Rangers On A Purge. ..

[KatieR]

This boils down to two points for me:

1) it is either a law, or guidance. One can be enforced, the other cannot. I feel sure I could write some very detailed guidance for how the BA should operate and things that’s they should do, and even get it published and circulated. With much regret, my chances of ever enforcing my guidance on BA in a court of law are nada....

2) the point of the law is to ensure that vessels can be identified easily and accurately, which allows BA to do so for checking that they have paid tolls, allows other vessels to identify them in case of any issues/accidents etc. The point of the guidance appears to be similar, to aid easy and accurately identification from the rear and from either side. I suggest the current placing of Broad Ambition’s identification mark would allow easy and accurate identification from each side and the rear.

If m’lud has no further questions, then I shall rest my case....

[marshman]

And of course, you are so sure of the ground on which you stand, that you will actually stick your hand in your pocket to help those defending any prosecution?

Please don't count me in though....!!!

[Malanka]

Totally unnecessary 

[JennyMorgan]

Amidships is obviously good enough for the Grey Funnel Line so why not for the Authority?  Probably there because it is considered the most prominent position on the hull. 

[Siddy]

One point raised was the ranger having access to the wetshed.

2nd point is having only seen a picture of the wetshed can he clearly see the reg numbers by walking round the shed or has he had to step on the boats and maybe push them apart to view the bows depending on size of the boat either side etc.

The ranger was moored at Wayford Bridge for over 4 hrs yesterday afternoon near slip way. He could have been doing that area.

 

 

 

 

[Malanka]

1 minute ago, Siddy said:

One point raised was the ranger having access to the wetshed.

2nd point is having only seen a picture of the wetshed can he clearly see the reg numbers by walking round the shed or has he had to step on the boats and maybe push them apart to view the bows depending on size of the boat either side etc.

The ranger was moored at Wayford Bridge for over 4 hrs yesterday afternoon near slip way. He could have been doing that area.

 

 

 

 

One can see from one side to the other although the light is not good. It would not be possible to see the numbers of a smaller boat next to a bigger one with any great clarity. Why one would look in such a location when you’re checking for number visibility from other boats and the banks is questionable.

[Smoggy]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Amidships is obviously good enough for the Grey Funnel Line so why not for the Authority?  Probably there because it is considered the most prominent position on the hull. 

I'd like to see spirit of bullsh*t breydon pull that one over....

[MauriceMynah]

It occurs to me that the rangers might be hoping that they will be able to read the numbers on a line of stern on moored boats from one of their launches at Salhouse or Womack for example. If this is the case they are chasing their own tails as the objective should be that a boat should display it's numbers in such a way they can be read from the land or water however it's moored. This would be impractical, also god help us if the BA start using drones!

It is further my guess that the BA hasn't tried to update the bylaws as it doesn't employ anyone sufficiently articulate to word such a law. Writing rules regulations and instructions in an unambiguous manner is the minefield that keeps those in the legal profession so well heeled.

[grendel]

8 hours ago, Malanka said:

One can see from one side to the other although the light is not good. It would not be possible to see the numbers of a smaller boat next to a bigger one with any great clarity. Why one would look in such a location when you’re checking for number visibility from other boats and the banks is questionable.

I would also think that viewing numbers on the stern of the boat would be impossible as the stern is generally below the quay heading, I could see the point that numbers on the cabin sides might be obscured by the boats moored alongside as viewed from either side of the wet shed, so it could be said that the ranger could not see any of the numbers, either due to the adjacent boats, or because the whole of the transom would not be visible.

Sort of makes it a bit pointless to check the boats while they are in the wet shed doesnt it. unless of course they had a target list of boats already in mind.

[rightsaidfred]

8 hours ago, Malanka said:

One can see from one side to the other although the light is not good. It would not be possible to see the numbers of a smaller boat next to a bigger one with any great clarity. Why one would look in such a location when you’re checking for number visibility from other boats and the banks is questionable.

They would be there checking for tolls the registration no issue is a by product, I am not sure why all the talk of prosecutions at the moment as the notice is advising of a contravention something easily rectified it is not a notice of intended prosecution.

