Been to See Riverdance but Not allowed Near

savageseadog

savageseadog

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Jun 2005
Messages
23,291
Visit site
As the outlaws overlook the Riverdance I thought I'd have a look. Took a picture before I was told to clear off by the Coastguard. When I said I had every right to walk along the beach he said that the Secretary of State for ..................... had imposed a 500M exclusion zone, whether that means by land or sea or both I don't know. Anyway I took a piccie it was a bit dark and a bit misty so not too good.


P1010028-2.jpg
 
Like what are you gonna do.... TWOK her?

Or, god forbid , lift some soggy hob nobs!!

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Muppets, thats what they are Muppets I say!!!!
 
I'll have to pop round when they try it, cant see anyway it's going to float from there. Plus, there going to have to zip in at high tide, then zip out again. Theres no deap water for miles.

It's the reason why I've boated every where, except in my own back yard. It's blody orible.
 
They were chocolate digestives actually. The seagulls seemed a bit hyper today....wonder why?! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Image033.jpg

Image031.jpg
 
This from Whitehallpages.net:
"The Secretary of State's Representative for Salvage and Intervention (SOSREP) has met with salvors from Smit, who have been appointed to undertake the operation to remove the ship.

A Salvage Control Unit has been established and the first meeting of it was held earlier this evening. The salvors made an initial assessment of the vessel this afternoon, but due to weather conditions were unable to board the vessel itself. A temporary exclusion zone of 400 metres has been set up around the vessel.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is working closely with its colleagues within the Police and other emergency services as well as local authorities, owners and insurers of the vessel to ensure a smooth and safe resolution to this incident.

Coastguards are advising members of the public who plan to visit the site of the grounding this weekend to view it from a safe distance on the promenade and not to venture down onto the beach. An area will be cordoned off for heavy plant and Police and Coastguards will be patrolling the area throughout tonight and the weekend. All goods onboard the ferry are of low value and there is no hazardous cargo onboard. Any cargo which is washed up onshore will remain the property of the owners and will be collected from the beach and returned to them. "

So you obviously weren't told, as opposed to 'advised', to clear off and it obviously wasn't 500 metres /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

There was a recent post lauding 'professionals'. To that I'd add pretty obvious sentiments about pillocks in peaked hats.
 
I'd have told him you only wanted the propeller. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Seriously though I have some sympathy with the C.G. I bet there are vans full of Scallies enroute from a well known port armed with anything to get anything.

"What do you call a Liverpudlian in a suit?...The defendant"


Tim (Mum was from the Pool god bless her)
 
They robbed from and pi$$ed on the dead at Hillsbourgh too, what else can you expect. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
are the C.G now acting Plod then

[/ QUOTE ] When I asked who he was to order me about and where his copy of the order was, he said I could continue the conversation with the Police up there.

Anyone know if the order is legal and can prevent access?
 
Had a similar experience at the Napoli, went to see it on my boat just a few days after it went ashore. The exclusion zone was marked and we were outside it but still a CG RIB appeared and told us in no uncertain terms to bugger off. They could see that all we were doing was taking photos.

Unusually for me I was so angry at their rudeness that I phoned Portland CG to complain. Unsurprisingly they weren't interested. Have to agree about the previous remark about pillocks in peaked caps.
 
We must get used to the fact we do not live in a free country anymore, just do what you are told, it for your good.

Got something yesterday from the

Department for Buisness Enterprise & Regulatory Reform

Or what you must do if you employ people. sums up this government.

Brian
 
Very important that people with dogs keep off any beach where the chocolate biscuits have washed up. Dogs love them, but it does not take very much chocolate to kill a dog. (dog chocolate has the harmful substance removed, and may in fact contain little actual chocolate.)
 
Maybe a little bit more of an issue.

As I recall, The Coastguard do not have police powers. Period. This vessel and her cargo are private property, and one would have thought that the owners would liaise with local police regarding the provision of private security guards, as with any other 'site'.

Why is public money being spent on providing security patrols from HMCG resources? Perhaps it's the Chief Coastgurd's wish to seek 'police powers' and thus increase his Establishment...

/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
I think that Coastguards (and indeed lake wardens, park-keepers and other minor officials) can be "designated" people and have some limited powers with regard to maintaining law and order and particularly by-laws.

In Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: Part 3: Police powers etc. [ QUOTE ]
Section 112 introduces a new offence of failing to obey a police direction to leave an exclusion area.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the description of the exchange the CG was inviting Savageseadog to continue the conversation with the plod as they had reached the limit of their powers.

However re: my post a couple of days ago about plod misunderstanding a photographers rights, it my be that a passing interest in the wreck could lead you to a few hours in a cell.
 
Oh dear oh dear, so suddenly volunteer coastguards are 'pillocks in peaked caps' are we?
Give us a break.
The lads (or lasses) in that truck will be from the local team. They will have been asked to lend a hand with whatever has been decided is necessary at the scene. I hope they were calm and civil in whatever they said but they're ordinary folk like all of us and have no special training in dealing with people being difficult. And I dare say there will be 'members of the public' who will troop out there with their cameras and wonder why they're suddenly in trouble when the tide comes in (because they won't know about tides, you see - believe me, many people haven't a clue, even when they live by the sea), and that will be the main reason why they are turning people away. They won't give a toss about someone eating choccy biscuits (and I notice they look like milk, not plain, so I'm not interested either!).
 
[ QUOTE ]
and have some limited powers with regard to maintaining law and order

[/ QUOTE ]

First I've heard of it.

Of course, I have heard of 'persons designated' under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 ( and appropriate SI ), and of others intended to fulfil the role of a “Designated” Person for the administration of First Aid. Then there are 'Child protection designated persons'.

I fairly strongly suspect that this is another example of 'little people in big uniforms' usurping the powers and responsibilities of a police officer and I believe there is Statutory proscription against that. Perhaps (Section 90 Police Act 1996) is relevant..... and if an Auxiliary Coastguard sought physically to prevent someone from walking on a public beach with his camera, then that could perhaps be construed as 'assault'.

However, should a police constable make such a request - and have an identifiable Warrant Card - that's a different matter.

"The best possible government is the least possible government."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top