Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/08/16 in all areas

  1. I went down there last night and waited nearly 2 hours for the police. Eventually they told me they didn't know when they would be able to send somebody as they were very busy. So i went home about 01:30. Tried to call the owners whilst i was there but only got answerphone. I would hope the owners set off as soon as they got the message. I believe the boat has now been found and is in police possesion. Perhaps the owners could confirm?
    5 points
  2. I think in all the justified jubilation that we share, we must also spare a thought for Chris and Graham, who have the knowledge that someone invaded their boat, their much loved temporary home, to make themselves at home in it. It must be horrid to know that someone has done this, using all of the facilities; moving things out of place; changing things in a vain attempt at disguise; spoiling what had been carefully planned and made. I'm sure we all hope that they can have any damage restored, and regain the feeling that this is their boat.
    3 points
  3. Spoke to chri graham asked me to thank everyone on here for all the help in getting her back.its been at western for a while and it was spotted by a member on here yesterday.no one was with the boat when it was found.they say they will post soon as they needed to stay quiet untill they got the boat safe
    3 points
  4. Exactly. Perhaps it is the same people who were squatting aggressively who are now using the canal as a cheap housing option 'loophole' - which of course will force changes in a similar way.
    2 points
  5. Agreed Richard. Good job Nick & Anne.
    2 points
  6. yeah this But oh you and your facts and thinking about things - you're spoiling the fun of those that relish in spreading the hate of those less fortunate than themselves (which CWDF does so well)
    2 points
  7. When 200+ narrowboats descend on the Manchester Ship Canal chaos and fun ensues! First the fleet assemble from Liverpool and Ellesmere Port before running in convoy with two ex-Manchester Ship Canal Tugs and Chris Coburn fresh from a sea journey around Wales! This was for the 1998 Salford Quays national. Note, at this time the Anderton Boat Lift was out of action, and so the only way to get on the Weaver was from the Ship Canal. Some people may have seen this before as I've cleaned up an old Holiday video that I'd previously uploaded. Crossing the Mersey: Up the Ship Canal Enjoy, Mike
    1 point
  8. I have to say I'm so pleased to hear that the boat has been recovered. I do hope it's clean and tidy and nothing has been taken or damaged. I'm going to thank you all, for all your efforts as it could of been any one of us that had our boat stolen It would be great if we could make plans/ draw up contact details of who to contact if your boat is stolen. We know the forum works!! Several things I am going to do is copy all of the Engine serial numbers, Hin number, and keep them at a relatives house for safe keeping. I might of left the bill of sale on the boat, not a good idea!! I certainly hope the thief/thieves have left plenty of DNA evidence!! James
    1 point
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  10. I think somewhere in the fog of this thread the police have asked the owners to remain silent whilst they (the police) carry out their investigations.
    1 point
  11. Hopefully we'll soon hear from the owners as to the state of the boat - I do hope it hasn't been trashed inside. And I know from personal experience how a burglary can leave one feeling that one's home isn't the same any more - hopefully they won't be left with the same feeling about their boat.
    1 point
  12. It was Peter Walker, who was MP for Worcester at the time. Until his appointment it was usual for the post to be held by a Welsh MP. For example. Walker's predecessor between 1979 and 1987 was Nicholas Edwards (Now Lord Crickhowell), MP for Pembroke.
    1 point
  13. 1 point
  14. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  15. I've been around many barge repair yards over the years, in Holland, Belgium, France and Germany and I can honestly say that I didn't see any blaster- or spray operators with missing fingers. But I have seen several carpenters with missing fingers and one (an uncle of mine) missing half of one hand with a circular saw accident, that happened to him more than 75 years ago, before the machines had better protection. How about angle grinders, they are a regular cause for accidents, working can be very dangerous, but even if you don't work (anymore) you're not safe as the roads are full of fools, and even football stadiums are a hazard nowadays. It's much better not to think too much about everything that can happen, and just be as careful as you can, and enjoy life. Peter.
