Trotman barge below Hampton court

oldgit said:
Very much doubt that Apollo is seriously proposing what your are suggesting.
It is difficult sometimes to indicate that things are said very much tougue in cheek on the forum.
There are one or two on here,who I would not be suprised to see suggest such a unfortunate course of action,but Apollo is not one of them. :)
He may have boat with a serious surplice of net curtains and a couple of strange engines but we all have our faults.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the good-standing of Apollo here and the inference of lightheartdness BUT the inference is made, and not just by A. I see T-L "insinuating" the same and the dinghy guy.
Just suppose one of the boats caught fire, no fault of anyone here, but there is an association made between the two and YBW management stood by and did nothing, forum-wise to draw a line under what is virtual stalking of someone and their lifestyle
 
Steve Clayton said:
I appreciate the good-standing of Apollo here and the inference of lightheartdness BUT the inference is made, and not just by A. I see T-L "insinuating" the same and the dinghy guy.
Just suppose one of the boats caught fire, no fault of anyone here, but there is an association made between the two and YBW management stood by and did nothing, forum-wise to draw a line under what is virtual stalking of someone and their lifestyle
Click to expand...

Methinks you do protest too much.
There's a palpable difference between any silly joshing and serious intent - and IMHO easy to differentiate between the two.
 
Steve Clayton said:
Just suppose one of the boats caught fire, no fault of anyone here, but there is an association made between the two and YBW management stood by and did nothing, forum-wise to draw a line under what is virtual stalking of someone and their lifestyle
Click to expand...

OK, I'm just supposing. What do you think might happen? Mass arrests?
 
"... virtual stalking of someone and their lifestyle."

I don't think this is what's happening here. There are valid public-interest concerns about Trotman's Slumboat flotilla that go beyond the aesthetics of their visual impact and his failure to contribute financially to the river like everybody else.

These include:

- Lack of sanitary facilities resulting in innevitable discharge into the environment and risk to public health.

- Storage of multiple large gas cylinders in a high-risk setting. If those go off a large number of people on the riverside and legitimate adjacent moorings are at risk.

- The risk to the occupants (for the most part innocent, unwitting, and in many cases vulnerable young people). If these lodgings were on land they would have been shut down. Carbon Monoxide is probably at least as big a danger to those on board as fire. With coal-fired heating and gas-powered stoves in a small enclosed space it's not surprising that the CO alarms reportedly keep going off.

I really hope these 'floating time bombs' get legitimately and decisively 'shut down' by the appropriate agencies and authorities before the 'flags raised' in this and other forums end up being re-visited in a later inquiry or inquest.

In case any reminder is needed as to the need for - and legitimacy - of public concern these two articles (and comments from previous residents) address it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/london-houseboat-slum-rents-barge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35871064

I understand the valid concern about a couple of unfortunate comments. However this thread isn't about stalking one person or their lifestyle but about the impact and risk that these boats pose to others - not least the paying residents onboard.
 
oldgit said:
"Murv" had to cough up when an observant lockie spotted no ticket, when we bought Loopy Lou back to civilization last spring.
Click to expand...

Never heard of trade plates, but having moved an unlicensed barge a couple of years ago for a friend. The rule was if you are moving the boat to its place of sale to be sold or if you are moving the boat to have work carried out on it (similar to car MOT rules).

Was surprised that some of the lockies weren't aware of this rule as we were challenged, however we had confirmed with the EA beforehand.

But anyway it potentially gives Trotman some options to move if that is his intention, who knows :ambivalence:
 
Yes it would be a shame if any of those boats caught fire, because the wrecks would add to the general eyesore and cause further pollution. With the combination of alcohol, illegal drug use, badly maintained boats and wood burning stoves I'm surprised it's not a monthly occurrence,

Re Apollo's comment: I hope the mods treat Steve Clayton's protest with a level of humour that has obviously failed him.
Trotmans antics are of great concern to those of us at this end of the river, it would be a shame if a thread was pulled due to the actions of someone who's blissfully unaffected and easily offended.
 
Chris_d said:
Never heard of trade plates, but having moved an unlicensed barge a couple of years ago for a friend. The rule was if you are moving the boat to its place of sale to be sold or if you are moving the boat to have work carried out on it (similar to car MOT rules).

Was surprised that some of the lockies weren't aware of this rule as we were challenged, however we had confirmed with the EA beforehand.

But anyway it potentially gives Trotman some options to move if that is his intention, who knows :ambivalence:
Click to expand...

Yes I just realised that the red trade plates which were used on a boat I helped move from Henley to Whilton brokerage on the Grand Union (supplied by the brokerage for an unlicensed boat) were actually for the canals (was British Waterways) and not the River Thames.

I don't know if an equivalent does exist for the Thames or not to be fair so my comment about trade plates may have been inaccurate.
 
I wonder whether the time has come to obtain a writ of mandamus to oblige the EA or other competent authorities to fulfill their regulatory, statutory or contractual obligations in relation to these hulks ?

