An anchoring heads up.

[GHA]

They're young and able enough, so what's wrong with a good old-fashioned job

Are you talking about the authors of the YouTube channel? Go try releasing a 20 minute YouTube interesting enough and professional enough to keep the patron money coming in. One a week every week. Lots and lots of work involved and substantially investment in kit. They haven't many subscribers yet so will likely be lucky to break even. Or do you think that isn't a job and they should be stacking shelves in tescos?

 

[Porthandbuoy]

Not insured

Shame. Whether it was oversight or ignorance it's an expensive lesson for the poor guy.

 

[newtothis]

Lol! But that was kind of my point in post #18; if this is basically a meeja operation then sure, it may be a profitable story and good luck to them.

By the same token, we should be no more upset than when something bad happens on Eastenders

We'll all be sure to remember that when some maritime accident befalls you too.
Regardless of the fact that it was another couple making the video, not the guy that it happened to, and regardless of how stupid the mistake may have been to lead to the boat ending up ashore, I think you can have some sympathy for someone who has lost their pride and joy, and by the look of it their main residence.
There, but for the grace of God, go most of us.

 

[dom]

We'll all be sure to remember that when some maritime accident befalls you too.
Regardless of the fact that it was another couple making the video, not the guy that it happened to, and regardless of how stupid the mistake may have been to lead to the boat ending up ashore, I think you can have some sympathy for someone who has lost their pride and joy, and by the look of it their main residence.
There, but for the grace of God, go most of us.

No need to get all shirty, perfectly reasonable to inquire as to the context.

 

[GHA]

By the same token, we should be no more upset than when something bad happens on Eastenders

Depends probably, amongst most cruisers there is a strong sense of community, when something like this happens even when it does look like a silly mistake and so easily avoidable it's bit closer to home when it's "one of your own".
Ain't seen s'tenders for donkeys, still the same then?

 

[Poey50]

Sad or a good story, I'm not sure? It doesn't look like a very expensive boat and while I've no idea who these people are, their Youtube business model is entirely dependent on publicity of which this has to rank fairly high.

Perhaps a tad harsh, it's hard to know.

You are suggesting that this boat was deliberately wrecked for publicity purposes to enhance YouTube earnings. ' Perhaps a tad harsh' is your self-commentary. I'd call it defamatory.

I suggest you delete it and I have alerted the mods.

 

[dom]

Depends probably, amongst most cruisers there is a strong sense of community, when something like this happens even when it does look like a silly mistake and so easily avoidable it's bit closer to home when it's "one of your own".
Ain't seen s'tenders for donkeys, still the same then?

I basically agree, if he's no commercial or insurance route to recover costs it's certainly very sad. The trouble with these kind of incidents is that they can happen quite fast and/or at night when nobody is awake.

To cap it all off that recovery operation was as rough as you like and one can only wonder if needless damage was done. He'll still have to be watchful of salvage and possibly even environmental claims which can appear if people sense (wrongly in this case) that an insurance company is on the other side.

Only plus is that nobody was hurt.

 

[dom]

You are suggesting that this boat was deliberately wrecked for publicity purposes to enhance YouTube earnings. ' Perhaps a tad harsh' is your self-commentary. I'd call it defamatory.

I suggest you delete it and I have alerted the mods.

I never suggested any such thing. In fact, this is well trodden ground and it is not in the least contentious for a media focused operation to use and monetise difficulties. It's why we watch them and no harm in it whatsoever.

For this reason it is perfectly reasonable to inquire as to the circumstances of the case before considering a potential contribution. GHA has done this and hopefully the poor chap gets his show back on the road.

 

[A1Sailor]

...

What a silly post. Who on earth is "we"?
Who else are you including in your distasteful comment?

Edit:
I've removed the content from dom's silly post that I quoted.

 

[Poey50]

I never suggested any such thing. In fact, this is well trodden ground and it is not in the least contentious for a media focused operation to use and monetise difficulties. It's why we watch them and no harm in it whatsoever.

