Gollywobbler

? Gawd almighty. They are not "bank accounts." They are companies which are registered in the Cayman Islands. Before I retired from the Law (because of marriage) I used to act for a lot of wealthy people who had very sound financial reasons for wanting to keep their money outside of the UK, purely so as to avoid being taxed in the UK for the dosh. That is done by choosing an offshore jurisdiction. Offshore, they are not "trusts" but brand-new companies, more usually. The companies have no liabilities locally because they are brand-new. The more primitive the place, the less likely its local Law is to understand complicated ideas about "trusts." The only person who will put anything into the offshore companies or control what they do is the donor of the money. In some jurisdictions, this will be the "Trustees" (eg in the Channel Islands. In theory, the offshore Trustees do as they wish but in practice they are being paid to do as they are told.) My only own personal experience is with the Channel Islands and Panama. I've never had clients who wanted to put their dosh in the Isle of Man or the Caymans, Malta or Singapore - they are all "tax havens," - but one only learns the details according to what the client wants to set up and a wealthy client's accountants ALWAYS know more than his/her solicitors. The donor ensures that s/he does not spend more than 183 days in each F/Y being physically present in the UK. That fact gets the donor round UK Income Taxes. Also, I was a land lawyer, not a tax lawyer. To keep land in E&W out of the greedy claws of the Exchequer, I favour the Channel Islands myself, but Arab clients preferred Panama because the shares in a Panamanian company are "bearer shares," so the beneficial owner of the shares will never be named on any documents. The Arabs were being advised by the best accountants in the world so when the accountants say "Panama," the English lawyer trots off to a Panamanian lawyer and buys as many clean companies as the accountants say will be required. It is not actually difficult to do because so many other people explain what to do and how to set about doing it. That said, it does require the lawyer to have more than a mung-bean by way of a brain, in order to be able to have enough imagination to get the basic idea. Also, a young lawyer in a large City of London law firm has stacks of back-up from older colleagues who have done it before. But once you understand the general gist, you can do the rest. What I am NOT prepared to do is to do anything to help you when you have done nothing constructive towards helping Darren on the other thread. It is not my problem if you live in ignorance for the rest of your life, after all. Where do you think Osborne spent his summer hols recently? Was it in the UK? What's with his trotting off to the USA for "business meetings" the whole time? His crony Cameron does not have as much to worry about because Cameron is only the Younger Son, plus most of Cameron's money is actually his wife's money anyway. So get real. Instead of wasting your own time and mine on things that you clearly know nothing about, why not spend your own time helping Darren instead, with things that you presumably DO understand?

Sure, the kids' Trusts are UK based. There is also nothing in them to tax. Anyone with any nous looks for the dosh, not at the brats. You help me with Darren and I'll show you how to find the stuff about Osborne's antics but I am NOT going to give you a free ride on my back. I have posted on Darren's thread this arvo: 1. Is Northwich a reasonable place? and 2. Is a Dawncraft a reasonable boat? You help me and I'll help you but not unless and until.

Try again. The details are in the public domain if you look. However, I am not going to lift a finger of my own to help you to find them when you won't do anything to help me to help Darren on the other thread. Helping people is a TWO way street, so you reap what you sow. Spend more time on the Internet and you will soon discover that Osborne's children are not the only people benefitting out of the Cayman Islands but the UK taxpayer does not exactly win from the arrangements. The tax-arrangements are legit. They are "tax avoidance," not "tax evasion." I suspect Osborne is well able to describe the details to his wealthy cronies so that they can follow in his footsteps. However, this bloke Osborne is the Chancellor, I believe?

Common knowledge. Google it, I suggest.

David Darren says that he uses a PAYG mobile phone for most of his e-mail and internet access. I've got a mobile phone (the cheapest I could find) that nevertheless claims to be able to do loadsathings but fortunately I don't need to rely on the thing for anything except voice calls, so I don't need to understand the thing's "features." One does seem to get a lot of "features" for £12 spent 3 months ago, though. I can see that it is probably considerably cheaper to swop e-mails via mobile phone than to access an internet forum website such as this one from a mobile phone. Sure, I do know a heck of a lot about "lumpy water boating" and the coastal Harbours that that involves. Dutch barges seem to be OK in coastal waters so I imagine that the same is probably true of most types of barge? However, one of the reasons why I have not bothered to put up with the CWDF people in the last couple of days is because I have been spending time figuring out what might be useful for Darren instead. Darren is about 40 and says that he is single. At present, he lives in or near Manchester but he says he would be happy to move out of that area. He doesn't have the faintest clue about choosing or living on a boat but the Government are the people who have been encouraging him to consider the idea: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/BuyingAndSellingYourHome/MobileHousing/DG_10029631 So - if anyone on CWDF wants to attack either Darren or I, I strongly recommend that they should attack the Government first, bluntly. I think I MIGHT (note, "might" = "I am not sure") have found a possible solution for Darren. I'd be very grateful for some CONSTRUCTIVE input from CWDF members, though. 1. There is a place called Northwich Marina, on the River Weaver. 2. I am no longer sure about the idea of either narrowboats or barges for Darren. I think that for a first-time buyer, a GRP river-cruiser called a Dawncraft might be a better idea. It is IMPOSSIBLE to try to offer somebody any genuine help unless one is willing to change one's own ideas and suggestions. Therefore:- 1. Northwich seems to be a reasonable place as far as I can gather from the Internet? I'd be grateful for comments. 2. Are Dawncraft reasonably capable boats, please? Gill

Hell Tam I'm sorry I spelt your name wrongly last time. I have never made any secret of the fact that I know nothing about the canals and inland waterways apart from the odd stroll along the odd towpath. Therefore I don't know what happens with this procedure called "blacking" and so forth. However I do know about owning sea-boats, living on those, looking after them etc and I know what goes in in many of the coastal Harbours. You might not have noticed that I live just outside Southampton? The issue of Liverpool becoming a turnaround port is a huge issue down here. The Department for Transport are holding a Public Consultation about it: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-22 I assume that Carnival UK probably submitted a thumbs up for the idea sometime this week because according to the Beeb, Carnival support the proposal and Ministers seem to support it as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-14836334 Evidently Carnival think that their Cunard brand could benefit from Liverpool becoming a turnaround port. The only real objectors to the plan seem to be the owners of Southampton Docks and their own supporters (including Southampton City Council.) Apparently the cruise ship trade is worth a fortune to Southampton and they don't want to lose any of it to a rival port. Even getting just one of Carnival's brands would be worth a mint to the City of Liverpool and would generate new employment up there. Personally, I have no objection to Liverpool's becoming a turnaround port. Sure, losing the Cunard brand might dent some of Southampton's profits and prestige but it wouldn't bankrupt Southampton whereas it would probably give Liverpool a much-needed economic boost. Darren could easily have found out about the proposals for Liverpool all by himself - as could you - but it appears that both of you needed a helping hand to tell you about it. That is allowed for you but not also for Darren, it seems. Gill Thanks, Chris

