A safe Harbour in a Storm

[MapisM]

Adds to sanity?

Dunno Haydn, even accepting that sometimes Paul's threads can be seen as boring (I also joked a bit about the endless fuel consumption debates recently), I fail to understand how a pure rant can add to sanity, either in a forum or elsewhere.
Whenever I'm not interested in a thread, or find it utterly useless, i just move on.
I'm not saying that I never posted harsh comments, but I only did in reply to equally unpolite 'attacks'.
In most of your recent gludy-related posts, I often had the impression that the rant was unnecessarily started (can't remember Paul having a go at a post of yours, to start with, but I might be wrong) and at least as useless as the original post you were arguing against.

 

[Beadle]

Hang on a minute

You objected to HLB's comments

I wanted to make a similar point but tried to do it so as to avoid giving any offense.

Why object to my trying to be polite?

I don't think there is a law against walking down the street with a purple lampshade on your head.

But why would anyone bother to ask if there was unless he was considering the possibility of it happening.

All I tried to do was talk thro some of the possibilities.

Further, I did point out the bit about safe havens which indicates there might be law which at least implies the right (legally) to enter a port or harbour.

If its so important then perhaps best you consult a lawyer who can give a definitive answer

 

[Gludy]

Re: gludy

NYX2k
I apologise for dragging you into this - I mixed you up with them other two.

There is nothing wring with your question asking it as you did in good faith and I once again apologise for placing you in the wrong camp.

I am very fed up with the antics of Haydn and co.

The the thread started out of simple curiosity and it was not in any way meant as a big subject but Hadyn and co just cannot leave it at that.

I really think they have succeeded in making a small peaceful thread with a few interesting tales into another mess which seems to be their aim.

For the record my own view on the matter is that I have never come across an unfriendly port in the UK - there may be some but I have not found them. I think there is an unwritten code - or at least I will think that until someone points to a written rule. However it seems that the same does not apply in some other countries.

On the other hand someone may have been able to point to a written rule and that would have been interesting and educational - at least to me.

 

[Gludy]

[ QUOTE ]
But why would anyone bother to ask if there was unless he was considering the possibility of it happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Throughout my life I have asked questions. The questions often do not relate to me. Some do, some do not. In this case the question had occurred to me for the reasons I have made clear and I simply wished to find if there were laws as a matter of simple interest. It was not vital to me, not the end of the world and it brought forward some good stories of actual events.

As always with Haydn and co instead of the subject being discussed the debate become one based on personal abuse.

I have no objection to the mickey being taken out of me as was done in a recent thread - I even joined in. However from the outset that thread was just that - taking the Mickey and poking fun at my style - that is OK with me. Haydn is not doing that.

In attacking me for raising the question and calling it stupid Haydn also devalued those who had contributed to the thread.

Well Haydn you won yet again - the thread was almost over but you waded ion with your nasty remarks and got a nice little flurry going making it difficult for anyone who wanted to contribute to return to the subject .... pathetic.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: gludy

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is an unwritten code - or at least I will think that until someone points to a written rule

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what people are querying. What evidence do you have that there is an unwritten code or agenda?, or why are you asking the question? If most people say they have never been barred from entering a harbour or port when a storm is arriving or has arrived, the only real difficulty is whether it is actually safe to enter in the conditions at them time.

 

[Gludy]

Re: gludy

Brendan
Here come more indians!!!

I am asking the question because I knew of the law relating to boats and wondered if there was one relating to harbours....... are questions not allowed????

"What evidence do you have that there is an unwritten code or agenda?"

I think there is an understanding by UK Harbours that they would help - my evidence is the attitude of some harbours when I was in trouble on more than one occasion in my last boat - one lock stayed open 2 hours after time to get me in crippled and in a worsening weather situation.

"why are you asking the question? "

because I would like to know the answer!!! My own experience is limited in this regard and I wanted others to point to a law and share experiences.

"If most people say they have never been barred from entering a harbour or port when a storm is arriving or has arrived, the only real difficulty is whether it is actually safe to enter in the conditions at them time."

No one is arguing about the danger entering a harbour in a storm. Yet experiences were related were it seems clear you may well be barred - I would not trust a marina that dumps unseaworthy boats outside.

Now why are you going down the road of a cross examination on why I should even ask the question??? Want to join the pack? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Beadle]

Re: gludy

You said:

"The points being made - as is often the case are totally absurd - that a class A cat should be able to take anything the UK waters can throw at it!!!!! "

Gludy said

"The long range boat I will be buying will exceed Class A Ocean going and will be capable of riding out a storm..... yes."

I said

"One of the advantages of a cat is that they are less uncomfortably in bad weather and a 50ft version should be able to cope with almost anything around the British coast."

Please tell me

Which bit is absurd

All seem quite sensible to me

 

[hlb]

Re: Adds to sanity?

Let's not go over the top here. I was not having a rant. I said the post was stupid, which it is. I dont see that as mortally wounding gludy.

Now. If we take note. There are hundreds reading these threads. Many very new to the sea. Not everyone is a member.

Gludy talks from experience, or sounds like it anyway.

But, no ones ever been refused entry to a harbour. Marina maybe. But thats hardly the end of the world.

Infact you can look in nearly any harbour guide book. It tells you, you will never be refused entry.

Look a bit stupid wouldnd it. Stop outside till you sink. Um, forgot, we have to send the life boat, flippin eck, oh hell elf and fking safety, arrg the pollution issues dont bear thinking about. Then there the law about having to help folk in distress. The paper work would be endless.

No, I'm just thinking of the folks on the outside, looking in. Maybe thinking of buying a boat. Wont let me back in to harbour, shock horror, stuff that for a game of soldiers.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: gludy

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is an understanding by UK Harbours that they would help - my evidence is the attitude of some harbours when I was in trouble on more than one occasion in my last boat - one lock stayed open 2 hours after time to get me in crippled and in a worsening weather situation

[/ QUOTE ]


No indians involved here, just puzzled about a question which seems to suggest some undercurrent of harbours refusing access. Your own post seems to suggest that they go out of their way to help? So I'm puzzled about your original question, and some of your subsequent posts. I don't understand fully what this thread is supposed to be about? Do you have personal experience of being denied, or have heard of others being denied access, other than being warned it's not sensible to try and access a particular harbour or port, as in certain conditions, any sensible harbour master would warn you off in conditions he knows to be dangerous.

 

[Gludy]

Re: gludy

[ QUOTE ]
"One of the advantages of a cat is that they are less uncomfortably in bad weather and a 50ft version should be able to cope with almost anything around the British coast."

Please tell me

Which bit is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If there were a f10 of f11 coming in whilst the cat may very well survive it would be in considerable more danger than if it avoided the storm.

2. Anyone with sense would want to avoid such a storm because they are dangerous and stressing to all on the boat.

3. The British coast can throw up terrible weather - just look at the wrecks all around it.

The safest course of action for any skipper in a storm is to avoid the storm if at all possible. If I was in the cat I would make for the nearest sanctuary ahead of the storm. If I was caught in the storm then I would heave to and use a para anchor but I would not enjoy a bit of it and would be doing something I have never done before.

So to take the view that because you are in a boat that exceeds class A and can ride out a storm you should choose to do that instead of avoiding it, is just absurd.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: gludy

If you are going into sanctuary ahead of the storm, why on earth would they refuse you? Your logic just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Gludy]

Re: Adds to sanity?

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm just thinking of the folks on the outside, looking in. Maybe thinking of buying a boat. Wont let me back in to harbour, shock horror, stuff that for a game of soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry hlb you cannot slip out like that.

At no point have I said other than I think there is an unwritten code in UK harbours - I asked a question - I waited to give my views. So its you that has caused the confusion to Newbies not me!!!

In fact by calling my perfectly valid question stupid you discourage them from being subjected to the dirt you hand out and so stop them posting.

Not once ever have I joined in a thread of yours and do what you do to me on a regular basis.

 

[Gludy]

Re: gludy

[ QUOTE ]
No indians involved here, just puzzled about a question which seems to suggest some undercurrent of harbours refusing access. Your own post seems to suggest that they go out of their way to help? So I'm puzzled about your original question, and some of your subsequent posts. I don't understand fully what this thread is supposed to be about? Do you have personal experience of being denied, or have heard of others being denied access, other than being warned it's not sensisble to try and access a particular harbour or port, as in certain conditions, any sensisble harbour master would warn you off in conditions he knows to be dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

No - not once have I implied that. I simply wanted to know of there was a law on it just like there is when you are skipper of a boat. Pure simple interest.

The original question was to see if there was a law I was not aware of - thats all.

As it happens there do seem to be overseas harbours that may well resist entry .

You are going way over the top looking for commies under the bed next but I suppose you feel sage as part of the pack

I have a telescope and ask questions about the moon but it does not mean I intend t=o go there!!!

 

[hlb]

Re: gludy

Poster: Gludy
Subject: Re: gludy


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One of the advantages of a cat is that they are less uncomfortably in bad weather and a 50ft version should be able to cope with almost anything around the British coast."

Please tell me

Which bit is absurd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. If there were a f10 of f11 coming in whilst the cat may very well survive it would be in considerable more danger than if it avoided
..........................................

Blah, blah, blah, adfinitum blah.

No you would be tucked up in bed, in the harbour that your trying yer best to get banned from. Silly bugger. I'd ban yer anyway. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[BrendanS]

Re: gludy

You are just trolling now. Night

 

[Gludy]

Re: gludy

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going into sanctuary ahead of the storm, why on earth would they refuse you? Your logic just doesn't make any sense at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they would - anywhere.

