Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/17/16 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    We have this article, the 'Off The Cut' film and the 'Boats Are Homes' demo about to happen. It does seem like a coordinated push. The film and this article, both focus on the same stretch of the Kennet and Avon but make their points as if they apply nationally. They don't. The film also implies that most boaters are continuous cruisers. They aren't. What we have is a specific issue to this stretch of the K&A. My interpretation is that, 10-15 years ago a few families took to living on this small stretch (remember the K&A only fully opened 25 years ago - so this is not an entrenched culture). The pioneers led the way for others who saw the benefits and BW did not take any serious action at the time. As time passed and the boating population grew on the K&A it simply became normal for the cc'ers there to shuffle about over 10 miles or so and get away with it, thinking it would be allowed forever. Occasional enforcement notices were dished out but no further action was taken so long as the boat then shuffled on a mile or so. Fast forward to today and we have more and more people taking to the canals and a growing problem for hotspots like the K&A. Add the problems with the housing market into the mix, pushing people to look for cheaper options and its easy to see how a 'critical mass' is achieved. Clearly, there's been a lot of families living on boats along there and they've become a community, which must have been lovely for them. The problem is that it's unsustainable in the wider context. As a Birmingham boater, I'm not aware of a single cc'ing family in the whole Birmingham area. All the cc'ers I know and see are either single or couples. So why has this family orientated community grown up on the K&A? Well, once you have one or two pioneers, it normalises the idea for other families, but also this area has a long history of alternative and travelling communities, from earlier Romanys to New Age Travellers and the Battle of the Beanfield etc. It seems fairly logical to me that the travellers of the area from the 1980s would move onto the canal when other options were stripped away from them. The harsh truth is that raising a family while cc'ing is difficult. That's why you hardly see anyone doing it in other parts of the country. Cc'ing for a single person with a fixed job takes a fair bit of organising, but I simply wouldn't attempt it if I had kids. I've said before, nobody has an automatic right to live on the canal, this family choose to do so, but they could also choose not to. I do feel sorry for them though because they clearly had it very good for a long time, while BW looked the other way. They must have seen this day coming for years though, they aren't ostriches.
  2. 2 points
    According to Panda Smith, you only need to clean your windows every two weeks and CRt will leave you alone (Radio 4 this morning)......well I think thats what she said....
  3. 2 points
    I feel sorry for her in that she faces losing her home, but at the same time owning a boat is similar to driving a car, in that it is not a freedom but something which is done under licence, and the simple fact is that there are terms and conditions which go with the licence which simply are not optional. That may sound harsh, but it's a fact.
  4. 1 point
    Tadworth, and C&RT. This is a summary of what has happened to my boat Tadworth, ( the historic big Northwich motor) ln Oct 2013 a fully legitimate court order was issued by CRT stating that i remove it from the trusts waterways, because the licence had not been renewed, which i did. In October 2014 i contacted the legal, and enforcement departments of CRT, and asked if i could re-licence Tadworth, the reply was quote " Having gone through a lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waterways it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence." They did agree to craning out and moving by road, or a 2 day trip to Brentford lock and onto the Thames, but at no time over various emails discussing various options did they mention that i was free to apply for a new licence at any time, but made it obvious that was out of the question to them. After some of my own research, and talking to Nigel Moore, and Tony Dunkley who i must thank for their help, it became apparent that the trust's answers were not true, and were mis represented the law, and their powers in a serious way, the court order did not prevent a new licence being issued, and the trust has no authority to arbitrarily refuse licences. So i applied for a new licence ,and it was granted on 25/02/16, paid in full for 12 months, all the conditions required by legislation were met, boat safety certificate, insurance, and a mooring, a short time later this licence was cancelled by an enforcement supervisor claiming it was a mistake, and threatening to seize Tadworth if it entered onto the trusts waters. The court order stated in the standard wording of all similar BW/CRT orders that i could not bring my boat onto their waters "without prior consent " this is the important wording here, the word "consent" in this regard is the legal term for a licence, and not the trusts own permission. Under the 1995 canal