Trotman barge below Hampton court

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Always willing to help.

If that's what you still think after having the situation explained to you by an ex Lock Keeper and a handful of locals, then I can only assume that you know nothing of the area or you're trolling.

As far as I can see, the main objection to the boats are (a) they are ugly, (b) occupied by the people who are not our kind of people (c) some of the whom are foreign. I note as well the horrified suggestion that Mr Trotman may also be foreign ("Alistair Trotman" being a very common name across Europe).

I'm still finding it very hard to understand what harm they are doing to other river users, except outrage delicate sensibilities. Fire trap accommodation is bad, but there are laws to deal with that. Antisocial behaviour is bad, but there are laws to deal with that. Mooring without permission is a civil matter between the mooring owner and the boat owner.

 

[dash300]

Re: Always willing to help.

As far as I can see, the main objection to the boats are (a) they are ugly, (b) occupied by the people who are not our kind of people (c) some of the whom are foreign. I note as well the horrified suggestion that Mr Trotman may also be foreign ("Alistair Trotman" being a very common name across Europe).

I'm still finding it very hard to understand what harm they are doing to other river users, except outrage delicate sensibilities. Fire trap accommodation is bad, but there are laws to deal with that. Antisocial behaviour is bad, but there are laws to deal with that. Mooring without permission is a civil matter between the mooring owner and the boat owner.

Of course you might think differently if he tranferred his business to Loch Lomond.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Always willing to help.

Of course you might think differently if he tranferred his business to Loch Lomond.

I can't see why. Quite apart from the fact that the nearest bit of Loch Lomond is about 125 miles from my house, it has an area of 268 square miles and about 60 miles of shoreline - lots more if you include the islands - so I doubt that three scruffy boats with (gasp) foreigners on board would have me clutching my cravat too vigorously.

However, attempted gentrification is an issue on Loch Lomond as well, as the National Park Authority seems determined to take it upmarket, both in camping use and in boating activity. As you will see if you read the appropriate threads in the motorboat forum, this is causing issues for boaters of all sorts. Be careful what you wish for.

Incidentally, am I right in thinking that the outrage over Mr Trotman's operation doesn't extend to the scruffy old college barges on the Isis. Or perhaps they are long gone, now, and replaced by mooring spots for nice, clean fibreglass boats.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Has anyone considered setting up a working party with elected councillors from all the LAs to try and prevent Trotman spoiling the river community any more.

Mr Trotman's unfortuate tenants might quite legitimately consider themselves part of the river community - perhaps even more so than those who just pootle up and down on nice days. Perhaps they should have a voice.

 

[CLB]

Re: Always willing to help.

so I doubt that three scruffy boats with (gasp) foreigners on board would have me clutching my cravat

Thin end of the wedge Duckie. How many people are looking in thinking "I can also earns thousands of pounds a month without fear of the authorities" in the end the problem becomes so big that the problem and the laws and rules to overcome it ruin the river for those that are prepared to enjoy it within the current rules.

Ps, who, other than you, is bringing the fact that some of the tenants may be from overseas into this? I mentioned that trotman is a foreigner, and therefore possibly not on HMRCs radar, but don't see why the nationality of the unfortunate people who are living in these slums is relevant.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Always willing to help.

Thin end of the wedge Duckie. How many people are looking in thinking "I can also earns thousands of pounds a month without fear of the authorities" in the end the problem becomes so big that the problem and the laws and rules to overcome it ruin the river for those that are prepared to enjoy it within the current rules.

I quite agree, but he's been at it for years and nobody else has followed suit, so maybe the risk isn't quite as bad as all that. In any case, the law generally concerns itself with what some has done, not with what other people might hypothetically do in the future.

Ps, who, other than you, is bringing the fact that some of the tenants may be from overseas into this? I mentioned that trotman is a foreigner, and therefore possibly not on HMRCs radar, but don't see why the nationality of the unfortunate people who are living in these slums is relevant.

The alleged presence of foreigners on the boats has been regularly mentioned in threads about them. I agree that it should be irrelevant, but I fear that to some people it matters very much indeed.

 

[Actionmat]

Re: Always willing to help.

Others have followed suit. Stop trolling Duckie

 

[teddington_lock]

Re: Always willing to help.

Waste of time continuing with this. Can't be bothered to feed the troll anymore.

Find your own info in future.

 

[Mirror Painter]

Re: Always willing to help.

Others have followed suit. Stop trolling Duckie

What he said^

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Always willing to help.

Others have followed suit. Stop trolling Duckie

How many others? I have only ever seen Mr Trotman's operation mentioned here.

