Page 49 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3944454647484950515253 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 529
  1. #481
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Far S. Cornwall
    Posts
    13,132

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Yes, MCA wanting improvements to old Thames boats, impossible to carry out. Oh, but the Marchioness....well if any ‘improved’ boat was run down by the Bow Belle it would still sink.

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    1,504

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Hot Property View Post
    The fact that the MCA appears to have contacted just the RYA and Crusing Association says it all really....

    The world works in a different way now and when I emailed the MCA I suggested that they should have posted a direct thread on this forum which must surely be the largest one in the UK with many thousands of (mostly) knowledgeable owner drivers.

    As to what can be done once the "regulations" have been published I think a (crowd funded) legal challenge may make them sit up and listen if the regulations are not significantly altered.

    As owners we need to front up to unnecessary regulation or suffer the consequences in the years to come....
    I think there is some duplicity here. When this post first appeared I contacted the CA and alerted their appropriate Committee Chairman who thanked me, then contacted other members of the group and who I believe have sent a response. I got the impression it was the first they had heard about the consultation! My guess is that the MCA is now saying they consulted the CA because they have had a response. No knowledge of the RYA situation.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    13,713

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurrawong_Kid View Post
    I think there is some duplicity here. When this post first appeared I contacted the CA and alerted their appropriate Committee Chairman who thanked me, then contacted other members of the group and who I believe have sent a response. I got the impression it was the first they had heard about the consultation! My guess is that the MCA is now saying they consulted the CA because they have had a response. No knowledge of the RYA situation.
    This is from the email I got from the MCA:-

    we have carried out a significant stakeholder engagement exercise in the lead up to the MGNs where representative bodies such as the RYA and the Cruising Association were consulted upon in the drafting stages.

    Can I suggest that you contact your colleagues in the CA and try and find out exactly what "significant stakeholder engagement" they were involved with. If someone in the MCA is not telling the truth, it needs to be the subject of official and formal disciplinary procedure.
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    9,353

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    The MCA told the RYA that they had been “consulting with suppliers” but not with “members organisations”!

    They also told the RYA that they had consulted with the CA when they had not done so.

    Anyway, here’s my effort:

    Dear Sirs,

    I am not going to respond as requested. You have already received many responses pointing out the numerous errors in your draft documents.

    I want to make three different points

    First, the time allowed for this consultation is inadequate. To illustrate, the Regulation and Technical Services Committee of the Cruising Association (“CA”) meets on the third Thursday of each month. Your timing gave the RATS Committee one of the leading sources of knowledge in this field, precisely two days to respond.

    You should extend this.

    Next, I am reluctant to accuse a Government agency of lying, but you informed the Royal Yachting Association (“RYA”) that you had consulted with the CA when in fact you had not done so. I would prefer to think that this was an honest mistake on your part, in which case you are merely incompetent rather than mendacious.

    This does not assist your case for putting forward “guidance”

    Finally, and much more important, your draft MGNs represent the very first attempt by the MGA or its predecessors to assert any jurisdiction over private pleasure craft. You are trying to do so through the back door but it by no means clear that you have any right in law to do so. Your claim that your general duty to promote safety at sea gives you the right, let alone the powers, to do so is specious.

    You have already said in response to others who have written to you that you are not making regulations, merely “offering guidance as to best practice”. This is in itself devious and specious.

    You do not have knowledge or experience in private pleasure craft, and your draft MGNs make this abundantly clear, as they are full of mistakes that others have already pointed out to you.

    All you can do it to regurgitate advice already available (and well known) from the voluntary bodies which currently arrange education training and dissemination of expertise in the private pleasure sector.

    The safety record of private pleasure craft in Britain is extremely good; the RoSPA data supplied to you by others makes this very clear,

    Britain’s record in safety in private pleasure craft is almost certainly as good as, if not indeed better than, that of other nations - the USA and France for example - which use Government regulation of private pleasure craft.

    Britain leads the world in yachting thanks to a very well run and entirely voluntary system of safety promotion and training run by inter alia the RYA, the CA, the RORC and many others.

    You yourselves benefit from your co-operation with the RYA in the large yacht sector. This sector depends on the private pleasure sector in boats of less than 13.7 metres register length, which feeds it.

    There is therefore no good reason for your attempts to assert influence over private pleasure craft. You are likely to do more harm than good. You should stop now.

    We all know the background to this, your failed prosecution in the Cheeki Rafiki case and the criticisms of the MCA made in that case, your consequent “loss of face” and the arrival of an activist Chief Executive from the subsidised housing sector who is no doubt thinking of the Grenfell Tower disaster have caused you to rush in where for the past two centuries angels have feared to tread.

    Because the owner of a yacht used for training made use of his ability to treat his training yacht as a private pleasure craft you have most unwisely sought to extend your remit into private pleasure craft when the more natural approach would be to restrict the ability of commercial operators to treat their vessels as private craft from time to time.

    I am copying this to the merchant ship Register section of the MCA because I persuaded my Board of Directors to put half a million tons of merchant shipping under your flag ten years ago and I have just been asked by them for my opinion on their operations.

    I am at present in the middle of replacing these ships and the question of flag has come up thanks in part to “Brexit”.

    I was about to respond that I have been entirely satisfied, indeed delighted, with the UK Register of Ships. when my attention was drawn to your so-called “Consultation”.

    That the MCA is prepared to behave in the way in which you are conducting yourselves makes me re-consider whether the UK flag is indeed going to be appropriate for my employers’ fleet in the future.

    I have no comment to make on the commercial sector which you already regulate. That is between commercial operators of small commercial vessels and yourselves.

    I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to exclude private pleasure craft from your “draft guidance”.

    To say as you repeatedly have said that these MGNs - the first ever issued for private pleasure vessels- are “advisory only” is not good enough.

    To put it more bluntly - Brian Johnson needs to get his tanks off our lawn.

    Yours
    Last edited by Minn; 18-07-19 at 12:38.

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Where life is good
    Posts
    13,713

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    I would suggest Mr Johnson needs to seek an alternative career.
    Life is too short to drink bad wine.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Second Coast, Ross-shire, overlooking Gruinard Bay.
    Posts
    7,220

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Well said Minn.
    Thank you for taking the time to construct and communicate such a wholly appropriate response.
    R
    Kay Sarah Sarah
    57°51.42' N 5°29.44' W

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Wilson View Post
    Well said Minn.
    Thank you for taking the time to construct and communicate such a wholly appropriate response.
    R
    +1, a very good response thank you Minn.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    South Devon
    Posts
    289

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Wilson View Post
    Well said Minn.
    Thank you for taking the time to construct and communicate such a wholly appropriate response.
    R
    Agreed.

    I especially enjoyed the open threat. Unfortunately I suspect that this is likely to stiffen resolve. It often does with prickly characters.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    202

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Balbas View Post
    Agreed.

    I especially enjoyed the open threat. Unfortunately I suspect that this is likely to stiffen resolve. It often does with prickly characters.
    And control freaks........

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlantic
    Posts
    20,430

    Default Re: The end of owner maintenance ...

    Wow, Minn, I enjoyed that!

    A threat to throw half a million tons of teddies outa the pram! Brill.

    Im sure though that the Agency response to that will be far more controlled and professional than my knee jerk reaction....

    A minor (very in the grand scheme of things) but would it be prudent to delete the named person and insert an anonymous substitute on a public forum? Genuine question.

Page 49 of 53 FirstFirst ... 3944454647484950515253 LastLast

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
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to