Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 15/02/15 in all areas

  1. I think that I'm with NC on this one really. When the Fire Service record a fire as Arson what that means is that they cannot find any other reason for the fire and it enables them to pass the enquiry onto the Police and close their record on it. I don't know whether or not it has actually been recorded by Police as Arson or whether there is any enquiry ongoing. IF it was and arson there are various possibilities which include local yobs setting it on fire but do not exclude the owner from having done so to claim on his insurance. I don't know at what point the boat sunk, whether it was as a result of the Water Fairies playing their hoses on it or whether it was pretty much sunk when they got there. If it had sunk the cynic in me would consider it unlikely that any Fire Officer would have gone on board to carry out any extensive enquiry as to the cause (particularly it it entailed wading around in canal water only a couple of degrees above freezing!). So it is equally possible that the fire may not have been arson but as a result of something occuring on board (gas left on by owner, candle left lit,etc.etc). As Patrick Moore used to say, '...we just don't know!'. Speculate as much as you wish but it seems that facts are a little thin on the ground here!
    2 points
  2. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  3. Today, Mrs Hound and myself went down to the CRT Open Day for Lock 34 on the Hatton Flight. Impressive. Volunteers very helpful, unlike some of the public who can see your about to take a picture and then step directly in front of you! The CRT employee "Ian" who showed us around was very knowledgeable. I have been up and down the Hatton flight many times, but have never seen the locks from this perspective before. I was amazed how deep the lock is when empty - almost 6 feet deep.
    1 point
  4. Entirely true, however that doesn't help the folk who subsequently encounter the broken paddle not those who suffer in other ways due to funds being diverted to repair the broken paddle. It is a 200+ year old system (well, not those paddles admittedly) and it is unhelpful to take a position that the infrastructure should be used as originally intended without a care because CRT have a duty to fix anything that breaks.
    1 point
  5. Here is an excerpt from one of my witness statements. ''It has been suggested to me, by an area manager and by the Ombudsman, that I claim housing benefit for a 'mooring' in a marina, that is payable because the council doesn't want to re-house people, and then moor on the towpath. This is an admission that I would be left alone on the towpath if I paid a payment to British Waterways ('protection' money) and advice that I commit what would probably constitute benefit fraud. I know exactly what happens as I tried it once as an 'experiment'.'' I argued that it was unreasonable to force, by threat of legal action, a person to take an 'unlawful mooring' (no planning permission) that he did not intend to use and also claim housing benefit. I have said this many times and no-one seems to grasp the importance of it. People on boats mostly have a low income. If forced to have a 'home mooring' to be free from harassment they will have to claim housing benefit. The Judge said he hadn't had time to read our submissions. He has one day for 'reading'. CRT submit hundreds of pages which he has no chance of reading. One of their, or Shoosmiths', 'tricks'. My intention with the case was to expose the unlawful and unreasonable behaviour of BW/CRT having had my questions through meetings with the manager in the Northwich area, and complaints to the Ombudsman, unanswered and being told I would have to take them to court. I said you will have to take me to court then I can get legal aid. They use public money I am entitled to use public money. They provoked me. I responded. I have exposed their wrongdoing and the Judge found in my favour regarding the unlawfulness of their 'rules', in particular, the requirement for the 'progressive journey around the system'. This was my primary challenge as I was told I couldn't stay in the area to attend vital medical appointments although 'reasonable in the circumstances'. I, effectively, won the case and also brought to light their 'dirty tricks' amounting to contempt of court and abuse of process. I have also exposed the inadequacy of the legal process and protocols of legal representation in dealing with ambiguous waterways law which the Judge will have difficulty relating to the reality of living on a boat. Just look at the confusion on this forum with few people understanding the law and its relation to the ever changing rules (and their misinterpretation in application) and you can see what a, near impossible, task he has. Add to that my being, effectively, excluded from my own case through not having much opportunity to speak in court and not being able to communicate directly with my barrister. A long running farce but not very funny when you're the victim. The judge made CRT give an undertaking to the court to negotiate with me as to how I could remain on the canal. I approached them and asked for reinstatement of my licence. They ignored my attempts at negotiation. They breached the undertaking to the court which is equivalent to a court order. They executed their court order and stole my boat. I had some success as is now being discussed and had a 'way out' courtesy of the judge. CRT were determined to take my boat as ' an example to others'. As no-one else raised concerns about the matter CRT think they've got away with it and they can do the same to you. Your 'boating representatives' are firmly in the pocket of CRT and appear to have been 'seduced' by the tea and biscuits. You're on your own and my information is important to you. More of this is on my website, Canal and River Tyranny, and if you are interested in what is going on, and you should be, you have to read it. It's not about me. It's not a 'hard luck story'. It's the result of seven years of objecting to their blatant, deliberate and systematised abuse of people living on boats, mostly people vulnerable due to age and/or health problem - as I had after an illness - who were the primary targets. Most of you don't know about it because you don't live on a boat on the towpath or because you ignored what you saw. What I did, and am doing, is in 'the public interest'. CRT are refusing to reveal some details relating to my case as it's 'not in the public interest'. There are lots of interesting 'revelations' on my site and there will be more. I hope I haven't wasted my time.
    1 point
  6. But this is the same with all paddle gear. A windlass must always be removed from a raised paddle, irrespective of which canal the paddle gear is on and whether there is a securing device (unless of course there is no securing device or the windlass forms a part of the securing device). My philosophy has always been to never let my windlass leave my person, i.e. it is either in my belt or in my hand.
