Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 19/07/13 in all areas

  1. Strange I read it as C&RT explaining and informing what is required and if you try to bend the rules, you only have yourself to blame when your boat is removed.
    19 points
  2. Come on be reasonable - if you not doing 'owt wrong, you are in no danger of being lifted.
    2 points
  3. Oh, ohhhhhhhh. Really? Talk about menacing. So all you people who don't move along at great speed, be affraid. You'll be next. This has to be the most nasty, and ill thought out statement so far. How do they manage to include the CC rules into this? And did you notice the underhand threat to all other CCers? So there we have it. On the one hand, chuggers trying to lambast the public into spending money, and on the other hand a tightning noose for those who don't want to leave their boat in a marina. Happy dayz ahead
    2 points
  4. That's because we are sizing you up.... Never get friendly with a victim it only complicates matters.
    2 points
  5. I'm training at Cranfleet Lock tomorrow afternoon so please point and laugh say hi if you are passing.
    1 point
  6. I'm no great fan of the camo boat - having shared their waterways for a while I was uncomfortable when they were around because their actions always seemed suspicious. Arriving in Loughborough Basin at midnight, then leaving at 2am. Following us up the Soar, not communicating with us and then winding paddles to refill the lock before we'd closed the gates. Yep, nothing concrete, just a feeling that all wasn't right. BUT the information provided makes me deeply uncomfortable. If their boat has been removed for non compliance with CC rules I am surprised, because they did move regularly over quite a distance. The statement talks about the shuttling around over a small area - we're talking between Loughborough, Beeston and Fradley Junction - that's not a small distance and a legitimate cruising distance.. If they're guilty of thieving then try and convict them for that, but please don't muddy the cc rules by removing undesirables using that as an excuse. I'd be very interested to read the judge's ruling to see why he came to that conclusion - I suspect there's more information than we're party to.
    1 point
  7. If I recall correctly, is not the crew and boat that were accused in a former thread of stealing a boat from Sawley marina by towing it away? Yet, so far as I recall, despite much discussion of the theft, i don't think anyone could produce any evidence that the police had been involved, and hence there was no crime number? Seemed a bit odd at the time, to me. Do we actually know these people are currently detained, and if so what charged with, or is that just an assumption? Edit (for typo)
    1 point
  8. 1 point
  9. It is a local councillor who promotes the upkeep of our village together with the numerous festivals that are held here throughout the year. This particular guy is in his late sixties but has more energy and drive than most blokes half of his age. I just hope that someone else takes up the mantle when he retires. The councillors also appreciate the benefits that the canal and it's boaters bring to this locality, something that is sorely missed I believe in other areas. Others whom also should be applauded are the volunteers and various canal societies who do their bit too! I met a boater from Manchester earlier today who commented on his calloused hands following his voluntary work on the Ashton Canal. When asked about the Rochdale he said that that was the next challenge on the agenda. If local councils were enlightened to the benefits of keeping their stretch of canal clean and tidy then no doubt the local people would follow suit. It just needs strong leadership with a bit of insight. As for dog poo, there can be no excuse for leaving such mess behind from your pet's toilet needs. The young lady we met on her travels along the towpath with her two dogs and a cat left no trace of her presence when leaving. She had very little money but was rich in self-pride!
    1 point
  10. I'm certainly not defending what it is claimed these people did, (if they did). However CRT should always seen to be acting within the law and their powers, and I think quite a few people might feel uncomfortable if they selectively used one reason to actually deal with a quite different problem. As they have taken this to court, I assume they have convinced at least one judge they are acting within their powers, but the explanation given seems decidedly odd in the circumstances. Surely if someone is theiving, and you can produce evidence they are theiving, it is a police matter, and they should be pursued for that, and taken to court for thieving, if a case exists? If these people are theives, taking their boat away is hardly going to stop that behaviour when they have to find somewhere else to live is it? This certainly isn't me condoning what they are claimed to have done - how could you? - but whilst the action taken may have solved a problem for CRT, and boaters in that vicinity, it is hard to see how it has solved a problem for society generally.