On your absurd logic why would a skipper refuse to try and help someone else in trouble on the sea - but there is still a law about it.

Why should anyone murder anyone else - there is still a law about it.

I simply asked the question if there was a law - I stated my view that there is an unwritten lae in the UK and was even cross examined on that.

Hlb and pack discourage so many from posting on this forum because of this truly stupid, childish behaviour the pack is exhibiting.

 

[Beadle]

Re: gludy

Oh for goodness sake

Read the post

I never said or implied that staying out in storm conditions was preferable

Its a matter of balancing the risk.

There are many instances where staying out at sea is far safer than trying to enter a port (jumping out of the frying pan into the fire)

Surely the whole point is in f10-11 condx there are many harbours which are not safe to enter, Try a f10 N Easter anywhere on the East coast and you will be lucky to get in anywhere. There are perhaps 4 or 5 havens where you could get in between the Harwich and the Forth

I merely pointed out that a boat such as the one you are looking at buying makes that option less of a risk. I can well imagine the circumstances where I might (wrongly) try entry in a lightweight 26ft boat rather than stay out in bad condx. In a 50ft cat I would be much happier to ride it it out.

Isn't that why people buy bigger boats?

Similarly parking a small keel boat in strong winds in a crowded harbour is likely to be much less fraught than trying the same in a 50 ft cat, or at least you will do less damage.

You manage the risk as best you can - the big boat offers a different range of options

 

[BrendanS]

Re: gludy

You are being devious. If you've been cross examined, you have a particular court case in mind? Which unwritten law are you referring to?


Just be honest, and you might get some decent answers, rather than all the gibberish.

 

[hlb]

Re: gludy

Let me make it very clear to you. Brendan is not in my pack. Nor me in his. Any half wit readers will be very aware of that.

Theres something about. When in a hole, stop..... dam I forgot.

To be pedantic. To rescue some one at sea. You have to do something about it. Like try to rescue them.

As a harbour master, there is nothing to do. If he tried to stop them from entering. That is murder or manslaughter if yer lucky. There is no law, saying it, again, because any harbour master refusing entry would be insane. The logic of why he may refuse, dont bare thinking about. Damage to his newly sand blasted harbour walls?? The whole thought of a harbour refusing entry is stupid. Well, there not keen on Russian war ships in plymouth, but thats entirely a different issue. They are allowed to shelter in the sound though.

Humm, it's hard work......Theres no law cos to stop entry in a storm, would be difficult or piracy...... Or as above adfinitum.

 

[Gludy]

Re: gludy

Beadle
I will answer each point.
The thread was nopt about me it was a valid question about if there were laws on the matter or not - that was it - no more no less.
"I never said or implied that staying out in storm conditions was preferable"

Then the points was meaningless because it had no bearing on the issue being discussed.

"Its a matter of balancing the risk.@
I totally agree.


"There are many instances where staying out at sea is far safer than trying to enter a port (jumping out of the frying pan into the fire)"
I totally agree/

"Surely the whole point is in f10-11 condx there are many harbours which are not safe to enter, Try a f10 N Easter anywhere on the East coast and you will be lucky to get in anywhere. There are perhaps 4 or 5 havens where you could get in between the Harwich and the Forth"

I totally agree but had already made it clear on the thread that the situation was escaping to a harbour BEFORE the storm had hit and that this might make the harbours decision more difficult.

"I merely pointed out that a boat such as the one you are looking at buying makes that option less of a risk. I can well imagine the circumstances where I might (wrongly) try entry in a lightweight 26ft boat rather than stay out in bad condx. In a 50ft cat I would be much happier to ride it it out."

That may be the case but the thread was not about me - it was about if there was a law or not governing the genera; situation.

"Isn't that why people buy bigger boats?"
Its part of the reason but has no bearing whatsoever on the issue being discussed - the issue assumes that the skipper is seeking refuge before a storm to escape the worst of the storm. Making it personal to me it to me is not what it is about.

"Similarly parking a small keel boat in strong winds in a crowded harbour is likely to be much less fraught than trying the same in a 50 ft cat, or at least you will do less damage."
True and agreed but again not even the subject of the thread.

"You manage the risk as best you can - the big boat offers a different range of options"

True and fasle a smaller but faster boat may be better. BUT again not the issue being discussed.

The discussion was not about a cat, not about me, not about anything other than a question to see if there was law.

Hlb and Co do this to me on many threads - they personalise it and take it away from the subject being discussed insulting me on the way.

If you want to start a thread discussing what best to do in a big boat then do it that. I would agree with most of what you say.

Adfter the BVI i will return to the forum and post some videos. That will be my swan song as I become a raggie and will no longer frequent this forum joining the more peaceful world of Scuttlebut where I am being helped a lot as a Newbie.

So Hlb you will soon have your kingdom all to yourself so that you can continue to censor the asking of any questions that you do not like.