Leaderboard

Why are they "piss takers", if they are complying with mooring time limits? If a sign says "maximum stay 14 days", why does the fact that a boat is not permanently occupied make the owner a "piss taker". Some people have very genuine needs to leave boats at places with parking and/or reasonable transport links, particularly if they work, and can only make a progressive journey at weekends. Why should they not do so, if it is fully within the current rules?

Erm . . . costly mistakes. . . . . now let me think !

If you look at (currently!) recent post 140, you will see I have actually commented on your post 102. I'm not in the habit of quoting and replying to posts that I have not read. I stand by the questions John has chosen to ignore. The continued suggestions or implied suggestions, (in this and similar threads), that people have either not bothered to read the detail, or have not had the mental capacity to understand it, and hence that they are not worthy of an an answer, could look to many people like you can't actually come up with a good one, though.

Is that in case he wants to have it back as wasn't it previously a BW asset that was given to a good cause...?

I will try an explain this for you in simple sentences : This thread is not about Licence conditions being met. This thread is about the new Terms and conditions which C&RT are trying to implement. I have a Home mooring I have Insurance I have a BSS I meet the licence conditions. C&RT have granted me a licence. After my licence has been issued. C&RT decide to change the T&Cs, I have not agreed to these T&Cs C&RT T&Cs now say I must comply with the Boat without a home mooring conditions. The law does not say I must comply with the Boat without a home mooring conditions C&RTs requirements are contrary to the law. Is that better for you ?

The presenter I really want to see is Vladimir Putin. The man needs a nice quiet canal holiday to calm him down, and it could do wonders for relations with Russia. I don't know whether he speaks English, but subtitles would be OK.

Norton Canes No contest Keith

Hi there - I am disabled - receiving DLA and IB (now migrated onto ESA). We went through all this when we were thinking about moving onto a boat. We decided that it was important for us to have a residential mooring and when we chose our boat we were quite careful to choose one that would suit my problems. It has worked out very well for us, we have had a ramp built up onto our boat that is very secure, the shower is big and when I have my falls there is usually something I can catch onto before landing We are fortunate in having found an excellent GP and health centre. On the negative - my husband has to singlehand - not usually a problem if occasionally tiring, but sometimes there have been hurtful comments made to him about me not pulling my weight - My disability is invisible so we are well used to that now. When we are cruising I end up stuck on the boat unless we are unusually lucky with our mooring. We keep a folding wheelchair in the cratch, but muddy towpaths and silted moorings often mean I can't get off at all. I can't comment on continuous cruising because we felt that would be too difficult for us. With my condition being so rare I feel it important to build up a good relationship with a GP or else every appointment is just spent explaining my condition to them. One of the important factors to me was that I feel that my disability should not spoil things totally for my husband. He is my carer full time, but why shouldn't he get to do things he wants to do too. We are both loving living on the water together ps please dont assume that living on the water will be stress free.

A unified navigation authority has many obvious benefits to boat users – provided that unified legislative controls applied, which they cannot, without an unlikely massive Parliamentary effort to abolish all existing legislation and introduce new. The factor underlying some people’s concerns, however, has its source in the deep-grained institutional character of the administrations. Each is distinct owing to the varied nature of their responsibilities and priorities, and the traditional type of persons deemed appropriate to the differing tasks. The tussle between the BW/CaRT administration and the EA administration over the proposed take-overs bruited historically, is revelatory of those distinctive character traits and objectives. The prospect of the likes of Parry and his ilk as inheritors of the BW tradition taking over the administration of EA waters, is a legitimate source of dismay to those familiar with each; and that is leaving out the equally unpalatable prospect of the economic and practical handling of their affairs. When previous bids were made by a covetous BW to take over EA waters, the government wisely chose to leave the status quo be; the present political climate that bulldozed through the Public Bodies Bill is likely, despite the historical lessons, to abrogate due Parliamentary responsibility even further – which is a prospect rightly appalling many other than boaters. So far as the “commitment to government grant protection” is concerned, it needs to be remembered that the over-riding objective of Government in pushing through the Transfer, was reduced government support, and that the result was an assurance of but a fraction of what is needed, and of what had been provided previously. The Transfer resulted in drastic cuts in funding in other words; all justified on the basis of Evans & Co’s oleaginous assurances that getting people to volunteer time and money would eventually remove the need for any government support at all – once the system had deteriorated to a sufficiently degraded level. Thank goodness at least some in government saw enough danger signals to make the potential incorporation of EA waters to CaRT dependant on a proven fiscal track record.

