Shipping Minister Keith Hill is a Moron

[steve_cronin]

He lives in a typically urban part of London, NEVER sees the sea and has an inbuilt typical socialist hatred of those he perceives as "Well off capitalist pigs wallowing around in big boats that the peoples revolution will spoil their use of even if we can't take away from them". The "Brothers" will love him for this at the next conference - one in the eye for the toffs!

I have met him and I wasn't impressed. Seeker after fame and power just like the rest and doesn't mind who's lifestyle he ruins in the process.

Well Mr Hill, you are going to look one hell of a fool as you go down in history as the bloke who destroyed the Royal Navy Wardroom as an institution and brought about a massive increase in coastal police spending just to make the lives of innocent yachtsmen a misery and destroy the previously good relationship that existed between us and the Marine Divisions of local constabularies.First time an "Old Harry" gets pulled up in court for having one over the limit in his pulling dinghy and his face is seen peering out of a tabloid newspaper being escorted to a cell the egg will be all over your face! And won't you deserve it!

Steve Cronin

You might well try to pull this Kim but these are MY words, I accept full responsibility for them and will repeat them in Mr Hill's face should I ever run into him again

 

[Magic_Sailor]

What's this all about Steve

Magic

 

[longjohnsilver]

And so is the Minister for Sport

The main qualification for being a minor minister seems to be to know naff all about the area which you are now responsible for, and even more importantly having absolutely no interest in the subject at all.

 

[oldgit]

You must have read a different proposal to the one I read,but I have in mind the guy killed in the speed boat but a few short months ago.My glance at the piece in the boaty press seemed to take a quite reasoned view of any problems that could occur with this idea.

Oooh look its still not dark and its nearly 5pm

 

[kimhollamby]

I suspect Steve is referring to this:

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20030016105057mbmnews.html>http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20030016105057mbmnews.html</A>

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[steve_cronin]

See http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20010213123050ybwnews.html

and

http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20030016105057mbmnews.html

Are you suggesting that because on ONE accident this un-necessary regeime not to mention the vast cost of implementation should be imposed on all of us? Even the RYA AND the Operations Director of thee RNLI are on record as not knowing of a problem that requires a solution. This is just at attempt at self egrandisement by an otherwise ineffectual minor politician.

Steve Cronin

 

[Stingo]

Can only be expected. A few years back, a cyclist and a rollerblader collided in Hyde Park. Result; one less cyclist and a ban on cycling in Hyde Park and the end of a very pleasant and healthy (no cars to park under) persuit for many.

Is this yet another case of reactionary politics to score what may seem to those in power as major voter points?





<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[oldgit]

Yup that was the article I read.Seems not an unreasonable thing to consider. As I also enjoy driving and flying as well as boating I have not found the rules applying to the first two hobbies to have been any problem at all regarding my enjoyment of these activities. Hic !

Oooh look its still not dark and its nearly 5pm

 

[Jacket]

I can't really see what the problem is. Firstly, there's no mention of poviding extra policing, so how's it going to cost more?

Secondly, for pleasure boaters, it specifically states that 'non-commercial masters' are only subject to testing when their vessel is underway. As only an idiot goes to sea when drunk, this doesn't seem to be a problem.

The only possible problem is, as you say, rowing your tender out to your mooring after an evening at the pub. However, speaking from the standpoint of having both a brother and an ex who are in the police force, I can say that they are not stupid. There view of the law is very much along the lines of a tool that is useful for preventing dangerous or criminal behaviour, rather than a method of causing misery to all. So if they find you rowing out to your boat slightly the worst for wear, but no danger to yourself or others, they'll quite happily look the other way, or at the very worst give you a gentle talking to, just for forms sake.

I'm sure I'll be attacked for saying nice things about the police, but I think they do a good job (at least they don't keep going on strike!)

 

[Guest]

RYA in this is Uriah Heep

As for the RYA immediate comments on this, they are worthy of Uriah Heep ('so very 'umble -Charles Dickens). Does the RYA want to become a government quango? Its response consisting of waffle and weasel words is a disgrace (see its website -legal section); it should have poured cold salt water of the whole thing. Instead it retreats and doffs its cap.

 

[oldgit]

And another thing think of all that business that "water taxis'will get ferrying you from the quayside bo0Zer back to your "capitalist running dog super yacht" when you have had a few two many.Hic

Oooh look its still not dark and its nearly 5pm

 

[Observer]

Cure is worse than the disease?

The real problem with this is not the breath-testing itself but the fact that it seems unworkable unless they also introduce compulsory licensing of skippers and, possibly, any person who's at the helm.

The issue being - "who's in command?" - unless defined by law which requires a licensed person to be "in command".