    1 point
  16. If this is indeed the stolen boat, and Chris and Graham get it back undamaged apart from the changed paintwork, then I'm delighted for them. In reply to Trundler, who posted, I'd say that as previously mentioned I don't have a narrowboat and have never been on one; however, looking in from the outside I would imagine that it is s very stress-free and relaxing way of life (please correct me if I'm wrong!) I would also imagine that this is a huge part of why you all do it, and that relaxed, care-free atmosphere militates against having to guard one's comments when talking to strangers. Why would anybody in that frame of mind assume evil intent on the part of someone asking apparently innocent questions which give you the chance to share your enthusiasm? What this illustrates is that none of us, whatever our involvement in boating or any other activity, can afford to be as relaxed and unguarded as we should like to be. I'm a dinghy sailor and I can tell you that boats are stolen from sailing club compounds all the time. Although there are a very large number of dinghies around, they all belong to one class or another, and the classes are much smaller and the active participants generally know each other from open meetings etc; in addition, they are all identified by a sail number which is also usually permanently carved or moulded into the hull so the majority of stolen boats are identified and recovered, although not always in the condition in which they were removed. When I'm sailing I get frequent questions from passers-by about my boat; how pretty it is, why doesn't it fall over by itself, etc, etc. I answer all these in good spirit assuming that they are the innocent questions of someone whose attention has been caught temporarily; sometimes this leads to me taking them out for a sail, and once or twice that someone has become hooked and discovered a new interest in their life. Its all good. I can't believe other than Chris and Graham being of exactly the same mind. Narrowrboats don't have the same regulated identity as sailing dinghies, but perhaps they should. Also, in order to help retain the relaxed atmosphere, perhaps owners of these (presumably) expensive boats should consider more sophisticated security than a yale lock or padlock. I think if I owned such a boat I would have a transponder fitted and hidden within its structure so it could be located at all times (thought: don't narrowboat hire companies do this already? I'd be amazed if the answer is no). I might also consider the idea of a couple of fibre-optic cameras, one facing forward from the front of the accommodation to show where it is going and one at the rear of the accommodation so as to give a picture of who is at the helm. These might cost a bit of money to install, but the sum would be insignificant compared to the cost of replacing a much-loved craft. Lastly, I'd like to congratulate you. This forum has shown the best of what a community can do, even if it turns out that the boat was not recovered due to the activity here. The network you have created would have found it eventually I'm sure, and its great to see that such a diverse bunch of people put themselves out to achieve a a common goal.
    1 point
  17. disappointingly theres no sign of them on the cams, maybe Mickp could ask them to do some donuts rounds the marina and wave to us all?
    1 point
  18. Hehe, fairy snuff! Next time though, eh? It won't be your first date then!
    1 point
  19. Believe what you like, I was where and all I related is true. Sure there were many peaceable types as you describe, like myself, which is why I left them to it. I am sore that the few made wild camping in England almost impossible. I used to squat in London, no problem, neighbours liked us, housing association were happy we were looking after one of their unlettable properties. I am sore that a few squatted private houses and the whole squatting thing was brought to a halt. I will be quietly cross if a similar small (in the scheme of things) number of people make boating more officious and difficult. I am not a middle class boater, I like to live on the fringe, quietly, head down, mind my own business, be helpful where I can. I am not judgemental but there are always a few that can't see the bigger picture and that their needless battles will make life worse for everyone including themselves.
    1 point
  20. It may well be that if they have rushed up there this morning they are not geared up to logging on to the forum and posting, (or are simply too involved with the aftermath of this). Hopefully though, if that's the case, they will pass a message on to somebody who can let everybody know what is happening.
    1 point
  21. I appreciate the owners have been informed not to say anything by the Police, but i think with such a high profile and highly publicised search having taken place/still taking place, i think somebody connected to this incident needs to clear up whether the boat has been found or not so this can start to be shared around. I'll be a bit miffed if i spent over 3 hours of my time last night trying to assist in the recovery of thier boat to then find out that the police had already attended earlier on and they were aware of this. I'll also be miffed that having rung the police and given the incident number that they then told me "stay there with the boat, we are sending somebody out" instead of telling me it had already been recovered. I'm glad that it looks like Chris & Graham have their boat back, but with so many people dedicating their time and effort to search for their boat, i believe they need to start officially telling (or at least make a basic statement) letting people know they can stop looking.