Waste of time continuing with this. Can't be bothered to feed the troll anymore.

Find your own info in future.

Your point of view was very interesting.

What he said^

In what way has Mr Trotman's unsavoury operation directly affected you? Is it just distaste at ugly boats and scruffy foreigners, of have they actually harmed you?

 

[Mirror Painter]

Re: Always willing to help.

In what way has Mr Trotman's unsavoury operation directly affected you? Is it just distaste at ugly boats and scruffy foreigners, of have they actually harmed you?

I had a low cost, potentially scruffy boat on the Thames. I spent more money on it than I'd paid for it and I loved her. The boat coast £950.

For a year or two, weekends on the river were pure bliss. And then a load of scruffy people arrived on the river and took the piss. Suddenly farmers and land owners were not content for me to harmlessly moor on their property. Then the break ins started. Then certain boats took up permanent but illegal moorings on some of the most beautiful parts of 'my' river. I have seen turds and sanitary 'doings' floating by. Then my £2,400 outboard was stolen and I threw the towel in and gave up having a boat on the Thames. None of this could be attributed to Mr T but rule breakers and freeloaders changed boating on the Thames and ruined it for me.

 

[oldgit]

Re: Always willing to help.

None of this could be attributed to Mr T but rule breakers and freeloaders changed boating on the Thames and ruined it for me.

Have commented on this before, things on the Medway were very similar in the past with the ability to virtually moor anywhere on a river bank,unless the owner violently objected and made it plain with large notices everywhere and sometimes daily patrol to enforce rules.
It would be common knowledge that one could stop and perhaps overnight at will virtually anywhere , the only diversion being grazing cattle,sheep.horses or the odd fisherman.The entire river bank,probably mostly owned by one or two long established farmers was really of no commercial value except as low yield grazing and providing you did not cause problems with fires and litter nobody really bothered.
The water boards,when privatised also flogged off "useless" chunks of land, a nice little windfall for shareholders and directors.
As time past the original owners sold off small areas to raise capital or simply to concentrate on profitable parts of the farms.Chunks of river bank were sold on to marinas, boat clubs,fishing clubs.caravan sites and leisure plot speculators.
Although the actual land was worth a pittance,no access,water or power, the amenities that it provided became valuable assets.
Fishing rights and mooring rights became worth buying and selling and defending by restricting access by others.
On the further upper reaches of the Thames things still appear very relaxed with boats mooring fairly easily on long stretches of meadows,some for apparently long periods, without disturbance.
This eventually will change and not due to Mr T.
At some point somebody is going to want a return on capital.
Down here the Crown Estates are now being told to exploit assets, long ignored bits of river bed are being turned into folding money.

If you want to see an unsightly mess, take a look and the "ribbon development" downstream of Wateringbury Bridge , not just one or two boats but a half mile of scaffold jetties and other junk.Classic example of leisure plot blight.
Another more recent attempt a few miles downstream.
Fortunately the adjoining land is owned by a well respected boat club who intend conserving the riverbank.

 

[Time Out]

Re: Always willing to help.

How many others? I have only ever seen Mr Trotman's operation mentioned here.



Your point of view was very interesting.



In what way has Mr Trotman's unsavoury operation directly affected you? Is it just distaste at ugly boats and scruffy foreigners, of have they actually harmed you?

Actually as a resident of Teddington they stopped me from walking along the tow path due to their behaviour and stray dogs not to mention their rubbish etc.

 

[TrueBlue]

Re: Always willing to help.

Have commented on this before, things on the Medway were very similar in the past with the ability to virtually moor anywhere on a river bank,unless the owner violently objected and made it plain with large notices everywhere and sometimes daily patrol to enforce rules.
It would be common knowledge that one could stop and perhaps overnight at will virtually anywhere , the only diversion being grazing cattle,sheep.horses or the odd fisherman.The entire river bank,probably mostly owned by one or two long established farmers was really of no commercial value except as low yield grazing and providing you did not cause problems with fires and litter nobody really bothered.
The water boards,when privatised also flogged off "useless" chunks of land, a nice little windfall for shareholders and directors.
As time past the original owners sold off small areas to raise capital or simply to concentrate on profitable parts of the farms.Chunks of river bank were sold on to marinas, boat clubs,fishing clubs.caravan sites and leisure plot speculators.
Although the actual land was worth a pittance,no access,water or power, the amenities that it provided became valuable assets.
Fishing rights and mooring rights became worth buying and selling and defending by restricting access by others.
On the further upper reaches of the Thames things still appear very relaxed with boats mooring fairly easily on long stretches of meadows,some for apparently long periods, without disturbance.
This eventually will change and not due to Mr T.
At some point somebody is going to want a return on capital.
Down here the Crown Estates are now being told to exploit assets, long ignored bits of river bed are being turned into folding money.

