Illegally moored boats moved from the Thames

[duesouth68]

If you are quoting Dale farm that is a bit of a legal nightmare too..the people living there own parts of it the council who are evicting say it was green belt ,but it had scrap yard on it in it's original state.....so it was not green belt and which council gave permission for a scrap yard in the first place......common sense needs to prevail....

 

[Flying Penguin]

If you are quoting Dale farm that is a bit of a legal nightmare too..the people living there own parts of it the council who are evicting say it was green belt ,but it had scrap yard on it in it's original state.....so it was not green belt and which council gave permission for a scrap yard in the first place......common sense needs prevail....

Agree completely that "common sense" needs to prevail. Enforce the laws as they stand (planning permission or mooring locations) because if it is seen that they can be flouted at will it will be bedlam. Whether it's chav palaces behind bales of hay in pristine green belt* or boats moored everywhere and anywhere with no consideration for navigation or local residents/users.

If the laws are not to your liking, agitate to change them.



*Link

 

[exfinnsailor]

What would you rather have. A pleasant place to walk by the river. A nice stretch of river to take your boat or a sewer to motor down. Full of cr*p and rubbish from people who are not worried about the environment or are unwilling to pay anything towards the facilities. If they are living onboard where does the waste go.

Why should'nt the local residents petition the Council to clear up the enviroment. Good luck to them for making the river a nicer place for the future.

 

[boatone]

There be an element of the nation supporting inland waterways ....but are you suggesting the cost should fall on totally on the boat owner.

No I am not saying that. But, if, as is probably the case, the lock keeping services are regarded as being primarily for the benefit of powered craft boaters how would you feel if that element of the costs of running the river were directly reflected in licence fees for powered craft?

But back to the point i was making in front of these apartments in Maidenhead as far back as i remember there were moorings on the island side just upstream of Maidenhead bridge they have been there for at least 60 years i used to use these moorings when i was 14 years of age in the 50s ..the piles have been lifted i understand and was that to please the owners of these new riverside apartments .I worked in my school holidays for Emonys boat yard there was Bushnells and another yard beyond a cafe and chandlers and these mooring were used by them

Moorings in the river - piles, pontoons, whatever, are licensed by the EA and accommodation charges are payable which is income to the EA. I would expect local objections to be considered in the case of any applications to install new moorings but if previously existing moorings have been removed might it not be more likely because the owner decided to remove them to avoid continued charges?

 

[duesouth68]

Agree completely that "common sense" needs to prevail. Enforce the laws as they stand (planning permission or mooring locations) because if it is seen that they can be flouted at will it will be bedlam. Whether it's chav palaces behind bales of hay in pristine green belt* or boats moored everywhere and anywhere with no consideration for navigation or local residents/users.

If the laws are not to your liking, agitate to change them.


Are you aware of this stretch of the river there is not any navigational problems here.......do you ever stop on a double white line do ever break the speed limit....do you always pay your parking ticket...if so you break the law too...and if you do not you are not human ...

 

[Flying Penguin]

Are you aware of this stretch of the river there is not any navigational problems here.......do you ever stop on a double white line do ever break the speed limit....do you always pay your parking ticket...if so you break the law too...and if you do not you are not human ...

If I do and get caught I expect to face the consequences rather than expect that the consequences not to apply to me.

There is the fundamental difference I think.

 

[duesouth68]

It does seem a little to much like a coincidence that all these moorings are opposite these river apartments , in recent months there was 90 foot dutch barge on these moorings where is she now...i will make some enquires and find who living in these apartments...they seem to have some clout

 

[boatone]

..... or a sewer to motor down. Full of cr*p and rubbish....

Is that really your view of the current state of the river - even in small localised areas? Just a tad extreme, dontcha think?

Lets try and keep some sense of proportion. The river, as in all other environments occupied by humans has its fair share of difficult people to deal with. In the main these issues come down to being the responsibilities of the Environment Agency and riparian owners and we expect them to take whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with the law and local planning requirements etc. Unfortunately, and this is certainly, iIMHO, the case with the EA, lack of resources means that they will be issues well down the priority list.

 

[duesouth68]

If I do and get caught I expect to face the consequences rather than expect that the consequences not to apply to me.

There is the fundamental difference I think.

No there is not to Err is human.....but the important point here as you state if i get caught...but you are still as a principle willing to break the law.

 

[duesouth68]

What would you rather have. A pleasant place to walk by the river. A nice stretch of river to take your boat or a sewer to motor down. Full of cr*p and rubbish from people who are not worried about the environment or are unwilling to pay anything towards the facilities. If they are living onboard where does the waste go.

Why should'nt the local residents petition the Council to clear up the enviroment. Good luck to them for making the river a nicer place for the future.

As i said on a previous posting you cannot know this stretch of the river..

 

[Flying Penguin]

No there is not to Err is human.....but the important point here as you state if i get caught...but you are still as a principle willing to break the law.