    1 point
  22. I'm quite enjoying this! However, I don't want Gazza to pull all his hair out, so I'm bravely pitching in to perhaps contribute to the avoidance of that! It's a good little argument, but it's a parallel thread one. We all stand to learn something when Rob@bss emerges to clarify the BSS guidance. Whether that guidance is clear correct and whether the examiners can or do follow it consistently is one of the threads. Whether the breaker we're referring to is the there to protect the shore cable and/or circuitry supplying it or just the installation downstream of itself is the other thread. That's a bit more black and white I'd have thought. I think I think what Gazza thinks: the boat's main breaker is only there to protect what's downstream; it can't predict what's upstream, so the shore breaker size is irrelevant; it doesn't have to add up to the sum of the breakers below it for reasons of diversity. The only slight fly in the ointment for me is that the shore cable is ours, so, whilst my foot is in the downstream protection camp, I can see why someone may believe that this has a bearing. However, supplies at 6 amp are not uncommon, so that's where the shore cable argument hits the rocks for me. Gazza, I think you're right, but keep your hands in your pockets when reading this thread and, when typing, return them there between keystrokes! Edited to harmonise terminology (thanks Nick)
    1 point
  23. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  24. Great job Junior! Lets hope this is now sorted! If it turns out to be Rare Bear, then the pics may turn out to be useful after all.
    1 point
  25. Not confirmed, but I'm told the boat has been recovered from the same area where 'Rare Bear' was sighted. I'm hoping the owners will come on here ASAP and update.
    1 point
  26. The guidance doesn't need clarifying, the inconsistent inspections and incorrect failures are the issue. Is that what you want Rob to clarify? There is nothing in the guidance that a competent person can get wrong. It's when people start talking guff about having to have a RCD when there is no requirement and talking about things like sum of circuits greater than 16a. People like that shouldn't be installing, maintaining, inspecting or giving advice on systems that they clearly do not understand.
    1 point
  27. if Yank on the cut thinks it could be the missing boat - surely a call to the police would be in order
    1 point
  28. Ill leave early in the morning ill drive to weaston if i dont see them ill drive to sandon and walk to weston if no one is closer than me but its a bit out the way from bclm though and im coming from mk so its not exactly close but if no one elts can ill do it
    1 point
  29. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  30. Durham is a fine city.
    1 point
  31. This point in particular suggests to me this IS the missing boat. A burgundy tunnel band is very unusual. (Especially on a boat with no other burgundy paint on it.)
    1 point
  32. Oh I am so glad you came along. There has been far too much sense spoken on this thread up until now. What with a nice couple being robbed of their boat and all. So your in depth opinion based on .... errrr .... something, I suppose ... if only a total lack of understanding regarding their personal lives, responsibilities and immediate demands is just what they need right now. May I request in future that if any thread on here gets a bit too in depth regarding reality of life and man's ability to selfishly screw up somebody else's life without a second thought, that you should please give us the benefit of your opinion? Thank you so much, I can't wait for your next contribution. PS .... What did you mean by " I except ....." ?
    1 point
  33. To me it revolves round the words Bona fide and Navigation. Bona fide as in genuine, or without the intention to deceive. Navigation has a number of meanings but one commonly accepted one is to move from place to place as in "naviagte to a website or round a website". Can trying to stay in as small an area as possible be genuine navigation. Personally I don't think so and I don't think the law was drafted with staying in one place in mind.
    1 point
  34. Your limit is a self-imposed one, by the desire to split circuits which could be 1 circuit. Instead of using 2 circuits (10A and 6A), have one circuit protected by a 16A MCB (or a 10A MCB if appropriate) then you'll be protected properly AND have (for example) 16-2 = 14A (or 10-2 = 8A) available to domestic consumption before you exceed the current supply and trip something.
    1 point
  35. If anything in that scenario should logically be a fail (but isn't) it ought to be the very existence of a 32A to 16A adaptor which is not itself fused at 16A or less.
    1 point
  36. I take it that he has never heard of diversity then? It is a well established practice in electrical protection design. If you add up the "apparent capacity" of the distribution breakers in any house or commercial premises, they will always add up to more that the capacity of the incoming supply.
