Jump to content

section 8 canning dock ?


gaggle

Featured Posts

In some cases crt do very well where i am at the mo grove lock when i tied up except the 150 odd foot of ringed moorings the rest was covered in weeds as i was actually going to moor a little further up but was so reedy i couldnt find a good spot when i walked up so stopped where i did. Everyday im there and no 1 other boat there. They came and cut all the weeds right back and down you can now see the edge and all of a sudden everyone last night had moored all along that section. So in some cases its well done crt a unsued section is suddenly an inviting place to stop where you can get into the bank and see it and its a good location to stop not to mention there is a pub!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have been so much simpler if he'd just paid for the services he was using though, wouldn't it?

He could have just sat around the dock begging money from people as they passed by , I heard plenty of people make good money doing it in Liverpool , even a man with a carboard instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And how do you know this?

 

Richard

Simple answer; from reading about it both here & elsewhere.

Cheeky answer; Jerra told me.

There's plenty of info about this. Just on this forum there are plenty of suggestions by people much more knowledgeable than me, that CRT bend the rules.

You should read it, this forum is a mine of useful information, admittedly some is more subjective than objective, but if you apply life experience, you can sort the wheat from the chaff.

If you bend the rules, you do it for a reason, could be called an agenda. If you bend the rules, you will create problems for yourself (probably). Unintended consequences & all that.

Is that all right, do you have anything to add?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, don't know, that a lot of the CRT/BW problems is brought about by pressure on CRT/BW from outsiders or even insiders to deal with the problems caused by people mooring and staying put or just jumping through the bridge hole and back tomorrow and the effects that had on others using and existing around the canals. They reacted to the problem without a really solid way to deal with it. They tried to lever from old Acts that were not designed to deal with the problem, tried using licence refusal etc and Sec. 8. None of which were designed to deal with the problem. Judgements appear have even acknowledged the situation of the Acts and what they say. The result is as I see it CRT have got into a situation where they have done things that are perceived as bending/breaking the legal rules to achieve their aims.

 

Now to my reading of the Acts and various case documents I believe they have gone too far. However it does not matter what I think what matters is what a High Court Judge believes and to that end hopefully next year a High Court Judge will be given the opportunity to decide what the High Court believes. From there I suspect it will go to an Appeal Court and maybe even to the Supreme Court because it is so important to CRT and boaters.

 

So until that time I will believe what I feel I have good reasons to believe and others will believe the opposite. We will all have to be patient and wait for the Judge, the Appeal Court and maybe the Supreme Court, because talking about it on here, at the bar etc is not going to solve it only a Court can solve it.

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree that we will solve nothing by talking about it on here.

We can, however, raise awareness by talking about it on here, and that has to be a good thing. Knowledge is power & all that.

 

Oh yes raise its profile, but I suggest that people remember it is people's opinions and opinions they are entitled to from information they have read etc. Others may have other opinions and are entitled to them and both should be respected

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have just sat around the dock begging money from people as they passed by , I heard plenty of people make good money doing it in Liverpool , even a man with a carboard instrument.

Technically, I don't think busking is begging as you aren't actively asking for money. In my particular case, I was employed by the Albert Dock owners as an entertainer! But yes, there is, or certainty was, an old mentally ill guy with a cardboard guitar and a hat in front of him. Everybody's got to live.

Not sure how this applies to the boat bloke, unless you are saying that by providing some kind of entertainment and taking money without paying his dues, he was essentially begging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know they aren't. Do you know they aren't? Do you know they are? Please say if you do. I'm always up for learning stuff.

The point I was making is you said maybe they should. That to my primitive grasp of English (I have only been speaking it about 67 or 68 years with any fluency) they aren't as it couldn't be a case of maybe if they already were. So to me you must have had some reason for knowing (or at the very least supposing ) they weren't hence my reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, I don't think busking is begging as you aren't actively asking for money. In my particular case, I was employed by the Albert Dock owners as an entertainer! But yes, there is, or certainty was, an old mentally ill guy with a cardboard guitar and a hat in front of him. Everybody's got to live.

Not sure how this applies to the boat bloke, unless you are saying that by providing some kind of entertainment and taking money without paying his dues, he was essentially begging?

