Leaderboard

Is this supposed ‘elephant’ the situation you describe as “areas where demand for moorings exceeds supply in the system?” where it is “difficult for casual boaters (weekenders and people with a short(ish) hire) or cruising "live aboards" to find a mooring in such areas?” If so, I cannot see where anyone has failed to acknowledge the existence of such areas. If is something else, than obviously I still cannot see it – but not for want of looking. Then too, the burden of this topic is the situation where no interference with other people’s boating has occurred, no one has been unable to moor at the specific location when they wanted to, but the authority has decided that the boat violates the letter of the law as they interpret it, and has applied the most draconian measure in their arsenal to make an example of the ‘transgressor’, for the encouragement of others. Win or lose, in other words, it was not going to help shift your elephant. The question posed by the topic heading was whether this was enforcement or harassment. It certainly was not enforcement of the spirit of the law – if that is understood to be ensuring that it is no longer “difficult for casual boaters . . . to find a mooring in such areas” – and the action concentrated on obtaining judicial approval for an extrapolated version of the letter of the law [and not even that, really, but rather the letter of their unilaterally drafted rule book]. In the instant case, they set down conditions on which they would re-licence the boat, and cease the action. That would have allowed them to claim justification for the initial withdrawal and subsequent refusal of the ‘licence’, and provide a legitimate base [on their argument] for re-issuing the licence and ceasing the action. In the event, none of those conditions was agreed to, and they ended up re-issuing the ‘licence’ on an entirely different basis. Going so far down the judicial path and then pulling out at the last minute, without sticking by the reasons alleged to be justification for the action, amounts to harassment in some minds. If they genuinely were seeking to enforce the law [their understanding of which they outlined clearly in correspondence and pleadings], then they should have continued; it was just waving a big stick otherwise. Same goes for the conditions they laid down for re-issue, they should have stuck to those, if they felt they were justifiable to a judge. If, on the other hand, they had come to the conclusion that there were severe analytical hurdles to jump in presenting their case, then I would congratulate them for being adult and pragmatic enough to recognise that and to do the right thing in withdrawing – but to blame the defendant for their about-turn and seek to have him bear his own costs of their ill-considered pursuit is not merely ungracious, it illustrates that their principal goal now is persuading a gullible public that it was legitimate enforcement all along. Above all, it presents a clear case for claims of harassment. Aside from all the other aspects of this case, this latter development highlights an ingrained self-justifying approach which has lost them a golden opportunity to begin gaining some respect. The withdrawal of the case could have been advertised as an example of a dawning reasonableness and ability to admit when they are wrong - the essential precursor, as I have said, to the necessary shift in the institutional mind-set.

Hello, its been a very long time since I posted anything on the forum, however, if like me you have an Isuzu engine where the hour counter built into the tachometer gauge (which is made by a company called Siemens VDO) - and the display has gone blank then I've got a fix! These tachometers are rebadged alot, and seem to be similar on Vetus, Volvo Penta and several other brands. Inside the hour counter it will be counting perfectly well, its just the LCD display thats gone. It uses a process known as "COG" - chip on glass, and then a tiny ribbon cable to connect to it - its the ribbon cable on the glass that breaks over time. I've managed to reverse engineer the LCD signals, so I can get a display working again, its not quite finished yet but wondered if anyone else would be interested in it?

No Bettie asked how they could not move and I told her how one boater managed it. OK

Mayalld??? That's a silly name!

Mayalid ? That didn't quite work, did it! How about "Moored all year and looking legally dodgy"?

This might be of interest to some folks, some info on Thelwall's penny ferry near Warrington. http://allthingswarrington.net/Places/Places/thelwallpennyferry.html

Just cos the OP's mum isn't in to technology doesn't mean that she's completely unable to live on a boat. You don't need a laptop to change a gas cylinder. Give the lady a chance. She's obviously not in a care home yet! Jeez................

Which is an insane conclusion. You ARE living on £100 a week, and apparently comfortably, therefore it is possible. To be honest, the others' argument is akin to the argument about child poverty that we read about in the press fairly regularly. If you are in a two child, two adult family and you earn less than £317 a week after housing costs, you're deemed to be living in poverty according to the Government. It's a nonsensical argument, since you can clearly survive on less than this. Yet, news article after news article features a young family with a 40 a day fag habit and Sky TV claiming that they can't feed their kids. I have lived for a short period on less than £700 a month - and that included renting a room. I was able to function, eat, and even visit the pub once a week.

Strewth!!!!!! A forum concensus. Mind I quite like Earl Grey - in its place - but the name? Absurd. It's not an Earl and it's not Grey

I say wind as in winding a clock. But I also say skellington instead of skeleton. Some words are just yummier to say.