Speeding boat banned from Ipswich
- Thread starter Lucky Duck
- Start date
shmoo
Well-Known Member
I am getting a bit concerned that this is escalating in to some sort of vigilante affair. I don't doubt for a minute the facts of the matter, or that a harbour master has the right, and indeed duty, to ban boats from his or her harbour for the good of other users.
What makes me uncomfortable is the additional 'punishment' element here. Banning someone who you have grounds to think may cause harm from those you have a duty to protect is one thing but taking over the role of the judiciary and handing out what seems like a sentence is, in my view, going too far.
If the boat needs banning over a wide area, or even completely, and I don't disagree that on the basis of what has been reported it might, then surely it is the role of the courts to do that but not a consortium of clubs and harbour masters.
Fire99
Well-Known Member
It's a good point. It could so easily go from a local and (as it appears) just punishment by a local harbour master to every Tom Dick and their dog jumping on the bandwagon.
Also where does it end? It's easy for actions like this to start setting a trend.
FullCircle
Well-Known Member
Hardly Nick. Most of us are pathetically grateful to have a mooring, thank you for having us Sir.
leomagill
Well-Known Member
Exactly where does the ipswitch HM's teritory cover, is it his right to tell everyone else that someones a dick (wether he is or not).
If someone is flouting the colregs then surely reporting to the MCA and through courts is the way things should be done.
Not sure I like the sound of this either.
If someone is flouting the colregs then surely reporting to the MCA and through courts is the way things should be done.
Not sure I like the sound of this either.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Sandyman
Well-Known Member
Can we not apply this tactic to Jet-Skiers ??
shmoo
Well-Known Member
Even jet skiers have rights.
Had you said fat people on electric bikes, that would be different
Had you said fat people on electric bikes, that would be different
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
ColdFusion
Well-Known Member
Do they? Are you sure?
One of the b@stards nearly hit my dog in the water at speed a few years ago just (~ 3 metres) off the beach at Conwy. He swerved to avoid her and sprayed us both with water as he turned away and sped off out of the river at break-neck speed. Tw@t.
</rant>
shmoo
Well-Known Member
OK, if you want to tar and feather a few jet skiers - fair dos. Just don't make too much noise and include a fat electric bike rider for me.
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
- will two skinny ones do? 
PaulGooch
Well-Known Member
So, Mr Numpty gets banned from marina x for being pi55ed in control of his boat (or out of control) running it aground, abusing the CG on VHF, abusing the lock keeper and generally being a nob and a danger to everyone else.
He's not too bothered, plenty more marinas in the sea. He moves his boat into the same marina as you. In fact, he's on the berth right next to your pride and joy.
What annoys you the most :
1) Him and his drunken mates playing load music into the early hours.
2) The damage to your boat, where they've come back into the berth legless a few times, sadly no-one has seen it happen, so no claim from his insurance.
3) His abuse towards you and your family when you mentioned 1 and/or 2 above.
4) The fact that the marina let him have a berth when they were warned about him by marina x.
Answers on a postcard.
He's not too bothered, plenty more marinas in the sea. He moves his boat into the same marina as you. In fact, he's on the berth right next to your pride and joy.
What annoys you the most :
1) Him and his drunken mates playing load music into the early hours.
2) The damage to your boat, where they've come back into the berth legless a few times, sadly no-one has seen it happen, so no claim from his insurance.
3) His abuse towards you and your family when you mentioned 1 and/or 2 above.
4) The fact that the marina let him have a berth when they were warned about him by marina x.
Answers on a postcard.
Fire99
Well-Known Member
That wasn't my point. My point is that I think the harbour master in question is doing the right thing but I'm nervous of the Chinese Whisper effect where it can so easily get out of hand once people start 'putting the word round'
It's a dangerous president in my opinion.
FullCircle
Well-Known Member
But that is the pont of a self regulating group.
We dont have drink driving laws
We dont have to have insurance
We dont need a license.
In all but the tiniest fraction of people in our group, there is a recognition of some unwritten code. There are very occasionally people who dont recognise a good thing when they cant see it, and usually they dont last long.
I think this is one of those cases.
I dont want to castigate anyone, but if a quiet word, then a warning, then a ban doesnt work, we have a real problem on our hands which could end up with bad news for all of us.
Chinese whispers isnt the right way either, I agree with you, but thats what modern communication does more quickly and efficiently than the coastal fire beacons used to do.
Fire99
Well-Known Member
I do see your point and I think that can work if, dare I say, common sense prevails. I'd hate for us to get to a situation where a boat owner to fall out with a certain harbour / marina, for whatever reason, then find that 'word has been put round' and they're now being turned away from all the local marinas as the story escalates.
Maybe i'm a bit of a cynical b*stard
sarabande
Well-Known Member
'scuse me, but isn't this justice evolving in the electronic society ?
The guy has broken written and unwritten rules, and is being made a pariah by the local regulating authority, and has been made aware of the reasons why.
He has the choice of altering/controlling his behaviour, and earning a place back in boating society, or not immediately enjoying his hobby in the place of his preference. The danger of passive acquiescence by other boaters to continuing illegal, threatening, and even dangerous behaviour is that there's a strong future chance of collision, allision, or personal accident caused by the villain's actions.
There's a reasonable chance that he doesn't have insurance, and the consequences of that to innocent people are only too clear.
I have no issues with him being identified, with him being 'banned' from the HM's jurisdiction (that's what the HM is there for, anyway: to ensure safe navigation), and for people whether on the forum, in a pub, or just out on their boat, to be talking about someone who is an outcast because of dangerous behaviour. It's tough on the guy that this knowledge will not be restricted to a small area, as it might have been twenty years ago, but that's the consequence - and perhaps advantage - of what I meant by an electronic society.
And for the record, I think that the time is overdue that some form of statutory or regulatory control, or modification is needed of our 'rights' to go around in boats which are often many times heavier, faster, and more powerful than cars. The extent and 'degree of freedom' of such controls are perhaps subsidiary to preventing this chap from harming himself or someone else in the near future.
The guy has broken written and unwritten rules, and is being made a pariah by the local regulating authority, and has been made aware of the reasons why.
He has the choice of altering/controlling his behaviour, and earning a place back in boating society, or not immediately enjoying his hobby in the place of his preference. The danger of passive acquiescence by other boaters to continuing illegal, threatening, and even dangerous behaviour is that there's a strong future chance of collision, allision, or personal accident caused by the villain's actions.
There's a reasonable chance that he doesn't have insurance, and the consequences of that to innocent people are only too clear.
I have no issues with him being identified, with him being 'banned' from the HM's jurisdiction (that's what the HM is there for, anyway: to ensure safe navigation), and for people whether on the forum, in a pub, or just out on their boat, to be talking about someone who is an outcast because of dangerous behaviour. It's tough on the guy that this knowledge will not be restricted to a small area, as it might have been twenty years ago, but that's the consequence - and perhaps advantage - of what I meant by an electronic society.
And for the record, I think that the time is overdue that some form of statutory or regulatory control, or modification is needed of our 'rights' to go around in boats which are often many times heavier, faster, and more powerful than cars. The extent and 'degree of freedom' of such controls are perhaps subsidiary to preventing this chap from harming himself or someone else in the near future.
shmoo
Well-Known Member
The problem, or let's say potential problem becuase I don't know the full facts, with what seems to be happening is that it offends against natural justice.
If we are trying to set ourselves apart from those who behave in an anti-social way then our behavior must be beyond question and in particular we should offer the anti-social folks civilized due process.
- Has the alleged offender been told of the "charges"?
Everyone has a right to be told what they are accused of.
- Has the alleged offender had an opportunity to answer them?
Perhaps the owner's brother was borrowing the boat on each occasion. Perhaps the owner has an alibi.
- Has the quality of the evidence been tested?
Have hearsay, poor identification, grudge, and urban myth etc. been eliminated?
- How long does the sentence of banishment last? A year, for ever?
Simply branding the alleged offender as a bad person, banned forever, seems a bit harsh. We don't even do that to armed robbers.
- There is no appeal.
