Leaderboard

You are determined to win the 'most obnoxious poster' award Mr Bear. The first boat gas had a fire, the second a tragedy and all you can sneer is ' don't leave your mess in my canal'. A staggering lack of any feeling for your fellow human. This recent change in your posting style does you no credit. I struggle to imagine the festering resentment that you have worked yourself into. I bet it's cheap too.

Whilst the blogger takes a somewhat wry angle there is a serious issue here although I don't expect most of you to agree. The sort of continuous moorers that continue to pollute the system leave behind all sorts of crap for others to sort out at great cost no doubt. I know that the Carlt Popular Front will no doubt say that I don't know the circumstances and the boaters might like their boats like that but surely their must be a better way than to gradually block the canal with crap like this. http://nbherbie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/i-told-you-there-was-submarine-about.html

I take that as a compliment Mr Pink as one whom is pretty high in the obnoxious stakes. The point that I am making is that no matter the circumstances, and there are tragedies of one sort or another every day, what is to be done about all the crap? leave it as a memorial? or get their insurers to pay to clear it up..........oh they don't have insurance, quell suprise!. Our insurance is just over a pound a week with up to £5000000 liability inc salvage, no excuse really. Seriously, all grumping aside, this is a serious problem which with the increasing amount of livaboards of all flavours will only get worse. How about (slightly) organising some sort of helpline/support system that people in desperate straights can turn to to get some support. It has worked in a very ad hoc way on here but it can't all rely on Carl's generosity all the time. The only problem that I can see is free riders but the RNLI copes so perhaps it is overcomeable. I suffer greatly with depression, am a dismal failure and was unemployed for over 6 years due to a major traffic accident which has left me with damaged frontal lobes so I do have a great deal of empathy but what cannot happen is that these boats are just left as it will not be long before they will breed just like in areas of graffitti and there will be a major problem andmajor cost.

Still not sure I fully understand. Is it a punishment or a perk? In areas such as MK where rumour has it that the RMP is only for those who've already been ticketed for non compliance - it sounds like they're either being punished financially, or rewarded for being caught when others also with ties to the area haven't been ticketed and aren't entitled to a RMP. They probably now wish they had really taken the p*ss so they had been ticketed because they then would be allowed the option of the RMP! In places like Uxbridge where I've heard it's being opened up to more than just boaters who've been caught and ticketed, it sounds like a perk - a new alternative to paying extortionate amounts for a mooring if you want to stay in one locality. Some people are saying the RMP price includes a winter mooring, some are saying it doesn't. Are CaRT going to publish clear destructions about this, for all those boaters who can't attend the chaotic bitching matches - I mean "consultations" - due to their work or other commitments. Having spoken to a number of boaters about this, there's way too much misinformation about the RMP out there (and in here) at the moment. And is there going to be any entitlement parity across the schemes?

It can take months for the insurance company to allow for a vessel to be recovered as those of us who are unfortunate to have been in these "boats" know too well! As you are not aware of the any personal issues surrounding these boats and their owners, PB may I suggest a little compassion would not go amiss.

A good summary I would say. Although uncomfortable or odd seeming to some I think this kind of initiative is the best option to come up of late as it does address the issue and limits growth of the problem. It is a sensible compromise in that it recognises and helps the people who for various reasons have been allowed to accumulate in an area and I think most of us would be unwilling to see these people turfed out and homeless as a consequence of a more draconian solution. I agree doing nothing will not help and that there is a problem to address whatever the emotion around the various groups pointing out the issue the fact is something needs to be done about a real problem. If there is not a solution like the RMP then it could be a more harsh interpretation of the cc rules enforced.

I like a good hover, it amuses me and pleases me to be able to control my boat at low speeds. Also, still haven't got round to sorting out my injector pump so any time sat in a lock going down is a little smokey!

Actually it isn't MY problem. There is plenty of room in the area I have my boat but I try and not let my own interests get too much in the way of considering what to do about general problems that may be to the detriment of the whole or part of the system else where. Indeed finance is an issue fro CRT and one I agree we should all be concerned about. However, I seriously doubt that the number of RMPs that are likely to be issued will even begin to make a mark on any funding deficit.

Your problem, is too many boats in one area. The RMP doesn't remove that problem. It just generates revenue from it. The actual problem, is CaRT's lack of money - lack of money to do anything about any regulations, current or future. That is what they are trying to resolve. It would be naive to assume otherwise. What's interests me is how CaRT will decide eligibility for the RMP - in other words the public facing message that will be implied when they instigate this initiative. Is it a punishment against people who don't want it, or is it a perk for people who do?

I'm genuinely not sure what the RMP fixes, though. 1. A bunch of boats stay in the same spot - say Great Linford for want of an alleged example - for a number of years, before boaters who pay for expensive moorings on the offside have their complaints listened to by CaRT. This is the so-called "problem" 2. CaRT say they're not resourced to police the previous regulations in Great Linford which would require at least fortnightly checks and follow up actions 3. CaRT invent a new permit that generates them revenue, and changes the rules so the "problem" has been redefined - the overstaying boaters are now allowed to remain in and around Great Linford as long as they shuttle up and down a bit 4. CaRT say to the boaters with expensive moorings "don't worry, we'll make sure they shuttle up and down a bit" 5. The boaters who pay for a mooring still have to look at the bunch of other boaters who shuttle up and down occasionally, and know they don't pay as much as them, so they haven't gained any thing and still feel just as resentful 6. The boaters who now have a RMP still get to hang around but excuses about kids in school no longer wash - they have to pay for the privilege. They haven't gained anything. 7. CaRT earn £900 a year per boat for redefining a problem they still can't enforce any easier than the previous regulations, because it still requires fortnightly checks at the very least, plus follow up actions. Erm...I've spotted only one winner in there so far. No wonder CaRT don't want to have another go at just enforcing the current regulations.

Well no; I can understand and sympathise with the point, but I can’t agree with it. People informing themselves and discussing/arguing the meaning and purpose of the applicable law is a valuable way of learning, and is only what goes on in courts anyway, and certainly has to go on with the relevant protagonists beforehand. The most valuable result of people becoming sufficiently well-informed [or even ‘opinionated’] in this way, is that it can have the most desirable result of rendering ‘going to court’ redundant. Once the authority realises that they are dealing with an informed clientele, they will have to think very long and carefully before accepting the bought ‘Opinions’ of their solicitors and high-powered barristers. Then, perhaps, much of the bluff and blustering bullying of the past and present will be replaced with an approach that makes appeal to the courts unnecessary. It is not the optimum option, as even the courts recognise. This is, of course, a two-way street. Boaters also should not be” looking for loopholes” to justify annoying others and/or interfering with their enjoyment of the waterways. We all carry the responsibility for our conduct to others in the patterns of our boating use – none of which is foreign to the normal accepted codes of civilised conduct that ought to need no coercion nor law to bind us to. The 13thC jurist [Henry Lord Bracton] responsible for codifying ‘modern’ English law based all of it on his belief and understanding of Biblical precepts, which embraced an essential balancing act between “Law” and “Freedom”. A fundamental precept was taken to be that all things were lawful where no law existed – but that imposed the responsibilities alluded to by Jenlyn. The same foundation document establishing that all was permitted that was not forbidden, rather than encouraging a ‘free-for-all’ society, instead promoted self discipline and thought for others. So “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” We should refrain from doing something in other words, even if it is lawful for us, if the doing of it interferes unfavourably with the equal rights of others to their enjoyment of the same facility. Can you “enforce” that? No, by the very nature of the self-governing principle. And perhaps the worst enemies of a pleasant waterways way of life are not so much the few thoughtless or even openly objectionable and selfish users who do interfere with the enjoyment of others, so much as those who jump up and down for someone to punish those offenders and bring in stricter laws.

If both parties agree then that's fine. Fair to all. No other sensible suggestions though? Casp'

Just seems that the only solution put forward is to offer these ccer's something that isn't going to be offered to other boaters, which can only offer to be further divisive and does look firmly like some sort of reward, though I understand you say it shouldn't. £900 sounds expensive but how would that compare to a LTM in the area, could be some LTMers may like to take them up on a RMP and I just think they should be allowed to on the same terms, as we all should. Casp'

Unbelievable! How can it be a trap when you know exactly what the deal is: Pay for a year up front, this giving the marina some certainty, you get a discount. Pay monthly visitors fees, leave when you like, giving no security to the marina, you don't get a discount. Not exactly rocket science..... Or is it?

1. No 2. No, unless it is an official residential mooring 3. You pay for 'winter mooring' either in a marina or on the towpath. Anything else is 'bending' the rules and the consequences are your own fault.

And to that end I am off to the shop to get some popcorn.

It could be that the owners of these boats had unanticipated major personal issues, but just as likely they aquired a cheap skanky boat to live on, got fed up with it after a while and walked away, leaving the fallout for someone else to deal with. In fact there will be a sliding scale with one person's idea of justifying major personal issues being different from another's. it would be just as prejudiced and foolish to presume either way.

I'm new to all this but CRT guidance on what constitutes a legitimate CCer is readily available and seemed pretty clear to me at the time when I was investigating my options for boat living. I need to remain in an area to work. Therefore a progressive journey was impossible as the need to stay in a particular area is incompatible with this. This more attractive and cheaper living option of CCing was therefore ruled out. I dislike side by side marina moorings intensely and will never ever live in one, however it seemed to me that it was possible within the letter of the rules (but not the spirit) to take the cheapest nasty mooring you could find, anywhere in the country, using a family member's address, which would then enable you to adopt whatever cruising pattern you wished within the applicable mooring stay rules with no need to ever visit your home mooring. As such the means to legitimise non compliant CCers who shuttle back and forth along the same stretch already exists, or so it seems to me.These non compliant CCers choose not to use it so how would a RMP solve the problem unless significantly cheaper? It also seems grossly unfair to me that grandfather rights should be given. If RMPs are introduced they should be available to all, possibly subject to a quota system not just to those who have already deliberately chosen to flout the rules and are thus "rewarded" for their rule breaking.

That doesn't sound particularly unreasonable to me. The whole point of the marina giving a discount is so they know the space will be yielding an income for a whole year before becoming vacant again, and they will not have to bear the costs of finding a new tenant before that year is up. The inverse of the situation would be someone who chooses to pay a higher rent on a month-by-month basis specifically so they can leave any time they like, but who ends up staying for a whole year. Would it be reasonable for this person to demand a refund of their 'overpayment' so they only paid the same for their year's mooring as someone else who commited to a year in advance? I don't think it would. MtB Some marinas might be willing to tot up the mooring charges you've run up so far at their short term moorings rate, then refund you the difference between this and the charge you've already paid. This would seem a reasonable request to put to the marina manager, but only your T&Cs will tell you if they are obliged to do this. MtB

The government are quite happy to take the billions in tax money from smokers. Even though the habit can be deadly, it's not-so-small a revenue gathering device. As far as I'm concerned, the 12 billion in tax is more than enough to offset the cost of treatment. What's that, about one tenth the NHS bill. I've no time for those arguments that think smokers should pay for or be denied treatment. Considering the addictive nature of nicotine and also the ingrained drinking habit culture, added to the fact that both smoking and drinking are singled out for higher than normal tax levies, what the government sanctions, the NHS should accept and get on with the job of treating the unwell and stay out of pointing fingers at those that become ill. Some of this tax money may be paying for doctors and nurses and MRI scanners or all manner of health utilities. If the government are so concerned for the health of part of the population, let them ring fence those taxes for the treatment of those that become ill through such habits or ban both smoking and drinking. Morally, that would be a satisfactory use of those taxes on smoking and drinking; habits they are not going to ban. I think E fags should be controlled. They are a way to a real smoking habit, a more dangerous habit, given the sweety flavours that might encourage the young. For those that already have a smoking habit, these fags seem to vary in quality and need to be manufactured with more consistency.

You seem to be keen on blaming the authority, neglecting to mention the pressure that was being applied to them by others. As a new start was initiated last july, some picked up on the opportunity to steer the trust in a certain direction. Some within the IWA, saw what they thought was an opportunity to "have a position of influence". Some of us recognised early on where this could all end up. Being a constant cruiser in the south east region, I could not fail to see there was in fact a problem developing (even though I denied it publicly). Little communities were developing, getting larger with more boats joining them. These communities were not moving every 14 days, let alone being on a bona fide journey. That is a fact, not fiction. Going around in circles, arguing who did what and who should have done this, will solve nothing. The communities will continue to grow, feeding the likes of the IWA, giving them the ammo they need, to fuel the need for change. Division is caused by those who deny what they see. As a very smal instance, hardly a week goes by without seeing on this site alone, "have sold up, am buying a boat, am going to live the dream, am going to move onto the canals". Fact nigel. 2000 miles of canal, how much can that system really take. Whats it's capacity, when do we step in and take some responsibility as boat owners to ensuring it's future? Can we do it from a keyboard?

Of course it could be simpler. The authority could have agreed that the previous advice on cruising patterns had been right all along; if it hadn’t caused a problem before there was no need to start considering it a problem now. That was, surely, always the much simpler stance to take. However, as they were and are determined on now considering it a problem, then finding a mutually acceptable “solution” to this new creation, whilst not so simple, is nonetheless a personal decision open to those affected. Sitting on our laptops debating the pros and cons of proposed solutions is both educational, and useful for those who might [will] face similar challenges in other areas, so long as the debate doesn’t degenerate into a divisive slanging match.

OH is permanent wheelchair user & the above sum up what's required. If places where access off the towpath to local amenities were signposted it would be much easier to decide where to moor to avoid the regular disappointment of seeing a canalside pub then being unable to get to it! The Nicholson's guide is sadly inaccurate in its description of disabled access. I also recall a particular stretch of the Four Counties ring (somewhere on the T & M) having perfectly good moorings but also metal pedestrian gates, designed, I imagine, to prevent motorcyclists accessing the towpath which also prevented OH getting to otherwise accessible amenities! With regard to asking other boaters to move off moorings designated for the disabled this assumes that a) there is someone aboard you know they are not disabled c) if they are disabled you can prove that you are more disabled!! pretty unworkable, I think!

Down the K and A.

Has this got anything to do with a boat mentioned in a previous thread which was locked? (Innocent face) Note to OP- based on my previous experience: By posting the position of this boat (and a photo) you have laid yourself open to accusations of poisonous spite by Chris Pink. This may eventually escalate to the mention of the police at your door.

Just stray horses !Healthier to make shish. A piece of lamb neck cubed. Marinate overnight in some oil, balsamic vinegar garlic and seasoning. Cook on a griddle and serve in a pitta with salad and garlic mayo and jobs a goodun

Another vote of approval from me, as long as a mechanism is also put in place to allow correction to errors, whether it be a feedback form or email link, something like that! Dan

Welllll, amps are an instantaneous measure of current, 'amp hours' are measure of charge which is current over a period of time. So if you're talking about the current from your MPPT at a particular moment in time, it's just amps, say 20 amps (20A) But say you're talking about an amount of charge over time, instead of saying '10 amps for 5 hours' it's much easier to just say 50 amp hours (50Ah). Clear as mud? cheers, Pete. ~smpt~

The cinema called The Fiery Holes was built over a disused coal mine which heated up periodically raising the audiences temperature and the usherette would rush out calling Ices Ices While I was at 'Ruberies' some council houses were demolished. The bulldozer pushed the first one and it completely vanished in a cloud of dust. During the war the occupants had been mining in the cellars for coal in the thick seam and selling it around the district. They had created a secret warren of chambers for the buildings to fall in. I always felt it would be the basis for a film.

Best not mention Weils disease then. Or drowning. Or breaking a leg. One day, elfinsafty will go that far. Don't complain to me, when they do. Saving employed people, from the actions ( or in-actions) of an unscrupoulous employer is one thing. Putting a small business out of business, because of an accepted practice, is wrong. When did you last go into a dry dock, and remonstrated with the owner, that the plank you had for access to your boat, was not complient with h& s standards? Go on...when?