pheran
Well-Known Member
C'mon apollo, try a bit of independent thought for a change rather than always hanging off the coat-tails of the cleverer boys.
EA Thames Registration
- Thread starter boatone
- Start date
C'mon apollo, try a bit of independent thought for a change rather than always hanging off the coat-tails of the cleverer boys.
Captain Coochie
Well-Known Member
You shouldnt put yourself down like that . Fool is fine .
byron
RIP
What's this, national have a dig at Chris week?
apollo
...
Disclaimer - It is not big or clever to make snappy one liner remarks aimed at other posters. Sometimes however you see one that just makes you LOL.
In the spirt of love and peace here is my all time fave...
"IN THIS FANTASY WORLD OF YOURS, DO YOU HAVE ANY MAGICAL POWERS?"
In my defence, I work in IT so get paid for cobbling other folks "text" (code) for a living,
ah!! but in the words of the opinionated Pheran on lounge forum - in IT nobody writes code any more, just configurators. Another pile of steaming....
oldgit
Well-Known Member
"Piles and pontoons would have to be paid for."
Any piles driven into the river bed down here on the lower Medway require the permission of and a rental payment to the ROF.Since time immemorial.
A newly privatised Southern Water took on the Oyster Fishery a few years ago over selling commercial fishing licences to non apprenticed fishermen and although it took a couple of decades and the House of Lords,the freeman of the river won.
Any piles driven into the river bed down here on the lower Medway require the permission of and a rental payment to the ROF.Since time immemorial.
A newly privatised Southern Water took on the Oyster Fishery a few years ago over selling commercial fishing licences to non apprenticed fishermen and although it took a couple of decades and the House of Lords,the freeman of the river won.
Last edited:
pheran
Well-Known Member
Don't worry Byron. While the would-be bullies are having a go at me, they're giving someone else a rest. And insults only have an effect if you hold the perpetrator in any esteem, so in this case its water of this duck's back.
Apollo would fall out with his own shadow. Why, he couldn't even get on with all those nice people at the Upper Thames.
I rest my case and rather than let this deliberately inspired spat spoil things for other forum users, will say no more.
Captain Coochie
Well-Known Member
Amazing .
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
Somewhere, there is a Pram with no Teddy... 
boatone
Well-Known Member
Before I go .......
I am about to bow out of this 'discussion' but would like to clear the decks of various misleading and, in some cases, distorted views that have been attributed to me.
Firstly - and this is particularly addressed to Pheran - at no time have I ever on this forum in this thread or any other tried to deny anyone the right of being here and expressing their views and opinions. Yes, I did suggest to Lotus John that he should 'stop banging on' which simply means to stop saying the same thing over and over again.
Next the vexed issue of 'adjacent waters'. Whatever the original content of the Order, the adjacent waters issue was considered ultra vires by the minister and removed from the legislation. The EA, as I understand it, are relying on the Thames Conservancy Act provisions and, again as I understand it, Defra have confirmed their right to do so. It is also worth pointing out that these new provisions are only being applied to the Thames as they already applied to other EA waterways. Any continued argument re 'adjacent waters' is now irrelevant.
Hopefully (though I doubt it ) this also answers DJM who asked
LJ also raises a previous comment by DJM
Finally, I raise a concern that some posters here and in particular Lotus John and DJM are here to pursue some sort of agenda which eludes me. They have both appeared on this forum only recently and have only engaged in this one specific topic. We know nothing of either of them although LJ has confirmed that he does not have a boat on the non tidal Thames. They both seem to have some reasonable in depth knowledge of the subject - certainly more than the average boater.
Most people here know who I am and many know me personally. I am feeling distinctly uncomfortable with being drawn deeper into argument by people who seem unwilling to declare their interest in the issue.
I am also disappointed that some long term members of the forum seem happy to take snide pops at me when all I have done is to provide information which I believe most here value.
The thread now seems to be descending into personal abuse and I wish no part in this.
I am about to bow out of this 'discussion' but would like to clear the decks of various misleading and, in some cases, distorted views that have been attributed to me.
Firstly - and this is particularly addressed to Pheran - at no time have I ever on this forum in this thread or any other tried to deny anyone the right of being here and expressing their views and opinions. Yes, I did suggest to Lotus John that he should 'stop banging on' which simply means to stop saying the same thing over and over again.
