Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    "Then they would have checked before lifting it".

    Such confidence and total belief, in that if you are not looking for something, you will never find it.

    Perhaps you can enlighten me about your automatic presumption about lifting details. What are the issues, as far as you are aware, when it comes to lifting large vessel?

    Regards,

    Noah

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,428

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    Have a look at his profile. M.V. Picton is quite famous, even on these forums
    Do an all forums search for Picton

    or have a look at these threads

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=ym&Number=201037&page=&view =&sb=&o=&vc=1> here</A>

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=LIVEABOARD&Number=207511&pa ge=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1>and here</A>

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=ym&Number=296997&Search =true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=picton&Match=Or&Searc hpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=296997>and here</A>

    Then everything suddenly clicked. Do a search on username firstspirit. The mysterious story across just about every forum about a Big Bang on a boat in a marina, and the search for advice on what we'd do if a marina had caused damage to our boat in such a way

    <hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by BrendanS on 14/05/2003 22:10 (server time).</FONT></P>

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    Please allow me,

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boatsyachtsmarinas.com/cgi-bin/datacgi/database.cgi?file=Forum&report=Subtopic&SubtopicID =00004209&firstrecord=0&finalrecord=49>click here</A>

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boatsyachtsmarinas.com/cgi-bin/datacgi/database.cgi?file=Forum&report=Subtopic&SubtopicID =00004186&firstrecord=0&finalrecord=49>click here</A>

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=pbo&Number=242949&page=&vie w=&sb=&o=&vc=1>click here</A>

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.dragonsoccer.co.uk/fanzpic13.htm>click here</A>

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boatsyachtsmarinas.com/cgi-bin/datacgi/database.cgi?file=Classified&report=CategoryAds&Ca tegoryID=004>click here</A>


    Feel free to join the campaign for justice!

    Regards,

    Noah

    <hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by kimhollamby on 15/05/2003 01:20 (server time).</FONT></P>

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,925

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    Well lets put it this way. If I was a crane operater and I was called in to lift something, I would ask what the thing wieghed. I'm not going to take a crane with a SWL of 10 tons to lift a 50 tone load.

    Then theres the question of insurance, cos if I lifted something and it all went pear shaped and it was found out that I'd used equipment that was not rated for the job then the customer could sue the shirt off my back and the insurance co would not cover me. The worst case senario is that if it all went wrong and I killed someone, I'm then open to criminal prosecution.

    Now, use a bit off common sense. Do you really think an organisation like the RNLI would use some cowboy gippo outfit to lift a craft that cost 100's of 1000's of pounds. The job more than likely went out to tender or an approved contactor was more than likely used.

    So if it went out to an approved contactor or tender. Then it is more than likely that the RNLI would have asked contactors with experience of lifting such vessels and not the local dock contractor used to swinging bundles of timber or containers around. So taking it as read that the contactor was used to this type of job and it was probably overseen by a representative of the RNLI who knew what they were doing. The crane used for lifting the craft was upto the job and that questions like the one you asked were probably viewed as a bit stupid!

    The type of people that carry out this within the RNLI are not the "public face" of the organisation, but more the support staff that probably run on a tight schedule and budget, cos time is money especially when your hiring a crane, I'm not surprised that the chap was a bit short with you!!

    Is that enough for you?

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    In short, no.

    But I am still grateful for the response, thank you.

    I just want to be clear about something to avoid any confusion.... these questions of mine were not put to someone actually during a lifting operation, as I know that this would indeed be stupid. It was a retrospective general enquiry.

    I acknowledge your absolute faith in the idea that the RNLI would appoint qualified operators to perform a lifting operation. "Common sense", there is no such a creature but in this instance common assumption appears to be ruling your opinion.

    I ask a simple question, nobody wants to answer......why not? Where is your value of common sense now?

    Who are the parties that need to be consulted in such a lifting op?

    1. The marina company, most definitely, for vessel access and use of the wharf for lifting purposes.

    2. The Crane Company, possibly overseen by the on site, marina appointed contractors or private outside contractors.

    3. The Landowners, for permission to use the land upon which the vessel is about to be laid and for someone of the landowners (or actual tenant) who has the authority to confirm that the land is 'safe and suitable' for the lifting equipments, boats rigging, etc.

    4. The police or Highways section of the local Council where it is understood to that the lifting operations may have an impact on traffic movements or liability to cause a public disorder.