act section 17 a licence application must be granted if all the conditions are met, a boat safety certificate, insurance, and a mooring or abiding by the terms of constantly cruising, the trust has no authority to arbitrarily decide what is an "appropriate" licence or not. Cancelling my legitimate licence was now breaking the law. On 24/03/16 i contacted the legal dept, and asked why my licence had been cancelled they replied that Tadworth did not meet "safety standards" , I asked what these standards were via 3 emails, but relieved no reply. There are none outside of the BSS, and Tadworth has a BSC valid for four years. As of now the licence fee has not been refunded, and i consider my licence, which i have the paper copy of to be valid. If the trust attempted to seize Tadworth this would be i think a seriously illegal act. An email to Richard Parry's personal email address notifying him that the trust was breaking the law has been sent, but no reply relieved. My personal opinion is that all the CRT employees concerned know exactly what the law is, its not hard to understand, and have deliberately, and unlawfully tried to prevent me getting a licence, it is not credible to me that they are unaware of the basic waterways laws, and licencing system they are employed to implement, and all this makes it obvious that the legal and enforcement departments of CRT are out of control, and acting either incompetently or dishonestly, and certainly illegally. It is noteworthy that the CEO has not even acnowleged my email. I wont go in for arguments over this on here, or name names, but i will answer questions or edit any mistakes in what i have posted.
  5. 1 point
    I know this topic has been raised before but thought it worth mentioning my recent experience which may benefit others. Recently had need to dispose of five old 110 Ah leisure batteries. Googled the nearest scrap yard and found a local branch of European Metal Recycling (EMR) at Kingsbury near Tamworth. A phone call confirmed they would take them for cash. Current price is £450/metric ton. Slight issue because I didn't have an account, but one was quickly set up for me once I confirmed my ID with driving licence, and received cheque for £50.85. It would have been paid direct to my account but for the inevitable computer issue. Note they have branches around the country. BTW the four year old batteries were cheapo sealed leisure and have been charged throughout their life at 14.8 absorb voltage with both mains chargers and engine alternators. I prized open up a couple before taking them to scrap yard and found electrolyte around a half inch above plates on every cell. Puts paid to some myths maybe.
  6. 1 point
    I noted a recent topic, on how to pass a boat going slow, and I think I am one of them, because most times, I am on a narrowboat to go slow, that's my intention, I don't mean dawdling ridiculously, just a nice steady pace, so in turny windy rural places I can just go slow and enjoy, rather than either speed up, and have to concentrate more, or pull over to the side and sometimes get beached to allow others to pass. I can see both sides of the argument if people are going tick over speed all the time, but I am currently on the Llangollen, why do people want to go as fast as they can on there/and I am not just talking hirers, I feel I am either a pain to others, for going at a sedate pace, or there a pain to me, as there right behind me impatiently, if I see a boat ahead I slow down and go at their pace, if people are in a rush, get a car/train/ plane..
  7. 1 point
    It is a long article but the relevant piece is: Bully boys Then is was the turn of the bully boys at Cart, who had taken offence at Richard Churchill, and had decided that he was not bringing his boat Tadworth back on to their waters, so refused him a licence. The fact that this was contrary to its own rules did not of course enter the equation. But once again they had picked a wrong one, who with the help of Nigel Moore, and Tony Dunkley, who had also faced the might of British Waterways and Cart, he fought back. The outcome was that the bully boys had again met their match, who clearly showed they were acting beyond their authority, with the outcome of a court order requiring that Cart had to issue his boat with a licence, having misused its powers. By the way how does it reduce traffic to the site if somebody goes and copies for you rather than you go and read it?
  8. 1 point
    Actually, on reflection it's probably your lock. I imagine you would now have squatters rights having spent so long in one Richard Right. You are on your own, no other boat around. It's your lock You arrive at a lock and there is a boat behind you. It's your lock You arrive at a lock to go down and it is full. There is a boat approaching from below. It's your lock* You arrive at a lock to go down and it is empty. There is a boat approaching from below. It is their lock* You can reverse the last two for yourself Basically, the etiquette is - don't piss people off unnecessarily. Emptying a full lock or filling an empty lock that could have helped a boat coming the other way is likely to piss them off Richard *you can think of these as saving water too
  9. 1 point
    Can we get autographed ones direct from you?
  10. 1 point
    It's mine - hands off Richard
  11. 1 point
    On its way , i will be moulding one then fitting it in the dash. Easier than laminating in the dash etc. watch this space
  12. 1 point
    Indeed I could see it, and I took photos on my rubbish point and shoot idiot camera. Not good enough to post on here which is fortuitous, as I have no idea how to begin such a feat of technical wizardry Rog
  13. 1 point
    This notfinished but as i am that chuffed with it here it is before the primer. Now i made a reat mess of the dash when i was trying to fit it on the bulkhead when i was laminating it in place i thought it was held in place with the silicone i used to hold it temp, but when i turned around when finished the whole lot slid down and made an easy job twice as hard as i had to remove it when it was just going green, near set. NOT hood, At that stage Murflyn i didnt get any pics, my hands were literally covered in resin. Well it needed loads of sanding back as it was as ruff as a bears rear end. Then a trim back again and this time i set it in place with resin/fillet. Then i just filled and fettled it all. I used the props to hold ot inplace, no chance was it moving this time. The helm is fitted and the edges are blended in, just a little more final filling with Stopper for slight imperfections ( has to look nice ) and then ready to prime. I has to fit captive nuts for the helm mounting plate as it is a tight squeeze to get in, all i did was use bridging filler to hold the nylocs in place, worked a treat Oh and the drinks holder to be made and slotted in place and all done, but happy as we are.
  14. 1 point
    I couldn't. I find that one long one is enough.
  15. 1 point
    I don't think most people could give two hoots.
  16. 1 point
    Unlike Capt. Oates I made it back, having taken loads of photos, really enjoyed the fantastic views, and called at three pubs. What a terrific day. Rog
  17. 1 point
    What's a greenie ?
  18. 1 point
    Surely you aren't suggesting that Daventry is as dismal as Slug? Yes, it's a good thing that you don't work for Daventry's forward planning department. Do you? We have been to Dav. a few times. Those redbrick middle Midlands towns, such as Hinckley, do tend to lack excitement, but writing them off as a commercial and touristic dead duck is pessimistic in the extreme.
  19. 1 point
    To be honest, if I want to pass a slow moving boat I usually invent a horn signal then smile and wave. Richard
  20. 1 point
    Not sure I would want to do my laundry in a pump out tank
  21. 1 point
    Again, this is a generalisation at best and an unjustifiable assumption at worst. Consider: - a CCer who does 200 lock-miles a year and with a pump-out toilet that he pays to empty once a month at a private marina, and - a (liveaboard) HMer with a cheap, unserviced "farmer's field" mooring who does 2000 lock-miles a year, and empties his toilet cassette twice a week at a CRT elsan point. Is the HMer really subsidising the CCer's much lighter use of CRT infrastructure/facilities, just because a proportion of what he pays for his mooring goes to CRT? And if we were going down this road, we could be asking similar questions about why HMers paying £2000 a year directly to CRT for a mooring should be "subsidising" other HMers who "only" pay £200 a year to CRT via a private marina's NAA fee. It's a can of worms best left unopened IMHO. The licence fee covers unlimited use of locks, san station facilities, towpath moorings, etc., and it's up to the individual boater to decide how much he wants to get his money's worth. If you want anything extra, like a home mooring with such-and-such facilities, you pay for it.
  22. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  23. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  24. 1 point
    Does every town really need "redevelopment"? It might be good for business but the trouble is we end up with lots of soulless clone towns across the country. I'm in favour of towns retaining something of their local character if possible, even if this means that for some people the town looks a bit drab. To me a drab town is more interesting than a soulless clone town.
  25. 1 point
    How refreshing to read of such boundless optimism. How about "the canal will bring visitors to the town, resulting in greatly increased trade for local businesses"?