 

Busking is not illegal in England, however various Councils could have made it need a licence under their Bylaws. Busking on private property stations, parks etc needs the permission of the landowner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making is you said maybe they should. That to my primitive grasp of English (I have only been speaking it about 67 or 68 years with any fluency) they aren't as it couldn't be a case of maybe if they already were. So to me you must have had some reason for knowing (or at the very least supposing ) they weren't hence my reply.

Crikey. I fear that your grasp of English is even more primitive and even less fluent than you thought. That whole post is appallingly written. If I've interpreted it correctly, (you owe me several commas & a couple of words, that I had to supply from my own stash) you misunderstand the meaning of "maybe". It is neither an absolute, nor a definite. It specifically allows for the existence of other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have a problem with people not paying there bills that are due. But unless you have a court order you cant take peoples posetions to pay a det. If you didnt pay a paper and milk bill and your local shops started removing your cars off the drive to pay the bill we woukd all be up in arms. (I know its not the same as whats happened but we still wouldnt alow it)

I cant see what grounds crt would have to not alow this boat back to liverpool if someone bought it did everything to make it safe for a business even had another boat in liverpool docks i cant see what crt could refuse to alow the mooring on. Thats a bit like the council deciding they dowt want audi cars in a car park.

Glad that you don't approve of people freeloading, but that seems to be exactly what the owner of this boat doing. To take up your car park analogy, let us say that in my local area I have a car but have to pay for on-street parking that I cannot afford (or be bothered to pay for). I then decide that instead I'm going to leave my car in a local car park (as this guy has effectively done with his lightship). I'm not going to pay for this however, I'm just going to leave it in the car park even if the local authority clamp the vehicle. My car is worth £3,000 so how long can I leave it in the local authority car park before they have authority to do anything about it? A court wont allow disproportionate seizure of property (seizing a £3,000 car to pay for a £6 per day car parking fee) so effectively I can leave my car in their car park (taking up a space without paying for it) for up to 500 days before the outstanding debt equals the value of the car. I would have to say that if it were my private car park the vehicle would mysteriously 'spontaneously combust' within a far shorter space of time.rolleyes.gif

 

In terms of the boat returning to a berth in Liverpool in the future I would suggest that as the 'landlord' for the moorings in Canning Dock they would be well within their rights to refuse outright to permit the boat to moor there at all. The visitor mooring in Liverpool are not in Canning Dock so he has no right to moor there without permission, which I suspect would not be forthcoming in the future whoever owned the boat.

 

 

This is a rather depressing way to look at our maritime history and the history of the people of Liverpool. Its a good looking boat and a positive contribution to the waterfront and what is otherwise a rather empty dock. It will make our visits to Liverpool a little less interesting.

 

You could equally argue that the entire canal system no longer has any economic function (the old farts on it could be more cheaply housed in old peoples homes). Should we fill it in and turn it into a cycle way so that people who are economically active can get to work?

 

...............Dave

It's a lightshiphuh.png no-one uses lightships for any practical purpose these days as navigationally they are redundant. Why save it? It isn't as though it can be used for any other maritime purpose, how many people do you see sailing around the world in a lightshipunsure.png . The only thing that makes it remotely interesting is that few people have seen them close up since the whole purpose of them was to be seen at a distance (if you saw them close up something was wrong!). There are loads of redundant lightships, what makes this piece of scrap any different to many others? The one thing that you tend to find with proper mariners (rather than those who just play at it), is that they tend to be intensely pragmatic. I worked with some guys who were on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible during the Falklands War and, to a man, they fully supported the decision to scrap it rather than make some museum or another 'HMS Belfast' out of it. It had served it purpose and was redundant, get rid of it and recycle the metal into something else, which is the point I was making about this lightship.