Listen, All It is time to cut some of the c*rap that has been dished out on this thread. I understand from Darren that he has looked at both barges and narrowboats but he is more attracted to barges because they have more living-space inside them. I do agree with him that it is almost impossible to understand what some people say when they talk about costs for boats on the canals. For example, please could someone explain to me about "blacking." I imagine that this is the same as antifouling a sea-boat? That is, the blacking will deter weed and any other organisms that might live in the canals? With a sea-boat, it is easy enough to find a place where you can put the boat against a wall or some scrubbing posts and antifoul it yourself when the tide goes out, so the only real cost is the antifouling paint and some effort by the boat's owner. Clearly, this would not be possible on a canal. Presumably on a canal, the boat has to be lifted out of the water and then rested on something that will keep the bottom of the hull clear of the ground? How do boatyards charge for this? Do they charge according to the boat's length or according to its weight? I don't know what a single boatyard or marina on the canals is called. Please could someone give me a link that will help me to figure out this whole business of "blacking" - many thanks. Also, if you own a canal boat (regardless of type) how trapped are you by the yards if something needs to be done to the boat? A boatyard in a coastal harbour will usually let a boat owner do all the maintenance work himself if the owner wants that. Is the owner of a canal boat allowed to be similarly independent if he wants to be? Let us say that Darren buys a barge. There is no reason why a barge shouldn't live in a coastal Harbour, either permanently afloat or in a mudberth. It seems to me that the only reason why Darren would need to tie himself to whatever goes on on the canals would be if he doesn't want to live on the coast, so I'm wondering whether he is coming at the whole thing from the wrong angle? If he would like to move to the coast then maybe a coastal Harbour would be a better answer for him? Thanks Gill

Hi Sir Nibble Were you born knowing absolutely everything about boats? If not, how did you learn? Also, you've made rather a lot of assumptions about Darren's lifestyle, haven't you? Gill

Hi Lady Muck I'm shocked by both of your posts today. I had no idea that things have become so bad in parts of London. Also, if things are that bad in London they are probably just as bad in some of the other densely populated large cities as well. Also, I didn't know that some of the marinas are emptying out - on some of the canals, at least. Round Southampton, the marinas all still seem to be full though I must admit I haven't looked closely. I've just had a vague impression from glancing around. The Southampton area may not be typical, anyway, because a lot of London money still drives down the M3 every weekend. Do many MPs have boats on the canals, do you know? I'm just wondering who planted thoughts about boats in Grant Shapps' head? Cheers Gill

Hi Nina C I'm suspicious of this new idea of turning businesses into charities. The tax-treatment of charities - and the people who invest in them (i mean 'donate money' to them) is very favourable. When we have a Chancellor whose own capital (from the Osborne & Little Wallpaper empire) is safely stashed in the Cayman Islands, what else is that little weasel up to at the behest of his wealthier cronies? I expect you heard about the row last year when GOD told the Treasury to produce a Plan B for the economy in case the Government's Plan A doesn't work. (GOD is Sir Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary and the overall boss of the Civil Service.) Cameron & Osborne were both livid because somebody leaked GOD's instruction to the Press. The latest rumour that I've heard is that Plan B consists of kick-starting the economy by kick-starting the construction industry, which is in the doldrums right now, as you know. The would-be developers are complaining that the purchase price of development land is too high and the Planning regime is too restrictive etc. There is not much point in building new office-space right now. Round Southampton, a huge amount of good-quality office space is empty because the erstwhile tenants have gone bust. People like Barratts are reluctant to build new housing estates because there is no guarantee that the Banks will provide enough mortgages for first time buyers and without them, the domestic property market is hamstrung. The Communities Select Committee have just announced a Public Inquiry into the Government's plans for "affordable rents" in the Social Housing sector because they are doubtful about whether these "affordable rents" will really be sustainable. So - the Government's response is to free up LOADS of new land and to kill off all the present restrictions in the Planning regime. That ought to drive land-prices down sharply. Right. What can be built on this newly-available land? If the land is near a canal, new marinas are possible. Tradies probably don't care about what sort of development they are constructing. Also, historically it was necessary for the canals to be navigable but that need not necessarily remain the case everywhere in the future. Wet land is fine as long as whatever goes on the wet land has a waterproof membrane on the outside. Somebody on this thread remarked the other day that Mrs Thatcher's decision to do away with the Parker Morris building standards in 1980 has led to to the development of shoe boxes instead of homes of a sensible size. The shoe-boxes can be further reduced in size if one does without loose, movable furniture inside them. Boats and caravans are perfect for this and they do not necessarily have to be dirigible as well. Also, it might be cheaper to build something with a waterproof exterior than to try to anchor the thing to the ground via foundations? According to the RBOA, boats provide an extremely "green" type of accommodation, which - if the RBOA are correct - would help us to meet Herr Huhne's ridiculously high targets with his "green agenda." The results may well look hideous but the present Government does not seem to be worried about that (hence the fight-back from the National Trust.) The Govt's only concern seems to be to try to kick-start the economy and I think their basic ideas about how to do that might well do the trick. Whatever is going on, there are going to be some hefty profits in it for someone, I strongly suspect. Cheers Gill

Hi Tom On the thread that Darren started earlier this week, he gave his e-mail address in his first post and asked people to e-mail him instead of replying on the forum. My guess is that he probably can't access a computer easily but he's probably got something like a Blackberry that would let him see his e-mails easily. He clearly isn't a journalist, as some snide twit of a forum member suggested on Darren's first thread this week - there is no such thing as a bright future for a journo who is clearly not particularly articulate. Apparently Darren has had several e-mails from CWDF members, though, so at least he knows that not all of the members are bar stewards. Quite a lot of people who work in the Skilled Trades (identified in the Skilled Occupations Classification - which is the Official Document and is available on the Internet) are actually dyslexic. Words fox them but they are very skilled with their hands - Darren could easily be one such, in which case deriding him for his less-than-brilliant English would be just plain rude. This is a very sensible, helpful answer so thanks very much for this. Several people have suggested this and of course it is an excellent idea in principle. Ideally, somebody searching for a possible boat would also visit lots of boatyards and brokers. However, with the Economic Squeeze on and the price of petrol or road diesel both having shot through the roof, it is understandable that people don't want to travel around more than they absolutely have to. I know an excellent, sheltered place in which to moor up a boat, in which place the mooring fees are also extremely cheap. So I've told Darren about that and sent him the links in an e-mail. It wouldn't matter what sort of boat somebody had there because the moorings are extremely well-sheltered and a barge would be fine if Darren wants a barge. The moorings area is easily big enough to accommodate a barge. The only problem is that the place is nowhere near Manchester, so one would have to think carefully about how to get something like a barge to the moorings. I don't know whether a barge could be put on a low-loader? It probably depends on the beam of the boat, I would imagine, but it might also depend on the weight of the barge? However I've put Darren in touch with a specialist boat-surveyor who is an old friend of mine. The first thing Darren needs advice about is what sort of things to look out for if he goes to view barges. A freebie chat with the surveyor would probably also reveal whether barges can travel by road - I've heard that some of the old Dutch barges are about 100 tons. Also, I'm mot sure about the viability of the place I have described when compared to Liverpool. I think the economy of Liverpool Docks and the surrounding area is going to take off like a rocket within the next couple of years. Liverpool have asked the Government for permission to turn Liverpool into a "turnaround" port for cruise ships. What this means is that the passengers would be able to start and finish their cruises in Liverpool. I live just outside Southampton, which is one of the main turnaround ports in the UK for cruise ships. The local movers & shakers down here are incensed by the notion that Liverpool might nick some of the huge profits that the cruise-ship industry brings to Southampton. However, Carnival's UK base is also in Southampton. Carnival have expressed public support for the idea of Liverpool becoming a turnaround port. They think the idea would be very attractive for a good number of Carnival's passengers. So my instinct is that the Transport Minister will allow Liverpool to become a turnaround port, in which case it would generate massive amounts of new employment in and around Liverpool. If I'm right about this then Liverpool (or a canal nearby) would be an excellent place for somebody living on a barge to move to, it seems to me. Darren is of working age though he has not told me his exact age. The employment prospects might well become excellent in Liverpool for a man of working age, I strongly suspect. Additionally, there is a windfarm not far from the Queens Channel, which is the main ship-channel into the River Mersey. That might get larger and if so, it is also likely to generate new employment in the area. It is a naffing sight quicker and cheaper to investigate that on the internet than to go and stare at the relevant wind turbines, obviously. So there are a whole load of factors to be considered by Darren apart from just choosing a suitable boat and finding somehere to moor it, imho. You and others might think that I have "hi-jacked" Darren's new thread but it seems to me that I've put a bloody sight more effort into considering what might be useful for him - and offering him constructive suggestions - than a lot of the naysayers on his threads have done. It irritates me that people who don't want to help apparently just want to carp and to deride other people instead. If they don't want to offer concrete help in any way that they can, why don't they just shut up instead? Cheers Gill

