Leaderboard

I really wish NBW was a print publication, I'm out of bog roll at the moment. Honestly, I know we have a rule about not doing down in their dreams competing sites, but the guy who wrote that load of twatwaffle richly deserves a handjob from Edward Scissorhands.

OK, OK, I know I said I would never look at the "Dark Side"! But am I the only one who finds the curious juxtaposition of those articles by the likes of Allan Richards versus Victor's more extreme rants more than distinctly odd? On the one hand we get articles that quite rightly set out that CRT has embarked on a policy to try and get something in place, whilst totally failing to prove that the need for it exists. We are told in one article that NABO are against it, and in others that boaters are using the media to get their case over, and an article about Jenlyn's petition seemed to me to be pretty reasonable. Now we get this. containing gems like this..... .....which to me seems to be a direct swipe at Steve "Jenlyn". No doubt in his next article "Victor" will provide his evidence that Steve is an "illegal moorer" - oh hang on though, perhaps he will not! This stuff makes me very angry indeed, though I have no idea why I should get wound up my someone so narrow-minded and ill informed, I'm afraid I still do. I suppose it is because loads of people will lap up his words, and say "I'll have some more of that please!" I am by most live-aboard's estimation a "shiny leisure boater", with boats kept on home moorings. When I do boat them, I boat them on the whole quite rapidly around the system, seldom even laying over for a day anywhere. That still doesn't stop me being wholly opposed to what CRT are trying to now bring in as a Visitor Moorings policy. We have pretty conclusively proved that BW and CRT have no data that supports the need to make the changes they are proposing, and a fair bit of evidence that their reasons for trying to do it are not the ones stated. It looks to me increasingly like a cynical attempt to sweep in a series of measures that effectively are trying to do a type of "social cleansing", by a completely heavy handed "sledge-hammer to crack a nut" method that will adversely affect "law abiding" boaters, whilst the relative few that choose not to be will continue to just stick two fingers up, and carry on. Please nobody accept "Victor's" drivel without spending some time acquainting yourself with the research that a lot of us have worked hard on. Because that is just what it is - drivel!

The OP's post begins: The OP doesn't need any help. The OP is expressing outrage at his perceived injustice It's a good rant, I don't have any evidence from either of the actual boater's involved as to what has really happened Luctor's post is as valid as yours under these circumstances Richard http://subrosa-rosamundi.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/larks-tongues-in-aspic.html Richard

Hell yes

It has been an evolutionary thing, Nick. Regular long distance narrow boat contracts finished over 40 years ago, (unless you count the deliveries of pulp to Roses Lime Juice that carried on into the 1970s - to some extent seasonal, I think, and not so many miles). But in the 1970s people like my brothers were still loading house coal in bulk, often by going up to the coal fields, which was brought south for retail sales. They were weighing, bagging and delivering it to localities. OK it was an "as needed" traffic, and the end user was not industrial. Nowadays people probably don't want to buy house coal bagged into old open fertiliser sacks, (assuming it is even legal to bag it on board?), and there is far less demand for solid fuels in private houses, so it has developed mostly into loading bagged coal, and much of the custom is now boats, although canal-side properties are served too. In many cases the boats are making long journey's to load in the first place, and there is often still a long haul element involved. If you think about it, hand loading bagged coal onto a boat is actually far harder work than having it shot in loose out of a lorry, or indeed having it scooped out the other end by a grab. I reckon many of the current coal boat proprietors work just as hard as their predecessors who only had to concentrate on making the trip. Plus they now have to stay out of trouble with deeply loaded boats on canals where there are far more boats than there ever were in the heyday of working boats. Plus many of them regularly work single handed, and through ice and snow. It is genuinely unfair to suggest that they are doing anything that is less a commercial business than many who worked on the long distance carrying fleets. There may have been a change in the last 40 years, and the nature of the businesses have evolved, but IMO many of them are just as much boatmen/boatwomen. And of course, equally, there are people like me, for whom it is a much loved expensive hobby - I think many owners of old boats are happy to admit that that is all it amounts to - it doesn't stop me standing in awe of those who trade in the harshest weathers, and manage not to maim themselves - I wouldn't last long - I know that! EDITED TO ADD: I think perhaps I'm being a bit more patient than Luctor, but I can certainly understand his frustration!

"In the 18 years of boating, though not in the area in question, I have cruised into Bath twice, and can sympathise with the complaints of visiting boaters, encountering lines of what really are illegal moorers, doing so on nothing more than continuous cruiser licences. The only space we could find to moor was on the river." This is another gem from this tw#ts rubbish. In one sentence he both agrees with absent posters, and confesses that he has only been to Bath twice, in eigtheen years.. the man is a tool. He then denounces every single boat on the approach to Bath as an illegal moorer. The man is a tool. I bet he was speeding all the way into Bath. To be honest, his like have been doing us a service over the years. It is really quiet here now.....

Funny enough I often have trouble at Newbold and last year I twice camped overnight on someone's empty private mooring, but worse was rugby where the magnet of the big shopping park drew everybody in again we gave up and carried onto Braunston for supplies. I think the Rugby site is still 14 days I am sure someone will correct me if its not but I am sure it will be on CRT's hit list. The problem I suspect is the popularity of the site not any particular type of license holder. I think Alan can't resist a daily peak at NBW but he does have the effect of getting the rest of us to read it when he posts. I thought their coverage of the SE Mooring consultation was to date pretty fair but the latest articles seem designed to start the whole them and us process going again. I agree with Lady Muck it's like they are in a tabloid war with themselves. My view on the mooring proposals is the same as Alan's , however for the sake of fairness and balance I will say that there are a substantial number of boaters that I canvassed as part of this exercise who were broadly in agreement with CRT's views and do believe there is an ever growing problem with CM'ers and I would not be surprised if these views were expressed in the feedback. As in most surveys if people are happy they tend to say little if they have had a bad experience they tend to complete them.

I must admit I quite enjoy NBW... if I want common sense I come here or go back to the old newsgroup where it all began. I don't think anyone takes NBW as any more than polemic, any more than people should get upset by some of the mild abuse that gets scattered around on here occasionally. And I think anyone who takes anything on the net as gospel without further investigation must be an idiot anyway, and if people in general don't know that by now then the general IQ level is lower than even I suspect.

And PLEASE remember, any coating is only as good as its substrate, ie if you put the most expensive paint in the world on top of mediocre, old, porous coatings, you've wasted your time and money.Also, if you paint the entire boat in the time you have specified, you've done it wrong.

From this site it says one coat. It also says that blasting is not required if its not going to be immersed, as its the bottom of a boat and is going to be immersed I would suggest that indicates blasting is required.

While we're on the subject, Victor's latest post contains this gem: "On many other waterways we have had difficulty mooring at such as shopping centres, with often having to put up with someone purposely running a propeller or our being told they were 'moorings for local people', or some such, meaning of course the boaters who had illegally taken root—outside Sainsbury's at Huddersfield was a prime example." Absolute nonsense. The boater's outside Sainsbury's at Huddersfield have not illegally taken root at all. Those moorings are on-line private, paid-for marina moorings. What saddens me is that people who know no better will read this sort of crap, believe it and then tell others. Thus we end up with a sort-of 'received wisdom' which paints a picture of the canals which bears no resemblance to reality.

If there's not the opportunity to comment on something posted on the web, then it should be treated as one persons opinion only. Unfortunately some think that by posting something online, the person's opinion is well researched and balanced. Ever since going to the very first Skipton meeting, where "overstaying" was on the agenda...I asked...."where is it...I've never seen it". It seems many others havent seen it either, based on the number of actual complaints CRT received. We all know it's there, in hotspots. It still baffles my brain why those hotspots cant be cleaned up by targeting the actual offenders (who have most likely been there for months already) without changing the rules by which normal law abiders live by. THAT is what is making everyone so upset. Well..that's my opinion anyway.

Congratulations Alan! We too are almost there, with the delivery of our widebeam to Newark next week and then a shortish cruise up to our mooring in Lincoln - can't wait!! Good luck and above all else.....enjoy!!!

I am a little surprised at what has happened. I have always found BW/CRT very understanding when it comes to overstaying for a good reason. As it happens as from today my boat will be 15 days in the same place. I phoned CRT on Friday and explained that I was going to my Mother's who is not well and hope to be back by Saturday, the answer was "No problem and thank you for letting us know" I expect had your friend spoken to CRT instead of complaining to you he would have managed to get what looks like 1 months winter mooring fee waved. As for the other boat this actually makes no difference to his circumstances and as others have said how do you know he is not paying winter moorings.

Is it too much to ask? If you don't have anything of value to add to a serious discussion, however valid or invalid it may be in your opinion - could you just say nothing? 'Peanuts, cold drink, comfy beanbag', - does that kind of response help the OP, really?

Sorry, but a retinal detachment almost always requires emergency hospital treatment, with the patient needing urgent eyesight saving surgery. Often a patient needs to lie flat, prior to emergency surgery. Michael Staples FBDO Wendy Staples BSc MC Optom

It does seem fair to pay if you want to stay in one place.

Braodly speaking, and with exceptions, an overplated boat is well past it's best and living on borrowed time, IMO. Avoid. MtB

I fear that you, or the marketeer, are falling into the usual trap of taking the consumption at maximum load. When an engine is tested it is put on a dynamometer and run with the throttle wide open. its speed is controlled by the loads placed on the engine. From the DV36 curves its power at just over 2000 RPM is about 28 HP but one the canal at that speed we would typically have the throttle about half open and may only be taking 2 to 6 HP so the actual fuel consumption will be far lower. Typically within the 1 to 1.5 litres per hour and as it is direct injection and thus marginally more efficient (no pumping losses through the throat) it will tend to be lower than the Jap units. Once you get onto marinised engines all sorts of things not immediately apparent come into play. I like the Beta range BUT I would hate the get a starter off most Greenline engines. Their engine foot gets in the way. We have heard someones opinion of Vetus and that is largely caused by how they marinise the engine. Thornycroft who use the same base engine do not seem to have problems. Then Westrebeke (again the same base engine) seemed to have fouled up with undersized flywheels on at least one engine. Vehicle engines drop any leaking fuel or oil onto the road. Boats tend to hold it in the drip tray and if there is a leak it gets sprayed all over the cam belt - not good. Boat engines often spend close to six moths stationary giving steel cam belt sprockets plenty of time to rust into the cam belt so when it is next started the belt gets one hell of a snatch as it breaks free. Not good for any belt timed engine like the XLD. That plus the frequent belt changes often in very confined spaces. Some modern Listers use hydraulic valve lifters and these have caused problems in a number of cases, possibly down to lack of oil changes. I do not think there are any bad common marinisations but I know there are some less good than others. AT least if its designed as a marine engine it will be robust and properly specified.

Well of course. Just a bit of fun,but you never know.