Eugene Baston

I think it's simply BW (eventually) getting its act together regarding the informal employment of MW's that's gone on for years. The IR doesn't like public bodies giving 'stuff' away. Been on the cards for years: not pleased it's actually being implemented but not surprised either, the pressure must have got too much Happy boating all.

Paul, you're comparing apples with pears there, two entirely different companies. Suggest you acknowledge that in your post above just to be on the safe side. It was Spring Residential that purchased the site and Castlemore is/was a part of that company. But they're nothing to do with the marinas you mention. Another interesting twist to a story that goes on and on. The comment about seeking the cheapest price in fire sale of the company's assets appears pretty accurate to me. Best wishes to all, Eugene

Ha...who says?! It was only a suggestion after all, and I'm sure there are numerous others who could contribute annonymously....even if you always thought it was me! Eugene

How about 'Towpath Telegraph'? Fairly popular term already that helps give the site the boost for readership. I'm looking forward to seeing it come online and reading the contributions. If there was room for an annonymous contributor column......... All the best, Eugene

Evening all I'd say that's just below Lapworth on the Stratford. That's what I thought when I saw it anyway. Hope everyone's well! Eugene .....or somewhere down the Claydon flight on the Oxford......in Spring 1988 (ish).

Hi Go to http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/accounta...on_reports.html and scroll down to 2005. There's three reports there. Right, back to lurking, Eugene.

I'm getting my coat and puting my auto reply 'out of office' on......... ....Christmas shopping even appears appealing now! Merry Chrsitams everyone Eugene

Not that reliable Julian. The ceiling isn't 7.5%. The average increase for BW directly managed moorings is 7.4%. Averages can mask some figures way removed from what initially sounds like a reasonable figure! Merry Xmas

There are lots and it's hard to choose. Marple is a good one both up and down (in one afternoon!), but Moggyjo beat me to that example. For me then it has to be the Wolverhampton 21 going down. From the noise and bustle of the inner ring road, albiet besides a quaint lock cottage and some well tended private moorings, this flight drifts delightfully down to the serenity of the countryside below. One thing though! Don't hang around what I've nick named Incinerator Lock if you've got a weak stomach. The stench will provide the fish with plenty of food if the wind's blowing in the wrong direction! Eugene

He still does read what appears here! Honest!! Eugene

A couple of points after reading this thread. Someone mentioned that you were moored on "BW's water", and someone else said "but I already pay a licence to be on the water". You are actually moored over BW's land, ie the bed of the canal. That's what the charge is for. BW charge the boat owner 50% of the nearest towpath side mooring when it comes to end of garden moorings. Why 50%? Because in using a mooring there are two benefits - foot access to said mooring and benefit of mooring over said piece of canal bed. An EoG mooring does not have access over BW's land - therefore BW charges only 50%, i.e. for the part of the benefit which relates to the mooring being over BW's land. It expects the owner of the EoG to charge the remainder to the boat owner, unless, of course, it's a mate or relative or indeed you own the piece of garden to which the boat is tied to. BW may bill the garden owner for the 50% and the owner will then bill the moorer for that amount plus whatever they think having access across their land to the mooring is worth. The court case was in 1992 and on the Lancaster canal. A subsequent one around the turn of the century also proved that BW had a right to charge for mooring over its property. Occasionally, ancient wharf rights exist which permit 'the laying up of vessels', and because of this historical right it can be argued that BW cannot charge for a mooring at these locations. But they are few and far between! As for witholding a cruising licence because on non payment of fees - I wouldn't count that BW wouldn't do this, regardless of David's views on unfair contracts etc. Even if they didn't, the outcome would be as follows. You apply for a licence, and because you're unable to declare your mooring location, you state you a CC'er. But you don't move like a CC'er, and so when it comes to licence renewal it is refused. See the test case on the G&S being covered in most of the waterway titles right now. HTH, Eugene

From an existing moorer's point of view: Annual increases are implemented from April each year, and are usually arrived at through BW's assessment of local market conditions,i.e. what others are charging for online moorings, plus an adjustment for the site's waiting list popularity. With adjacent mooring fees being established through the tendering trial for the next 12 months, data from those adjacent moorings that are tendered will be used to inform BW's future price setting of those moorings that have not been subjected to the tender process. I haven't seen anything that suggests where the threshold will be set whereby, on the results of the tendering process, adjacent mooring fees are set to rise above a certain percentage. Perhaps phazed increases over more than one year will kick in if price reises for adjacent moorings are above 15%. perhaps the threshold will be more. BW has said that it will publish all data received as a part of a tender for one mooring, giving adjacnet moorers at least access to information upon which future prices will be set. HTH, Eugene

Winter moorings were never intended to be a part of the trial, simply because they are, by their nature, a temporary mooring for the winter. The trial is concerned with BW's 12-month towpath moorings. It would be a very long winter if the temporary moorings were included, since each contract awarded to the winning bidder is for a three year period. You should check (firmly) that this is the case. That's my advice. HTH, Eugene

Indeed there were. Since I know/knew both of them, my two-penneth is this: What's great about free speech is that it is just that. Mike would have agreed whole-heartedly, because for him 'representation' was the key. It didn't matter what you thought or what you were, you should have a voice. While he didn't always agree with what you said, you could be sure of a fair reason why, built in logic and from his vastly superior knowledge of waterways (and many other things beside). Adam1uk is spot on with what happened between Mike & Victor. Why did the bantering continue to happen for so many years? Because Mike liked the debate, the repostes, the differing views - and because the much reviled 'Victor', whoever he may be, invited him to contribute, because he also values free speech. As has already happened, amendments have been made to NBW.com. Can't we all now leave it at that and accept that different views can exists, and indeed can propser when like-minded people feel the same? And for the record, I know both Victor and Thomas are feeling gutted at what's happened. Today's been a bad day for the waterways. 'Nuff said, hopefully. Eugene

Cheers for the tip off on the account ID. I wouldn't wish to be accused of trading standards infrigements, misrepresenting someone or something else, or the like Address to Liz Horne (usual email address format for BW applies, 1st name dot 2nd name@) for FoI requests in the first instance. Jonathan Bryant will have day to day management on them as I did previously. BTW, hi Yoda. Yes, something did leave me, but as to what...... Cheers, Eugene

Just had to say "Will the real Victor Swift please stand up, please stand up, please stand up". This 'guess who' game is fantastic when you're in the know but definately not in with the 'in' crowd. By the way, anyone know how to change my user name? I need to lose a certain two letters at the end the current one and can't work it out for the life of me. PM please, don't let me be accused of taking this fantastic Cleuso thread away from its intentions! Cheers, Eugene

Hi everyone Thanks very much for your generous messages, they're really appreciated at this end and remind me of how sad I feel that I won't be able to help you out in an 'official' capacity in the future. That's not to say I won't be around, since the waterways for me and the family have always been more than a job, and I intend to stay in touch both here and elsewhere. I don't know who might be a replacement for me yet, but when I do I'll let you all know. It won't be up to me as to whether they are active here and elsewhere on the internet of course, but I'm aware that there are already at least two other BW employees active on this forum, so I don't think you'll miss me that much Whether they are sanctioned to introduce themselves formally and respond in the spirit I've responded to over the years...well, we'll just have to wait and see. My decision was made because I don't feel there's much more I can do at BW at the present time, and certainly isn't because I want to spend more time with my (new) family. Clearly that's important, but without anything bigger and better to go to, job-wise, there are other things even more important right now, like getting an income! I intend to be self employed and use my skills to help others in the ways I've hopefully done over the last few years. So, if you know of something or someone who could do with some professional help (of my kind, not the Dr's!), do please bear me in mind. You can always PM, and I'll change my settings when the time comes to cast the ropes off from BW's moorings In the meantime, my thanks again to you all. As I've written elsewhere, I've certainly relished the fantastic challenges that have been thrown my way over these years, and that includes challenges 'incoming' from some of you too. I think I've probably done most of them to the very best of my ability, and if you're reading this and thinking about a time when we've crossed swords, I hope it will be with a view that the battlefield was fair and that sometimes different perspectives have to exist. Best wishes, Eugene

Thanks again to everyone for their kind wishes and wise words, we're very touched, although many would say I've always been quite 'touched' in any case! The tips on taking loads of pictures is soooo true! We're astounded that within two weeks the young lad's moved from 9lbs 7oz to 10lbs 5oz, and that stuff kindly bought for him before and at the birth time is rapidly being consigned to the 'hand me down' pile. And with digital images these days it doesn;t really matter just how many piccies are taken! As for sleep patterns, to go 12 hours must be utopian!! The best is juts under four hours, but this was on Saturday night when having to get up in the morning is not quite such an issue! Last night was an entirely different story, although it did mean I could see the metoer shower when otherwise I would have been fast asleep. Our thanks again to all of you for your good wishes - looking forward to sitting the young 'un on the hatch in the not so distant future, so if you're out and about, keep an eye peeled. Best wishes, Eugene

Just to say I've PM'd Rick and Jo separately, in case anyone thought I'd disappeared from this thread!

And the same is true for me, plus my BW email address is readily available too. If you want to make a complaint about the proposed closure then please do so. I will not however discuss matters of grievance in a public forum. Thanks, Eugene

No, it's not Neil. To be absolutely correct, I should have written "The advice is always to have a 12-monthmooring before you own a boat". Or a three, or a six month mooring for that matter. The point being that the contract is for that time limited duration. I understand that you are upset about the closure of the proposed moorings where your boat currently is, and I am genuinely sorry that you are upset. I can;t say any more than that on your specific case, at least not in this public forum. Best wishes, Eugene

Hi Phil I can understand your quandry, but the answer is simple in that moorings should not be sub let under the contractual terms and conditions of the standard BW long term mooring permit agreement. I don't have a copy to hand but it's in the T&Cs. That's not to say there's the occasion flouting of this T&C, nor the sale of moorings with boats, equally disallowed. But when the time comes to renew the mooring permit, and details have changed (without prior BW knowledge), ....... On the matter of benefitting from a mooring when not having a boat, that's not all that unusual either. Although 'benefitting' is the worng word, since paying rent for something that you can't use (but will need in the future) is a bit annoying. The advice is always to have a mooring before you own a boat, unless you are one of the fortunate minority who can genuinely continuously cruise the UK's canal and river network. That important point was sadly missing from the article about Polish (country, not boat style )boat builders which appeared in yesterday's Times. Best wishes, Eugene