dasboot

This reference and comparison to the Marchioness tragedy on London's tidal Thanes is about as relevant as comparing marbles to extreme snow boarding. Cretinous in fact. That's not going to happen on the canals. The risk is nothing. People enjoy drinking. I do. As I said before, get a life, and leave the rest of us alone with your nanny state twaddle.

Good Lord. Where does that leave you with founded criticism? I am a reader. Not every month, but for many years. As Warrior Woman stated, reflecting on some issues from the 1980s she acquired, you have become less critical. Far less critical. Of all the publications devoted to the British waterways, yours is the best in my view. But it doesn't serve the readership well. It does smack of pandering to the major advertisers. You can reply, "bullshit". But you know this to be true.

Oh dear, Kevin. I simply made the factual observation that that you were logged in and looking at this topic as I posted my response. I respect Tony Brooks too by the way. I'm not anti-media or paranoid, just observant of the fact that the waterways' press is not objective and is in the thrall of its advertisers much more than it is interested in providing its readers with informed objective views. Do tell us if your incisive journalism, for instance, will inform Canal Boat's readers as to how many orders for new boats have emerged as result of the Crick Show.

At the Thames and Kennett marina on the River Thames, correct. Some considerable cruising distance and a different world from Fobney Lock on the River Kennet. Good to see that you're sensitive to the criticism that you serve advertisers better than you do your readers, and noted that as I write Kevin Blick of Canal Boat is logged in to this topic too.

Only because the New Boat Co/Steve Harral/Whilton didn't have a chocolate and strawberry outlet there.

Well, very sad, because with a boat like that you will be moving back on to land long before that involves a a coffin to transport you there. Or you will be selling it at a large loss and buying a practical boat and recognising that a boat is not a floating bungalow. That is, you adapt to life afloat, not life afloat adapting to you. I am mystified as to why anyone would have a narrowboat built which depends on mains powered equipment as its fundamental resource for the basics of day to day existence, i.e a decent cooked meal. Bonkers.

nAbsolutely right. Bet they've gone for reverse layout as well. And a bowthruster. "We've never had a boat, but we know better........."

Why are you having such a boat constructed? What experience do you have that makes you believe that your boat will be a better option than the gas fuelled majority of expoerienced boaters' craft, who will tell you, have told you, that your boat is vastly impractical? And will have a poor 2nd hand value?

Alcohol has been a contributory factor to Western civilisation. Not for nothing is a stiff gin and tonic a relic of the Empire coupling the use of quinine to fend off malaria with thrills and sexual spills of a quantity of juniper berry flavoured alcohol. I seem to recall that the Romans, former masters of the universe, ruled the known world on diet of lead tainted wine. Winston Churchill conducted the 2nd world war fuelled by vintage Bolly and brandy. I have boated for many years. Being pleasantly sloshed is a wonderful waterways companion. To anyone who thinks otherwise: get a bloody life. Oh, and could I borrow a corkscrew?

I found that all of them were faulty. For a start, Man Utd kept winning games, so I took mine back at that point for a refund.

Then you are building, or having built, a hopelessly impractical boat. You can't run your genny after 8pm or before 8am, so your dinner and breakfast times are restricted. 240v is for houses, not for boats - or only in tiny occasional amounts. Why are you having such a boat constructed? Listen to the vast majority on here. Gas or salads is your only practical option.

I ran a poll on the back of the Pershore topic. 2 contributors, who have already pursued a vendetta in many previous topics, chose to take that on as their latest slanging match in which no one else can be possibly interested. Despite 100% support from 2 viewers the poll was removed by moderator Alnwick within minutes. He PMd me stating, "I have removed your poll. Even though some other members may agree with your sentiments it is not within the spirit of the Forum Rules and Guidelines to openly criticise the conduct of other members. If you do not like the posts of the named contributors you are, of course, at liberty to ignore them." We may well be at liberty to ignore their contributions. But the people who post a topic, and those who seek a constructive answer, should also have rights to have stupid personal bickering removed.

Barton Turns are probably quite happy if the owner is coughing up a mooring fee. Probably more profitable for them if the boat doesn't sell. But my main point remains the same. If you are a BT moorer, you cannot place your boat for sale with any broker other than BT themselves. The same is true at countless other marinas. Why? It is a shocking restrictive practice.

The answer is that Barton Turns haven't got a clue about valuing or selling boats. They just rely on the fact that people moored in their marina are not allowed the freedom to choose a broker - they have to use Barton Turns or no one. And the same is true at many other marinas. BWML with their 18 marinas are prime examples of this restrictive practice. Roll on the day the OFT step in and allow moorers the freedom to choose their selling agent, as house owners are free to do.