    I just wonder if people could open their minds just a little more, instead of shooting down the questioner?

    Regards,

    Noah

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,428

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    Take a step back and look at what you're asking. You stated yourself that the lift took place several years ago, and that you recently wondered about it.

    You wrote to the RNLI asking about this lift. It took place years ago, using equipment that belongs to someone else. Someone kindly sent you some information on the boat. They quite rightly couldn't be bothered to dig out old records on the contractor (which may may this time have been archived or destroyed), then contact the contractors to request details about the crane. You contact them again, and ask again for details on the crane which they don't have, and would take some effort to aquire. You were rebuffed.

    Your request is unreasonable. With no reason other than idle curiosity, why on earth should they go to all this trouble to answer a question which has no practicable use (unless you have hidden motives, which were very much a case of frustration here when you posted as firstspirit, when you were asked over and over to explain what on earth you were on about).

    I'll state again, it was a silly question, and the RNLI have far better things to do than answer questions which would entail a fair amount of work to uncover. This is not the same as asking general questions at an RNLI station where they can be answered off the cuff as a PR exercise to the general public



    <hr width=100% size=1>

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,925

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    Well ok then. If I had a phone call at my office asking if the ladders or towers we had used on a job were up to it, I'd want to know who it was calling, on what grounds were they making the call and why they really wanted to know. Unless I know who I am talking too, I don't have to divulge any info what so ever. Thats my perogative.

    Unfortunatly theres not enough common sence used in this world. The RNLI is a proffesional organization. They run to strict set of rules. I doubt very much that they treat lifting one of their craft in a flippant way. I've been to the HQ in Poole. Had a look round and was surprised at how regimented the workshops and support side of this are.

    Your points 1-4 are valid. Each of those parties are liable to make the appropriate arrangements for the lift to take place. It seems that you are digging at something here that you have an axe to grind about. Each job will be looked at on an individual basis. I doubt that any 2 jobs are the same. So instead of trying to justify yourself about asking questions of the RNLI, which they are not obliged to answer, the only peo;le that are in a valid postion to get an answer is the HSE. Tell us the real reason you are posting such questions for. To be honest if I was the person in the RNLI office that took your call, I'd want to know why the hell you were asking it!

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    First assumption, "using equipment that belongs to someone else". I do not know that, how would I know?

    "They quite rightly couldn't be bothered to dig out old records on the contractor (which may may this time have been archived or destroyed), then contact the contractors to request details about the crane."

    Actually the inspector made an allegation that "the operators of this crane are known to you". Not true, I have no idea what the guy is on about. But interesting to note that he has made some effort and spent time and resources in forming his opinion about me and making comment on my circumstances.

    "ask again for details on the crane which they don't have," yet another assumption, who said they did not have them? I happen to believe that he just did not want to be the mug who provided me with them, see points in previous post.

    "why on earth should they go to all this trouble to answer a question which has no practicable use (unless you have hidden motives, which were very much a case of frustration here when you posted as firstspirit, when you were asked over and over to explain what on earth you were on about).

    What "all this trouble"? The 'trouble' is not the question, it's the fact that this guy came back with an answer of supposition and conjecture about my personal circumstances.

    Practical use to whom?

    I believe the postings you refer to, posted by Firstspirit, fully explained the circumstances and the need to proect the innocent, especially as they are experiencing this whole matter under great duress.

    "I'll state again, it was a silly question, and the RNLI have far better things to do than answer questions which would entail a fair amount of work to uncover."

    I respect your point of view about the question (as an opinion) but I would ask again, how much was it a far better thing to do to make enquiries of me, discover my identity, my circumstances, etc., and what business is it of a Divisional Inspector of the RNLI to do such research, and simultaneously make written comment on my private affairs?

    Divisional Inspectors of Lifeboats KNOW everything about their boats, it's their duty to know, so the idea that records and archive searching would have been involved here, is a non-starter for me.

    Perhaps for the benefit of all those silly people out there who ask silly questions, (whilst donating their cash to a good cause) about an engine of a vessel, or how much fuel is used on a shout, or how far do they travel or how fast can they go, or what does it cost to run one, etc., l may forward a suggestion to the local station, that they ought to know, what size cranes are used in lifting OPS.