Even those accused of the most heinous criminal offences have, under certain circumstances, the opportunity for appeal - not in this case though
By all means let's self regulate, but let's do it properly. Perhaps we have done here but on the facts as presented in this thread it doesn't look like it.
If we are trying to set ourselves apart from those who behave in an anti-social way then our behavior must be beyond question and in particular we should offer the anti-social folks civilized due process.
- Has the alleged offender been told of the "charges"?
Everyone has a right to be told what they are accused of.
- Has the alleged offender had an opportunity to answer them?
Perhaps the owner's brother was borrowing the boat on each occasion. Perhaps the owner has an alibi.
- Has the quality of the evidence been tested?
Have hearsay, poor identification, grudge, and urban myth etc. been eliminated?
- How long does the sentence of banishment last? A year, for ever?
Simply branding the alleged offender as a bad person, banned forever, seems a bit harsh. We don't even do that to armed robbers.
- There is no appeal.
Even those accused of the most heinous criminal offences have, under certain circumstances, the opportunity for appeal - not in this case though
By all means let's self regulate, but let's do it properly. Perhaps we have done here but on the facts as presented in this thread it doesn't look like it.
sarabande
Well-Known Member
I agree with your "due process", shmoo, but I had the impression that this had been carried out. I can't see a HM banning a boat on hearsay or grudge.
You make an important point about serving time for an offence. If we had regulated boating, this would be relatively easy by, for instance, a graduated series of control actions ranging from requiring the owner to attend a training course, fitting a tracker, or even restraining the boat for a period of time.
He's got to change his pattern of behaviour; whether we use a carrot or a stick - that's another matter.
You make an important point about serving time for an offence. If we had regulated boating, this would be relatively easy by, for instance, a graduated series of control actions ranging from requiring the owner to attend a training course, fitting a tracker, or even restraining the boat for a period of time.
He's got to change his pattern of behaviour; whether we use a carrot or a stick - that's another matter.
Mariner69
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to believe that a Harbour Master would ban somebody without good reason and after a number of incidents given the normal inertia displayed by authorities to dealing with bad seamanship. We all make cack handed berthings from time to time so it takes quite an effort to get to the stage where a HM is going to ban you from a stretch of water.
In the commercial shipping world, in my experience, an unofficial black list operates where a new employer will contact former employers to check if there is "anything known". Since this is international and by telephone it is basically unregulated but serves to warn where the prospective employee had put his previous ship aground etc. It also serves to hammer a difficult (by shipowners terms: trade unionist) person and limit their opportunities. All of this has been operated since shipping began.
Is it right? It very much depends on your stand point.
Where your ship costs millions to build and tens of thousands of dollars a day to operate a good owner will cherish and invest in his Masters and Crew so there will always be this unofficial self regulation.
On the Blackwater we have a problem with PWC's racing through the moorings up near Heybridge where there are people swimming. Despite the police saying they were going to take action this year, it continues and will do so until one or more of the swimmers is hurt. Any comment to the PWC's results in threats and abuse, I suspect even the police are nervous.
So banning one idiot from the sea is a start as far as I am concerned; else we shall see regulation, licensing MOT's etc., being applied to our hobby. The costs to the ordinary sailor/mobo will become astronomic.
In the commercial shipping world, in my experience, an unofficial black list operates where a new employer will contact former employers to check if there is "anything known". Since this is international and by telephone it is basically unregulated but serves to warn where the prospective employee had put his previous ship aground etc. It also serves to hammer a difficult (by shipowners terms: trade unionist) person and limit their opportunities. All of this has been operated since shipping began.
Is it right? It very much depends on your stand point.
Where your ship costs millions to build and tens of thousands of dollars a day to operate a good owner will cherish and invest in his Masters and Crew so there will always be this unofficial self regulation.
On the Blackwater we have a problem with PWC's racing through the moorings up near Heybridge where there are people swimming. Despite the police saying they were going to take action this year, it continues and will do so until one or more of the swimmers is hurt. Any comment to the PWC's results in threats and abuse, I suspect even the police are nervous.
So banning one idiot from the sea is a start as far as I am concerned; else we shall see regulation, licensing MOT's etc., being applied to our hobby. The costs to the ordinary sailor/mobo will become astronomic.