More on the bungled boat theft - please read

[Dave_Snelson]

As some of you will know, as the owner of "Coney Island" I am closely associated with this area in North Wales and I personally know the owner of a) the stolen catermeran and b) poster of the original post.

To resolve any confusion here, the poster has the name of "Raven" which is completely unassociated with the name of the stolen yacht - "Raven".

The owner of Raven is a pensioner and well known in our club (MYC) and is a proud man that would be embarrassed by any donations - I am given to believe that persons have made some generous offers.

This is a terrific forum and what I am keen to focus on at this stage is how we as a collective group can effectively help our man whilst maintaining his dignity and avoiding like the plague, the scrounger cases. Its not easy is it?

I am sure that at MYC we shall assist this person, but maybe an appropriate route for further assistance could be found through IPC possibly?...still trying to avoid cash going to wrong places!

Any robust ideas welcome.

 

[fireball]

Perhaps then parts and favours could be offered where needed? Cash is just easier to transfer!

 

[JKay]

PM Mr Walker and then we can all help

not a donation of course just a pre payment for a trip we will

never go on

or even a loan we may never call

cheers Joe

 

[Sixpence]

Nice idea Joe , I'll support that

 

[aknight]

If your friend is (understandably) a proud man, he might find this suggestion palatable?

As I posted on the other string, the scroats should be pursued though the courts. Personally I - and I suspect some others - would be glad to see them punished as a way of making clear that this kind of crime won't pay.

People could 'lend' money to the owner and some of the funds could be used to finance the costs of a local solicitor suing the perpetrators (or perhaps a local practice would be willing to do this pro bono? A lot of law firms do that nowadays as part of corporate social responsibility programmes). Any amounts recovered for damages and costs would - to the extent that those damages and costs have already been paid for by 'loans' - be handed over to charity, e.g the RNLI. That way, the owner is simply borrowing what people might be willing to donate to charity anyway.

This need not be a standalone plan. It could be used alongside other ways of helping, such as offers of practical help or spare parts as already suggested by other posters.

 

[capt_courageous]

Joe
Nice one. I guess lots of us feel the same. Want to help but only as fellow yachties and not as Lady Bountifuls.

 

[hornblower]

Perhaps this could be the start of a mutual fund for others who might find themselves in similar circumstances - who knows where it might lead?

 

[Barr Avel]

A co-operative insurance???

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this could be the start of a mutual fund for others who might find themselves in similar circumstances - who knows where it might lead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that how mutual insurance funds started?

 

[Sixpence]

Usually with a group of mutually agreed or associated people , but with the level of disinterest shown by the ammount of views correlated to the ammount of responses I don't think that many on here give a rats ass about others . Sorry , just the way I see it

 

[Allan]

I've just scanned through the original thread and my heart goes out to the guy. One thing I would like to add, what are the names of the two b******s? While I would never suggest Physical attacks or house burning, some of us on here employ people and maybe "sorry your not getting the job because of the actions of your son" may just affect their lives. A very small chance but it seems to me naming can't do any harm. If anyone knows the names and is worried about saying them, feel free to PM them to me.
My name is Allan and I've had enough!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Allan

Wouldn't disagree with you, but do remember that under the UK's legal process they are considered innocent until proven guilty.

So stigmatising them, their parents, their families, etc, is just a tad premature. Wait for m'learned friends (and let's hope the magistrate is a sailor) and then come down on the [--word removed--] like a ton of granite.

 

[tangomoon]

Buy him his first year's comprehensive insurance.

 

[Allan]

Yes Ken, in most cases I am the first person to say innocent until proven guilty. In this case, they admit guilt so does it really apply? We should also remember that they will get less punishment from our soft system because they admit guilt.
Allan

 

[Dalliance]

Unfortunately admision of guilt is not the same as "being guilty" in the eyes of m'learn'd friends - something about jurisprudence I believe (but don't fully understand). Guilt in the eyes of the law is only determined by the legal process - not a confession.

 

[Marmalade]

Naming them isn't convicting them is it? If they're innocent then they will sue for defamation. Doesn't sound as though there's much doubt as they admitted it.

I do have a concern, however, about people deciding not to insure. I think the original poster had it bang on - it was a gamble that didn't pay off. At the risk of sounding trite let me quote Churchill (the Prime Minister not the dog!)

"If I had my way, I would write the word "insure" upon the door of every cottage and upon the blotting book of every public man, because I am convinced, for sacrifices so small, families and estates can be protected against catastrophes which would otherwise smash them up forever. "

The whole point of insurance is to safeguard against the occasion when the damage is beyond our means to make good. I feel desparately sorry for the boat owner and subscribe fully to the "remove their knackers" brigade; but I do think that not insuring is a false economy.

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think that not insuring is a false economy.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what cost? I fully agree that Thirdparty insurance should be mandatory. But Fully Comp can be a bit of a rip off as you are also insuring against the unknown intentions of "some scrote" who takes a fancy ...

If, for example - the boat is worth ~£30k and the cost of the insurance is £1k pa (500 ins, 500 survey) then you are paying 1/30th of the value of the boat each year - just incase someone nicks it (if you believe yourself highly unlikely to have an accident).
I can't believe 1 in 30 boats or even 1 in 60 boats are unrecoverable insurance losses (does anyone have reliable stats for this?). So even if 1 in 200 boats has a full loss the insurance companies are paying out £30k against a £100k income! so the £1k pa before you even hit the water seems a lot for that value boat...

 

[Twister_Ken]

The survey cost is a once-off (more or less), not part of the annual renewal. Plus there are many other no-fault reasons for loss or damage than scrotitis.

 

[davel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ so the £1k pa before you even hit the water seems a lot for that value boat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Until, of course, you need to make a claim for £30k when it then appears to be not a bad deal.
/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[fireball]

TK - I thought I read that the Ins co required a survey each year and would be approx £500 each time (a bit OTT if true!) ... otherwise £500pa for insurance is only a little more than I'd expect to pay for fully comp.

Davel - all insurance is expensive - until you come to make a claim!! it's just a gamble afterall!