Leaderboard

Can we have a section devoted to politics please where like minded individuals can discuss racism, the EU, migration, devolution and so on Then the rest of us can ignore the pub bores who saw something on telly and want to get cross about it Richard

You are welcome - it is important always, to have recourse to the facts, and hopefully others too, will follow these up. There is little in the Hansard Transcripts over the specific issue of what became s.17(3)( c ), most of the debate, curiously, was over the standards and insurance requirements, with concerns over the home moorings being mostly related to houseboat certificates. Most of the debate over home mooring requirements for pleasure boats is to be found in the Select Committee minutes. The single most comprehensive Parliamentary debate is probably that of 17 May 1993 - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1993-05-17a.71.0&s=%28%22british+waterways%22%29+1935-10-01..2000-01-01 “Part III contains powers for the safe and effective regulation of the board's waterways in the interests of all users. Part III has aroused opposition from certain boating interests which are anxious to ensure that the new controls are not unduly onerous. As a result of such obligations, a number of amendments will be proposed in Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, to provide safeguards for boat users and for others. The amendments have been agreed with the IWA, the Royal Yachting Association, the Residential Boat Owners Association, the British Marine Industries Federation and the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators.” “I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted.” Particularly pertinent to this topic was the concern expressed at this early stage by - Mr Anthony Durant – “first, the powers to prevent mooring and to refuse to license boats on the grounds that a mooring is unsuitable—this refers to clauses 17, 18 and 20 in part III. There have been some negotiations on this, and I hope that the promises that have been made will be honoured.” Another timely caution as to the proposed Bill – “Mr Bob Cryer (Bradford South) "The Minister referred to the general principle of the Bill. The powers in the Bill enable the British Waterways Board to delete the whole of schedule 1 and substitute its own terms and conditions. If the Bill is passed in its present form, we shall be allowing the British Waterways Board to legislate. We shall be allowing it to alter the terms of primary legislation passed by the House. Surely the Minister cannot agree to that sort of thing. The House takes a keen interest when Ministers seek what are known as Henry VIII clauses. Surely we should not allow outside bodies to have such powers.” [my bold] Mr Peter Luff – “In recent times, ignorance of those rights, coupled with British Waterways' erosion of them, has resulted in exactly the unreasonable and coercive behaviour that the rights —some 200 years old—were designed to prevent.” As background to part of the reasons why the two moorings control clauses were removed – “Mr Bob Cryer (Bradford South) My hon. Friend refers to a fear that has been expressed to me by canal users—that the old lengthman is disappearing. He was a skilled man who knew the canal and was able to take remedial action before anything drastic occurred. That occupation is dying out. There is now extensive use of private contractors who often do not have the expertise and background to do the work. They do a pretty poor job, and then more money must be spent later to remedy defects. Many canal users are expressing concern about the deterioration in maintenance standards, yet the Bill gives the British Waterways Board the power to prevent moorings at points that it considers unsuitable, perhaps because of that very lack of maintenance.” He was far-sighted enough to express his cynicism of government’s long-term goal – “Despite the Minister's categorical assurance today, I believe that privatisation will be the next step and that the Bill is a thinly disguised paving measure. I hope that I am wrong, but given the Government's record, and the direction of almost every measure that they have introduced, I see no reason to believe that privatisation will not be the end result. I suspect that I shall be proved right. It is clearly the Government's intention to commercialise the BWB even further, to enable it to pull out even more from state funding of the inland waterways system. That saddens me, but it comes as no surprise.”

With all of the bile that seems to be directed at CRT it seems to me that perhaps their legal representatives, Shoosmiths, should actually be the target. Since CRT employ a firm of Solicitors, Shoosmiths, for their legal advice, knowing that whatever they may wish to propose WILL be subject to legal challenge by someone or other. Rather than Mr Parry randomly getting some idea in head, which seems to be the general criticism here, I would think that, since he takes legal advice (or why else would you employ solicitors??) it must be the advice that he is given that is flawed. Do we have any evidence that CRT or Mr Parry is disregarding the legal advice that is given to him? If we don't then if there is an issue it is with the company who are giving the advice, surely? So instead of accusing CRT et al of being ineffective,incompetent,bumbling,etc,etc, perhaps we should address the real target, the legal representatives since when you employ legal representatives it is to get legal advice is it not? For those wishing to compare CRT with multinational companies let us compare them with BP who have already paid billions of pounds in compensation for the Deepwater catastrophe and are apparently lined up to pay billions more, are they ineffective? incompetent? bumbling? etc.etc because if so CRT have got a long way to go to catch them up! I suppose it is just that I'm starting to get sick of listening to the repeated moans about CRT (and BW before them), perhaps it would have been better for the Government to just sell off the Canals to a foreign asset stripper (as they have done with most other things) then we would REALLY have had something to complain about. And no, I don't work for CRT or have any connection with it.

I don't mind the odd bit of politics, what I do mind is the aggressive stance of some contributors. What I would like is not greenies which do very little but reddies. If any poster gets too many reddies then they can only post in the VP, for a period of time until their reddies count has been reduced by some process of diminution by time. This would be Moderation by the membership. It would also be necessary to limit each user to one reddy per offending poster to prevent victimisation.

Again a very un necessary post....... There was no attempt the first time because the river was restored early due to trapped fish down stream. In regards to the moorings I believe there 48hour moorings and therefore Achilles used to travel along the river to allington and back quite frequently but again that's not really anything to do with a sunken boat that just so happens was my fathers house. Well fingers crossed he will have the opportunity but I don't think he's getting his hopes up.

As far as Bizzards test is concerned a large screwdriver would do as a first test but I would prefer to put both ring terminals on one stud. Take care not to short the spanner out. You may find that you can effect a very temporary cure if its a plastic key type switch by screwing up ball of paper/cling film/tinfoil and putting that under the key. As the green light does not go out it might also be the small cable between the ignition/starter switch and the solenoid (what I think you mean by a coil) not energising the starter. This could be a dirty/loose multi-way plug on the main wiring harness, cable fallen off either the switch or solenoid, faulty ignition/start switch, broken wire, loose terminals, or despite what you say about the starter testing OK (how and where was that done?) a faulty solenoid. If its clicking and not machine gunning ignore the last paragraph.

I really do not understand why it can not stay in VP. In the real world I debate politics with my friends in the pub. We can be in the most heated debate and then it is my turn to buy a round. I enjoy discussing politics with my friends

I think it's a great idea. A pub bores section. It would also give the mods the opportunity to move threads which start out well but degenerate into politics the opportunity to relegate the post to a sort of waste paper basket, rather than locking them. I think it should also be a greenie free area, as it appears that most greenies are awarded to a show support for a slagger against a slagee on some political point or other. The greenie would then regain it's value as a reward for a meritorious post.

Those of us who can remember back to the early 80's when the Act was being written will remember that the Cut was a different place then, not that busy, no obvious congestion, no big fuss about bridge hoppers, no such expression as continous mooring, and as for 48 hour moorings with penalty charges and no return in X days. So yes they probably did sit in a room and say "what's the harm" or similar.

Snibble's alternator tutorial. This goes way beyond your question but gives you understanding instead of just an answer. The rotating component of your alternator is called the rotor. it consists of a coil which when supplied with current magnetises a "Claw pole" which consists of simply alternate north and south magnetic poles, usually 6 of each. the current to create this magnetic field is supplied by carbon/copper compound brushes rubbing on to rotating copper slip rings to transfer current between stationary and rotating components. The rotor rotates within a stator which consists of three separate copper windings. As the north and south magnetic poles pass over the tator windings they induce a voltage, first one way, then the other as the magnetic polarity changes from north to south. this first one way then the other is alternating current. The three windings are spaced such that the rising and falling of each are themselves spaced in thirds, or at 120 degrees as we would say. think of a three cylinder as opposed to single cylinder engine. This is "three phase". Alternating current is of no use for charging a purely direct current battery, and so the 3 phase is "retified". A diode may be thought of as an electrical one way valve and if 6 are arranged so that each phase has one allowing positive flow, and one allowing negative flow then we can take that 3 cylinder engine and think of it now as a 3 cylinder pump with inlet and outlet valves on each cylinder. Now we have a constant one way direct current to charge the battery. In order to control the charge through a wide range of speed/load conditions we vary the current in the rotor coil. This current is usually supplied by 3 more one way diodes supplying the positive only from the 3 phase stator. The negative is provided through the regulator assembly which watches the output voltage as expressed at the supply from the 3 extra diodes to the rotor, and as soon as the voltage reaches it's regulated value (around 14V ish)it switches off that "field" current. With the current switched off the magnetic field begins to decay and the voltage falls below the regulated value again so the regulator turns the current on once again. by this means according to the relative times the regulator spends on or off, and we are talking in milliseconds here, the current through the magnetic field is controlled to keep the output voltage constant. Now. You turn on your ignition and a little bit of current passes through the warning light and joins the alternator at the positive brush. From there it passes through the field coil, out at the other brush and to negative through the regulator and so the lamp lights and just a bitty little current is passing through the field current to give us a magnetic field to start with. You start the engine and this bitty little field induces just enough for the stator to give a few volts, which in turn reinforce that field and so the stator gives a bit more further reinforcing the field until the whole thing is up and running. By now the positive brush has full voltage from the 3 extra diodes and the warning light can no longer find a negative there and goes out. You have a 40 A alternator. It is pushing the full 40A into the batteries but they are pretty flat and quite a load. Even at the full strength of the magnetic field the alternator cannot lift the battery voltage above 13.5V. After a while the batteries begin to take a charge and the voltage rises, 13.6 13.7 13.8, alternator still flat out at 40A. 14V 14.1 14.2 regulator begins switching, current begins to fall off as voltage stops rising, 14.2V 35A 30A 25A 20A still 14.2V and so on until the batteries near full charge and current goes into single figures. So, the answer is that everything depends. An ideal voltage is about 14.6 but you may not see that until the batteries approach 70% charge with such a diddy alternator. You are probably as well equipped to judge as we are now at this distance! Got a bit carried away there didn't I?

A necessary note of caution: it would be a huge mistake to take a ‘gung-ho’ attitude [not suggesting you are] to crossing legal swords with CaRT. Trained lawyers [and CaRT have a whole stable of in-house and out-house lawyers] can get cases presented in ways no layman could possibly anticipate, so just because you have what appears to be a cast-iron case [and you might well have] does not mean that your core argument will even get considered. Also: there are many reasons why official authorities enjoy an unacknowledged bias in their favour, despite the existing examples where cases go against them. Remember too, that unless you truly have nothing to lose, or can afford thousands of thrown away pounds, the costs angle can stump you even when you haven’t really lost, and before you even get your real case heard. Waterways legislation is a specialist field and CaRT have almost cornered the market in their access to the QC’s most familiar with the BW statutes. That means that – certainly in the County Courts – the CaRT counsel will be far more learned and experienced in this field than any of the judges. That is not an insurmountable problem, it depends on the quality of the individual judge, but the odds favour the house. That being so, are you willing and able to take it to appeal? First to the High Court, then to the Appeal Court if necessary, and beyond? Bear in mind that the cost is not purely monetary, it can take years of your life. This is not to dissuade anyone, far from it [because only when CaRT realise that boaters ARE prepared to face down their bluff, will reliance on timidity cease], it is just to alert them to the gravity of the stakes involved when stepping into this ring. Some personalities thrive on it, some are broken by it, others plod grimly on – but remember always that being right will not guarantee you success. That said, drawing up a list of cases where BW/CaRT have lost/drawn/withdrawn in cases where statutory interpretation is involved, can help build the same sort of presumption against their infallibility that they use in the other direction. The difficulty is in sourcing and obtaining them, especially if they are unreported County Court cases.

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.

I guess that is easy to say unless you go to court and test it, I imagine CRT's legal experts might be saying different though I would go with the NABO advice