We're just reached TWO MILLION posts!! Thank you to those who have contributed to Canal World. Read the announcement here 

Paul C

Member
  • Content count

    9,753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Paul C last won the day on October 16 2016

Paul C had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

322 Excellent

7 Followers

About Paul C

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,491 profile views
  1. The list isn't onerous once you think about it......pretty much any except the most basic moorings provide car parking, bins and a water tap for example. I suspect the other aspects such as mooring operator's permission, the increased cost of the licence insurance are higher barriers.
  2. I think you need to fill the bath, then get in it, then play with a number of objects such as a sponge, floating rubber ducks, pet goldfish, etc. If you notice anything remarkable, feel free to run down the street shouting!
  3. Yes but a canal isn't any of the above - it has fixed height weirs at various points along it to maintain the water at a specific level relative to the bank; not a set volume irrespective of items within it. So, anything which is solid which is in the canal and sinks, reduces the depth of the canal correspondingly as much as it increases the depth of the silt/sand/mud/whatever is already resting on the bottom.
  4. Herein lies the danger of over-interpreting select committee minutes, where many words were spoken and arguments put forwards but didn't actually make it into the wording of the law. If indeed its as simple as "the 14 day limit basically defines bona fide navigation" then there would have been no need to insert both into the ultimate wording of the legislation - they could have simply stated the 14 days and not mentioned "bona fide navigation" for example, or maybe the other way round (although this would have been much less clear). I think this was deliberate - not only did they intend that CCers wouldn't stay longer than 14 days; but that their entire journey is a bona fide one (however wooly or widely that may now be construed). Thankfully we have the situation where in most cases (with exceptions) its the actual letter of the law which is important and not some extra (and much longer to trawl through) underlying select committee minutes.
  5. There's an argument that anything biodegradable is fair game. And another agrument that anything with a BoD>0 isn't.
  6. Opening it up to a wider debate that simply referring to the byelaws, I suppose it depends somewhat on your morals and beliefs. For example I have no bother with allowing washing up liquid (in its used form, from dishwashing) into the canal, but others seek and use ecological stuff. Similarly I'd never put oil into the canal, but others are happy to do this (then squirt a bit of washing up liquid afterwards, in some hope that it will neutralise it?)
  7. I think that's where you and I differ. Of course, you have chosen the time period as "for ever" (ie never ever moving it again), however there isn't in fact a time period of 14 days specified anywhere except the T&Cs, that the home moorer must stay within to avoid breaking the law. Thus, technically, a home moorer could stay for longer than 14 days (but shorter than "for ever") and still remain within the law. Especially if we combine a logical interpretation with an interpretation of "place", this means a home moorer could stay within a "place" for a number of months AND STILL COMPLY with the 14 days as suggested in the T&Cs (which aren't law) by moving the actual precise mooring location for example shuffling around a little bit, or nipping off then returning soon afterwards etc. I think somewhere in between 15+ days and "for ever" a reasonableness test must be done, hence I also accept that the upper bound (of infinite time) is quite clearly unreasonable but there's definitely a grey area in between (which would be judged, if it came to that, on the particular circumstances of each case). I refer you to post #2. Of course, we all love discussing hypothetical situations, hence why this thread is 5 pages long and growing.
  8. Partial information is about as useful as a fart in an astronaut suit - hence I thoroughly ignored it.
  9. We had a 45ft boat which wasn't brilliant in reverse. Basically, its not worth fiddling around with props, gear ratios etc if it compromises forwards performance. One boatyard engineer said it was due to the boat having a blunt swim, compared to a longer boat which might have a much more sweeping swim which makes reverse more effective.
  10. I don't like your logic though. The same mooring costs the same, no matter what distance the boat is from it at any given time.
  11. I was expecting Nigel to muddy the waters somewhat, however for the purposes of the original post(er), I refer him to my previous answer - which is post #2 on the thread. We seem to have wandered off into an imaginary situation where an imaginary boater has taken a mooring whose legitimacy is somewhat more fragile than the OPs intentions. And an imaginary court case where the (imaginary) boater has had their licence not renewed, then undertaken a judicial review rather than changing their behaviour. Notwithstanding, of course there is scope for various shades of grey in between having a "normal", used, returned-to-regularly etc home mooring and not having one at all. I think we all agree that the intention behind this is that (taking the whole text of the legislation, ie considering both the home mooring and CC requirements) there is a limited (in some areas) resource of towpath, transit moorings thus those with a home mooring would not impose such a demand on these, thus not be further constrained by a limited stay (14 days) and movement (bona fide navigation) requirement. In other words, you can have your cake OR eat something (but not the cake). Those having their cake and eating it are where it gets interesting. In fact, the letter of the law allows a significant amount of freedom for the "home moorer" - more than the T&Cs would now suggest. In effect, its a "legal loophole" that you can take out a genuine mooring but basically never use it, all it has to do is remain available, not actually be used. I don't think the person who wishes to do this needs to rely on further interpretations or additional material or precedents, the law is fairly unambiguously written and its interpretation doesn't leave much variation. Of course there is always an imaginary boater somewhere who can't be arsed to actually pay for the genuine mooring but wants its inherent benefits - hence the ghost mooring concept.
  12. Precedent comes from a higher court. County court is the lowest level, so cannot set precedent - it would need to have been appealed etc and judged upon in high court, appeal court etc.
  13. You guess/hope wrong. Parlaimentary Select Committee minutes are not normally admissible in court. Neither are judgements from county court level (eg Hilyard). They look at the wording of the Act(s) concerned.
  14. Simple answer - yes.
  15. Good to see you've done a power audit, but I'd question some of the figures. In particular, the phone charging looks nonsensical. And what is within "heating"? And why is it 70W? As for hairdryer.......hmmmmm. Given the above inaccuracies, I can't see any forwards calculations based on these - for example solar amount needed, or battery bank capacity - being meaningful. Also over-specifying by 100% is not an appropriate winter adjustment - basically during winter, the "average" factor is 10% of peak output, ie you'd need to ON AVERAGE overspecify 1000% (or maybe +900% depending on how the figures are interpreted) but during winter, there's some days where you'd basically not get any power off solar. Think, drizzly cloudy winter's day where it rains (or snows) most of the day, and is dull and cloudy when its not raining. And then there's some winter days when its about 12degC and sunshine. (Although of course, sunlight is weaker in winter than summer due to the seasonal effect).