 

You can't really make the same case for the canals since there are still at least 30,000 licenced users not including canoeists,anglers,cyclists,walkers and sundry other day trippers. The are hardly economically redundant, unlike a pointless and useless lightship! Scrap the d*mn thing.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad that you don't approve of people freeloading, but that seems to be exactly what the owner of this boat doing. To take up your car park analogy, let us say that in my local area I have a car but have to pay for on-street parking that I cannot afford (or be bothered to pay for). I then decide that instead I'm going to leave my car in a local car park (as this guy has effectively done with his lightship). I'm not going to pay for this however, I'm just going to leave it in the car park even if the local authority clamp the vehicle. My car is worth £3,000 so how long can I leave it in the local authority car park before they have authority to do anything about it? A court wont allow disproportionate seizure of property (seizing a £3,000 car to pay for a £6 per day car parking fee) so effectively I can leave my car in their car park (taking up a space without paying for it) for up to 500 days before the outstanding debt equals the value of the car. I would have to say that if it were my private car park the vehicle would mysteriously 'spontaneously combust' within a far shorter space of time.rolleyes.gif

 

In terms of the boat returning to a berth in Liverpool in the future I would suggest that as the 'landlord' for the moorings in Canning Dock they would be well within their rights to refuse outright to permit the boat to moor there at all. The visitor mooring in Liverpool are not in Canning Dock so he has no right to moor there without permission, which I suspect would not be forthcoming in the future whoever owned the boat.

 

It's a lightshiphuh.png no-one uses lightships for any practical purpose these days as navigationally they are redundant. Why save it? It isn't as though it can be used for any other maritime purpose, how many people do you see sailing around the world in a lightshipunsure.png . The only thing that makes it remotely interesting is that few people have seen them close up since the whole purpose of them was to be seen at a distance (if you saw them close up something was wrong!). There are loads of redundant lightships, what makes this piece of scrap any different to many others? The one thing that you tend to find with proper mariners (rather than those who just play at it), is that they tend to be intensely pragmatic. I worked with some guys who were on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible during the Falklands War and, to a man, they fully supported the decision to scrap it rather than make some museum or another 'HMS Belfast' out of it. It had served it purpose and was redundant, get rid of it and recycle the metal into something else, which is the point I was making about this lightship.

 

You can't really make the same case for the canals since there are still at least 30,000 licenced users not including canoeists,anglers,cyclists,walkers and sundry other day trippers. The are hardly economically redundant, unlike a pointless and useless lightship! Scrap the d*mn thing.

I do have to semi agree and there are a few others around but i think the history of it being the last used one makes it a bit more significant than just a light ship like the other mentioned on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have to semi agree and there are a few others around but i think the history of it being the last used one makes it a bit more significant than just a light ship like the other mentioned on here.

 

Puzzled Trinity House still uses Light Vessels as they are call https://www.trinityhouse.co.uk/lighthouses-and-lightvessels?type=lightvessel#filters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have to semi agree and there are a few others around but i think the history of it being the last used one makes it a bit more significant than just a light ship like the other mentioned on here.

In fairness it isn't even the last one to be used since there remain 8 lightships stationed around the UK coast even now, they are all unmanned so are effectively just 'posh buoys'. The most charitable claim to fame for LV 23 is that it was the last manned lightship at Channel Light Vessel (marking the Western end of the Channel Traffic Separation Zone), there is still an unmanned light vessel there. It is no more 'historic' than any of the other decommissioned lightships, few of which have found a useful purpose.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness it isn't even the last one to be used since there remain 8 lightships stationed around the UK coast even now, they are all unmanned so are effectively just 'posh buoys'. The most charitable claim to fame for LV 23 is that it was the last manned lightship at Channel Light Vessel (marking the Western end of the Channel Traffic Separation Zone), there is still an unmanned light vessel there. It is no more 'historic' than any of the other decommissioned lightships, few of which have found a useful purpose.

I think you are missing the point as regards this light vessel.It is called the PLANET and was built for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and was stationed at the Mersey BAR and was fully manned by MD & HB crews, in later years she was replaced by a Lanby light float and the Planet was sold to Trinity House who look after all the navigation marks around England.I find it hard to understand why we must scrap all our maritime past in a great seaport like Liverpool.

