Another Eye Sore

[CambridgeCabby]

14 minutes ago, marshman said:

I doubt it is as easy to change legislation as CC would suggest otherwise these bodies would do it - there will be differing solutions to every problem, but it will never be "easy" I suspect. Nor cheap nor easy to find the parliamentary time, which I suspect may be necessary, given the current circumstances!

Agreed that changing legislation is never easy , but amending existing legislation is certainly doable , recent changes to BSS etc seem to be made and implemented with no problems , so surely it would be possible to amend the bss and registration rules to include a clause allowing removal of vessels that either fail to pay registration or have no current bss (after allowing reasonable time to remedy situation) .

where it is deemed a vessel is in danger of sinking and at risk of causing environmental damage then as the Broads are “ A member of the National Park family “ I would be amazed if there wasn’t a way to use existing legislation to remove the risk posed.

But then I am the type of individual when posed with a problem like to try and find positive ways to solve it as opposed to the negative stance of giving reasons why I can’t solve it as adopted by ,it seems , the BA in this instance 

[JennyMorgan]

16 minutes ago, marshman said:

I doubt it is as easy to change legislation as CC would suggest otherwise these bodies would do it - there will be differing solutions to every problem, but it will never be "easy" I suspect. Nor cheap nor easy to find the parliamentary time, which I suspect may be necessary, given the current circumstances!

Look what happened last time Packman went to Parliament and how the costs of that ill considered little extravagance mushroomed as they did! 

[RumPunch]

On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 09:47, ChrisB said:

 

 

I wonder where they have left her "Trailer"

Exactly where it is that photo - so maybe he's planning on coming back North

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I doubt it is as easy to change legislation as CC would suggest otherwise these bodies would do it - there will be differing solutions to every problem, but it will never be "easy" I suspect. Nor cheap nor easy to find the parliamentary time, which I suspect may be necessary, given the current circumstances!

There is no need for a change in legislation. All the BA has to do is create a 'policy', under which they give themselves the power to remove any untolled vessel. There is a precedent for this. They consider the 'guidance' issued re the display of registration marks to be enforcable in law, even though it does not have the support of any legislation!

[ChrisB]

1 hour ago, RumPunch said:

Exactly where it is that photo - so maybe he's planning on coming back North

Just before Paddy's lane

[JennyMorgan]

Back to my time on the Nav Com. if I remember correctly. by the time a wreck was removed, taken to the Thorpe dockyard and disposed of, the cost to the Navigation account, our tolls, would at that time generally exceed £5k, and might be thousands more. I can understand & appreciate the BA's caution on this one.  Remember, it's our money.

[JanetAnne]

I would have thought there would be more than enough support from the toll payers, BA's members, land owners and everyone else you can think of for either an introduction of or change to relevant laws that would introduce and allow a more rigorous or proactive procedure for non compliant boats.

[unclemike]

that trailer is still down paddys lane andalthough abit tenuous actually contains stolen property;- to whit the blue pallet, they are the property of CHEP UK,who rent them to companies, they never sell,

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

56 minutes ago, chameleon said:

that trailer is still down paddys lane andalthough abit tenuous actually contains stolen property;- to whit the blue pallet, they are the property of CHEP UK,who rent them to companies, they never sell,

Just remove it, and dispose of what`s on it. Don`t pussyfoot around red tape, just do it.

[MauriceMynah]

I don't agree Neil, those pallets are useful.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

59 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I don't agree Neil, those pallets are useful.

Agreed, I was talking about the crap on them John. 

You so realise I've agreed with you again, does that mean I have to buy you a beer to say sorry?.  only mine will have to be a mug of Earl Grey . 

[MauriceMynah]

Not averse to a drop of Earl Grey myself though I often blend it, one part, with two parts Yorkshire tea. It gives Earl Grey with teeth.