Yep. A gollywobbler is a mizzen staysail on a schooner and they are extremely difficult, shivery sails to fly. Flying a gollywobbler successfully requires a serious amount of skill. So what did you say your own problem is? Also, does your contribution actually assist the Original Poster on this thread? If so, how, please?

Hi Nina Thanks very much indeed for your most helpful post. I'm not the one who is thinking about living on a boat. I've been there, done that and have no need or wish to do it again. I'm merely defending Darren. I think you are absolutely right about the budgeting - I hadn't really thought about looking after the boat's structure until you said it, so thanks very much for that tip. Yes, I agree. When I lived on a boat, we didn't have to worry much about food-storage because the boat was huge and we had a freezer etc. However, one Christmas, I came close to strangling my darling hubby! He waited till the turkey was in the oven and we were expecting dinner-guests about 90 minutes later. Jim then announced that he needed to shut the generator down and to go ashore to get more fuel for the thing. The boat was all-electric because he didn't trust gas on a boat. We had our own 500 gall fuel tank on some land that we owned ashore but it was still a long-winded hassle to get ashore from a pile mooring in the middle of the Hamble River, drive to the land, get the fuel and then do the whole thing in reverse, so I nearly throttled him because b*ggering around to get fuel and switching the genny off in the meantime was hardly going to help my turkey to cook! Admittedly, that was the only time when he forgot to get enough fuel in advance but what a time to choose! Even now, though, living ashore as I do now, you are absolutely right that it is very expensive to buy food from anything except a large supermarket and it is very expensive to buy food if the storage at home will be limited, necessitating frequent trips to the shop. Again, I agree with you most heartily and it is very easy to overlook this sort of cost when one is trying to work it out on a spreadsheet. Again, I had forgotten about that so thanks very much for reminding me. I'm not but Darren is. I don't know whether Darren is dependent on the dole - that is none of my business and he hasn't told me. However if the dole is involved then I would advise Darren to be ultra-cautious. Housing Benefit might pay the rent for the mooring but it will NOT pay for anything else. Jim & I happened to be fairly wealthy, so we weren't trying to live on £67.50 a week, which is the amount for Job Seekers Allowance. I don't think one can afford to live on a boat if that is the weekly income, frankly. I think that Darren probably smells a financial rat and if so, I'd say that he is absolutely correct. Thank you again for your help - I believe that you have brought the living costs into very sharp focus and that cannot hurt. Cheers Gill

Joshua I expect I am less boring than the television. For the rest of your nonsense, I recommend investing in a thing called a brain. Speaking purely personally, I don't give a flying f*** about whether Shapps gets his own way with his idea that people should be encouraged to live on boats on the "inland waterways" (his expression this time, not mine) in England. Using these inland waterways is not something that I, personally, have ever done except once when I helped to deliver a boat from Windsor round to Portsmouth by sea. Very little of that trip involved inland waterways, plainly, and anyway that trip happened more than 20 years ago. However I do think that Shapps is wrong to present the idea of boat-living as some sort of Nirvana because I don't think that it is. I also think that his ideas might well involve vastly increased prices for the people who already use the canals and other inland waterways in England. Ultimately, it might also involve hugely inflated prices for people who keep their boats in Harbours instead but I think the Harbours are probably less of a worry. There are all sorts of legal problems with trying to order a Harbour Authority around. Also, most of the boats in a Harbour are capable of going to sea. It is not rocket science to take a sea-boat to a cheaper Harbour in another country. The vulnerable boats - and therefore the vulnerable owners - are the people whose boats were not designed to cross open water safely, it seems to me. Please, do go ahead and believe whatever you like with your perceived fantasies about Grant Shapps and me! I wouldn't dream of trying to stand between you and your fantasies, my friend.

