Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 16/03/15 in all areas

  1. Sounds like the actions of someone that is having a few mental health problems. Lets hope she gets the help that she needs.
    2 points
  2. Your correct The Old Trooper is the restaurant myself and my partner run, we have been publicans and Narrowboaters for a long time and own our boat as we have done for many years. Yes we are new to this current business but we are experienced boaters and publicans, and our dream was to manage a canalside business, so when the Old Tropper came up we snatched it with both hands, since taking over we have seen business build quite steadily, but when something like this comes up on your doorstep it is somewhat worrying that some folk on the canals can cause this much angst and destruction. This woman has been an absolute menace and had caused many thousands of pounds worth of damage to moored boats, I have no shame in naming her boat and ousting her to the community, the owners of the boats she hit on her drunken rampage will face many hundreds if not thousands of pounds worth of bills and in her own words "I nt give a s$¥t, this woman has no respect for other boaters, nor does she care about what she has done. I've said my piece now, their May not be a law against navigating a canal whilst pissed but their sure will be many many civil cases bought against her. Talking to the local CART lads they say her licence maybe revoked. Here's hoping! That's my rant done, I'm off for a bath
    2 points
  3. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  4. There are over 200 boats on the Golden Nook Moorings now, I know because we went down their 2 weeks ago in a heavy wind and I was counting them until the horizontal rain arrived!, then I could not see a thing, I was tempted to go fast but did not. We remember seeing the offending boat near Christleton.
    1 point
  5. I didn't make it up. Others did that, when having a pop at CC'rs who CCed (or bridge hopped) on the K&A (or other canals) and complained about BW harassing them. Now that CRT are are dealing with those who bridge hop whilst never, or rarely, returning to the home mooring, they cry wolf.
    1 point
  6. I absolutely loved it, as I did the first series, Tim and Pru really love the waterways and enjoy being out traveling along the canals and rivers, The two of them are fantastic presenters, so what if the editing is a bit bad, the overall result is very heartwarming, I liked the fact their son Is interested in the boating world, The programme for me was very informative, well presented, sympathetically done and very very well cast, I mean who else could present a programme like that.......... John Sergeant maybe???????? Seriously tho Tim and Pru have a much loved desire for the warerways and it shows in not only the last series but on this one too, they are real people with a real passion for the waterways and I for one applaud this new series of such a fantastic tv programme, should it be released on DVD I'll pay the highest price for the privilege of owning such fabulous entertainment. (To the boaters whom never hit anything nor touch a lock side or bridge hole, how old are you?, what is your mental state?, how long have you been boating?, are you the perfect boater? Do you understand humour? And finally DO YOU EVER COCK UP?) To end, Tim and Pru love the canals and it shows clearly in this and the previous series, I for one can't wait for the next episodes to be aired and have them on series link and recorded. Finally something about our fantastic canal heritage of interest to watch! I hope the producers of Barging around Britain take note!!! Nik Edited cos my spelling is bloomin awful
    1 point
  7. I am rather busy with other things at the moment, so cannot afford the time to answer that as comprehensively as the question deserves – besides, I rather think that I have done so previously in sufficient depth, but can’t seem to search back through my posts further than about a month. Any assistance as to how one can do this would be appreciated. At its simplest, a contract is no contract where the terms are unilaterally imposed, and further, seek to circumvent statutory protections of one party. As the matter of issuing a licence is subject only to those conditions laid down by statute, no additional conditions to the issue can be legally imposed. Seeking to evade lawful prohibition by way of a contract – even if voluntarily signed - is of no effect. It is illegal for the issuing body to impose such a contract, and it is unenforceable against the other party. Mayalld off his own bat could no doubt supply the case law which escapes me at the moment [it was the Dairy case], or Doghouse [with his site navigational skills] could probably help dig up my relevant previous post.
    1 point
  8. This bird's fat intake has definitely contributed to a condition I call "bingo wings..."
    1 point
  9. Absolutely not condoning those who twist and bend every rule just to benefit themselves, but given the above figures, doesn't seem as if the boats around the Richmond area are having a negative effect on house prices!
    1 point
  10. Of course it is; I’ve pointed this particular instance out before. When faced with the legal reality, they invent their own purported circumvention of the legislation, by way of persuading you that, although the law may prevent them, you agree to it anyway. That such asinine nonsense is nonetheless of practical effect is illustrated by the constant recurrence of posters pointing out that you are bound by the law of contract in this manner. Untrue – but why would CaRT care, when it works on most? “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time . . .” and so they work it.
    1 point
  11. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  12. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  13. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  14. So we must comply with CRT, but CRT don't have to comply with parliament? They get to invent their own rules. Ones which are in direct conflict with the legislation. It's not surprising people get somewhat peeved.
    1 point
  15. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  16. Remember the fuse is there to protect the cable so you may need to consider an inline fuse in both cables so that if one disconnects for any reason the fuse in the remaining supply will blow thus preventing overheating.
    1 point
  17. Yes, and I wish I had a quid for every time it's been quoted on here.
    1 point
  18. Heavy metal maybe...? Cratch the way...I like it...? Smooth alternator...? Can you feel the Beta..? Pump out the volume..?
    1 point
  19. My take on it is CaRT are using the limited tools in their armoury to take control of the agenda, get a culture change and put a marker down to change the idea that you can rock up in a boat on any towpath of any town you like, stay there as an to alternative housing. They are doing this before it gets totally unmanageable in some hot spots spreading out to others.
    1 point
  20. Not at all. You clearly don't read my posts on the subject. I've been saying right from the start I'm ready and willing to challenge the new T&C requiring home moorers to CC. With my boating pattern and history I'm an ideal candidate. I'm gonna be fascinated to see if CRT choose to deny me a licence at next renewal. My questions are my first steps in planning how to play it should it come to pass.
    1 point
  21. The thing is, if one wants to live an 'alternative lifestyle', one needs to keep one's head down and not piss off the locals. Tabby and her 'community' is reaping what she she sowed...
    1 point
  22. Three have completely scrapped unlimited tethering packages. As people come to the end of their unlimited tethering contracts, they are being moved on to other plans. Those whose contract had already expired (such as myself) were moved at the start of Feb. Yes, anyone that buys a service offering something is entitled to receive that something. As a consumer, do you not think that is fair? (You'd think there would even be a law about it) Three crunched the numbers and came up with an unlimited plan for £xyz. They would have known to expect a range of customer usage types, some probably never used more than 10MB a month, some probably use "Only 1,000GB a month". Responsibility on whose part? The party offering the service, the consumer, or both? As the consumer, I'm in no position to judge Three's capability to provision the service. If Three sell it as unlimited, should I be expected to manage my usage? How am I supposed to know how much is too much? If you lose your unlimited data, it's because Three have formulated the wrong products at the wrong price, not "because of the selfish actions of a relative few".
    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.