These people did not err. They cannot have been unaware of the law throughout the enforcement proceedings. If they had innocently err'd initially, they would have moved when they became aware of their error. They stayed. This takes them from "to err is human" to wilful lawbreaking (a bit dramatic maybe, but I can't think of a phrase to describe it accurately that doesn't sound a bit Daily Mail ).

As for myself, I don't go around habitually breaking the law. Where I've got the parking rules wrong I pay my ticket, I do my best not to speed (not saying it never happens, I'm only human after all) but if I'm ever caught above the speed limit I'll pay my penalty. I am aware that breaking the law has consequences that I will not be able to avoid.

These people moored there knowing the rules they were breaking, or at the very least were almost certainly informed of their error well before enforcement action and chose to stay. They are now dealing with the consequences of that choice.

 

[duesouth68]

These people did not err. They cannot have been unaware of the law throughout the enforcement proceedings. If they had innocently err'd initially, they would have moved when they became aware of their error. They stayed. This takes them from "to err is human" to wilful lawbreaking (a bit dramatic maybe, but I can't think of a phrase to describe it accurately that doesn't sound a bit Daily Mail ).

Perhaps it as simply as they just wanted somewhere to live..you would not surely remove that right from them.......

 

[Flying Penguin]

Perhaps it as simply as they just wanted somewhere to live..you would not surely remove that right from them.......

Nope I wouldn't deny them "somewhere" to live. But having "somewhere" to live doesn't mean an overriding right to live "anywhere" and to hell with the rest of the world.

62 million people in the UK. Pretty much everyone has managed to find a legal place to call home. If they don't like any of the legal river living options then, as I've been saying, agitate for change, don't just park up anywhere you feel like and act surprised when you get moved on.

 

[duesouth68]

Nope I wouldn't deny them "somewhere" to live. But having "somewhere" to live doesn't mean an overriding right to live "anywhere" and to hell with the rest of the world.

I bring you back to the original point these were moorings for the past 60 years why have they been removed...the river is crying out for moorings.....

 

[Flying Penguin]

I bring you back to the original point these were moorings for the past 60 years why have they been removed...the river is crying out for moorings.....

I think exfinnsailor and boatone summed that up nicely at 10:50 and 10:52. Balancing of competing demands and owners of moorings deciding they are no longer something they wish to continue with the upkeep.

Neither of which provides a reasonable justification for flouting mooring rules.

 

[duesouth68]

I think exfinnsailor and boatone summed that up nicely at 10:50 and 10:52. Balancing of competing demands and owners of moorings deciding they are no longer something they wish to continue with the upkeep.

Neither of which provides a reasonable justification for flouting mooring rules.

You have know proof that is the case....we will never agree it is as simple as that....you are far to perfect

 

[Flying Penguin]

You have know proof that is the case....we will never agree it is as simple as that....you are far to perfect

Hence my original question as to whether they were wrong in their contention that the boats were moored illegally by current rules, rather than historical "right". Which you studiously avoided answering The fact that enforcement action was possible suggests, but does not of itself prove, that they were. I await your evidence to the contrary, but I suspect it won't be forthcoming.

You are correct that we won't agree. I expect my (copious) mistakes and miss deeds to have consequences for me. You evidently do not expect the same consequences from yours. I'd much rather be trying to be "far too perfect" than not be mature enough to accept the consequences of my actions.

 

[duesouth68]

Hence my original question as to whether they were wrong in their contention that the boats were moored illegally by current rules, rather than historical "right". Which you studiously avoided answering The fact that enforcement action was possible suggests, but does not of itself prove, that they were. I await your evidence to the contrary, but I suspect it won't be forthcoming.

I have just done some telephoning , it appears that Eyot is owned by the local authority so if historical moorings have been removed that question will have to be asked.
I suspect that the legal side of this ,is a "red Herring" and the local authority have removed all vessels from this section to make the riverside look more appealing....using the riverside apartments complaints as a "vehicle" to that end.

 

[Chris_d]

Not sure what is being argued about here anymore, I think both sides actualy want the same thing which is a pleasant and interesting riverside at Maidenhead.

Having boated on the Thames all my life and observed Maidenheads riverside for the last 40 years I have to say that this year I have never seen it looking so bad (Skindles excepted), the awfull selection of **** moored on the eyot and on the road side look dreadfull and something needed to be done, lets hope that the moorings return in some form though.

 

[duesouth68]

Not sure what is being argued about here anymore, I think both sides actualy want the same thing which is a pleasant and interesting riverside at Maidenhead.

Having boated on the Thames all my life and observed Maidenheads riverside for the last 40 years I have to say that this year I have never seen it looking so bad (Skindles excepted), the awfull selection of **** moored on the eyot and on the road side look dreadfull and something needed to be done, lets hope that the moorings return in some form though.

On that section as far back as i can remember there have vessels of all types moored across on the West side of the Eyot..and i am nearly 70 years old..but you see this is every where,people complaining about church bells ,seagulls at the coast..I do not think these moorings will comeback..it will be an interesting observation whether the moorings still remain in front of these apartments..