Leaderboard

what rubbish, BW will not render anyone homeless who complies with their legal obligations as laid out in the license terms and conditions.~if you chooose to ignore the rules then you will render yourself homeless. TAKE RESPONSILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS. What they are seeking to do is to prevent anyone from illegally taking up a pemanent mooring spot to which they are not entitled. Boater or not you have to pay your way in life and just because it does not suit you to pay for amooring does not mean that you can choose to ignore the law.

Boy what a rant! Better answer it hadn't I Right, I don't have a clue. I only know what is in the public domain, here, NBW and KandA, therefore I must confess that I don't know the whole story but enough I think to recognise that much of what you have asserted over the years, like that nobody needs a mooring if they move every 14 days is plain wrong. "Their right" etc, "they" were a hypothetical group postulated by Carlt as part of an exchange between us, I am guilty of assuming Mr Davies was supported by the people behind the Cbeebies KandA website, if I am wrong and they just left him hung out to dry then I apologise, nonetheless the inept moronic style of this particular shop front does seem to encourage people in the now shown to be mistaken belief that this lifestyle is lawful and is encouraging people to play for higher stakes than they can afford on a very weak hand. I have no reason to believe Mr Davies is part of any group but the notion that he has gone so far so self destructively entirely alone speaks of either an overwhelming hubris or someone who shouldn't cross the road without a grownup, are you really telling me that no one said "you go for it mate" or otherwise reinforced the belief that he could win this? Ok, you tell me that his losing his home is not so clear cut, well I am at fault there I should know that internet sources are liable to be either half arsed or spouted in persuit of a hidden agenda, here it is. As for crowing, you'd love me to wouldn't you, then you could point at me and decry my glorying in someone losing their home, unless they haven't, I've had both versions from the same evidently unreliable source. Yes the headline does back up my tired, repetetive and apparently vindicated point of view rather than your tired repetetive and apparently discredited one. Sore loser?

If you want to cruise the UK canal system extensively (or not even that extensively) then you will need a narrowboat. If you want to do it all then your narrowboat will need to be 56ft or less in length. That's the bottom line. The other thing is that not all wide boats can do coastal cruising. Unless it's been designed or modified for the sea it shouldn't really leave the mouth of a river. I live on my widebeam (NB style) and it suits me because primarily it's my home. I'm in the South so I can navigate all of the Thames, the Medway, the K & A to Bristol, the GU to somewhere South of Birmingham and the River Lea (Lea & Stort). That's about it. I haven't done all of that yet so there's still plenty for me to explore. If I was retired or just rich and had time to cruise extensively then I'd be better off with a narrowboat, but my circumstances force me to have a mooring and work for a living. Fortunately I'm not the sort of person who feels the need to take my boat along every part of every waterway in the country, just as I don't feel the need to ride my motorbike on every road in the country. So basically it's down to your circumstances and your personality. Don't try to find a boat that can fulfil every function - it doesn't exist. Each type of boat is good in its own way and all boats are a compromise. You just have to work out which compromises you are prepared to make.

Of course! I am entirely supportive of their right to defend their position, I am simply exasperated that when the stakes are so high that defence is in the hands of people working at the level of a playground argument. There is a great deal that could be achieved on behalf of this group in the way of damage limitation by adult constructive engagement, simply insulting the other side of the debate and repeating tired worn out and unsupported mantras leads one way only, down the pan. Let us not forget that someone has lost their home, that is no basis upon which to score debating points, I foresee more going the same way because of the incompetant leadership these people place their trust in. In my view the big print in this sad affair reads "MISLEAD" and "LET DOWN".

Where when and how have I ever threatened anyones home or lifestyle? All I have ever done is voice the opinion that this lifestyle is unlawful. If Mr Davies had taken my opinion to heart instead of the fools who think namecalling counts as a campaign he would not have lost his home. I am inclined to wonder how many are still accepting the "ultra vires" line from the same bunch of amateurs and stand to lose their homes too before some people are willing to climb down off their egos and see which way the wind is blowing.

Assuming you mean side ones, I hate locking through with any boat that does have fenders. Side fenders are an aid when moored, but a potential danger when used in locks.

Hi, Sorry to hear about your bad luck. You have done the right thing in get a survey, but still ended up with problems, which is very dissapointing. You don't, I think actually say the degree of the overplate, which is clearly significant. Some boats just get their sides from above the waterline, down to the baseplate covered, with the baseplate being found to be OK. Others have the full monty. If it's complete sides and the baseplate, then they should effectively form a "shoe" in their own right, so that none of the original hull still presents to the water. Stating the obvious, I know, but you should be able to go inside and knock holes through the original hull to your leisure, safe in the knowledge that it is completely carcassed by the new steel. It would be very interesting to know the extent of the overplate, and what your surveyor said about it, and the welding. If they gave it a clean bill of health, my feeling is that they have shown negligence. I know trying to gain any kind of recompense in cases like this is hard, but at the very least I think I'd be asking for the refund of the survey fee. I hope you are able to resolve it without too much of a nightmare. Alan