Very Worrying - UK Wreck Legislation

*JohnKendall* · February 7th, 2006, 07:18 PM

Hi Guys,

This was posted on the BSAC forums earlier today:

Quote:

At the Plymouth wreck conference at the weekend leaflets were circulated concerning two Governmental review groups that are currently looking at wreck legislation. These groups have been formed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. One group is looking at salvage law, the other at wreck designation and protection.

Among the propsals being considered it is aleged that the following are on the table;

1 All wrecks over 50 years old to be designated as historic wrecks and protected as such.

2 Mandatory that divers report all items or wrecks they find to the government

3 Salvage awards to be abolished

4 A massive extension of the number of Designated sites and protected wrecks under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to include any wreck that involved any loss of life, whether military or merchant seaman.

The leaflet also stated that the DCM&S will not allow any representation on these working groups from the Diving organisations.

Does anyone know anything about it?

J

GLOC · February 7th, 2006, 07:28 PM

I think there was a big run on YD about this, from what I remember was the consensus was that it would be almost impossible to police and the government would make some noises to start with and then it would fall in the TFD bucket - which I hope.

I'll try and find the threads on YD later and post them here

http://www.yorkshire-divers.co.uk/fo...ghlight=graves

Regards

Gareth

Martin Burnard · February 7th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Point 4 was the result of 2 sisters who had a relative who died on a merchant vessel during the war. They argued that the wreck site was a war grave (previously reserverved for military vessels only). This was upheld.

The knock on effect is that any vessel sunk with a loss of life could be a grave site and therfore not to be dived.

The other points I don't know about.

*Clare Gledhill* · February 7th, 2006, 09:57 PM

Martin it appears to be much more widespread than that.

I have spoken to the Chairman of the Department of Culture Media and Sport Select Committee about this and he will table parliamentary questions about it tomorrow about the consultation and the reasons behind excluding divers organisations from the working parties.

jluttichau · February 7th, 2006, 10:03 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by JohnKendall)

Hi Guys,

This was posted on the BSAC forums earlier today:

Does anyone know anything about it?

J

It's a lot like the laws we have here in Denmark, but I don't think people report what they salvage.
We have a few wrecks that a protected because they are of historic importance. If you wan't to dive them you have to apply at least a week before and submit a list with the names of the divers, you then get a 2 - 3 day window to dive the wreck and you are obligated to report any findings like canons or riffels and the general condition of the wreck.

Cheers
Jonas

Martin Burnard · February 7th, 2006, 10:36 PM

Sounds like muppets trying to justify thier salary, and screw up other people in the process.

Some of the legislation in the motor trade recently could only have been invented by somebody who knows nothing about the motor trade, or the criminals that exist.

The paperwork for the new rules would never be filled out by criminals anyway ( imagine somebody robbing a bank, would they register the getaway car in their name? I think not! ).

Similair going on here... jobs for the boys and girls, no real purpose.

But I do believe that 90% of people in government are a waste of space, 5% spend 90% of their time trying to be a waste of space, and 5% are sincere in their attempts to do good.

Mutter, mumble, moan, groan.

Grumpy git.

nadwidny · February 8th, 2006, 03:38 AM

Quote: (Originally Posted by eric)

We have lots of similar issues with legislation occurring in Canada as well right now. Best thing you can do is work with them instead of against them, this way you may be able to get permits and get involved with the wrecks.

That's a laugh. Try and get a permit for the Hamilton and Scourge and you'll find out how far "working with them" goes.

K Ripley · February 8th, 2006, 03:44 AM

Quote: (Originally Posted by nadwidny)

That's a laugh. Try and get a permit for the Hamilton and Scourge and you'll find out how far "working with them" goes.

You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with the right group and a little effort.

Adrian Kelland · February 17th, 2006, 12:16 PM

Slight update on things;

http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/sh...7343#post27343

Gareth Burrows · February 17th, 2006, 12:36 PM

Quote: (Originally Posted by K Ripley)

You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with the right group and a little effort.

ahh, that'll be why we still can't dive the Hood then, despite a concerted and organised national and international campaign involving thousands of divers, a compaign which made not one jot of difference to the final decision, or indeed the decision making process. Orwell is proved more correct every day.

/cynic.