Someone closer to the (in)action must know who is supposed to be doing what and to whom. The cost to the public purse must be mounting daily, and the risk to people and the environment be at a high level.
 
Last edited:
Outinthedinghy said:
Yes I just realised that the red trade plates which were used on a boat I helped move from Henley to Whilton brokerage on the Grand Union (supplied by the brokerage for an unlicensed boat) were actually for the canals (was British Waterways) and not the River Thames.

I don't know if an equivalent does exist for the Thames or not to be fair so my comment about trade plates may have been inaccurate.
Click to expand...
There is a Trade Plate system on the River Thames. These may be used for deliveries by paid crews, or demonstrations by brokers. In addition there is a system called a Section Eight (I might have the number wrong there) Declaration. This allows an owner to move his vessel for repair only.

Trotman would need a licensed Trade Plate Holder to move a vessel under that system. I suspect that this might be met with the same enthusiasm as the PLA Tugmen have shown. Miss-use of Trade Plates inevitably leads to the withdrawal of the privilege.

As for Section Eight (again, I might have number wrong) this has to be made in advance in writing, you can't just rock-up at a lock and announce it.

EA, therefore, still hold the cards.
 
Chris_d said:
Never heard of trade plates, but having moved an unlicensed barge a couple of years ago for a friend. The rule was if you are moving the boat to its place of sale to be sold or if you are moving the boat to have work carried out on it (similar to car MOT rules).

Was surprised that some of the lockies weren't aware of this rule as we were challenged, however we had confirmed with the EA beforehand.

But anyway it potentially gives Trotman some options to move if that is his intention, who knows :ambivalence:
Click to expand...

I'm intrigued about this , as I did 15 years on the lock that sold more visitor licences than the rest of the river put together , and I knew the licensing system inside out.

Who did you confirm this with ? Not the people at Sheffield / Rotherham who have no idea where the Thames actually is much less the intricacies of licensing on it ?

We'd get people rocking up with all sorts of stories that the good people up north had told them to tell us ( oh yes , it's fine , just tell the lock keeper and they'll let you through ! )

I'm afraid this just isn't true , otherwise no one would buy a licence , ever. They'd always 'just be moving it to a place of sale'

You can buy a section 9 licence at a daily rate to move things about for sale , to have work done on them etc , but this is chargeable at the same rate as a daily visitors licence and isn't available to Thames based boats.

only way to move unlicensed stuff about on the Thames is with trade plates. And you mustn't have 6 people on board all quaffing champers in their shorts on the hottest day of the year either ... The lock staff see through that.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we should assume that (at any rate all of) these vessels are unregistered. Registration was a focus of earlier proceedings, but Trotman's case in the recent hearing evidently included a (spurious) claim that Registration confers a right to moor. So he may well have plates on them now.
 
If he licensed his commercial vessels at the lower private rate, then the plate would be invalid, surely?

With all those gas bottles on board I'd forget the marshmallow idea, Howard.
I would however, gladly join you for a spud or two wrapped in foil. Then retire to a safe distance. The Anglers, for example:D
 
sarabande said:
I wonder whether the time has come to obtain a writ of mandamus to oblige the EA or other competent authorities to fulfill their regulatory, statutory or contractual obligations in relation to these hulks ?
Click to expand...

Unless there is a sudden and dramatic reversal of public opinion regards funding public services,the chancellor will not be persuading the government to persuade the majority party to vote to give DEFRA more money to allocate to the EA anytime soon.
Even some river users on the Thames are doing their money draining best to avoid contributing financialy to the up keep of the river.

http://www.riverthamesnews.com/News891.html

Basically no money and if you do divert resources to the legal dept it will just add further problems to ongoing DEFRA budget cuts. :(
As has been pointed out by others,unless and until somebody grabs the Thames navigation by the scruff of the neck and gives some sort over overall governance, and unravelling several millennia of history in the process(good luck with that ), the Thames is going to muddle on which merely aids the non payers sculking in the backwaters doing all they can to avoid contributing. :)
Perhaps a Royal Commission of some sort with HM as head and The DOE going round the marinas threatening to chop off vital bits on any refusal to cough up..



IF it floats on Thames water its on the Thames.
 
Last edited:
Taken 10 mins ago.
IMG_2040.jpg
Note the collection of hangers on, on the opposite bank, plus two old buckets tied to Trotmans flotilla.
Three residents were on deck when I passed.
 
I would have assumed that bit belongs to the EA but there is every chance that it doesn't so perhaps it is a new land owner who will have to take action?

I would have thought they would be regarded as an obstruction. Pretty sure if I moored my barge there I would get moved on. Difference being I would move if asked and would not actually moor there anyway.!!

All this publicity must be good for getting customers for the rooms to rent
 
That side used to be the official layby, so I'd be surprised if it isn't the EA's. There are piles and there are bollards.
I feel that either T has decided to move from one bank to the other to try and claim that he is not in breach of the order, or perhaps this is in preparation for an attempt to haul through the lock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top