Next the vexed issue of 'adjacent waters'. Whatever the original content of the Order, the adjacent waters issue was considered ultra vires by the minister and removed from the legislation. The EA, as I understand it, are relying on the Thames Conservancy Act provisions and, again as I understand it, Defra have confirmed their right to do so. It is also worth pointing out that these new provisions are only being applied to the Thames as they already applied to other EA waterways. Any continued argument re 'adjacent waters' is now irrelevant.
Hopefully (though I doubt it ) this also answers DJM who asked
The answer is 'No' because they are not doing what you suggest.
LJ also raises a previous comment by DJM
I do not believe this for one minute. The letter from Sarah Nason was in the public domain and it was I that posted the link here.
Finally, I raise a concern that some posters here and in particular Lotus John and DJM are here to pursue some sort of agenda which eludes me. They have both appeared on this forum only recently and have only engaged in this one specific topic. We know nothing of either of them although LJ has confirmed that he does not have a boat on the non tidal Thames. They both seem to have some reasonable in depth knowledge of the subject - certainly more than the average boater.
Most people here know who I am and many know me personally. I am feeling distinctly uncomfortable with being drawn deeper into argument by people who seem unwilling to declare their interest in the issue.
I am also disappointed that some long term members of the forum seem happy to take snide pops at me when all I have done is to provide information which I believe most here value.
The thread now seems to be descending into personal abuse and I wish no part in this.
djm
Active Member
I'm sorry that you wish to bow out of what, for the most part, has been an interesting and productive debate. It has certainly been of interest to a much wider audience than just the regular posters here. Just look at the number of views of the original topic (over 6,000) and this one (over 3,000) putting them both in the top 10 of 'most viewed' topics on the YBW Thames forum.
My own interest in the matter was declared in the original topic back in Nov/Dec and is, as an EA licence-payer, to see that the Environment Agency uses the powers with which it has been entrusted by Parliament lawfully. In the 'Thames adjacent waters' case that remains entirely questionable and I now have correspondence from the EA that confirms that they intend to review the matter and seek further legal advice.
I hope the debate will continue, with or without your valuable input.
My own interest in the matter was declared in the original topic back in Nov/Dec and is, as an EA licence-payer, to see that the Environment Agency uses the powers with which it has been entrusted by Parliament lawfully. In the 'Thames adjacent waters' case that remains entirely questionable and I now have correspondence from the EA that confirms that they intend to review the matter and seek further legal advice.
I hope the debate will continue, with or without your valuable input.
Lotus_John
Member
Re-reading the November postings on this topic will confirm the following; Here
• I was the only person to publish the EA definition of adjacent water; you will not find any references to Adjacent Waters other than on this forum and the Sarah Nason DEFRA letter. Without knowledge of this Key information the IWO 2010 is much more likely to have been accepted at face value.
• The Sarah Nason letter was sent to me by Sarah Nason. Other than the EA and TB I do not know who else it was sent to. You will not find it, or references to it, on any EA documentation. I quoted extracts from it in the November postings and as a result you found it on the web and provided a link to a DEFRA.UK.GOV site. Without my information would you know of its existence?
• I took this letter to the BMF at Egham in November who had told me on the phone that they were not aware of the deletion of the Adjacent Waters from the IWO 2010 and asked for sight of this letter before taking up the matter up with the EA. (I have an email from BMF to confirm)
• I attended a RUG meeting in November where I showed the letter (asking for his comment) to the Chairman of that meeting who is also a senior committee member of the ATYC. It was made clear to me by his comments that the ATYC were not made aware, either by the EA or DEFRA that Adjacent Water legislation had been deleted.
I do not think I have been ‘banging on’ repeating the same thing. I hope that I have been providing otherwise unknown information and developing a counter to the claims that the EA have a legal right to do this.
The adjacent water legislation was needed by the EA to provide the extension to the 1932 definition of the Thames, so that registration legislation could be applied to private marinas, without it, the EA are having to rely on their new interpretation of the 1932 Thames definition.
The EA are required to rely on the provisions of TCA section 4 as adjacent Waters were removed, why would they need DEFRA to confirm this? unless you are saying that DEFRA lawyers have confirmed the new EA interpretation of the word ‘works’ but I have not seen this on any EA correspondence so I would appreciate more info.