    1 point
  11. Some would say the same of those who don't know the difference between "you're" not "your".
    1 point
  12. The defensive attitude of some forum members makes me think they are expecting to be next on the list of scrotes for removal. Having read the previous topics I would have expected strong support for enforcement.
    1 point
  13. As far as I'm concerned if this low life is removed from the waterways it can only be a good thing. Why should the rest of us have to put up with his behaviour? And why are the keyboard warriors actually defending this idiot? I don't care how or under what regulation they removed his boat. Him and it are gone.
    1 point
  14. Well the first one, no. But the second one yes. Its somebody who disagrees with me.
    1 point
  15. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  16. Hmmm .... being a scientific sort, I thought I would do some research today to see if we could back this wild claim up with some hard empirical data .... and these are my staggering results, including my study of non-boaters for statistical porpoises .... 96.8% of boaters I passed did indeed bear an uncanny resemblance to Dr Shipman ... of which 62% were female 0.01% of fisherpeople, 0.3% of lycra louts and 42% of ramblers also bore (sic) a resemblance to aforementioned dastardly doctor case proven methinks
    1 point
  17. Why do so many boaters look like Harold Shipman? hmmm - I do see the occasional boater who looks a little moudly and slightly decomposed - they mostly still have a pulse though
    1 point
  18. Having reread it there are 7 points 1. The applicant - your name address etc 2. The water - doesn't ask who owns it just for grid refs 3. About the task you plan to carry out - time e.g. March - Sept, why, how you will catch them e.g. net 4 Trap details - sizes apparently to see if they are otter/vole safe 5. Cray fish details - species to be caught 6. Signature and declaration 7. What happens next - what will happen about the granting (or not) of the permit So it would appear they have dropped it.
    1 point
  19. It is idiot proof. A polarised set of flying leads from the controller. Connect one flying lead to each panel. join the 2 panels with the remaining 2 leads. Chances are the flying leads would only reach one way roundso there would be literally one way you could connect the system together. A bit of silicone grease would aid regular dismantling. Maybe the thing you are missing is that they are polarised.
    1 point
  20. It's ok if you like shiney boats. Nicely done but a little pedestrian really, lots like that about Now FIREFLY is interesting, as you mentiond tugs! MtB
    1 point
  21. Nick, I think i missed your answer to Dave's question as to how one can tell the difference between someone who knows enough to not be winding up paddles etc before my boat is ready and someone who is going to wind them up fast when i'm half way up the ladder. As far as chatting at locks is concerned, i dont feel any obligation to chat to other boaters lockside. I'm not going to be rude of unpleasant but I find many lockside conversations (especially with the summer boaters) annoyingly intrusive. Why do people ask personal questions to someone they've just met?
    1 point
  22. Many's the time people have marched up to me and flung a tea bag into my pot without asking me first. For G*d's sake, its my teapot and I'll manage it myself, or ask nicely if I need too. The number of times I've been drenched by the teabag flying along inside the teapot and spraying tea out of the spout, this is a dangerous practice - it is boiling water, after all.
    1 point
  23. Sitting at the computer, no airborne toys in sight (I crashed my model helicopter!). Anyway, being slightly sensible for a moment, my original point was that a\ we don't have a problem with others helping us and b\ in general, others don't have a problem with being helped. As I mentioned, I find body language an adequate means to know what to do and don't feel the need to explicitly ask permission. I don't think this has ever got me into trouble, though I have found an increasing number of people who are very particular about what they want you to do with "their" lock and tell you so freely. Its this need to be seen to be "in control" and have what is a very straightforward task, done in a very specific way when in fact almost any way has the same outcome, that seems to be an increasing trend that I think is a shame for all the reasons I previously mentioned. As an aside, when I am captain of my helicopter, flying in tricky conditions over a hostile North Sea in the dark, rain and fog etc, flying with a "baby" co-pilot as the pilot flying, I just let him get on with it and don't micro-manage him, for if I did he would consider me a pain in the arse and it would prevent him from learning. Of course if we are heading down a dangerous path I will suggest an alternative strategy and in extremis of course take control, but that very rarely happens. I apply the same approach to boating, I don't see the need to micro-manage someone else's actions unless a dangerous situation is developing, and as we know there are lots of different ways to do it but they all have the same outcome. I am reminded of Tewkesbury lock, Lockie was adamant that it was "his lock" and I must use ropes going downhill, even though no other boats in the lock. To me it seemed quite unnecessary and slightly dangerous, but he was going to have it done "his way" or not at all. To be fair, that was what he had been told and to deviate was obviously "more than his job was worth". So we complied, the boat didn't want to budge an inch on the way down. So then we trundle onto the severn and hit the first huge lock, going uphill. The lockie there is not in the least bit interested in us using ropes, suggests we might want to hold on to the wires (if we wished) and the boat came up with a little motion but nothing too scary. So 2 professionals, one into micro-managing the boaters and one who had confidence in the behaviour of his lock. The same outcome, but one was a bit of a control freak and the other wasn't.