February 7th, 2006, 07:18 PM	#1 (permalink)
JohnKendall(Offline) GUE Instructor/DIRX Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 1,102	Very Worrying - UK Wreck Legislation Hi Guys, This was posted on the BSAC forums earlier today: Quote: At the Plymouth wreck conference at the weekend leaflets were circulated concerning two Governmental review groups that are currently looking at wreck legislation. These groups have been formed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. One group is looking at salvage law, the other at wreck designation and protection. Among the propsals being considered it is aleged that the following are on the table; 1 All wrecks over 50 years old to be designated as historic wrecks and protected as such. 2 Mandatory that divers report all items or wrecks they find to the government 3 Salvage awards to be abolished 4 A massive extension of the number of Designated sites and protected wrecks under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to include any wreck that involved any loss of life, whether military or merchant seaman. The leaflet also stated that the DCM&S will not allow any representation on these working groups from the Diving organisations. Does anyone know anything about it? J __________________ John Kendall http://www.guetraining.com/ GUE Instruction, Santi and Halcyon Equipment NEW - Online Santi Shop

February 7th, 2006, 07:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
GLOC(Offline) Moderator Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Fleet, Hants Posts: 1,994	I think there was a big run on YD about this, from what I remember was the consensus was that it would be almost impossible to police and the government would make some noises to start with and then it would fall in the TFD bucket - which I hope. I'll try and find the threads on YD later and post them here http://www.yorkshire-divers.co.uk/fo...ghlight=graves Regards Gareth Last edited by GLOC; February 7th, 2006 at 07:41 PM. Reason: Added some links

February 7th, 2006, 09:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
Clare Gledhill(Offline) GUE Instructor Site Admin Pacman Champion! Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: UK Posts: 1,547	Martin it appears to be much more widespread than that. I have spoken to the Chairman of the Department of Culture Media and Sport Select Committee about this and he will table parliamentary questions about it tomorrow about the consultation and the reasons behind excluding divers organisations from the working parties. __________________ Clare . "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions....Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you too can become great." Interested in DIR dive training? Always happy to chat/answer questions so get in touch via PM or visit www.dirdiver.co.uk

February 8th, 2006, 03:38 AM	#7 (permalink)
nadwidny(Offline) New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Posts: 117	Quote: (Originally Posted by eric) We have lots of similar issues with legislation occurring in Canada as well right now. Best thing you can do is work with them instead of against them, this way you may be able to get permits and get involved with the wrecks. That's a laugh. Try and get a permit for the Hamilton and Scourge and you'll find out how far "working with them" goes. __________________ Brian My crappy website - members.shaw.ca/nadwidny

February 8th, 2006, 03:44 AM	#8 (permalink)
K Ripley(Offline) New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 43	Quote: (Originally Posted by nadwidny) That's a laugh. Try and get a permit for the Hamilton and Scourge and you'll find out how far "working with them" goes. You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with the right group and a little effort. Last edited by K Ripley; February 8th, 2006 at 03:50 AM.

February 7th, 2006, 09:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Martin Burnard(Offline) New Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Plymouth, UK Posts: 580	Point 4 was the result of 2 sisters who had a relative who died on a merchant vessel during the war. They argued that the wreck site was a war grave (previously reserverved for military vessels only). This was upheld. The knock on effect is that any vessel sunk with a loss of life could be a grave site and therfore not to be dived. The other points I don't know about.

February 7th, 2006, 10:03 PM	#5 (permalink)
jluttichau(Offline) Custom User Title Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Denmark Posts: 437	Quote: (Originally Posted by JohnKendall) Hi Guys, This was posted on the BSAC forums earlier today: Does anyone know anything about it? J It's a lot like the laws we have here in Denmark, but I don't think people report what they salvage. We have a few wrecks that a protected because they are of historic importance. If you wan't to dive them you have to apply at least a week before and submit a list with the names of the divers, you then get a 2 - 3 day window to dive the wreck and you are obligated to report any findings like canons or riffels and the general condition of the wreck. Cheers Jonas

February 7th, 2006, 10:36 PM	#6 (permalink)
Martin Burnard(Offline) New Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Plymouth, UK Posts: 580	Sounds like muppets trying to justify thier salary, and screw up other people in the process. Some of the legislation in the motor trade recently could only have been invented by somebody who knows nothing about the motor trade, or the criminals that exist. The paperwork for the new rules would never be filled out by criminals anyway ( imagine somebody robbing a bank, would they register the getaway car in their name? I think not! ). Similair going on here... jobs for the boys and girls, no real purpose. But I do believe that 90% of people in government are a waste of space, 5% spend 90% of their time trying to be a waste of space, and 5% are sincere in their attempts to do good. Mutter, mumble, moan, groan. Grumpy git.

February 17th, 2006, 12:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
Adrian Kelland(Offline) Can't remember Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Exeter - Team of 1 Posts: 271	An update Slight update on things; http://www.bsacforum.co.uk/forums/sh...7343#post27343

February 17th, 2006, 12:36 PM	#10 (permalink)
Gareth Burrows(Offline) Chimp 2 Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Horsham, West Sussex Posts: 368	Quote: (Originally Posted by K Ripley) You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with the right group and a little effort. ahh, that'll be why we still can't dive the Hood then, despite a concerted and organised national and international campaign involving thousands of divers, a compaign which made not one jot of difference to the final decision, or indeed the decision making process. Orwell is proved more correct every day. /cynic. __________________ Garf Amusing and Clever Signature under construction.