It's pretty easy to put an inexperienced, non-drinking person - evan a child - at the helm and claim that (s)he is in command. And where is that most likely to happen? Not in open water where the risk of being stopped is minimal but close to port and in harbour entrances. These can be pretty tricky to navigate for experienced helmsmen. With an inexperienced helmsman who is either unsupervised or under the supervision of a skipper who's had a couple of drinks and doesn't want to take the risk of being "over the limit" and probably hasn't learned the additional skill of conning a boat remotely, you end up with a greater danger than the one you're seeking to prevent.

 

[PaulJ]

Hmmm........ Does anybody know if similar laws exist in other countries and if so how does it operate and how does it affect pleasure boating?

 

[hlb]

Fair play to your brother and ex. But not all are like that. Have you never heard of the trafic police playing Snooker. First a red car then a colour!! I've been done for things before now. Just because they had decided to do some one. Anyone. And not because I'd done some thing wrong.

<font color=blue> Haydn

 

[Bergman]

Perhaps a case of someone who lacks the intellectual capacity to organise a booze up in a brewery trying to ensure that no booze up can take place.

 

[FlyingSpud]

An impact analysis was published on the 14th January the following points are worth noting before we all decide that it is the end of civilisation as we know it:-

(a) Nowhere does it refer to someone being ‘in command, but to ‘safety-critical personnel’

(b) It will also include non-professional mariners who are exercising a ‘navigation function’ (whatever that means) BUT with THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH MARINERS BEING EXCLUDED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E. WHERE THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR A VESSEL THAT CONSTITUTES A MINIMAL SAFETY HAZARD. Later it states “some personal craft require a high degree of skill in operation, and it is appropriate that users of leisure craft should be included in the offence when alcohol misuse could cause a safety hazard” so I think it is pretty clear it is not intended to cover an Avon coming back from the pub, nor for that matter, a Lilo off Blackpool beach and perhaps not a Westerly heading into Cowes. Seems to me therefore that there is still a lot to be determined

(c) In fact far from us being the police state this does not fully implement the IMO’s recommendations or the revised International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW 95), which took effect in 1997 as that applied to watchkeepers 4 hours before they go on duty


(d) Interesting point comes out, in theory, a French flag boat in UK waters with a drunk in charge could be committing an offence when an English boat would not - nonsensical - when this comes in equally you could commit and offence on your British ship while in another nation’s waters (it is accepted this is hardly enforceable in reality). To cover this enforcement can be against all in National waters and they are looking for Europe wide implementation

(e) There is no intention to introduce random testing, an officer can only stop you with reason. If you are stopped, as with a car, you can ask why, and if they do not have an immediate answer, then it is the copper who has committed the offence and you can ask him to arrest himself


(f) They expect about 100 cases a year

(g) In the case of drugs, there is no “legal” limit but charges will be brought if in the opinion of a police officer a person is unfit through drugs.


(h) The proposed penalty on summary conviction will be a maximum fine of £5000 (£2000 in Northern Ireland), and on conviction on indictment, 2years imprisonment and/or a fine. There are no proposals to revoke an offender’s licence (even if we had one to revoke)

It seems to me that there is still a lot to play for here. Now, we have all had our say about the best tactics for the RYA to take, some, like me go for the current softly softly approach, others want more blood and guts. I think we can all accept that both are arguable approaches, and the RYA have made their decision on tactics clear and we should support them in that.

I certainly don’t think it helps to personalise matters. That will not help at all


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by FlyingSpud on 18/01/2003 00:07 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

IS the limit set the same as a road vehicle, you know, one that does 70mph rather than 6, things just don't happen at the same rates on a boat, jees, if I was drunk, I could take so long picking up my mooring and coming ashore I would be sober by the time I got there.

It is not unknown that I will have a glass of wine on the helm on the way home after a nice days sail, you know the situation, sunset, F3, cruising back, should I expect a blue flashing light, what if I am past the 12 mile line, who's juristriction? I never drink to excess, but I do not believe I am the only one who might have a beer at the helm.

ludicrous knocky kneed politics, reminds me of the dangerous dogs act.


Julian

http://www.ukstaffords.com<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Jools_of_Top_Cat on 17/01/2003 23:43 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[FlyingSpud]

Yep, slow safe boats, like the Marchioness

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Good point, but he was navigating a narrow channel with paying passengers on board relying on him for their safety. I know this should not matter, but IMO it does. I do not condemn being legless on board, far from it.

I heard a few weeks ago of a very drunk jetskier that went bizerk around a harbour and landed a hefty fine. He deserved everything he got. I just hope as in an earlier post the police and harbour master remain sensible in their approach.

The thing that I think bothers me the most, there are already safeguards in place, if it ain't broke, why try and fix it?


Julian

http://www.ukstaffords.com

 

[LadyInBed]

Re: RYA comments

The RYA are talking the talk, will they walk the walk?