    1 point
  24. "I work locks for a living, only about 8000 of them" to me means you work 8000 locks, which presumably must therefore exist. On the other hand, if you meant you work 1 lock 8000 times, that means you really have a massive amount of experience! NOT! Anyway, you just want to be rude for the sake of it and I can't be bothered with your petty insults. Missus giving you trouble is she? (assuming anyone would have you with behaviour like that!). Maybe you should go to beddiebies now so that you can stay awake for your gripping 8001st identical button-pushing lock operation of the year. Edited to add that I note you are a Thames lock keeper. When we visited the Thames a couple of years ago, we noted that in general the lock keepers were officious, patronising, rude and obnoxious. So I can see how you would fit in well and enjoy your job! When we visited the Weaver recently, we noted how absolutely charming, helpful and pleasant those lock keepers were and we said at the time "EA should send their lockies on secondment to the Weaver to be taught how to behave towards their customers". But I guess that would be cruel to those nice Weaver lockies though!
    1 point
  25. Have a greenie for making me laugh out loud!
    1 point
  26. Why 2 tanks, for one consumer of fuel (the engine)? It doesn't make sense that a boat should have 2 tanks fitted, if the 'red' diesel tank will also be supplying the same engine as the 'white' diesel tank. Narrowboats don't typically have a separate diesel generator but do typically supply hot water via engine heat. Thus, why sell 2 types of diesel if the buyer is merely able to open/close a valve or two to choose which one to use? Thus, why not just have the buyer declare what they're going to do with the diesel at the point of sale, and pay the tax accordingly - ie the system we have right now? PS I know some have diesel water heaters (Eberspacher, Webasto) and these can be plumbed for central heating too, and some have diesel space heaters (diesel stove). And a handful have a fixed diesel generator for electricity.
    1 point
  27. Drill some holes in the base plate, and your boat will be lovely and cool within an hour or so!
    1 point
  28. Under the RCD regulation engines produced in series (on a production line) of any age of original or modern design must be submitted for and pass the relevant emissions regulations before they can be fitted to a water craft. The cost of submission and testing alone, never mind whether the engine could actually pass the emission limits, are so high that it is not worth submitting an old design, relatively low boat-volume-sales engine for testing. This is why engines such as the Rigas Diesalis and the Greaves couldn't continue to be sold for nbs because they were produced in series. You can thank a mate of mine (supported by myself) for getting the originally worded RCD amended, to allow restored old engines to be exempted from those regs and past the EU Parliament's RCD regs. The original proposal was to prohibit any any engine, historic or not, from being used in a new craft if it hadn't been emissions tested and proved compliant. We also got the requirement for pass-by noise testing removed from the original RCD requirements for displacement craft such as narrow boats. And it all came about by pure luck when the then makers of Russell Newbery approached me when I was working at Lister Petters (this was late 1998/early 1999) and asked what it would cost to hire our emissions lab. When I asked them what they wanted it for, the whole story of the impending legislation came out and I was able to alert my mate (who lives in Belgium and has good contacts within the EU Parliament) and we started the ball rolling to amend the proposed legislation to allow the use of historic engines in new-build narrow boats on the grounds of very low volume and the unique historic value of such craft and engines in the UK. I was particularly concerned at the time as I was just about to have a nb built powered by a restored Gardner so I had a vested interest Roger Edited to correct the spelling of Rigas Diesalis
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.