If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
i see another angler had an accident 9.45pm yesterday at the south pier sunderland,the coastguards were not happy,thats the second in a week WILL THEY LEARN .....
\"Poacher I\'ve moved this to the shore fishing section \"
the trouble is that the best fishing for miles is at Hendon and if they opened the south pier again and started issuing passes (and disclaimers to cover themselves) then that might sort a problem - in my opinion the sooner the docks go bust and housing is built there the better - because sooner or later it will happen -and access to the area will be available !
Can you just clarify.......the angler (and I read that there\'s been a second is as many days), was fishing from Sunderlands\' South pier?......and it\'s dangerous there?......so that\'s why it was closed?
If that\'s the case (and I\'ve read it right), then how would the issuing of passes and disclaimers have helped?
Can\'t really see how having a pass and having signed a disclaimer would\'ve rescued the 2 anglers.......or have I misunderstood.....lol
Tony, my understanding is that the pier was closed due to there being big holes in the foundations of the pier (I was there the day the divers came out and told us while we were fishing there). How many years ago this was I don\'t know.
Poacher, The angler in question, I\'m pretty sure, must have fallen, not been swept off as the sea had died off. (I might have been there on Sunday morning, then again ?I might not ) If this is the case, he could have fished just about anywhere with no railings and the same thing would have happened. If you yourself had been fishing a mark, tripped and fell in, would you expect a big WILL THEY LEARN about yourself? No, cos it was an accident.
As for the coastguards and other people saying its a dangerous place to fish, that didn\'t stop Sunderland port authority charging £12 a year to fish it! It\'s still the same place now as it was then, as is Hendon.
Sunderland port authority should have a look at their neighbours (Seaham) and see the efforts they\'re going to to give public access to the North pier and learn from it. Like Marty says, I hope they redevelop the land and the public gain access to it.
The dock security are sick of having to stop anglers and so are the police because they\'re of the opinion that the anglers are doing no harm.
when i was a lad (hahaha) i served my time in the south dock when it was owned by leblondes. i can remeber walking along the pier on a lunch time and chatting with lads fishing. like you say davy its a shame they dont take a leaf out of seaham\'s book.....
it\'s a cracking shot and has been said by many people to be one of the best in the north east, think its about time access was granted..
It is a cracking shot John, and it must be in the top 5 of marks in the North East. Knocks spots off Roker pier.
When I mentioned the divers, what I didn\'t mention were the Catfish they found in the foundations. They told me one or two were approaching double figures and that there were a good number of them.
Ever thought of contacting the property owners asking why they don\'t permit access and if they have any future plans to lift the access prohibition?
If they see that there is enough interest from anglers wanting to fish from there ( I\'m not talking about \"petitions\", here.....they are far too \"confrontational\"), they might just recondiser their stance.
Worth a try, if nowt else.
However if, as has been said, the pier has serious structural defects, I doubt if they\'d be allowed (by Law) to permit any public access due to it being designated a \"dangerous structure\".
the south pier is in my opinion THE best mark in the north east, i used to virtually live on there as davy will confirm. the reasons passes were stopped being issued were three fold. firstly the pier needed a hell of a lot of repairs to the foundations (talked regularly with the divers who did the surveys and repairs underwater and they said there was a lot of big holes opening up which could have been easily repaired but the port authority would not spend the cash needed to do the job properly but instead botched it each year spending as less money as possible,) typical ! secondly the lifebouys were always getting washed away due to their positioning on the outer wall, this was addressed in the last couple of years of passes being issued by placing the lifebouys inside the arches (as we had told them to do for many years prior, however this was i believe still quoted as one of the reasons access was denied. thirdly and i think this was the main reason is they are afraid of being sued for any accidents occuring. we always had to sign a disclaimer when our passes were issued, however in the age we are in now these disclaimers are not worth the paper they are written on, and although you may have signed a disclaimer i understand you can still take action against them.
its a great pity the south pier was an excellent mark for cod, coalies, whiting and macky, and a very easy pier to fish, a good mixture of clean ground to very snaggy ground, a perfectly safe mark if you used common sense.
with all these blame and claim companies now i think its only a matter of time before many other fishing marks are closed.
Oh well, at least you\'ve tried, Davy.
Obviously, I don\'t know the extent of the repair work needed to the piers\' foundations, nor how much the work would cost, but I guess they have bigger priorities on which to spend their money and if it IS in a dangerous state of disrepair, then the only thing I assume they can do is to not allow people onto it.
As Micky points out, we seem to live a \"claim cukture\" and if they were to allow the public onto the pier without having carried out the repair work, they\'d be leaving themselves wide open to God knows how many insurance claims.
what i have been told on the grapevine (i have no idea if its true, but sounds plausable) is that the work needed to do the repairs properly would cost several hundered thousand pounds which the port authority would have to foot, but what they are waiting for is the pier to be actually breached by a big sea, the repair would then cost considerably more but be so urgent as to qualify for eec funding.
can anyone confirm this to be the case ???
I think we\'d have to have somebody from the Port to answer that one, Micky.
However, \"plausable\" is just about right.
Now I\'m NOT saying it IS the case in this instance, but having worked in Local Govt for nigh on 30 years, I do know that that sort of thing does happen. ie, let a stuation get out of hand, (on the grounds of lack of resources) until there comes a time when immediate action is needed......that way the funding comes from Central Govt and not from the L.A.
Lets just hope for some really stupendous seas and see how long the pier lasts before it is breached. (I hope there\'s nobody on it who shouldn\'t be when that does happen.......
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
\"
Comment