[MauriceMynah]

Ooops, we've agreed on a non alcoholic drink... I'll start singing "Rock of ages" and join the movement next. :-(

[wombat nee blownup]

Temperance I the way forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Norfolk Broads Network

[MauriceMynah]

As opposed to … Sailing, the way sideways, backwards, a bit to the starboard, a bit to port, but never, absolutely never the way forwards.  

[BrundallNavy]

I think we should do a forum work party to raise the houseboat and restore it so Maurice Mynah can live on it   

[JennyMorgan]

Temperance and sailing, surely a bit of an oxymoron is that! Temperance and motorboats, alien world  but in order to prevent tacking by their helmsmen then perhaps it would be a wise policy.

[JennyMorgan]

Regarding that 'trailer'. perhaps such towable platforms should be subject to a sizable/prohibitive toll. 

[Paladin]

On 04/09/2019 at 09:48, CambridgeCabby said:

Agreed that changing legislation is never easy , but amending existing legislation is certainly doable , recent changes to BSS etc seem to be made and implemented with no problems , so surely it would be possible to amend the bss and registration rules to include a clause allowing removal of vessels that either fail to pay registration or have no current bss (after allowing reasonable time to remedy situation) .

where it is deemed a vessel is in danger of sinking and at risk of causing environmental damage then as the Broads are “ A member of the National Park family “ I would be amazed if there wasn’t a way to use existing legislation to remove the risk posed.

 

My understanding is that the Boat Safety Scheme is a private scheme, owned by the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency, and adopted by the BA. The 2009 Broads Act allows the BA to introduce safety standards, but there is no criminal penalty involved, as is the case with byelaw offences. If there is no safety certificate, registration and/or the issue of a licence can be refused, that's all. I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to extend the BSS scheme to include removal powers, without very expensive primary legislation.

The BA already has powers in relation to unsafe vessels, including the power of removal, but just because a vessel doesn't have a BSS certificate, is untolled and isn't pretty doesn't make it intrinsically unsafe.

[JennyMorgan]

Unsafe boats aside I rather think that a sunk or abandoned boat would have to be deemed a hazard to navigation before the BA is empowered to remove it.

[annv]

Why would it cost £5000=00 plus ? Ranger pulls along side ties on, tows boat to Post Wick Yard, lifted out with their crane onto their junk yard and crushed with their crane bucket metal and sold for scrap, firba glass buried in the BA tip wood recycled all with their own equipment/premises, How much!!!. John

[MauriceMynah]

Tow it out to sea and give the RAF something to play with.

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, annv said:

Why would it cost £5000=00 plus ? Ranger pulls along side ties on, tows boat to Post Wick Yard, lifted out with their crane onto their junk yard and crushed with their crane bucket metal and sold for scrap, firba glass buried in the BA tip wood recycled all with their own equipment/premises, How much!!!. John

Public services, not just the BA, will charge executive time, seat polisher time, proportional pension and insurance costs, holiday time, you name it to any and every job or activity in which it is involved, it's the way it's done. The BA has, like most public services, become something of a money pit, with you and me paying the bill, taxation without representation, abhorrent as it is . The BA is probably no worse than any other financially complacent, unaccountable public body.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

18 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Public services, not just the BA, will charge executive time, seat polisher time, proportional pension and insurance costs, holiday time, you name it to any and every job or activity in which it is involved, it's the way it's done. The BA has, like most public services, become something of a money pit, with you and me paying the bill, taxation without representation, abhorrent as it is . The BA is probably no worse than any other financially complacent, unaccountable public body.

Peter, you're sounding like me there, being a tad synical. 

You forgot to mention the required "feasibility studies" "health and safety discussions" etc, and the look out and back up teams in case someone breaks a finger nail. 

[annv]

Yes that is all very well BUT they don't pay out £5000 pounds extra, if they sit on their back sides the overall cost per year is the same, so why not tow to POST WICK and hawkout with their crain perhaps 1/2 gall diesel for crain engine perhaps, i would go down and give them 1/2 gall if it means that much to their accounts. John