Leaderboard

Mike - that's my point exactly - the reason the lock wall has failed is because it was not in a perfectly good condition. It was in a dangerous condition and on the point of failing. I bet a lot of people will now be paying more attention to lock walls that leak large amounts of water back into the lock. I was looking at one a few days ago, the lock was empty but water was pouring out of the lock tail wall. So it was getting in from above the top gate and passing behind the wall to exit into the lower pound. I did point it out to CaRT bankside staff. Proactive preventative maintenance also includes inspection, Visible checks need to be backed upfrom time to time with technology from a simple sounding stick as used by water boards to locate leaks through to GPR technology where there is a doubt or a target date has been met. BWB and its sucessor CaRT still continue with under funding of maintenance on - only when its broke - will we fix it principal. regards Mick

Make a little raft, easy enough or borrow a small dinghy and have it running and kept in that out of sight on the offside of the boat. It could still be chained to the boat.

That definitely isn't a stupid idea! If she hasn't got one a BW key would make a big difference to her life. As it happens we keep saying we need a spare, so we'll buy one, take it to her and ask if it'd be handy for her. If she says yes it comes out of the surplus, if she waves her own BW key at us we have a spare. Win win.

I knew you were going to say that Richard

The sun always goes out when you go in a marina.

Why do people feel the need to constantly keep their children entertained these days? What happened to children entertaining themselves? Best piece of equipment for them is a windlass.

Geez, if they'd only hired those psychics like I said all along...

I'm not sure what preventative maintenance you expect them to have carried out on an apparently perfectly good lock wall to prevent this collapse. MtB

Canals offer significant benefits for the communities through which they pass. As 'green corridors' for wildlife, as footpaths and cycleways, tourist attractions, places to sit and relax, and a source of revenue (trade from passing boaters and other users). While some of this might seem inconsequential, I bet it all adds up. For example how much do the Police and the NHS save if 100 people at high risk of stress or depression sit by the water and feed the ducks every day, rather than popping pills or jumping from bridges? There's also a desperate need to involve local people and local authorities to a greater extent, so the canals are "their" canals - to be promoted, looked after, and fully integrated into their surroundings. While some places are good at this, others are very much "us and them". For this reason I still think that the SOW proposal to establish a formal and binding framework for part-funding via local authorities (from Council Tax revenue) is a logical and perfectly valid suggestion. Particularly if it were based on route miles of CaRT waterway per County Council. No waterway = no charge. It wouldn't replace the boat licence, nor overlap with it. Nor would it replace the central Government funding (which recognises the national significance of the system), though it might reduce it. The Council contribution would simply be a payment for the aspects which are currently "free" and mostly the domain of local residents - walking, cycling etc.. I suggest that it would require the abolition of any charges from CaRT to angling clubs, as otherwise fishermen would end up paying for the same thing twice. Fringe benefits would include greater integration of services. For example towpath grass cutting, bin emptying etc. could be transferred over to local authority contractors in return for a reduction in CaRT subsidy. Local authorities would also be far more likely to think about the canals when granting planning permission, arranging tourism promotions etc. if they are actually paying towards their upkeep.

I think this is a brilliant result. So many people have registered concern for this lady, her safety, her comfort, the welfare of her animals. So many people admire her ability to live a life most of us cannot even start to comprehend. Through careful consultation without intrusion Mike & Chrissie managed to identify a need. This forum then did what it does best - everyone worked together and did what they could to fulfill that need. Those on the spot were able to roll up their sleeves and do something practical. Those watching on from a distance were able to feel involved but metaphorically dropping a few coins into the collection box. I wish Sarah well. I hope in her travels she finds whatever it is she seeks in life. I sincerely hope that the gift of the harness is not only useful but does not make her feel that her independence has been compromised in any way. I hope she will feel more able to request assistance for little things that are a struggle for her in future, especially from the boating community.

It was from the RSPCA at Coxbank - and thanks to you for giving us the linky to make it so easy to source it. Doorman - what a lovely post, and Quebec it brought tears to my eyes as well. My only concern is that too much credit is being given to my part in this. We just happened to be in the right place at the right time and only had to drive two miles to give the forum gift to the lady who was at that moment camped under a bridge a few hundred yards from our boat. I didn't even have to do much research - Pennine found the perfect source for the harness, Starcoaster and Haggis gave advice on the right sort of harness - I wouldn't have known and might have given her one of the cheap nylon ones that would have chafed Baloo. I'm sure everyone who donated money would have done exactly the same thing if they'd been in the same place at the same time. Lets just have a group hug and include me as one of those that helped.

I believe you are confusing [or perhaps unaware that there are] two distinct types of Parliamentary Act, Public & Private. The Transport Acts were “Public” Acts promulgated by Parliament on their own initiative. The original Enabling Acts, and all the British Waterways Acts were “Private” Acts promoted by the relevant proprietors. The British Waterways Act of 1995 was the end result of the private Bill promoted by BW in 1990 on their own behalf, which is basically a request to Parliament to grant such powers as they did not then have, but which they then perceived as needed, and which they felt were best achieved through primary legislation. They did have an alternative [which would still have required examination and approval], which was to promote relevant byelaws [secondary legislation] – but either path was one to be drafted and promoted at their own expense. As a consequence of that, they were and are obviously in a position to explain the wording of the subsequently successful form of the Act once Parliament had got through scrutinising the Bill and modifying/deleting as appropriate. They are the promoters, not Parliament. I understand why you would think what you do respecting what is NOT in an Act, but the plain fact is that you are mistaken. When seeking to understand an Act, it is in fact especially necessary at times, to learn what Parliament did NOT allow. For this reason Parliamentary materials are sometimes now allowed in court in order to gain an insight into precisely that question. Lord Browne- Wilkinson in the case of Pepper v Hart stated: “Take the normal Law Commission Report which analyses the problem and then annexes a draft Bill to remedy it. It is now permissible to look at the report to find the mischief and at the draft Bill to see that a provision in the draft was not included in the legislation enacted: see Factortame [1990] 2 A.C. 85.” It follows therefore, that the points that Allan has highlighted regarding what was in the draft Bill that BW promoted - but which were NOT included in the legislated enacted - are valid ones. BW not only drafted what they wanted, they had to employ barristers and field their top managers to argue their case for around 5 years in this instance, before both Houses of Parliament. Few people will be in a better position to explain why certain clauses failed to pass through Parliament than those who did their damndest to get them passed. But in the face of BW/CART’s natural reluctance to explain, for those sufficiently interested the answers are revealed in the thousand plus pages of the publicly accessible Select Committee Minutes of the proceedings.

Well, what a great bunch of folk you all are! From a simple meeting to check up on her dog's welfare, a taste of Mrs Doorman's lovely Spag Bol & Madeira cake and next thing loads of you are sending donations in to help out. Chrissie and I kidded Sarah into thinking that the harness was second hand and donated from a dog handler when she enquired about the cost, together with the quip about the CART legislation regarding boaters etc., So, we would have loved to have seen her face when Ange & Dave turned up with the new one. She is totally self-sufficient and asks nothing from anyone, so, as Lonewolf mentioned, she did really need this animal aid to keep old Baloo from rolling down embankments and would have struggled to source one elsewhere. We caught up with her this morning en route to her next stop which by chance was near to Ange's boat. Old Baloo was sprawled out on the grass and she had to pause a while before encouraging him up on his feet to enable me to measure him up. Because he is in some discomfort with arthritis, I was a little wary of stretching the tape measure around his broad shoulders in case he ate me! Fortunately, he trusted me to size him up and I lived to tell the tale. In the meantime, we'd positioned our Lab Paddy at a distance in order to keep Sarah's cat from being frightened, or licked to death. Amazingly, the cat crept up on Paddy and introduced herself. Sarah claimed that this was quite unique as the cat normally shies away from strangers, and Paddy is truly strange. Then, once Baloo had recovered his breath back, this shy lady packed up her possessions in her heavy kit bag and got on her way towards Ange & Dave's boat. We took a couple of photos of Baloo and the cat cosying up to Paddy and then finally Sarah and her troupe trundling along the towpath. If you can imagine someone of slight build and about 5' 6" in height, loaded up with a full kit bag on her back and a foam bed roll nestling on top, then, a cat cradle positioned in the front just to balance things out, then this is her burden. Any wonder she only moves from bridge to bridge, day to day! We are positive that this quietly spoken lady will remember Audlem and the boaters who suddenly grouped together to come to her aid, and we are very thankful to you all in general and Ange in particular for doing so. There may be the odd fractious moment on this forum but I've always believed that there's a common bond between boaters. Well done to everyone! Mike & Chrissie

Ah... Really? I quite like Star Trek myself, and I had to google the T'Pau reference. I think you'd have been disavowing a carol decker fetish most of the time. Which reminds me... Batman smashes a villain over the head with a vase and exclaims "T'PAU!" "Don't you mean KERPOW!"? asks Robin. "No, I've got china in my hand".