Leaderboard

Ah, you will need a horsepital silencer then.

Totally agree with you there Steve. The hire boaters, specially if they are novices, have the excuse of ignorance on their side, sometimes due to the fact that their hire base hasn't taken time to explain the do's and don'ts of boater etiquette. But the private boaters of all people should know better. We have learned to use springed mooring lines to secure our sixty footer to the bank and have to say that most boater's ills are born from the fact that their craft is often moored in a similar fashion to that of a fairground baloon tied to a peice of string!

recently we have observed that significantly fewer hire boats 'speed' past than private boats! Arrogant private owners that are the worst offenders - and even though I am a shiney boater, it is certain members of the shiney boat brigade that are the worst of the worst!

Going right back to where all this started, I suggested there were probably no more than just 4 or 5 "continuous moorers" on the Macc. You have spotted two, I suspect there are maybe a couple of more discrete ones too, so I am probably not far wrong in my estimate. They are really irritating and upset lots of boaters but on the grand scheme of things they are small in number and just don't justify the dramatic action that CaRT are taking, (such as the S.E. mooring changes) that will impact upon the rest of us.. I do like the term piss takers rather than continuous moorers, but then I suspect that if we stopped to talk to them we would find that they are mostly just sad individuals rather than demons so not really taking the piss out of us anyway, though there are an even smaller number who probably are genuine piss takers. They don't really spoil our boating because there is still lots of space for us to moor, (in fact very often these "PTs" choose to moor in unpopular spots). Actually I reckon they might even serve a useful purpose in gently reminding the rest of us to keep on top of the paintwork and not overdo the drinking too much. .............Dave edited for typos

Not a very good comparison. Hens excrete eggs but in my personal view fried eggs are much superior to fried chicken shit.

I got one off Ebay for my Acer Aspire "so cheap as to be instantly ignored", from China. It cost a quarter the price of the genuine battery Held charge longer than the original from new (about half as long again) Outlasted the original battery ... it was still going strong when I sold the laptop 18 months on. I'd risk it again. ps On advise, I always removed the battery if using the laptop plugged in.

If this window consists of two panes of glass, one fixed and one sliding, then the whole frame has got to come out (sorry, but there's no other way). If the frame hasn't been taken out before, then it'll be rivetted in by about 60 pop rivets which all have to be drilled out. Both fixed and sliding panes have to be tempered (4 mm) so won't be cheap and can only be placed within the frame while it's off the boat. The frame has a tiny aluminium joining piece with two set screws on one vertical side and when this is carefully removed it's possible to spring the frame apart sufficient to put the new glass into place. The whole assembly complete with glass then has to be lifted into place and re-sealed and re-rivetted. If the window has been taken out before it could be that the fibreglass around the window is in poor condition and may not take the new rivets. If so, then brass nb&w's are a better bet with a 2 mm strip of aluminium used as a backing flange on all four edges.

If by "struts" you mean the wooden battons that the ply is fixed to, then that's the same on most boats - although it shouldn't cause the problems you're experiencing. However, people who insist on ridiculously thick applications of sprayfoam or other insulation between the battons somehow seem to forget that they have 2" wide thermal bridges running all over their boats. If you do end up using cellotex over the existing ply you will emiminate these thermal bridges. Use cellotex, not polystyrene - go on, you know you want to!

We just go .... on our first 1 week cruise we stayed for 2 nights just 1/2 hour from our mooring because it was so beautiful at that moment in time. I don't like having a target, as it means deadlines, and narrowboats are not good at those. Go, and take it as it comes.

If you're not working then I'd agree, but I don't see how it's possible to keep a relatively small stove going on wood when you're out at work all day. If you think it's possible to keep a stove in 24/7 on a single sack of coal, you must have a very small stove. I've heard other people say they only use 1 sack of coal per week even in the depths of winter and wondered what I was doing wrong. Then I mentioned this to Liz on the coal boat who told me most people use 2-3 bags - even the ones who say they only use 1 bag/week! I think some people just like to exaggerate a frugal persona because they think it makes them more credible or something. The pan crack? I haven't heard that one before. Does he mean the sausage roll?

The problem with throwing it in the canal is it can float and is unsightly. I think it's best disposed off in hedge rows although still not a proper solution. I note there are dog poo bins on the K&A and these should be used for just one reason alone. Dog poo carries parasites that can blind you if swallowed, this happens more to children as their more likely to come in contact with through general play, such as dog poo on kids toys such as balls that come in to contact with it. It's just a matter then of the child touching the contaminated toy and at some stage putting fingers in mouth or eating sweets with contaminated hands. It really is incredulous that people are willing to risk young children becoming blind just because they are too lazy to pick up their dogs Sh1te.

Hi It sounds like you need to stop using " Facebook " I take it you are over 12 years of age? Tim

It's better in the bottom of a hedge than sitting in a plastic bag, either hanging from a tree or going into landfill. As for it going in the cut - what about all the other animals? It actually gets broken down very quickly in fresh water and much of it is eaten by the fish. And the quantities are tiny compared to the volume of water. Loads better than scraping it off your shoes or have it trodden into your boat by visitors.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=261281765935

Hi Cassi, as a fairly recent boater, I would go along withth the cautious advice, given above, If you are lie me, this bvoat wiull be your dream, but don't let your dream let your heart rule your head. Get a survey and read it carefully. If there is work to do, cost it sensibly. If the sum of the purchase price plus what you need to spend to make your dream a reality makes sense to you - go for it. Otherwise, keep your cash in the bank and look further, because you will eventually find the boat you're looking for.

turn the engine off

sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I thought I'd let you guys know that I went to visit Rachy and Ickle Brayzel the other day. She is a beautiful boat, and Rachy is very happy. Aston Marina seems like a nice location, and I can recommend the grub on a Tuesday gourmet burger night!

Thanks for the good wishes, the more appreciated given your stated belief that I have put you in harm’s way – but I am struggling to understand how I have done that. I do not see any connection with the CC’er topic that is exercising people here, and my own position. When you say “going to court with your chosen argument”, are you referring to my initial case or the Appeal? I think in any event there has been some cross-over confusion that perhaps everyone fighting BW/CART is doing so on much the same grounds – we are not. I took BW to court on the grounds that they were not entitled to S8 me on their stated grounds of lacking a “relevant consent” i.e. a boat licence. After 5 years of squirming around peripheral issues, thrown up to cloud that central pertinent issue, the court eventually found in my favour. In all truth, that positive finding neither helps nor hinders the vast majority of boaters, because the necessary conditions apply to such a minute fraction of the network. I also won the “Legitimate Expectations” argument, and the effect of that is that CART will now think twice before choosing to ‘jump the gun’ and act without notice in future – isn’t that a good thing in general? I also won on the “Human Rights” argument, to the extent that mine were abused by the way they went about the process. The only reason they got away without penalty is because I had taken the initiative of taking them to court myself, thus ensuring my side was heard. If I had not, they would have seized the boats or pushed us out into the Thames [sans working engines at the time]; it would have been small comfort for me to bleat about my rights at that stage, so I pre-empted the problem for myself. You may be sure that this result will make them very much more cautious in future – which has to be a good thing for everyone else surely? In the course of examining the evidence of what had gone on, before making these findings, the Board were strongly criticised for the “disconnect” between management and ground staff, which BW apologetically offered as a the inexcusable [their wording] reason for their Contempt of Court in breaching their prior undertaking to the court. They assured the Court that extra care had been taken in the wake of the court’s disapproval and demand for an explanation, that in future, inter-departmental communication would be improved, and clarity of process ensured, in order that such a thing could never happen again. I think that was a helpful thing to achieve, supposing that you buy into the story that it was all an unfortunate matter of bureaucratic fumbling. Certainly, with this stern rebuke on record, they will be less likely to use the same tactics again. The two counts against me were the judge’s interpretation of Section 8, and the finding that riparian rights do not include the right to moor. I concede that the new interpretation of Section 8 is alarming, because it doesn’t rely on any breach of the regulations, it places on you the burden of proof that your mooring has a source of lawful authority. Given the judge’s finding that there is no riparian right to moor, then you can have a valid consent to be on the waterway, and a landowner consent to moor to his land [whether that be BW/CART or private ownership], and yet still be “left or moored therein without lawful authority”. Even so, this ruling cannot apply to CC’ers; it only, potentially, affects those with hitherto acceptable online “home moorings”. No way are they going to run around throwing everybody off those, if for no other reason than because they derive an income from them, right or wrong. Then again, as Spesh commented, if they have entered into a contract with you and/or your online moorings provider, they can have no standing to violate that contract. My cynical response to that [being no real protection] aside, the principle is sound. I believe my own case proves their willingness to bulldoze through legalities to gain their ends, so I am confident that if they had what seemed to them a good and sufficient reason [like getting rid of a vocal critic standing in the way of development contracts], then I’m sure they would take their chances again. If you agree with Spesh that they couldn’t/wouldn’t, then you are entirely unaffected; if you agree with me that they would be prepared to use the findings in my case, as leverage to be rid of someone they wanted off the waterway - despite them having a valid boat licence, and a mooring that they had always approved of previously, then even so, for as long as you kept your head down and were always polite and co-operative and didn’t interfere with their money-making projects – then you will be OK, having given them no reason to try it on. So I don’t see how I have handed you or anyone else over to them on a plate; [unless, heaven forfend, you really wanted to poke your head over the parapet and be rude to them]. And even that is supposing you relied on having a ‘home mooring’ for your licence. If people have “shied away from debating” with me within this topic, might it not be because I have proffered nothing debatable? I thought I was just interpolating snippets of interest along the way, of a debate the substance of which I wasn’t actively engaging in. I’ll be going up before the Appeal Court on Tuesday; it’s public knowledge that I am seeking i) to uphold the rights of riparian proprietors to moor, and ii) to dismiss the finding that S8 can apply in the absence of any regulatory breach. Win or lose, though, the result will have no adverse effect at all on those without home moorings. And, - don’t anticipate that sunset scene just yet!

I've been lurking but attempting to resist posting in this thread, but you've left me no option but to respond to this. First, your constant claims that Dave doesn't know what he is talking about would be somewhat more persuasive were you to actually present some decent arguments yourself (and if it wasn't for the rather inconvenient fact that judges seem to keep sharing his opinions). "You don't know what you're talking about because I say so" doesn't count. If you are so sure he doesn't know what he is talking about your own knowledge of the relevant issues must be encyclopedic (because how else could you possibly know he is so wrong?), yet we see no evidence of that. To me it seems that you argue the person making the post and not the issues. That's a waste of everybody's time. Secondly, I have made no claim to be uniquely qualified on "this subject". I simply replied to a post where you said that Dave wasn't allowed to comment because he isn't a qualified lawyer to say that I was one (and therefore hoped that you would allow me to have a view) and my professional opinion on the relevant issue was that Dave's view pretty much accorded with my own (as it had done on many legal arguments on the board, although not all). I don't really understand what you mean by being qualified on "this subject" anyway. Are you suggesting that "canal law" is somehow something special which requires "canal lawyers"? If so you are just demonstrating your ignorance. What we are dealing with here is simple contract law and statutory interpretation. It's in the context of inland waterways but the overall rules are no different. Thirdly, the fact that you have managed to conclude that I am not suitably qualified to give an opinion on this subject is hypocrisy of the very highest order. On one hand you sit there and say only qualified people should give an opinion, and then when someone does you decide that they aren't actually qualified to give a view. How on earth are you in any position to make that decison? I can't recall you ever providing any cogent analysis of a legal issue, yet somehow you have managed to decide that someone who does so for a living isn't qualified to give a view. That is utterly absurd. If you think I've said stuff which is wrong, then please quote it, explain why you think it's wrong and we can have a sensible discussion about it (because I don't for a second claim that just because I'm a solicitor I'm right about anything which is legal in nature). If you can't do that then practice what you preach and only comment on issues on which you are in a position to add some substance to the debate.