If you want to see an unsightly mess, take a look and the "ribbon development" downstream of Wateringbury Bridge , not just one or two boats but a half mile of scaffold jetties and other junk.Classic example of leisure plot blight.
Another more recent attempt a few miles downstream.
Fortunately the adjoining land is owned by a well respected boat club who intend conserving the riverbank.

I had a low cost, potentially scruffy boat on the Thames. I spent more money on it than I'd paid for it and I loved her. The boat coast £950.

For a year or two, weekends on the river were pure bliss. And then a load of scruffy people arrived on the river and took the piss. Suddenly farmers and land owners were not content for me to harmlessly moor on their property. Then the break ins started. Then certain boats took up permanent but illegal moorings on some of the most beautiful parts of 'my' river. I have seen turds and sanitary 'doings' floating by. Then my £2,400 outboard was stolen and I threw the towel in and gave up having a boat on the Thames. None of this could be attributed to Mr T but rule breakers and freeloaders changed boating on the Thames and ruined it for me.

Actually as a resident of Teddington they stopped me from walking along the tow path due to their behaviour and stray dogs not to mention their rubbish etc.

The above to my mind is / are exactly the point.
There was a time when folks who lived on the River did so because they loved and respected that environment. Most preferred the solitude - thus moored well away from the popular places. They kept their boats tidy and made a contribution to the surroundings.
Now some folks live on the river for economic reasons and care less for their surroundings and it shows. The net result is that people who want to cruise / use the river are becoming put-off as can be seen by the drop in registrations.
In some ways the Thames is becoming a liability rather than an asset.

 

[Actionmat]

Re: Always willing to help.

Don't forget the drugs. Old lifeboats and clapped out GRP's have become magnets for junkies and alcoholics. And what do junkies do when benefits don't cover their habit? I've been broken into twice and had an outboard stolen this year. A sat nav has been found by the Police, stashed in a bush downstream, in a well known(to them)spot for hiding goods. Coincidentally of course, right by a little flotilla of scumboats.
These were crimes carried out on the river, from the river. The side of my boat that was opened up was on the water not the bankside. The mud on the deck was only down the river facing side, so it wasn't someone clambering across from the grass to hide from the houses that overlook the moorings.
When Trotman staked his claim, the others followed. The group that moored around his slumboat in Teddington has dispersed into smaller groups between Kingston and Sunbury and every boat owner that I know has a tale to tell.

So there's your explanation, Jumbleduck. When was your last visit to Teddington and the non tidal Thames?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Always willing to help.

So there's your explanation, Jumbleduck. When was your last visit to Teddington and the non tidal Thames?

I've never been to Teddington and I haven't been to the Thames for years, which is why I am asking. It certainly sounds as if antisocial behaviour is a real and growing problem, and all of you affected by it have my sympathy. However, since it seems that the EA has no effective powers to do anything much about the boats, it still sounds to me as if it would be more sensible to raise hell about the antisocial behaviour than to complain about the people who might or might not be causing it. "Rich boat owners try to force poor people out of their homes" is probably not the headline to raise much sympathy for the boating cause, but it's the headline you'll get.

 

[Actionmat]

Re: Always willing to help.

Your first answer makes a mockery of your last statement. I rest my case.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Always willing to help.

Your first answer makes a mockery of your last statement. I rest my case.

Haven't a clue what you are on about, but I'll try to explain again. If the behaviour is bad, complain about the behaviour. Don't complain about the boats as a proxy for complaining about the people in them as a proxy for complaining about the behaviour of some people who may or may not live on the boats, because you'll look terrible and get nowhere. Clear enough?

Recreational boating everywhere suffers when the perception grows that it's for rich snobs.

 

[Alan ashore]

Look,
The facts are that local residents and legitimate river users who respect both the rules and common standards of decency have for many years capaigned for action against illegal mooring and antisocial behaviour, which manifestly are connected. EA and other agencies have acted against offenders with some success, and they will have our support to continue to do so.
Trotman is of particular concern because of the size, number and unpleasantness of his vessels, the nature of his operation, and his callous disregard for the law.

 

[Flynnbarr]

Local residents and campaigners should be asking the EA why they towed them into another councils jurisdiction.
Were they complicit with Richmond in just shunting the problem onto another local authority,probably for the whole process to have to start again or were they that naive to think that Trotman wouldn't fight and want his business to continue.