Solar Turbines springing up all over the place with nothing more than Planning Permission granted after public consultation. Horrendous I call it. What is this country coming to? Don't we ever learn from the past? If you look into History then you'll discover awful things were done after merely granting an act of parliament. Farmers' fields were taken over in order to cut man made waterways through. Beautiful hillsides disfigured with ugly flights of locks, dirty great spoil heaps made from gouging out tunnels. Will we never learn?

The question I often ask myself is where else am I allowed to use approximately 200-year-old structures almost completely unhindered by officialdom? We know, of course, that some structures have been modernised (e.g. The centre 800m (roughly) of Blisworth Tunnel) but most would be easily recognisable to those that used them in their heyday and they could use them easily. Would we build locks and other waterway infrastructure the same way now? Almost certainly not so we do have an obligation to follow the guidelines set by Europe, the Government, English Heritage, local Government, CRT and so on especially on the structures that are listed (southern portal of Blisworth Tunnel, the entire Stoke Bruerne flight for example) so that they are preserved for future generations. The system is, in the main, CRT's trainset and we are fortunate in bring able to use their trainset for a fee. I am sure someone will disagree but that's my view for what it's worth.

Hi ya'll. I'm still being taken aback by all the positivity being offered here, thank you all again. Some guys are trying to help making suggestions regards surveys and water levels and stuff. While well meaning and most definitely useful for later seems to be veering the post of intended path. David,boat hunter,Martin, MtB, Alan, Bob, Matty et al thanks guys. All useful as well it may be too late now but even the engineer put it in the wrong position while craning the front up he noted ingress but when he refitted the weed hatch cover noticed its tendency to sit at an angle causing the leak. This on no way could be avoided by anyone with no experience as the cover is so awkwardly balanced, that fitting it correctly actually feels like you are forcing it into an unnatural position. Anyway. I'm done debating this. I will put measures in place to make sure Alfie never scrapes his arse again. Update. All water out. Berth booked for next week humidifier and heater on board. Engine components stripped and repaired. Lubricants replaced all systems ready for restart in morning. I will monitor the drying out and when ready will steer my home to Hertford as planned. I will not, CAN NOT be beaten by a bit of rising damp. ?

I am beginning to wonder whether I should be taking umbrage at these continuing slurs on my communication skills – what was so impenetrable about #6 ? Or is it that people sleep-read through these posts, with selective attention filters set at maximum density? Why would you wave about ‘your 1971 legislation’ – it is precisely the point that this legislation has nothing to do with the situation? "Until there is a test case to settle it"? Hello Rip Van Winkle – there has been one; it has been settled; BW accepted it without appeal, and CaRT have since acknowledged that they must alter their conduct of the past 25 years to suit. You have seen unlicensed boats turned away? Indeed, so have I, both before and after the test case had settled the matter, and approved by the very people in charge who publicly acknowledged that the matter had been settled. That is par for the course with a corrupt organisation that is quick to criminalise boaters while enjoying freedom from consequence for their own, far more serious criminal behaviour. Too nice a day to spend time on this now - I have a gearbox to flush out and refill - but when I am back indoors I will dig up the case that specifically identifies the crime involved in navigation authorities using unauthorised locks to extract passage fees on public navigable rivers. So let me repeat: the fact that an action is criminal is no impediment to it being done, and I agree that CaRT are refusing passage to unlicensed boats even now - my point has been that is remains a criminal act, to the effect that [in answering the OP] there is no legal impediment to an unlicensed boat passing through the Thames Locks, there are is only the illegal abuse of power. That could be dealt with by those with a taste for confrontation or justice, as I said to Captain Zim, while recognising that most people would meekly go along with the situation. This is what they rely upon - ignorance and misplaced respect; they have of course let me bring unlicensed boats through, somewhat to my chagrin.

This has my personal attention. As others have said, I do not recognise these points as you describe them concerning labelling batteries and emergency exits within the BSS examination checking procedures except as in relation to battery isolator switch (if not visible the location should be signed to help people such as fire-fighters to turn off the electrics in case the skipper is not on the boat) emergency escape - advice only to boaters to consider labelling the emergency exit should anyone aboard be unfamiliar with the boat. Hopefully the skipper will have already discussed the emergency plan and what to do and where to be should fire break out. In regard to the extra batten, this could relate to the requirement for batteries to be secure and not able to move more that 10mm in any direction. Batteries should be secure in conditions up to 45 degrees to the horizontal. Hopefully that accounts for that comment. So contact me personally and let me know what your boat name is and tell me the examination report number and I'll check the examiner's notes. We will check where this matter was going and find out what the situation is. Regards Rob