  26. 1 point
    Putting aside the wrong stuff, like not cruising at night, Horace does make an interesting point which has been discussed on here a few times. He's new so probably isn't aware of that. It is true to say that everyone generally moors somewhere, whether on a permanent mooring or on a vm/14 day mooring. Many permanent CRT moorings are simply allocated bits of towpath for which people pay over £1000 a year. Being on a permanent towpath mooring doesn't cost CRT any more that a cc'er costs them. In fact it's likely to be less since they probably move less and therefore cause less wear and tear to locks etc. So what are people paying for? The answer: simply the right not to have to move every 14 days. That's all. Clearly that's worth over £1000 to people and puts a lot of money in CRT's coffers. Money which they don't get from cc'ers. I'm not judging the right or wrong of this but we accept that we all pay the same licence fee, based on boat length and having a fixed mooring attracts an extra fee. It's accepted because it's always been like this. There's nothing to say it always has to be in the future though. An example: a few years back, VED (road tax) began to be charged according to emmisions. In other words, drivers were tax according to their 'wear and tear' on the planet. This was a new idea and was resisted at the time, but now it's accepted. CRT could easily decide to base the licence fee on 'wear and tear' to the waterways. Measuring lock-miles for each boat would be tricky, so a simplified version could be charging cc'ers more, on the assumption that cc'ers put more strain on canal infrastructure, on average, without fully paying the cost of that strain. Those with a CRT home moorings are directly subsidising the maintenance of the system. This has been explicitly stated to me by Jenny Whitehall when I asked her where the fees from my mooring site go, since they clearly aren't plowed back into the maintenance of the site. She explained that having long term moorings has always been a money making part of CRT/BWs operation and allows them to do more work on the maintenance of the system generally. Since CRT are increasingly cracking down on non-compliant cc'ers, one tool they do have is to make it less financially attractive. I'd be amazed if they haven't already looked at this option.
  27. 1 point
    On the rare occasion that I've used a hand signal to another boater, I've always pointed to myself and the boat to indicate what my intention are if different from the norm. Thus far, I've not been misinterpreted. Dave
  28. 1 point
    I looked a boat a while ago. It was built in 2007. It sounded like it had been left on a shore line permanently with no galvanic isolator and a general lack of maintenance. The owner was getting it surveyed. The survey came back and the advice was to over plate it. The owner arranged the work. I got talking to somebody living in the marina where the work was being done (by external contractor). He had seen the whole process. On the face if it it looked a good job but what what I was told put me right off. I have now got a 12 year old boat that has flown through a survey and has been well maintained. As previously stated if it's cheap and you arrange the work you have a level of confidence in the repairs but buying already done is an unknown. A future buyer would probably have the same reservation when you come to sell.
  29. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  30. 1 point
    To address the specific point - yes there are lots of booze cruises on day boats;. Yes they are a bit of a pain sometimes. But absolutely not to banning day boats - I've a cousin who cruised with us back in 2009, fell in love with the experience but has only been able to afford day boat since for her and her family. We've lived on the canals since 2009, spent some of that time on the LLangollen, we've been bumped against a few times, had party boats pull out pins out and absolutely 100% enjoyed the experience and were laughing when we were getting the boat back to the bank and pinning it down in our nightclothes, There are a diverse group of people who enjoy the canals with varying budgets. Long may it continuej.
  31. 1 point
    What I find illogical is the man in the video from CRT saying: 'we can't actually specify how far is enough but we can tell you if you are not traveling far enough' The two statements directly contradict themselves. They act as if 'to specify' means to voice the distance verbally yet the very fact they are saying that X is not enough must mean that they are specifying (albeit vaguely) a minimum distance - which they point out is not something they are legally entitled to do. Whilst I think the issues raised by CRT need to be addressed I can't help thinking they are going about it the wrong way.
  32. 1 point
    This is something that doesn't come across in the video sadly, though CRT seem reluctant to commit to a specific distance. I'd also film/document it somehow just in case CRT seems to think otherwise! Well, good for you if your circumstances allowed that! Have to admit, with my subsidising taxpayer hat on, I do have a little compassion for families trying to bring up children on the waterways these days.
  33. 1 point
    2 engines for sale. Both running fine when last used. Need a bit of TLC. Sold as seen, collection only, no timewasters please.