From his e-mail reply to me, I wouldn't surmise that Darren has a degree in English - so the idiot on Darren's last thread who suggested that he might be a journo is a bit of a mutt, frankly. Darren responds MUCH better to e-mail than he does to internet forums, in my recent, personal experience. That is why he ASKED people to send him e-mails but he got shouted down by the insenstive twit on his first thread who made the pathetic assumption - sic, assumption only - that Darren "must be" a journo, so it is hardly surprising that Darren has not chosen to try to go there twice, now is it? Instead of whingeing, carping and making excuses, please try to give me a CONSTRUCTIVE hand about this. You will find that idea much more satisfying personally, I assure you. So far, I think that I have both understood and asked the questions clearly enough but I think it is probable that intelligent, thoughtful, helpful answers might well spawn further questions. If so, learn to live with it, I recommend. In theory, you guys can help. I am the person saying "inland waterways" rather than "canals" because - like Darren - I'm not sure where one begins and the other one ends. I'm used to "tidal waters without locks," if that is any help? Cheers Gill

Now, Tony Having got your "troll" allegation out of the way, let us get down to brass tacks. In a way, I do understand Darren's belief that one begins at the beginning. It is a logical place to start from, after all. With canals, the beginning was the Industrial Revolution about 250 years ago, I believe. I've been trying to research the whole canal business myself and I have found it next to impossible to succeed. One can find out about the history easily enough. One can discover why the Mechanical Horse eclipsed the furry variety commercially. One can discover LOTS of other things but it is almost impossible to understand the jargon used by modern "boaters" and anyway I thought that a boater is a type of straw hat. So I can understand Darren's problems completely. The canals strutted their stuff. Then they disappeared. Then they came back to life with a new type of user and a new type of jargon. The new jargon is what makes it so difficult for an outsider to understand how it all works nowadays. Darren is doing his best to describe what he thinks his problems are. There is zero doubt about that in my mind. His descriptions might not be clear enough for your taste but who's got the problem if that is the case? From what I've seen on this forum recently, I think Darren's best bet is to forget about the inland waterways and to head for a coastal Harbour instead. Everybody in a Harbour understands that there is no place for preciousness because all of us are potentially lunch for Old Nick if we get it wrong with our boats. Being the old geezer's lunch is a seriously powerful incentive not to make mistakes and to help anybody and everybody else to avoid that fate. Therefore nobody who keeps a boat in a Harbour would ever even dream of stooping to some of the sheer spite and stupidity that I have seen from some of the users of this forum. I think this forum needs to pull its sox up, frankly. Gill

Hi Tony Have you e-mailed Darren and heard from him yourself? if not, you are in no serious position to regard him as being a "troll," are you? Gill

Stop it, please. Darren has had several different e-mail replies, including from me. I think what is happening is that he is trying to cope with a "jumble of different information" and that the jumble is probably confusing him more than helping him at the moment. I take grave exception to your simplistic remark that you imagine that Darren might think different people might answer him and blah blah. Have you had the humility to consider that the guy might be a bit tongue-tied and unsure about how to pose his questions? If you have not had the humility to consider that possibility then why not, please? Does one need a degree in Communication Skills in order to be a member of this forum? It did not say so when I joined the thing so stop it, please. Gill