Glad that you don't approve of people freeloading, but that seems to be exactly what the owner of this boat doing. To take up your car park analogy, let us say that in my local area I have a car but have to pay for on-street parking that I cannot afford (or be bothered to pay for). I then decide that instead I'm going to leave my car in a local car park (as this guy has effectively done with his lightship). I'm not going to pay for this however, I'm just going to leave it in the car park even if the local authority clamp the vehicle. My car is worth £3,000 so how long can I leave it in the local authority car park before they have authority to do anything about it? A court wont allow disproportionate seizure of property (seizing a £3,000 car to pay for a £6 per day car parking fee) so effectively I can leave my car in their car park (taking up a space without paying for it) for up to 500 days before the outstanding debt equals the value of the car. I would have to say that if it were my private car park the vehicle would mysteriously 'spontaneously combust' within a far shorter space of time.rolleyes.gif

 

In terms of the boat returning to a berth in Liverpool in the future I would suggest that as the 'landlord' for the moorings in Canning Dock they would be well within their rights to refuse outright to permit the boat to moor there at all. The visitor mooring in Liverpool are not in Canning Dock so he has no right to moor there without permission, which I suspect would not be forthcoming in the future whoever owned the boat.

 

It's a lightshiphuh.png no-one uses lightships for any practical purpose these days as navigationally they are redundant. Why save it? It isn't as though it can be used for any other maritime purpose, how many people do you see sailing around the world in a lightshipunsure.png . The only thing that makes it remotely interesting is that few people have seen them close up since the whole purpose of them was to be seen at a distance (if you saw them close up something was wrong!). There are loads of redundant lightships, what makes this piece of scrap any different to many others? The one thing that you tend to find with proper mariners (rather than those who just play at it), is that they tend to be intensely pragmatic. I worked with some guys who were on the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible during the Falklands War and, to a man, they fully supported the decision to scrap it rather than make some museum or another 'HMS Belfast' out of it. It had served it purpose and was redundant, get rid of it and recycle the metal into something else, which is the point I was making about this lightship.

 

You can't really make the same case for the canals since there are still at least 30,000 licenced users not including canoeists,anglers,cyclists,walkers and sundry other day trippers. The are hardly economically redundant, unlike a pointless and useless lightship! Scrap the d*mn thing.

Same goes for all museums as well then..?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a bit like the argument in favour of demolishing all the redundant and crumbling stately home littered across England 75 years ago. There were hundreds if not thousands.

 

Only once the majority had gone did the general public begin to value those that were left. How many historic vessels are there? Each one cut up for scrap increases the rarity and therefore value (not monetary) of those that remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point as regards this light vessel.It is called the PLANET and was built for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and was stationed at the Mersey BAR and was fully manned by MD & HB crews, in later years she was replaced by a Lanby light float and the Planet was sold to Trinity House who look after all the navigation marks around England.I find it hard to understand why we must scrap all our maritime past in a great seaport like Liverpool.

 

I agree, he, along with a few others, is missing the point. However, it would be very wrong to believe that this disgraceful and quite unnecessary episode is anything more than the result of C&RT being in a position to extend the scope of their destructive and malevolent influence beyond merely our inland waterways.

 

The long running dispute between the old lightship owner and C&RT, it has been festering for over a year now, has seen much wrong, and fault on both sides, but those responsible for the running and administration of the old South Docks now under C&RT ownership and control have singularly failed to handle it in a way that measures up to what can, and should, reasonably be expected from such an organization.

 

Rather than working towards an outcome beneficial to all or most of those concerned, including and especially themselves and the city of Liverpool, they elected to reduce matters to the level of a personal and very expensive squabble focused entirely on nothing other than depriving yet another individual of his boat.

 

The events of last week, culminating in the "Planet" being moved at enormous expense, and for no good reason, from C&RT's Canning Dock to C&RT's Sharpness Dock, were nothing more than a festival of negativity, bloody-mindedness and spite, and I think the fact that they proved themselves incapable of rising above such conduct speaks volumes as to the sort of organization C&RT is, to say nothing of the calibre and worth of it's management.

Edited by Tony Dunkley
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The events of last week, culminating in the "Planet" being moved at enormous expense, and for no good reason, from C&RT's Canning Dock to C&RT's Sharpness Dock, were nothing more than a festival of negativity, bloody-mindedness and spite, and I think the fact that they proved themselves incapable of rising above such conduct speaks volumes as to the sort of organization C&RT is, to say nothing of the calibre and worth of it's management.

A bit like the owner not paying mooring fees for a year and not having the right licences or permissions to operate as he was then?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.