    I would kindly suggest the correct way to have answered my simple enquiry would have been a very simple no sorry, can not help and nothing else. The behaviour of this inspector, only creates more of a wonder, as to what is at the bottom of this rather strange process of question-handling by the RNLI.

    Regards,

    Noah

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    91

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    So, many people think I am daft, an axe to grind, etc. Since when has it been an offence to ask questions in these countries. Why do I ask?

    To convince myself of the truly 'independant' nature and overall integrity of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and those who have been, or are, in charge of its affairs.

    It's not my question that is the issue, IT'S THE WAY I HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN INVESTIGATED BY AN INSPECTOR OF THE ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION, THAT IS!

    Regards,

    Noah.

    <hr width=100% size=1>

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    57,428

    Default Re: Not Suprised

    &gt;&gt;First assumption, "using equipment that belongs to someone else". I do not know that, how would I know?&lt;&lt;

    Why on earth would the RNLI own such equipment, anymore than you or I would. They use the services of people who own such equipment. It simply isn't cost effective to own cranes all round the UK on the basis they might be needed for a few hours a year.

    &gt;&gt;Actually the inspector made an allegation that "the operators of this crane are known to you". Not true, I have no idea what the guy is on about. But interesting to note that he has made some effort and spent time and resources in forming his opinion about me and making comment on my circumstances.&lt;&lt;

    You are well know, and the way you angle discussions into a direction which suits you, would suggest your 'polite' correspondence with him had driven him into the same frame of mind into which you have driven many forum members here.

    &gt;&gt; yet another assumption, who said they did not have them? I happen to believe that he just did not want to be the mug who provided me with them, see points in previous post.&lt;&lt;

    As I've stated previously, why should the RNLI hold current records for a crane which was used years ago, and did not belong to the RNLI?

    &gt;&gt;What "all this trouble"? The 'trouble' is not the question, it's the fact that this guy came back with an answer of supposition and conjecture about my personal circumstances. &lt;&lt;

    You asked an unreasonable question. You simply cannot understand that the RNLI might not hold those records, and yet you persisted in trying to obtain them



    &gt;&gt;I believe the postings you refer to, posted by Firstspirit, fully explained the circumstances and the need to proect the innocent, especially as they are experiencing this whole matter under great duress.&lt;&lt;

    Go back and read all those threads. People became very irritated by the strange questions and responses, with no actual facts or details, despite many requests from people who would have quite happily have given advice from many perspectives, if only they could have understood the basis of your questions, and some detail around what had actually happened


    &gt;&gt;I respect your point of view about the question (as an opinion) but I would ask again, how much was it a far better thing to do to make enquiries of me, discover my identity, my circumstances, etc., and what business is it of a Divisional Inspector of the RNLI to do such research, and simultaneously make written comment on my private affairs?&lt;&lt;

    Without seeing the correspondence from both sides, how can I possibly comment on your claims?

    &gt;&gt;Divisional Inspectors of Lifeboats KNOW everything about their boats, it's their duty to know, so the idea that records and archive searching would have been involved here, is a non-starter for me.&lt;&lt;

    They might know everything about their boats, why should they KNOW details of every lifting crane that they have ever hired in the past, when those cranes are not owned and operated by the RNLI

    &gt;&gt;Perhaps for the benefit of all those silly people out there who ask silly questions, (whilst donating their cash to a good cause) about an engine of a vessel, or how much fuel is used on a shout, or how far do they travel or how fast can they go, or what does it cost to run one, etc., l may forward a suggestion to the local station, that they ought to know, what size cranes are used in lifting OPS.&lt;&lt;

    You're heading off for another planet rapidly here. Perhaps local stations should also be given information on the number of toilets installed in HQ, and how many toilet rolls are supplied to each cubicle on an annual basis, also the home addresses and telephone members of volunteer crew members should you ever require to call one of them at 3am for a quick chat about cranes?

    &gt;&gt;I would kindly suggest the correct way to have answered my simple enquiry would have been a very simple no sorry, can not help and nothing else. The behaviour of this inspector, only creates more of a wonder, as to what is at the bottom of this rather strange process of question-handling by the RNLI. &lt;

    Possibly this would have been the correct route, but I really wonder about the content of your correspondence to them, based on your posting history here. You seem to have a real knack for winding people up, and personally I can't blame them for responding to you in quite a robust manner (probably in the hope that you'd never contact them again)



    <hr width=100% size=1>

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •