Tacet

A job or the workhouse? Which of these models do you have in mind?

My father had COPD and needed additional oxygen most of the time. There are mains operated concentrators about the size of a suitcase - which come with a length of plastic hose to allow some mobility. Whilst this is far from ideal, the large oxygen cylinders are hardly portable so it makes no difference in that respect. The advantage is the removal of the need to regularly change oxygen cylinders as you only get a couple of days before needing to exchange the cylinders – and answering the door for a new delivery uses up about half one’s supply. It also makes a few days away much simpler if you disregard the rule against transporting the machine. The alternative is to have planned manoeuvres with cylinders bunkered ahead. The small cylinders that are intended to help you when out and about are either too heavy or too small to be much use. A portable concentrator had battery pack(s) and 12v option. Lugging it around is still a pain – but do-able especially if someone else has the spare batteries. It also seems to be less risky than having several cylinders of oxygen rolling around a boat. The portable seemed to work OK – but suspect that it was less robust.

Portable oxygen concentrators are available; the ones I've seen are the size of large handbag and have rechargeable batteries. In my limited experience, they work reasonably well in a boat situation but no doubt you should take advice on the medical suitability.

I have done this trip several times but only as a youngster on my Dad's 17ft cruiser which was moored on the Medway. In those days you bought the paper charts from Capt O M Watts in Leicester Square. So I couldn't offer any significant wisdom - but if you would like to have someone on board for company, I would like to relive the experience.

Mmmm. Must have been a very early 500-4 if it was 1964. Perhaps 1974? I still have my 1977 400-4, bought new but no longer in that condition, by any means. I recall going through the tunnel one-way on some sort of organised trip in the 1970's. There was some legging but I can't remember whether or not there was an alternative means of propulsion.

"the right of the mortgagee to possession in the absence of some contract has nothing to do with default on the part of the mortgagor. The mortgagee may go into possession before the ink is dry on the mortgage"" Which probably has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

According to my daughter, the Bradford ice-cream van does not sell ice-cream.

Except that the part of the Kennet that is adjcacent to Homebase is CRT's responsibility - isn't it?

In the 1970's we used a four-bottle milk crate lowered into the cut on a bit string. The length was fairly critical to avoid canal water getting around the top - whether the bottle was open or not. Sometimes it was overlooked when the boat was on the move so it created its own bow wave. The rather odd thing is that its seemed to make no difference to the life of the milk. The evaporation cooler we had (elsewhere) was known by its brand name - the Osocool - and did maintain a few degrees below ambient. But there was no room for such luxuries on the boat.

Blisworth Tunnel Boats operate the offisde mooring pictured.

There didn't seem much wrong with the top gates when we went through, in 1973.

Technically, is not the first 11,500 pa taxed - but at 0%? And, if one's(!) income is more than 123,000 pa or above, the personal allowance is zero.

Seems like a lot of diesel. By my maths, it would need around 6,000 litres of diesel to cut enough spoil to fill a builder's skip. At 50 per litre, that's 3,000 GBP. I'm sure that there's some that would fill a skip for less money. The figures didn't come from Diane Abbott by any chance?

I still can't see that the enabling Act helps determine ownership to any material degree. The Acts did not vest the required land in the canal company - it only gave (at best) compulsory powers. The company may not have exercised all its compulsory powers - or may have acquired more land by agreement. The centre line of navigation, overall width and width of the navigable bit may have been specified - but that does not mean the land was automatically conveyed. The Act might give an idea of historic intention - but what happened at the time and since is a different matter.

I am puzzled by this. Most, if not all enabling Acts will have conferred compulsory powers to acquire land, on the promoter. But whether such land was acquired (or more or less) is another matter - as is whether the canal was dug on the intended line or has wandered since. Or whether land has been bought or sold in the intervening years or adversely possessed. In the absence of anything else, the Act might give some sort of clue as to what we expected to happen prior to acquisition and construction - but isn't it more usually a matter of deeds, conveyances, transfers and possession?