Hi Nine of Hearts Thanks very much for your reply. I do agree with what you say. For me personally, there was only one "choice" involved. I chose my late husband Jim. Choosing Jim involved choosing his liveaboard lifestyle as well but he was the one with the real knowledge and skill about boats, not me. Also, because he knew so much about how to do it, he gave me a very soft landing with it all. So all that I had to do was to adapt my own lifestyle to suit Jim's, in effect. I think it is a much harder decision to make when one's own reasons for possibly becoming a liveaboard are essentially negative and there is no compunction to do it at all. Darren has asked me whether I would do it again? The answer is, "Not without Jim," and since Jim is dead, all other considerations are academic from my point of view. I do not have the right skill-set to be able to live on a boat by myself, so I live ashore now, instead. However I do think you are absolutely right. If you want to do something enough then you will find ways to overcome all the practical problems - I certainly did. That said, if you are not sure then don't even try because I do think that being a liveaboard requires a LOT of conviction about something - even if it is about the skipper/owner more than his boat! Cheers Gill

With respect, everyone, I don't think your criticisms of Darren (the Original Poster on both threads) are fair. I'm in touch with Darren by e-mail, as he requested in his first thread. He is a total newbie to the whole idea of boats and boating. He can't afford to buy a house or a flat and it is the Government who have been pushing him towards the idea of living afloat instead. He has not had this idea all by himself. However, it is very easy for a land-lubber in a Government Office to say, "Ever thought of living on a boat instead?" That Government Official is extremely unlikely to be able to explain how to set about trying to investigate the idea - which is all that Darren is trying to do, so please don't be unnecessarily nasty to him, and please don't be sarcastic at all. That is not necessary and it doesn't show the other posters up in a good light. I think it says a lot more for the intelligence and sensitivity of the rest of us if we try to interpret/anticipate what questions this chap Darren really needs to know the answers to and it is NOT beyond the members of this forum to be able to provide the answers. I don't know any of the details about the inland waterways myself, so I've been asking Darren whether he would be willing to consider living in a coastal Harbour instead, because I DO know about those? At the moment, his reply is that he will consider living anywhere but he wants to know what the costs look like with all of the possible options. That is NOT an unreasonable thing for someone to want to know about, with respect. So! I will re-pose some of the questions that have been emerging from Darren via his e-mails. I would be very grateful for some coherent replies, please:- 1. At the moment, he lives near Manchester. Presumably a barge (instead of a narrowboat) would be an OK boat around there? I assume that the Manchester Ship Canal is both still navigable and also wide enough for a barge? 2. Are all the other canals and rivers around Manchester also wide enough for barges? 3. Darren says that he is not particularly bothered about whether he continues to live near Manchester or not. That widens his options in one sense but narrows them in another. Would it be viable for him to move to somewhere near Liverpool and to live on a boat on the inland waterways in the Liverpool area, please? If so:- 3.1 whereabouts would be a good place to consider, please? 3.2. what sort of annual costs would one be likely to have to consider, please? Someone has mentioned a total cost of £2 per day. Presumably that is roughly the total cost for keeping a boat on an inland waterway but it probably doesn't include the costs of the boat itself - eg fuel, gas and whatever else a boat might need? 4. Sure, the average barge is larger than most other boats. Would the costs of owning a barge be exponentially more expensive than some other types of boats or do the costs tend to work in a linear fashion, please? 5. Is there a specific charge for using a stretch of canal or a flight of locks managed by BW, please, or does all this depend on the type of boat/mooring licence that one has? The quick way to discover what this living afloat idea might cost is to get a boat and give it a go. However that it not the most intelligent - or even the most cost-effective - way to set about the whole thing, obviously. So if Darren has not explained himself sufficiently clearly, I will do so instead. The guy is a total novice who is trying to do an informal feasibility study into the whole idea of possibly buying and living on a boat. What can anybody tell us that might help with Darren's "feasibility study," please? Any information at all is probably very useful indeed but sarcasm is not useful at all, so please omit that bit. Many thanks to anyone who can help with this. Darren and Gill.

