RYA legal dept.

[tcm]

Re: Department of Putting Things off Till Retirement!

I got carried away. Sorry bout that. I suppose i was tryng to make the point (too forcefully) that there will need to be catching up.

As for the kind invitation to be a monitor, I am not sure I am cut out for monitoring things. Things will be much better if you have the (evidently quite efficient) monitors that you have and I remain resolutely self-opinionated, angry, outspoken, rude - and very carefully monitored.

Nurse!





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Shanty]

Re: Department of Putting Things off Till Retirement!

First: Delighted to see another RYA person participating in these fora. You will probably attract a fair amount of flack initially, but I am sure that will die away as folk get used to having you about the place - welcome.

Second: As a personal member of the RYA, I have felt for some time that communication between the secretariat and members left considerable room for improvement. Might I suggest that three things should be communicated to the member: an immediate acknowledgement of receipt (for letters and emails), the name of the person handling the query, and some idea of timescale. If you are prioritising, you are generating the information anyway, so why not keep the member in the picture? For lengthy problems, regular updates would also be a good idea.

Third: Why do I get the impression that the secretariat would secretly like the RYA to be a quango? Am I being unkind?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[petery]

Re: Department of Putting Things off Till Retirement!

Don't apologize - you were right in all you said IMHO.

The 'sweet reasonableness' of the excuses I have had from the RYA Legal department over the past six months made me think that I should be ashamed for chasing them .

The key point is for them to acknowledge receipt of e-mails and papers by return - and that doesn't take the time of a barrister. If they don't - visions of a Dickensian law office stacked with piles of papers tied with pink ribbons spring to mind!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

RYA legal dept & Dibden Bay

I reproduce a section of Capt Chesnut's letter of the 2 Sept 2002 to the RYA from which you deduced that you had won an assurance that no additional restrictions will be placed on these (sailing and racing in Southampton Water) activities following the development of the Dibden terminal:-

Recreational racing in Southampton Water (which is defined as the area above a line drawn through Cadland and Greenland Buoys) is permitted on the basis that it is properly managed by the Clubs, and provided VTS is fully involved to standards required by the Harbour Authority. On the assumption that proper management continues, that the individual events are properly risk assessed, and that consultation with VTS takes into account the planned commercial vessel movements in the area, I can give you my assurance that I see no reason for the Harbour Authority to place any restrictions on those activities as a result of the proposed construction of and subsequent operation of Dibden Terminal.

What Chesnut is saying is that his company's commercial interests are paramount which is understandable although the Inquiry's purpose was to question the primacy of that. In reality, he gave nothing away, did he?

His strictures, particularly on risk assessment, are another matter. What do you see to be the implications?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[warrior40]

Re:Barnsley

Is this somewhere in the North then? I wasn't even aware that trains went that far.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[EdmundWhelanRYA]

Re: Department of Putting Things off Till Retirement!

1 I wish I could promise to be a regular, but the day job gets in the way.

2 Fair comment. and will consider options.

3 We are already classified by Govt as a 'Non Governmental Oganisation' (NGO)
We are entirely Autonomous (this makes us an 'ANGO'), but have no desire to become Quasi-Autonomous.

FRIDAY 1740? I'm off sailing.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[graham]

Re: RYA legal dept & Dibden Bay

Correct me if I am wrong as I have only sailed in Southampton Waters a few times and dont have any charts to hand but from memory isnt there a permanent exclusion zone to pleasure craft 1000 meters ahead of all commercial ships over a certain tonnage.

This would mean that commercial traffic allready have priority.As they do in the approaches to almost all UK ports.

<hr width=100% size=1>