  34. 1 point
    The rules have changed. That's the problem. A lot of these folk were told specifically by BW and then CRT on what was expected of them. Two to three boroughs was the normal advice. People adapted their lives to this, jobs, schools etc. Then everything changed. Lets not be hasty in blaming the boat owner, CRT, and BW before them were, and are just as guilty.
  35. 1 point
    It seems these are the key bits of the Crown Court decision, that was upheld by the appeal: 13. Whilst the definition of “vessel” in the [inland Waterways Order] was wide and did not purport to be exhaustive it was also circular in that the object which attracted the terms of the order still had to be capable of being properly described as a vessel. 14. In the absence of an exhaustive definition, then, applying [brutus v Cozens [1973] A.C. 854], words were to be given their ordinary and natural meaning. 15. Although the [Environment Agency] relied heavily on the authority of [Tristmire Ltd. v Mew and another [2012] 1 W.L.R. 852] its argument ... essentially that “if something was not a house then it must be a vessel” did not bear scrutiny and was the equivalent of saying that if something was not a dog then it must be a cat. 16. [Thomas W. Ward Ltd. v Waugh 1934 J.C. 13] could be distinguished[.] “The Tiger” had been constructed as a ship and although it was being dismantled it continued to be properly described as a ship. 17. There was no evidence that the structures had ever been used to transport to carry anyone or anything by water. 18. For these reasons the appeal was allowed.
  36. 1 point
    Tend to agree. Lots of stuff about rights without true responsibility. It's a transport system not a housing estate. Also unverifiable speculation bordering on scare tactics.
  37. 1 point
    Having had a scan through, and trying to keep an open mind, I am once again struck by the nonsense talked by those representing NBTA about subjects they either don't know the truth about, or don't want to know the truth about. Panda Smith tells us that there is plenty of space in London, with about 100 miles of Inland Waterways. How far out of London she considers to be "London" to produce that statistic is unclear, though she has presumably included the tidal Thames through London, as well as its canals - hardly somewhere that is suitable to be a CC-er. She also repeats the myth that much of London's tow-paths have been concreted over in recent years, (she says the last 8 years or so). Representatives of NBTA London have put posts on Facebook saying similar. This is simply not true of course - most of the concreted over areas have been there far, far longer than that, and if challenged they struggle to tell you anywhere where moorings have been removed by changing the tow-path in at least the last decade, (or, as happened to me, when I tried to correct some of the misinformation, simply turn against you and say you are anti live-aboard boater, which I plainly am not). I suppose that is why I get so frustrated by all this, however well produced the film. There is plenty that CRT should be held to account for, but the NBTA approach of "never let the truth get in the way of a good headline" spoils the credibility of productions like these. If they were to stick to verifiable facts, I feel they would carry a far stronger argument, and get far more people on side.
  38. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  39. 1 point
    A non judgemental observation (though possibly slightly political for which I don't apologise) None of us actually has the right to get a good education for a kids, in general the more wealthy we are the better education our kids get. At the top end there are the public (private!) schools. Otherwise, with a few exceptions, kids in wealthy areas get a better education. One of the main factors driving house prices is the quality of the local school. Bluntly, if you are wealthy you buy a house near a good school. Bradford on Avon is a wealthy place with good schools and a few boaters have cleverly found a way to get a very good education for their children even though they could maybe not afford a house in that area. I am aware of a couple of BoA boat children that went to Oxford and Cambridge. Its hard to blame the boaters concerned, in their position I would do the same, in fact with hindsight I wish I had done the same, but its not an easy position to defend. ...............Dave
  40. 1 point
    Having given up boating due to family illness before the influx of people making their homes on boats & the mooring/ c cruising set up, the thing that springs to my mind, is that surely the onus is on the boat owner to know/understand the rules & regs & should they choose to have a cc license they should not be surprised if they fail to comply they will face problems maybe there are no moorings in the area they wish to moor, but surely they should check on this first, in all other forms of payment of licenses complying with regs failure to conform results in action of one form or other, not a goodly amount of whinging, p**s taking, by the boat owners not complying does this fall under the " every one is out of step but me"whilst i can appreciate there are are cock ups & C&RT exceeding there remit, some owners complying rather than bending the rules would possibly bring about less hassle, whose to know as I guess it will never come to pass.
