Tacet

It might be binding on its members, but RSG views are not binding in law. It is not an offence to fail to comply with the RSG edicts.

If the RSG makes binding decisions, it seems odd that the example you provide is merely a recommendation It is the Courts that make decisions on matters of the law.

There is no RCD technical group. The RSG is a trade body providing assistance in interpreting the RCR. No doubt it dispenses good advice, but it does not write the RCR. Despite the long quote, I can't see it addresses the question anyway. Whether a boat is built meeting the ISOs or built meeting the Essential Requirements of the RCR makes no difference to any need for testing, independent or otherwise. It is perfectly possible for a boat to meet the RCR but not all the ISOs; if so there would be no basis of prosecution. It is doubtful that Telemachus meets all the ISOs.

Not so. Where do you consider this requirement lies? Not so. It is a rebuttable presumption. And, anyway, who decides without an inspection that the ISO has been met? This quote is not from the RCR/RCD

Network Rail thanks (in the embedded video) passengers and freight uses for their patience. No mention of the impatient boater.

I went to see the bridge keeper a few years back. Best job in the world, according to him. Anyway, he said the the boats had the right of way. He derived some enjoyment from annoying his railway bosses by not delaying the opening until when they would have liked.

You're doing yourself a disservice. 30 litres for 10 miles is 1.5mpg.

Also in the 1970s, sometimes a crew member would stand on the counterbalance, which sped things up.

Is not the element of your quote supporting your view of bona fide that of Nigel Moore - who was never a member of the judiciary?

You're not quoting the judge for the greater part

If it is 9kw - and you can make the exchange 100% efficient (unlikely) and the rise in temperature is 40c (not much), you'll only get about 2 litres per minute. A typical pump is more like 10 litres per minute, open flow. All assuming I have worked it out correctly.

Indeed. But if there's not enough water leaking past the top gate to hold the bottom gate, you have to question the merits of closing the gate to save water through leakage.

The Worcs & Birmingham was the exception to most canals as boats kept left when meeting another. It's mentioned by Rolt and the Idle Woman. Maybe the "keep right" sign was thought prudent when the change was made?

House painters prefer a well used brush to a new one. Not only is there less bristle loss, but it is said to be better to use. Is it the same for the professional boat painter?

The 9V was stated in the very first post - so it was clearly a result from the past rather than a reading following the recent suggestions. It was ambiguous as to whether it was with or without the glow plugs connected - but any confusion is down to those making assumptions without checking. If (as originally stated) the problem is invariably a function of whether or not the glowplugs are connected, the current being drawn by the glowplugs is a useful starting point.

If the problem consistently disappears when the glow plugs are disconnected (and consistently appears when connected) it is an uncommon problem but a useful pointer. It might be that the glow plugs are working fine but nevertheless the current drawn is sufficient to tip the scales and drop the voltage too low. But it must be at least possible that somehow the glow plug circuit is drawing too much. A clamp meter reading on the battery cable and on the glow pug cable immediately after the relay (both when heating) would be interesting.

Was this the occasion that you fitted out of date extinguishers purposefully in the hope of catching out the examiner? And then complained to the BSS that your boat had passed - before realising in-date is not a requirement. Did failing to meet industry standards result in the insurance being invalidated?

Definitely worth a visit. Although, in my view, it's not been as nice since it was improved...

I would say it was the quoin or maybe a bit of wood to protect the bricks forming the quoin. Using door terminology, it's either the clapping or slamming post, depending on local custom.

I was trying to draw attention to an obvious flaw in the reasoning of those who hold the view that insurance is readily invalidated by routine negligence. I reckon you have to make more effort than a simple mistake

If you mangle boat or person, I would be further upset to learn that your insurance is invalidated or subject to a reduced payout due to your negligence.

Can't be. We are regularly advised that the whole scheme is entirely founded on making jobs for the boys. Personal infallibility is such a difficult burden to bear

Surely a perished/ cracked pipe could be identified by routine inspection So I'll ask again, what sort of gas leak & explosion do you think is covered by insurance, if any?