Hello Higgs I'm a newbie to this forum and I'm a "lumpy water boater" so I don't know anything about the canals and inland waterways myself - apart from the fact that I love the sight of the canals whenever I get the chance to stroll along a towpath beside one. It is something I would love to have a go at doing but I don't live near any navigable inland waterways, unfortunately. I joined this forum partly because I am interested in learning about the inland waterways generally and partly because I am concerned about the recent Government proposals to encourage more people to live on boats. The Govt have only mentioned the inland waterways in connection with this idea so far but if the idea works with those then there is no reason why coastal Harbours shouldn't be targeted next. So please forgive my ignorance but what is "the cut?" You've said that you don't object to more residential moorings but you don't want to see them on "the cut." Is a "cut" a narrow part of a canal where I would see boats moored alongside next to the towpath? The Govt have not been clear about their proposals, which is why everyone else is puzzled. As far as I can gather, the plan is that new marinas should be built on the inland waterways and that some/most/all of the berths in them should be devoted to providing more residential moorings. Apparently the Govt's proposed new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will sweep aside all the Planning objections to the above and the Govt is willing to offer Local Authorities a New Homes Bonus for every new residential mooring that they permit. The Govt also claim that their new Localism Bill will make it much harder for people to object to any proposals to build new marinas. This seems to be the basic idea. There is a growing suspicion that you're right. The National Trust seem to be leading the charge against the NPPF. They said yesterday that they will not support the Govt's present proposals because the National Trust reckon that the Govt's motives are purely economic and they argue that the Govt have a positive duty to consider aesthetic, environmental and essentially quality-of-life principles as well. One of the Govt's main considerations at the moment seems to be that the canals could help to alleviate the problems that Local Authorities currently face in finding and providing Social Housing for people in need of it. The immediate Social Housing priority is to provide adequate housing for homeless people. At the moment Local Authorities are prohibited from trying to suggest that boats or caravans might provide adequate housing for homeless people but the Govt intend to remove this prohibition apparently. Suggesting that a homeless person can be housed adequately on a boat is a non-starter unless there is a permanent residential mooring on which the boat can be berthed, though, so this notion wouldn't work unless more residential moorings are developed. I agree with the cynicism and suspicion you have expressed in your final paragraph! Going back to my own question, what is "the cut," please? Thanks Gill

Hi Darren I'm not an expert on the inland waterways but I know a few snippets about living on boats (and whereabouts) that might help you to get started. I've sent you an e-mail as you have requested. Cheers Gill

Hi Wanted Apparently your wish is about to be granted according to Inside Housing today! http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/ministers-to-set-out-empty-homes-plans/6517648.article Personally, I'll believe it when I see some evidence of it actually happening. Cheers Gill

Hi Wanted I'm not surprised that Shapps is whingeing. Why on earth should the "Squatters Advisory Service" need to know the addresses of the empty properties? Isn't it enough if the Council simply say how many homes are empty and how long each one has been empty for? I'm sure they have the information to say that much without any hassle. I think that Henderson J's ruling is perverse. Would she demand that BW must also give the Squatters Advisory Service the names and locations of the boats that BW know/believe are not permanently occupied? (Let's just hope and pray that these Squatters Advisory Service people don't think of the possibility, methinks.) Cheers Gill

Hi Nina C I agree with you. Like you, I also suspect that there is a Financial Model in here somewhere. I also think that your current amenities (as a boat-owner) or mine (as a "happy hiker" along towpaths) are not seen as being terribly important. What do you and I want instead? The proliferation of Urban Sprawl round our cities and towns? Personally, I'm disappointed by the idea of further development of the canals. First, successive Governments left the canals to become derelict. Then a mainly volunteer workforce dragged them back from the brink. Now they look lovely and they also look very peaceful - unless that Osborne & Little wallpaper bloke gets his thieving hooks into the till with the canals. I'm disappointed - but he is not likely to listen to either of us! Cheers Gill