Timbo, you have surpassed yourself!

Sounded surpassed as a newt.!

Good luck to you matey, hope your feeling well. 

[Hylander]

2 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Or even incensed if there is a very logical reason for his over staying. We may never know, but it might have perhaps been better if the truth had been sought before trial by forum. This thread was started by MM with a view to clarifying a legal position and asked a number of hypothetical questions. I don't think he started it as a witch hunt abut the boat in question at Sutton. That is probably best left for another forum to do. I hope this forum still does innocent until proven guilty?

Sorry but if you have not a genuine reason for staying then prepare for some flack.    Sorry if that offends certain folk.      This is not Trial by Forum , far from it, so EastCoastPA just calm down.

[Meantime]

6 minutes ago, Hylander said:

Sorry but if you have not a genuine reason for staying then prepare for some flack.    Sorry if that offends certain folk.      This is not Trial by Forum , far from it, so EastCoastPA just calm down.

So you know that there wasn't a genuine reason for him overstaying then? because so far I haven't read anything concrete of someone that has spoken to him and knows the exact circumstances, therefore it can only be speculation, but he seems to have been found guilty by some.

I am perfectly calm by the way. Just prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until all the facts, rather than speculation are known.  

[Hylander]

If it was a genuine reason for stayed the BA would not have slapped a notice on his boat.