    1 point
  37. Slightly ironic don't you think. There used to be a problem created by boat children not getting schooling. Now the problem is caused by the parents wanting schooling. I still believe some tolerance could be shown in distances teavelled during term time. It's not a lot to ask. Rog
    1 point
  38. I'm a 1955 model, don't know if that makes me a baby boomer or not. But what I do know is that the older I get the more I realise how lucky I have been in life and I'm certainly not going to vent my spleen on those in a less fortunate position than me.
    1 point
  39. CaRT would not have to persuade the local Councils to grant planning permission for simply establishing offside moorings. Use of the banks for mooring is an integral part of the canal’s function, so there is no ‘change of use’ involved. Only if there was serious infrastructure would there be building work possibly requiring consent, as of course would residential or commercial use of the moorings. But mooring itself requires no planning permission; BW fought this point before the Planning Inspectorate back in 2006/7, and won the case. http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/http___www.pcs_.planningportal.gov_.uk_pcsportal_fscdav_READONLY_OBJCOO.2036.300.2.6228648NAME_Decision.pdf Of course, they only fought the issue on that occasion because it was their tenant that was being targeted with enforcement; other times they have ignored this precedent and argued before the Inspectorate that moorings should not be allowed, when they themselves didn’t want particular people to moor against property not in their ownership. But the precedent remains.
    1 point
  40. Having to slow down because of moored boats trumps allowing young families to moor within a restricted area ? Come on folks, we aren't that small minded surely. Let them have a roving mooring permit. They are 'paying their way' which seems to matter to some, they can get to work and their kids to school, and to be honest, we who are lucky enough to enjoy our leisure boating wouldn't wish to be in their position or have their problems. Rog
    1 point
  41. Some of these responses are quite saddening. Rog
    1 point
  42. Yes, but we are already moving into things not being quite as clear cut as people would like to make out. There is a tension indeed, but not one that has been resolved in an enforceable way. Bona Fide means (literally translated) "without intention to deceive" which in this context is fairly meaningless. If we start moving towards "in good faith" then it would be fairly easy to argue that moving as far as practicable in the circumstances is "in good faith", especially as the distance would differ depending on the circumstances. Canals bring a largely middle class leisure activity (sorry, but it is - the posh ones go yotting and the working class don't generally go narrow boating) into conflict with other sectors of society in a way that, say, playing golf or watching rugby doesn't. Hence we find ourselves in conflict with stone throwing yobs round the back of industrial estates, amidst glue sniffers in city centres and yes, amongst liveaboards where accomodation is way out of reach (although cost isn't the only reason people live on boats). We don't like it, and we want something done about it. I say we because I regard myself as one of the middle class. But these people can't just not exist, and badgering them off the waterways where to be honest their presence is relatively benign isn't helping anyone. Suppose this badgering is successful, what will it achieve? Short term reduction in demand for moorings and long term resentment among a group of people suddenly disenfranchised and homeless?
    1 point
  43. Yes there is. Start a petition of your own, stating the opposite. Simples.
    1 point
  44. Strange, I would sooner smell effluent than elsan blue. To OP as per post #2, we use Odourloss in our black tank. If previously used 'blue' then a thorough clean of tank/cassete is necessary or the blue will kill the good bacteria.
    1 point
  45. Hang on... The actual claim is that they are being compelled to travel further than is compatible with their children attending school They also claim that the 1995 Act requires them to "move every 14 days" - it doesn't say how far The various Education Acts require a local authority to pay for transport if the journey is more than 2 or 3 miles to school (depending on the age of the child and depending on the education authority as to whether this means the nearest school or the one they actually attend). This is based on walking distances The various regulations regarding travellers on land allow that the traveller is prevented from travelling by virtue of having children in education There is therefore a reasonable argument that families with schoolchildren can, in term time, restrict their travelling to within 2/3 miles of the school (note I said reasonable, not necessarily correct) That is before you add how few/many liveaboard households have children (how big an issue is it?) and the fact that heterosexual couples of a certain age tend to end up with them. Is there an element of sitting in judgement on the lives of others here? I really don't think many, if any, fit every element of that stereotype, and it is fairly typical of the hype used to undermine a much bigger section of the community, along with "scroungers in council houses" for example edited to correct ambiguous mileage
    1 point
  46. Isn't the world a funny place. Some people move house to make sure they are in the catchment area of a particular school. Richard
    1 point
  47. Is it called a rams head because it looks exactly like a swan neck?
    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.