    1 point
  7. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  8. All these 'facts' you're on about are there for me, and everyone else, to see on that video clip throughout the entire length of it . . . there was a lot more to it than just the bit where the boat got so sick of him that it went off on it's own. It was't a clip of somebody 'getting it wrong', . . . that can happen to the best, and frequently did, but this was somebody who didn't have a clue how to get it right. Obviously you think otherwise and you're entitled to your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned that puts you in the same category as him.
    1 point
  9. Might be an idea to take your boat name off your profile, having just advertised the fact you are miles away on holiday! MtB
    1 point
  10. On the other hand, I once had the keys to a customer's house to refit the bathroom while he was away on holiday. One Friday night I had driven most of the way home when it crossed my mind I couldn't actually remember closing and double-locking the front door as usual. Thinking I must have done I almost didn't go back to check, but I did go back, and a good thing too. When I got there I'd not only left the front door unlocked, but wide open too. Good thing I'm SUCH a responsible tradesman...
    1 point
  11. This guy has been running one for some years now in his boat http://www.waterwayroutes.co.uk
    1 point
  12. Hi, where about in Manchester? Liam
    1 point
  13. Filling a kettle - I just turn on the tap! Dave
    1 point
  14. What would a dinnerplate be doing on the cabin roof?
    1 point
  15. Thats the one regret I have is that I couldn't show my dad as he had died..my inheritance brought her. He would have loved my boat. Still my 3 boys are well impressed..2 of them would like her. This Sunday show daughter..she was the one dissenting voice so fingers crossed she'll see her as i do. It really matters not either way as this boat my memorial to my best friend...my dad.
    1 point
  16. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  17. Dave, I am quite sure that the yeast DOES turn the poo onto beer, but haven't actually done a taste test. However, since you appear to be interested in this method of brewing, you are very welcome to come round and try a sample for yourself. There will be no charge; I can say quite sincerely that the pleasure will be all mine.
    1 point
  18. Tricky one this. They just paved a previously very muddy stretch of towpath above Newbury town centre ... that makes it a LOT easier to walk into town that way ... as well as tie up a boat and manoeuver it at the lock. But, at the same time, I'm also loathe to encourage the few unthinking/idiot cyclists out there to travel even faster down the towpaths. Some of these people are seriously dangerous. But if we took the same attitude with roads -- leave them rough to discourage dangerous drivers -- we'd be back to a medieval network of tracks criss-crossing the country. I like to see cyclists, ramblers, dog walkers, etc. on the towpaths. I DO think, though, that boaters should have priority using them -- given that this is what they were primarily built for, and that at present it is the boater who subsidises their use by others (through licence fees). Before I moved on board I used to have a BW towpath cycling licence. (I still have it.) It was free and downloadable from the BW website and you filled it in yourself. Because it was 'official' it made me think about the sort of 'priviledge' I had cycling on the towpaths -- and how they were different from ordinary roads and public footpaths. It made me think about the original purpose of towpaths. And, being so inclined, a bit about the history of the canals. CRT is missing a trick here. At present they don't require cyclists or anyone else, except those with boats, to have a licence: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/contact-us/faqs/cycling Why not re-introduce the cycle licences -- at first for the price of a donation? (Why not have them for walkers as well?) This seems a good method to begin to involve non-boaters in understanding towpaths as special places. Long, thin zones of nature and wildlife, with a curious interesting history, that we're lucky to have. Involved people are more likely to be caring people. A licence would remind people that along with the special priviledges they have being a 'towpath member' they also have a few responsibilities. A happy byproduct of this would be to raise a bit more income to keep the canals going.
    1 point
  19. I met Hilary in December when she was walking by the canal and very kindly helped me up the Caen hill flight. I hope someone can return the favour and share some locks to ease her journey.
    1 point
  20. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  21. Sorry to say iv not read anything to do with Ronnie Wood or followed his progress in any way,he tried to snatch my fav dolly from me & because i would not let go & kicked him he pushed me in. I was fished out but not my poor old dolly she is prob still to this day @ the bottom of the cut,My uncle Toms boys mixed with him & made lots of racket with their guitars,but i never liked him after that day. childhood memory never forgotten. One a lighter note i also have some records of the Bland family connected to Long Buckby if you are interested p.m. me with your e/mail Jeannette
    1 point
  22. Hello Darren Te woods are connected to my family via Harriett Harrison married Benjamin Wood his occupation is listed as Boatman & Lockeeper, Harriett was my gg Grandads sister so Ronnie Wood shares the same ggg Grandparents as myself.His parents Arther & Elizabeth settled on retirment near to my grandparents,even on leaving the cut the boatmen settled in groups near to each other.I remember Arther as he used to go fishing a lot up near Cowley & he knew my Grandad well,Ronnie pushed me& my Dolly in the cut when i was around 10 years old & iv never forgiven or spoke to him since.Im almost sure my records are right in the fact that Arther & Elizabeth where born on canal boats Orient & Antelope.connecting to the Woods i have records for Sarah alice Bland buried jan 30 1928 aged 57. James Bland buried march 13 1909 age 79.Mary Ann Bland buried may 18 1910 age 71.All buried at Braunston. Sarah should be buried in the Boatmans cemetery across the road from the Church,the others strong poss they where buried in the church grounds but no records apart from Parish records where made or kept when they razered all but a few graves around 50 years ago,like my g Granparents it is impossable to locate exact spot. Jeannette
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.