I have tried to explain why, in my opinion, the word ‘works’ has not and should not be re-interpreted to mean marinas. I have indicated that because the EA have never charged for the accommodations (pontoons etc) in these marinas it should be accepted that they have never had jurisdiction over these private waters.
The agenda that I have is to ensure that the EA do not introduce new regulations that carry both financial and criminal penalties, without establishing a legal right, especially as many of the contributors here seem to relish the fact that a legal defence may be beyond the means of most people.
If you are satisfied that we are all kept fully consulted on the intentions of the EA try to find out about new ‘Charging provisions’ also deleted from the Order by of the Secretary of State. (No coaching TB)
Finally I welcome DJM’s comment that the EA are taking further legal advice.
GrantK
Member
EA exceeding their powers
What an interesting discussion. Lotus_john does seem to have a valid point. If the EA have no right to insist on craft moored in private waters being insured and licenced , and this is what seems to be happening, otherwise why would they be taking legal advice. It seems a tad late in the day for them to be trying to find out if what they are doing is in fact legal. Perhaps if they had taken legal advice regarding the extent of their powers earlier in the process they would have spent less of the public purse on the legislation they are trying to push through. The EA have access to lawyers whom they do not have pay out of their own pockets. Private citizens do not have this privilege. I wonder how many 'licence dodgers' they will have to prosecute in order to get back the many thousands they must have squandered already. It is not too long ago that the EA tried to prosecute a boater for navigating too fast in a 5 knot current. The main witness against that boater said in court that he had jumped into his own boat and chased the offending craft and had caught it up. Overlooking the fact that in order to catch it he had to travel at roughly twice its speed. Needless to say the 'speeding boater' had the case against him dismissed. How much did it cost us to take that case to court? I quote this case only to show that the EA are not always in the right. Go for it Lotus-John, whoever you are and wherever you are.
What an interesting discussion. Lotus_john does seem to have a valid point. If the EA have no right to insist on craft moored in private waters being insured and licenced , and this is what seems to be happening, otherwise why would they be taking legal advice. It seems a tad late in the day for them to be trying to find out if what they are doing is in fact legal. Perhaps if they had taken legal advice regarding the extent of their powers earlier in the process they would have spent less of the public purse on the legislation they are trying to push through. The EA have access to lawyers whom they do not have pay out of their own pockets. Private citizens do not have this privilege. I wonder how many 'licence dodgers' they will have to prosecute in order to get back the many thousands they must have squandered already. It is not too long ago that the EA tried to prosecute a boater for navigating too fast in a 5 knot current. The main witness against that boater said in court that he had jumped into his own boat and chased the offending craft and had caught it up. Overlooking the fact that in order to catch it he had to travel at roughly twice its speed. Needless to say the 'speeding boater' had the case against him dismissed. How much did it cost us to take that case to court? I quote this case only to show that the EA are not always in the right. Go for it Lotus-John, whoever you are and wherever you are.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
The times they are a changing .
(If the EA have no right to insist on craft moored in private waters being insured and licenced)
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Woodrow Wilson"
Appears to me as a paying customer,that a change is needed,the fact that this is now public knowledge,is an excellent start,lets hope something happens to ensure that "We are all in this to together".
(If the EA have no right to insist on craft moored in private waters being insured and licenced)
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Woodrow Wilson"
Appears to me as a paying customer,that a change is needed,the fact that this is now public knowledge,is an excellent start,lets hope something happens to ensure that "We are all in this to together".
Last edited:
Thamesmariner
Active Member
EA need to get round the marinas to check their yard craft - an answer to my previous post said "if it floats it needs a licence" There are four powered craft where I moor that do not have a licence, and probably do not have a BSC.
Captain Coochie
Well-Known Member
They have just shown a bit on BBC news ( London ) They handed out about 20 notices around the Kingston area . £1k fine . I'm not sure if the notice was a warning or an actual fine .
oldgit
Well-Known Member
..plus all those 150 Brighton Marina livaboards receiving a community charge bill,perhaps things are changing. ?
Captain Coochie
Well-Known Member
For better or worse ?
Are they going to fine every boat that isnt licenced before the cut off date ? If they do then i wont be boating this year as i cant afford the spare cash for my licence yet . Am i owed the money . Yes . Maybe i can fine every one 1k that pays me late ? That would make me a very rich man indeed !