Fred

 

[Meantime]

39 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

It is further my guess that the BA hasn't tried to update the bylaws as it doesn't employ anyone sufficiently articulate to word such a law. Writing rules regulations and instructions in an unambiguous manner is the minefield that keeps those in the legal profession so well heeled.

Too true! Sadly David Harris has now left the Authority. It became obvious during my dealings with him that he found it hard at times to carry out the wishes of the Authority, sometimes being put in an almost impossible situation. He is a very reasonable man who was being asked to carry out the wishes of an often unreasonable Authority!

[Meantime]

18 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

They would be there checking for tolls the registration no issue is a by product, I am not sure why all the talk of prosecutions at the moment as the notice is advising of a contravention something easily rectified it is not a notice of intended prosecution.

Fred

 

Fred, can you clarify what contravention? Clearly you can only rectify something if there has been a contravention of the byelaws. The paperwork on Griff's boat clearly shows the byelaw in question on the reverse. The additional verbiage added by the ranger states it does not comply with the guidance, which is not the byelaw. Guidance that has been changed at least twice in the last four years!

[RS2021]

22 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

the current registration mark issued by the Authority in respect of the vessel is conspicuously displayed at all times on both sides of the vessel near the bow and on the stern of the vessel

The current registration mark issued by the authority. The authority only came into existence in 1988 so any registration marks issued before then don't apply.... Historic craft sorted...

[Ray]

On the wider issue of tolls, don't they have a database? Instead of looking at every boat they could just seek out boats that haven't paid that are flagged up by the database.

I don't know how widespread toll avoidance is but a list of non reneweds should surely be printable and able to be carried by rangers. Checking doesn't then have to be high tech, the question then being not have they paid but are they on the much shorter list of non payers.

[rightsaidfred]

38 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Fred, can you clarify what contravention? Clearly you can only rectify something if there has been a contravention of the byelaws. The paperwork on Griff's boat clearly shows the byelaw in question on the reverse. The additional verbiage added by the ranger states it does not comply with the guidance, which is not the byelaw. Guidance that has been changed at least twice in the last four years!

We are going round in circles you have your opinion I have mine we will have to settle for that, it just seems unreal that a few cannot accept what the vast majority are happy to comply with.

[rightsaidfred]

21 hours ago, grendel said:

I think that photo of Ivy Lady also highlights the problem of putting the numbers at that location, ie at the point on the bow with the greatest sheer, at this position and as indicated in the photo they are clear  - when viewed from about water level at a distance of about 15 foot, even at this angle the numbers are distorted by perspective and the angle of the sheer. from a position higher up (from the bank or another boat) the angle of the sheer will just make this number less easy to read - a direct contravention of the  part in the guidelines that says

or the bylaw that requires it to be conspicuously displayed.

in similar cases with the transoms of sailing boats the guidelines allow for some degree of re positioning to make the number conspicuous, which is arguably the reason Broad Ambition has them on the cabin side.

I don't see a problem with the sister boat above

Fred

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, rightsaidfred said:

I don't see a problem with the sister boat above

Fred

No problem there, the ones on the cabin sides are "near the bow" and in full compliance with the byelaw. The ones on the bow rather than near the bow also satisfy the guidance, although being on the bow, rather than near the bow, are not in compliance!

[Meantime]

20 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

We are going round in circles you have your opinion I have mine we will have to settle for that, it just seems unreal that a few cannot accept what the vast majority are happy to comply with.

I suspect the vast majority would like to see a speed limit on Breydon Water and would possibly comply if the Authority issued guidance to their Speed byelaws that any body of water not specifically covered by their byelaws has a top speed limit of 6mph. However I can see that would upset a few. Complying with guidance, rather than the byelaws, sets a dangerous precedent, especially given the current administration at the BA. Give an inch and they will willingly take a mile.

[MauriceMynah]

30 minutes ago, Ray said:

On the wider issue of tolls, don't they have a database? Instead of looking at every boat they could just seek out boats that haven't paid that are flagged up by the database.

I don't know how widespread toll avoidance is but a list of non reneweds should surely be printable and able to be carried by rangers. Checking doesn't then have to be high tech, the question then being not have they paid but are they on the much shorter list of non payers.

I suspect that it's not that straight forwards Ray. Some boats come and go from the broads, where others are bought and sold and have name (but not number) changes. There are those who intentionally fail to pay their tolls and who will pull whatever stunts they can to avoid doing so.

No, I see the far easier approach is to do what the rangers ask for and assist them in this matter.

I agree they have not gone the right way about achieving their aim, and I accept that they are trying to enforce guidance rather than law but I don't see it worthy of a battle.

ECIPA, Your view  "Complying with guidance, rather than the byelaws, sets a dangerous precedent" is one I don't agree with and I also don't see your  "On the bow isn't near the bow" being a realistic argument either.as it would mean defining where the "bow" ends and how many of them a boat has.

[Meantime]

13 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I suspect that it's not that straight forwards Ray. Some boats come and go from the broads, where others are bought and sold and have name (but not number) changes. There are those who intentionally fail to pay their tolls and who will pull whatever stunts they can to avoid doing so.

No, I see the far easier approach is to do what the rangers ask for and assist them in this matter.

I agree they have not gone the right way about achieving their aim, and I accept that they are trying to enforce guidance rather than law but I don't see it worthy of a battle.

ECIPA, Your view  "Complying with guidance, rather than the byelaws, sets a dangerous precedent" is one I don't agree with and I also don't see your  "On the bow isn't near the bow" being a realistic argument either.as it would mean defining where the "bow" ends and how many of them a boat has.

Perhaps that's why the byelaw needs to be rewritten to be more specific. At that point allowances could be made for historical, or certain other categories of boat and after that everyone could be made to comply with the byelaw. I do agree that it may be an easier approach to do what the rangers ask, as long as that remains a voluntary action, and not something incorrectly forced with the threat of prosecution.

Consider this, if Griff takes his marks off and moves them to the bow, it will leave holes that need to be filled. I can see that would really upset him. Now how about this for an approach. The BA identify boats that do not satisfy it's "guidance" leaflet and then write to the owners politely and explain the problems that have been created since the abolition of the toll plaque. They enclose another set of registration marks and ask the owner whether they would mind applying the new set of marks in line with their guidance leaflet and also explaining that they have no problem with the owner leaving the existing ones in place as well. I doubt if many people would have objected to that! A right and a wrong way springs to mind. Or is that just too reasonable for this Authority?

[Ray]

11 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I suspect that it's not that straight forwards Ray. Some boats come and go from the broads, where others are bought and sold and have name (but not number) changes. There are those who intentionally fail to pay their tolls and who will pull whatever stunts they can to avoid doing so.

No, I see the far easier approach is to do what the rangers ask for and assist them in this matter.

Good point.. I agree with you about simply doing our best to assist rangers. 

[Ray]

@ ECIPA Surely the marks don't have to removed, just add new ones in the requested place. 

[Poppy]

Another solution to the 'problem' ( if indeed it really exists outside of Yare House) would be to re introduce toll stickers.

Nobody seemed to object to those.......

[Paladin]

47 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I suspect the vast majority would like to see a speed limit on Breydon Water and would possibly comply if the Authority issued guidance to their Speed byelaws that any body of water not specifically covered by their byelaws has a top speed limit of 6mph. However I can see that would upset a few. Complying with guidance, rather than the byelaws, sets a dangerous precedent, especially given the current administration at the BA. Give an inch and they will willingly take a mile.

If there can be this amount of fuss created over the placement of registration numbers, I can't imagine those who own boats with mega-HP engines would bother about such guidance. After all, they have invested a large amount of cash to be able to travel at speed.

However, IF such guidance was issued, a skipper ignored it and an accident occurred, I have no doubt the guidance would be quoted when the question of liability was being determined (much as the Highway Code guidance is used).

[Poppy]

Would 'accident' equate to smashed crockery etc?

Some people seem not to give a flying f*** !