Ridiculous legislation

there was no consultation ... at least not in this respect? That's the whole point ...

I also wonder whether my view, should i choose to give one and if contrary to the Minister's wish, would get any further than the bin ... ? I say this after watching the ODPM (Prescott) review and consultation on UORR (Upwards Only Rent Review) where previous reviews have been rejected because they do not conform to the 2001 Labour manifesto comitment ......... our civil service are now mere toadies ....

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Having my occasional trawl through YBW I'm interested to see the level of interest in these absurd new regulations.

The RYA has today served proceedings against the Department for Transport, in the Administrative Court, for a judicial review of the making of these regulations. The rules give us 3 months (from 20 Sept) to take this action, and naturally we did not want to do so until having absolutely satisfied ourselves that the MCA were unwilling to put things right without going to court. We have given them every opportunity, but to little avail.

For the record: the original draft regulations on which we were consulted specifically EXCLUDED recreational vessels under 45m (in line with the EU Directive on which the regs are based). There was no consultation on the second draft, in which some bright spark in the MCA or DfT had turned the clause round to include such craft.

Now we're off to court, this is all we can say in public on the matter at present. If anyone has any specific queries on this point, e-mail me at edmund.whelan@rya.org.uk. Naturally if you are an RYA member you'll get a faster reply than a non-member!



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Thin edge of the wedge ...

Also still intrigued about that especially after the proposed £300 new tax on pleasure craft in the UK according to a leaked memo from The Maritime and Coastguard Agency in 2001



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Surely this is Bliar & Co's way of keeping the unemployment figures down at our, the taxpayers, expense. We don't get income or exes like MPs!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I'm an RYA life member so fast reply please :-)

You no doubt have heavyweight legal advice but off the cuff I'd say the 3months starts from the alleged perverse act by the authority concerned, namely 3 months from the failure by MCA to consult, not 3 months from the 20 Sept start date of the SI

Also I'm intrigued about the use of JR proceedings against MCA. I can see that the admin body, namely MCA, failed to consult properly, but nevertheless Parliament has passed the law (OK it's secondary leg, not primary, but still is issued by parliament). So while the JR proceedings can result in a slap on the wrist for MCA, the law's the law innit? Parliamnet is the ultimate authority? And the SI was waved uner the Queens nose, wasn't it, I'm not sure. You no doubt have more expertise on the case than I can give but I didn't know Parliament could be corrected by JR proceedings. Best of luck anyway

What's the timing? You have to have a private hearing before a judge in chambers before the full hearing. Surely this will take quite a few months even if it gets a bit fast tracked.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
"Naturally if you are an RYA member you'll get a faster reply than a non-member!"

With that sort of attitude it is no wonder so many sailing folk refuse to join the RYA.

Fact is you will answer your own first but why advertise the fact!

PS I am not a member and intend to stay that way, particularily after your comments.

<hr width=100% size=1>
hammer.thumb.gif
 
I am a RYA member, and I am delighted to see that Edmund Wheelan is giving priority to those whose subscriptions pay his wages. If you choose not to pay the piper, don't complain if you don't get first choice of tune.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Who's complaining?

All I am asking is why advertise the fact and alienate potential members?

<hr width=100% size=1>
hammer.thumb.gif
 
Surely if they are potential members, this should encourage them to get on and join.

Those who are likely to be alienated are those who have no intention of joining, and don't like to be reminded of the consequences of that decision.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Interesting

I remember discussing with a forumite such a reporting scheme as a method of ascertaining whether the proposed drink/sail laws were needed.

The original thought being that there was no real drink/sail problem so why have a law, and the suggestion of a reporting mechanism instead of the drink/sail law to prove once and for all whether the law was needed.

I do not necessarily welcome the extra overhead of the reporting law, but being pragmatic, if the RYA lose the JR, maybe there would be an opportunity to negotiate on the drink/sail law.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Anyone know the procedures for obtaining Panamanian yacht registration ?

<hr width=100% size=1>a pragmatist is an optimist with a boat in the UK - but serious about not being in the UK !
 
Dear Mr RYA Bod

As this is currently law and we 'MUST' report all incidents to ? on ? within ? timescale of said incident and on...

Would you please recommend answer to the above, who should we report to,

Our local coast guard
The MCA
Some new body that has been formed?

On what shall we report

A special form
An A4 sheet ripped from the back of the log
The back of a fag packet
The VHF
Telingbone?

What is the timescale for all such reports

immediate - VHF
24hrs telingbone and facsimile
14 days email
snail mail
from 20 September if you have not done so, I mean around the 8th October I made a real pigs ear of coming alongside, I did not brief my crew properly who thought I was doing one thing while I was expecting her to do another. Is there still time for me to report two aborted attempts before a hasty re-brief across the saloon roof. Or should I await my summons and get ready to sell the car to keep the NHS in another bed for a week.

Please help, not all of us have your insights into these new laws.

This is a serious post and I would really like an answer, I am not knocking the RYA, I just expect they should have the answer I am looking for.....

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>
 
When I last registered a yacht under the Panamanian flag all that was necessary was to pay up to the Panamanian Consul General, but that was in Singapore in 1962. I also coughed up about 50 Straits Dollars for a Master's foreign going ticket at the same time and signed on in the same vessel.
Probably need to visit the Embassy in London and pay up!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Fast Answers

I pay him to answer my questions.

You don´t.

Then you get pissed off because he says he will answer me before he gives you his opinion.


Go to sea and drown.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Fast Answers

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

Go to sea and drown

<hr></blockquote>

I used to think you were an alright sort of bloke, but I was wrong, you are a prat.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>Woof</A>
 
Re: Fast Answers

Any one who is on line at this time time of night is a prat.
That makes two of us.

Sail and live !


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
78 Answers

Hang on - have I insulted the wrong man?

Oh well - take to long to explain. I pay Ed Whelan and it is great to see a lawyer come out and give an opinion.


Bit strong on the last line. Crucifiction accepted.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 3
Replies
0
Views
376
tillergirl
T
J
Rear crank seal change on BMC 2.2 engine still in boat?
Replies
3
Views
117
Joe Stevens
J

Share this page

Top