Anyway , on the news they said the will be crushing the boats if the fine isnt paid .
What are the EA actually doing here ? If they go by the book then every boat not licenced is going to be fined . Thats a lot of boats that are not even worth that . See the PBO thread on is your mooring costing more than your boat .
Are they just targeting the ones that have been left for years neglected ? Thats not what the news showed . They targeted a boat with a 2010 licence .
I try to keep my boat tidy and buy a licence every year regardless of how much i use it ( twice last year and once was to get the BSS done ) Am i going to be fined for not paying up for another full year because now they have decided i am late paying . Even if i pay in June i still pay for the full year .
Oh well we will see tomorrow . I'll nip down to the boat and see if i need to find another grand from somewhere
Are they going to fine every boat that isnt licenced before the cut off date ? If they do then i wont be boating this year as i cant afford the spare cash for my licence yet . Am i owed the money . Yes . Maybe i can fine every one 1k that pays me late ? That would make me a very rich man indeed !
Anyway , on the news they said the will be crushing the boats if the fine isnt paid .
What are the EA actually doing here ? If they go by the book then every boat not licenced is going to be fined . Thats a lot of boats that are not even worth that . See the PBO thread on is your mooring costing more than your boat .
Are they just targeting the ones that have been left for years neglected ? Thats not what the news showed . They targeted a boat with a 2010 licence .
I try to keep my boat tidy and buy a licence every year regardless of how much i use it ( twice last year and once was to get the BSS done ) Am i going to be fined for not paying up for another full year because now they have decided i am late paying . Even if i pay in June i still pay for the full year .
Oh well we will see tomorrow . I'll nip down to the boat and see if i need to find another grand from somewhere
bradtarga34
Well-Known Member
Saw a bit on the news as well, some chancer trying to say how he is hard done by being asked to get a license even though he hasn't had one for 2 years, then begrudgingly admitting that maybe he should have one. Honestly if you have a boat on the water, face up to your responsibilities and get a license or face the consequences...
Captain Coochie
Well-Known Member
I honestly do every year . Just honestly dont have the money to buy one right now .
I normaly buy my licence around May June time and pay for the full year . Just because the EA have changed the rules doesnt mean i can find the money .
Seems many others can not aswell as i saw about 30 boats today and only one had a licence . Many of the probably only worth a grand and i know of one that would welcome the EA crushing it for him just to get rid of it .
So the EA fine those boats 1k each and raise 30k or crush them . The moorings coat about 1K per year so the person renting the moorings loses 30k per year every year from now on . Good plan !
Any way back to my "wanted " boat that has had new gas lines run and the electric sorted to pass the BSS last year and a new canopy to keep her looking tidy aswell as many coats of varnish going on the rubbing strakes this year again to keep her looking her best .
Do i need to pull her out of the water untill i can afford to licence her ? Or can i leave her in and buy my licence when i always buy it without getting fined ?
I normaly buy my licence around May June time and pay for the full year . Just because the EA have changed the rules doesnt mean i can find the money .
Seems many others can not aswell as i saw about 30 boats today and only one had a licence . Many of the probably only worth a grand and i know of one that would welcome the EA crushing it for him just to get rid of it .
So the EA fine those boats 1k each and raise 30k or crush them . The moorings coat about 1K per year so the person renting the moorings loses 30k per year every year from now on . Good plan !
Any way back to my "wanted " boat that has had new gas lines run and the electric sorted to pass the BSS last year and a new canopy to keep her looking tidy aswell as many coats of varnish going on the rubbing strakes this year again to keep her looking her best .
Do i need to pull her out of the water untill i can afford to licence her ? Or can i leave her in and buy my licence when i always buy it without getting fined ?
Last edited:
teddington_lock
Well-Known Member
Not with my official hat on you understand .... just a little light hearted question ....
What do you tell the police when the time comes to tax your car ? or do you tax that promptly ?
We have had a steady stream of people coming to the lock to ask for an annual licence application form in the last two days .....
just a little light hearted question ....What do you tell the police when the time comes to tax your car ? or do you tax that promptly ?
We have had a steady stream of people coming to the lock to ask for an annual licence application form in the last two days .....
Last edited: