Leaderboard

Just to clarify my position... I've probably spent about 3 hours of my time with our new neighbours, helping them to understand the boat's plumbing and electrical systems. I've checked all his batteries and saved him over 300 quid on new batteries that he'd bought but didn't need (he got a refund). I helped him to adjust his leaking stern gland; given him a 2m length of braided nylon hose and jubilee clips for his engine room bilge pump which wasn't connected, and lent him my seasearcher magnet and long boathook when he dropped an expensive ratchet spanner and then rubber deck mats in the water. All of the above for free. So I'm not really such an uptight arse'ole, I'm actually very welcoming, friendly and helpful. I just happen to think that pirate flags on canal boats are silly, that's all. Others can disagree and that's also their prerogative.

How politically correct do you have to be to object to people flying a Jolly Roger or 6 year olds wanting to dress up as pirates? It's hardly in the same league as displaying as swastika or navigating wearing a kkk hoodie is it? You're the type of person that will watch a T.V. show that you dissaprove of just so you can get offended and pen a letter to the broadcaster. As a pirate I must apologise for the brutality and barbarism I have inflicted upon (amongst others) Sony Entertainment, Warner Brothers, MGM etc.

Two people talking sense -( plus a couple of others). Quite good for the Canalworld forum. There were a catalogue of abuses by CRT in the course of my prosecution. Far more important than their intrusive, and unreasonable, insistence on telling people where they can go on their boats and having a massive surveillance operation to 'enforce' this as if we are all terrorists. Those of you who sit down with them and agree to this shite should be ashamed of yourselves. CRT behave unlawfully and criminally. What they declare as 'the rules' bear no relation to what they actually do. And you can't take them to court and you can't get legal aid so their insistence that a judge decide on any disagreement is made in that knowledge. And, of course, as you would see if you read my website -Canal and River Tyranny - they manipulate and corrupt the legal process. As to the question: Will any boaters stand firm and call CRT's bluff? I've not seen much sign of it. Have you? I did - and was overwhelmed with the support and encouragement I received. Fortunately I don't give a toss what other people think. I do what's right and I don't stand for systematised abuse of vulnerable people by a public authority or public body abusing their position for their own ends. It's a disgrace what 'living on a boat' has become. And a disgrace how the 'opinionated', many on here, have responded to it. And a disgrace how the, so called, 'boater groups' fail to challenge them. I've provided so much evidence of their wrongdoing which, when ignored by the so called 'representatives of boaters interests', and the rest of you, only encourages CRT to increase their tyrannical actions. Do you really think imposing impossible rules on people that they cannot possibly comply with, because they are not 'on holiday', and cannot, as the alternative, get a mooring even though many would want one, is a sensible solution to anything? It's a persecution programme to get people, living on boats, off the canals. They don't take their boats with them and that's all CRT want. Why don't they just admit that? Because making people homeless has to be a little more 'indirect'. Incidentally, there are canals outside of London that are practically deserted for much of the year so why apply draconian rules there? Something else for you to ignore but it gets it on the search engines.

But distances aren't central to the point. It's just that CRT have tried to convince us all that they are. For example, in the 'famous' Weeks vs Ross case, a back and forth journey of 1.5 miles was determined to be navigation. Add Judge Halbert's statements on 'bona-fide' and it's easy to see that round trip (bridge hopping) of 3 miles was 'bona fide used for navigation. In other words, the 1995 act allows continuous cruisers to bridge-hop. The test of its lawfulness is the reason for the bridge-hopping not the fact of it.

I did learn something. There is not much left of an Alpaca when you take its coat off!

Well done then, but it isn't hard to actually quote correct distances, if they are part of the point you are trying to make It seems you are better at guessing who the next poster will be, than how far two places are apart by canal.

... because I've just paid the rest of the money for my new boat!!! Yay at long last after 5 years of searching, saving and much disappointment I am the proud owner of my first boat.

We draw 3ft 3" underway, we have been everywhere you can go without a serious problem recently. After the dredging which is now finished we have some fine stretches of canal. The Walsall is the worst but if you sensible and cruise at low rpm and listen for any change in prop wash and do quick throw off there will be little problem. Most people foul up on the BCN because they are not attentive to the engine rpm and prop wash, the odd throw off will save many a dive down the weedhatch. Easing off at bridgeholes and going into neutral, then let your own wash lift you through the bridge is an old technique I was taught some 45 years ago, it still works well. Enjoy the BCN and what little is left of its heritage before CRT knock it all down!

Ah the simple life ! All you need to go boating is a degree in law, a log book signed by a judge, and a GPS record of all your movements from GCHQ.

You are absolutely right about the Mayers case. What it did was reinforce the view expressed in the Davis case that purpose or intent was the key. Back before Christmas, when Richard Parry had his last facebook session, I asked him if he intended to apologise to national boating organisations for not making the Mayers judgment available to them (bear in mind that he was trying to encourage those organisations to suggest what they would like to see in terms of CC cruising patterns). The exchange ended with 'Allan, there was nothing in this case that changed our view of our Guidance. That's why we've not changed it'. Undeterred, I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act - CaRT have refused the first part of the request on the basis that NBTA have already published the information. That in itself is significant. When I requested a copy of the Davis judgment from BW, they simply provided it and subsequently published it on their website. Regarding the second part of the request, this was initially refused under Section 42 'litigation privilege', with CaRT claiming that the documents requested contained information relating to current court cases. After an exchange of emails, I reworded the the request such that it did not inadvertently include any information not relating to the Mayers case (which, of course is not 'current'). Some two months after making the request, CaRT is still refusing it under Section 42 but this time as 'advice privilege' rather than 'litigation privilege'. Section 42 is not an absolute exemption. In other words CaRT can not simply say 'we are prevented by the Act from providing this information'. Instead, they have to apply the public interest test - For two months, CaRT has been saying we hold information that supports the assertion 'that there was nothing in the judgement that changed CaRT's view of its guidance'. For two months, CaRT has been saying that it is not in the public interest to make this information public. .. and for two months, CaRT have been failing state what factors (for and against) it has taken into account when applying the public interest test.

In that sense it was very accurate - apart from a few miles around Skipton the L&L is usually empty. You'll have no problem with mooring almost anywhere.

If CRT said you must travel 10 miles every 14 days there are those who would complain. There are those who would ask "Do you actually mean 10 miles or about 10 miles?" If CRT said you must travel 5 miles every 14 days there are those who would complain. There are those who would ask "Do you actually mean 5 miles or about 5 miles?" If CRT said you must travel 2 miles every 14 days there are those who would complain. There are those who would ask "Do you actually mean 2 miles or about 2 miles?" CRT cant win!

That's what I was trying to tell you all along that I had seen these photos before & was sure they belonged to another family member. But you would not listen was so sure that the other person had the only copies so I gave up trying to tell you the truth. This lady is still with us & her memory is as sharp as a button she recognised a lot of the people in many of my photo's . I will not spoil things by giving names of her & her brothers but when they appear in Narrowboat many will recognise her maiden name .

Alan surprised you have not made the connection. Dean is the son of the young girl in the photos you posted asking who the family are the ones I said I thought where part of my large boat family Dean is connected to me ,Humphries ,Johnsons ,Beechey, Lapworth & many more. the lady talking I believe is his Mum I am trying to get us all together this year @ Braunston