For this reason it is perfectly reasonable to inquire as to the circumstances of the case before considering a potential contribution. GHA has done this and hopefully the poor chap gets his show back on the road.

i note the sound of backtracking in your last two contributions. If I was the owner of that boat coming across your dog-whistle smear I would be enraged and would be considering my options. Leave the original post up if you wish to take the risk.

 

[newtothis]

No need to get all shirty, perfectly reasonable to inquire as to the context.

Have you actually watched the video? As has been explained here already,. the video is made by friends of the guy whose boat went aground. Do you think he agreed to do that to big up his friends' Youtube channel?
Your faux media savviness betrays an ignorance of what you are talking about.

 

[RichardS]

I suggest you delete it and I have alerted the mods.

This is madness? Why would the Mods have any interest in it?

Richard

 

[Poey50]

This is madness? Why would the Mods have any interest in it?

Richard

Because the suggestion that this tragic uninsured loss of boat and home was staged for monetary gain is not only despicable but also defamatory. Hosts of such comments such as the owners of this forum are not immune from legal consequences. The first line of responsibly to consider this lies with the mods.

 

[A1Sailor]

You are suggesting that this boat was deliberately wrecked for publicity purposes to enhance YouTube earnings. ' Perhaps a tad harsh' is your self-commentary. I'd call it defamatory.

I suggest you delete it and I have alerted the mods.

This is madness? Why would the Mods have any interest in it?

Richard

Because the suggestion that this tragic uninsured loss of boat and home was staged for monetary gain is not only despicable but also defamatory. Hosts of such comments such as the owners of this forum are not immune from legal consequences. The first line of responsibly to consider this lies with the mods.

Surely the first line of responsibility lies with the forumite who posted it?

 

[Poey50]

Surely the first line of responsibility lies with the forumite who posted it?

That is why I suggested he delete it. The mods have first line responsibility for any implications for the forum.

 

[RichardS]

Because the suggestion that this tragic uninsured loss of boat and home was staged for monetary gain is not only despicable but also defamatory. Hosts of such comments such as the owners of this forum are not immune from legal consequences. The first line of responsibly to consider this lies with the mods.

The problem seems to me that we have dozens of reports on here every year where boats and even people have been lost and posters put forward all sorts of theories attaching blame or responsibility to different individuals involved in the tragedy. Unless the accident is the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in the UK, I can't see why the Mods would be inclined to step in and stop forumites speculating on the causes of a particular incident.

Richard

 

[Poey50]

... I can't see why the Mods would be inclined to step in and stop forumites speculating on the causes of a particular incident.

Richard

Agreed. It is fine to speculate theoretically in the way you suggest. It is also fine to express an opinion. For example, me describing a poster's views as 'despicable, you describing my actions as 'madness' - all fine. But if you impute that something is true which is not true and which may damage someone's reputation then this is defamation.

Now Richard, if you were this young man and had come across a suggestion that you had arranged for your boat to be trashed for financial gain and that this had been circulated widely on the largest sailing forum in the UK with international reach and was still available for anyone to read thereafter, would you feel your reputation had been damaged - even a bit?

 

[RichardS]

Now Richard, if you were this young man and had come across a suggestion that you had arranged for your boat to be trashed for financial gain and that this had been circulated widely on the largest sailing forum in the UK with international reach and was still available for anyone to read thereafter, would you feel your reputation had been damaged - even a bit?

But is that any worse from someone on here suggesting that a sailing boat was lost and the crew injured or killed because the Watch Officer of the large cargo ship which rammed it was drunk or asleep at the helm? For better or worse, that's such a frequent accusation on the forum that it could be made a "sticky".

Richard

 

[Poey50]

But is that any worse from someone on here suggesting that a sailing boat was lost and the crew injured or killed because the Watch Officer of the large cargo ship which rammed it was drunk or asleep at the helm? For better or worse, that's such a frequent accusation on the forum that it could be made a "sticky".

Richard

I seem to have missed those discussions. Better or worse isn't relevant. Defamation is a thing - it has a definition in law and if we as posters make or impute truth claims which are both damaging and false then we may face litigation. The fact that this rarely happens doesn't alter the fact. Many Twitter users have recently found that simply re-tweeting defamatory tweets makes them liable. All were shocked and thought it couldn't happen.

 

[Poignard]

Blimey!