Trotman barge below Hampton court

If mooring illegally under a heavily used pedestrian footbridge, in a collection of boats condemned by a surveyor as a 'tinderbox', while laden with gas cylinders is tolerated, I think we really have to abandon all hope of Trotman ever being reigned in.

This is a very real threat to the public and an important river crossing used by many hundreds daily. If the potential for this to all go horribly wrong turns into reality I trust that those that could have taken legitimate steps to avert this have explanations as to why they couldn't.
 
Lower Limit 1909 said:
If mooring illegally under a heavily used pedestrian footbridge, in a collection of boats condemned by a surveyor as a 'tinderbox', while laden with gas cylinders is tolerated, I think we really have to abandon all hope of Trotman ever being reigned in.

This is a very real threat to the public and an important river crossing used by many hundreds daily. If the potential for this to all go horribly wrong turns into reality I trust that those that could have taken legitimate steps to avert this have explanations as to why they couldn't.
Click to expand...

Just googled your username and I notice it refers to the boundary marker below teddington lock.

Very appropriate for this thread !
 
Outinthedinghy said:
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
Click to expand...

The weir island ( that he is moored to now ) does indeed belong to the EA.
 
JumbleDuck said:
If that's what the legislators wanted, that's what the law would say. My driveway is connected to the road system but I feel no guilt about having a SORNed car on it.
Click to expand...

Don't start that argument again please, but its not the same thing at all.
I guess there are some people who understand the principle at stake and those that have a different opinion.
Hopefully the EA will sort it out and correct the legislation.
 
Chris_d said:
Don't start that argument again please, but its not the same thing at all.
I guess there are some people who understand the principle at stake and those that have a different opinion.
Hopefully the EA will sort it out and correct the legislation.
Click to expand...
We have been advised that the appeal re registration of boats in marinas will be heard on 13th December
 
My driveway is connected to the road system but I feel no guilt about having a SORNed car on it.
Click to expand...

....but you are personally responsible for the up keep and mantainance of your hardstanding.
If the highways authority paid for an army of staff 24/365 to ensure your bit of surface concrete was actually there for your car to stand on undamaged, as opposed to resting on the hardcore rubble underneath, one would expect to pay for that service.

If you wish to not pay,then simples, supply your own tank and water.:)

Suspect the wording was written up when the navigation was mainly commercial and did not envisage a future bunch of self appointed hobby Thamesiteers exploiting the phrasing to avoid contributing towards the rivers upkeep.
They want all the advantages but not the resposibilities.

Ps. Does anybody know the correct spelling on mantainance. ??? :)
 
oldgit said:
....but you are personally responsible for the up keep and mantainance of your hardstanding.
If the highways authority paid for an army of staff 24/365 to ensure your bit of surface concrete was actually there for your car to stand on undamaged, as opposed to resting on the hardcore rubble underneath, one would expect to pay for that service.

If you wish to not pay,then simples, supply your own tank and water.:)

Suspect the wording was written up when the navigation was mainly commercial and did not envisage a future bunch of self appointed hobby Thamesiteers exploiting the phrasing to avoid contributing towards the rivers upkeep.
They want all the advantages but not the resposibilities.

Ps. Does anybody know the correct spelling on mantainance. ??? :)
Click to expand...

Exactly :) Risking serious thread drift here, but if you could SORN your boat the equivalent of off road would be out of the water.
Once the Marina has let the Thames water in it doesn't matter who owns the ground underneath, the boats are floating on the Thames.

Maintenance :encouragement:
 
Maybe all the people you are criticising should license their boats,stop paying for their moorings and bring them out onto the river and follow Trotman's example.Quite a saving there I would think,wander about a reach for a few years.
Would you all be happy then?
Cookham and Spade Oak moorings are currently full,I suspect there would be howls of protest from some on here come the summer months if this happened.
To lump all these people in with Trotman is,imho wrong.
We shall hopefully all find out on the 13th :)
 
oldgit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again we are treated to more vitriol from Oldgit on this previously comprehensively argued topic, this time seeking to associate the respondents in this case, with Trotman.

Oldgit does not (or need) to buy an EA registration for his vessel which is kept on a club mooring and costs approximately ¼ of the equivalent Thames adjacent water marina mooring. Not satisfied with his good management of his boating costs he takes any opportunity to pour scorn on others who should be commended for choosing to defend themselves against contrived criminal charges, exploiting one word of a phrase in the 1932 legislation. The EA resorted to this having been denied the legislation change that they needed in the Inland waterways order 2010.

The EA can do this because they are spending our money bringing these charges and then appealing when they lose. The respondents will not be adding much to the litigation financial burden because, if the respondents are successful again at the appeal, their costs will be limited to the Barristers fees at legal aid rates even though legal aid is not available to them.

As Chris_D cannot resist the opportunity of supporting Oldgit’s dismissal of a valid argument comparing a private driveway with a private adjacent water marina I would point out that the marinas in question carry out all their own maintenance inside the marina and cut. They set the rules for the marina, they deny access to the marina if they so choose. They are not charged for the valuable benefit of water level regulation that makes their business viable or even for their pontoons floating in that water. We all pay for water level regulation from general taxation.

If the presence of water emanating from the Thames made it the Thames, a riparian owner would surely have some recourse against the navigation authority when the Thames damages their home or business in the event of flood conditions. When the water is on your land it is your water and your problem. In this case it is the EA that want all the advantages but not the responsibilities.

I am content to await the outcome of the Appeal as it is the legality of the EA’s actions which is in question and it is in everyone’s interests that the EA act within the law.
 
TT_WO said:
As Chris_D cannot resist the opportunity of supporting Oldgit’s dismissal of a valid argument comparing a private driveway with a private adjacent water marina I would point out that the marinas in question carry out all their own maintenance inside the marina and cut. They set the rules for the marina, they deny access to the marina if they so choose. They are not charged for the valuable benefit of water level regulation that makes their business viable or even for their pontoons floating in that water. We all pay for water level regulation from general taxation.
Click to expand...

I think we will have to agree to disagree in this one, this is only a forum so winning an argument on here is not going to change anything.
The only point I don't understand though is that all the Marinas state in their terms and conditions that all boats should have a Thames license :ambivalence:
 
Chris_d said:
I just happen to think the EA are right.
Click to expand...

But in your post #110 you say "Hopefully the EA will sort it out and correct the legislation" which appears to acknowledge that you agree with the judge at Reading that the EA is not acting within the legislation. You can't have it both ways!

As to the EA "correcting the legislation"; it is for the EA to apply legislation made by Parliament - not make it up. And didn't they have every opportunity when they spent six years and almost a million pounds on the Inland Waterways Order only to be refused the powers they now so spuriously claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top