  41. 1 point
    Most of the readership on here will know that a statement like..... is complete nonsense. However I suspect that most of Joe Public reading it will not. I suspect if they used the true version of events, (i.e. that the vast majority of the 32,000 boats do have a permanent mooring) that it would make a less dramatic story. I do get sick and tired of these pieces that just get some of the most basic facts completely wrong.
  42. 1 point
    Yes, we had a most enjoyable two weeks in February, somewhat marred by that car accident you have always been dreading....trickling along in a motorway queue...then, in the rear view mirror, you see the clown approaching behind at 70mph. Three week old Skoda estate now somewhat shorter, and our greyhound squished. I am still recovering, so no boating for a bit. After an argument with our Insurance co, Mrs TNC eventually got a new car. MA Feb 2016. Crom Castle Moorings. This is near the top of Upper Lough Erne (normally packed in summer) MA Feb 2016. Evening at Crom Castle Moorings. MA Feb 2016. Crom Estate, Gad Island Tower. Mrs TNC, with Bonnie the ex racing (black) greyhound, that was killed in the accident and Piper (Pongo) the whippet who survived (but now rather scared of going in cars) MA above Lock 1 (Corraquill) on the Shannon-Erne Waterway. Accepted practice in Ireland to moor on lock landings...but seeing as we only saw one moving boat in two weeks, not a problem. This in the only lock on the SEW that is (just) in "The North", as the course of the navigation (River Woodford), or it's original course) is the border, from Upper Lough Erne to just short of Ballyconnell. The SEW and Erne had been in flood and we were just able to get out and under the low bridges.
  43. 1 point
    This annoying little mantra gets repeated over and over on here. I'd counter with "if you want to travel that slowly take up towpath rambling instead". Tam
  44. 1 point
    Having seen the film. All the boaters, filmed knew about the 1995 Waterways Act, and what it required from them. No one filmed was disputing, that they had'nt done enough, or that C&RT had recorded their movements incorrectly. "New Guidance" was a common theme, sorry, but the requirements havent changed since 1995.(Before some were big enough to reach the tiller.) C&RT have issued, albeit not to clearly, just how much movement will "Satisfy the Board". Yes, this distance will probably change in years to come, but its what we have now. C&RT on the other hand, who also know about the 1995 Act, do need to start acting absolutely correctly. You can't start enforceing Houseboat rules, on boats that are not by 1995 Act defination, houseboats! A nice propaganda film, but one that showed the film makers, lack of questioning. Patrol Notices, abound, Section 8/13 letters abound, none investigated to show who was coming up short, or why. Bod (Who belives more education of all boaters is the only way forward. As Nigel Moore and Tony Dunkley, and others are trying to do on here.)
  45. 1 point
    It's a good film that puts a human face on some well-worn debates. A bit more clarity would have been nice on just what CRT are demanding of these boaters - a viewer with no knowledge of these issues could be forgiven for missing the point that boaters are being asked to move 15-20 miles or more in a year, and not every 14 days. And in a way I'd have liked a bit more explanation of what's behind people's very different views on what's legally required of boaters without home moorings (i.e. what it means to use a boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period"). That might have helped viewers come to a more informed view of their own. But it's not supposed to be an exhaustive, forensic analysis of the legal issues, I guess.
  46. 1 point
    I've just watched it and though on the face of it, it is a very well balanced and well professionally produced film. I think we are likely to see a lot more of this film as clearly, a LOT of effort has gone into producing it. But as Hawkmoth says, it went off the rails towards the end with the implied 'emotional blackmail' of making out CRT to be responsible for the lady home educating her son feeling driven to sell her boat and live in a van. Like Hawkmoth I could see no reason for her not cruising a bit further as requested by CRT, and thereby keeping her boat licence. (Other than that she doesn't want to, that is!)
  47. 1 point
    How very arrogant of you to think you can decide whether people are allowed to be in a rush or not. People are sometimes in a rush for all sorts of reasons that you would be ignorant of. Many people have a fixed period for their trips/holidays and sometimes things transpire to upset schedules - for example we have just lost 2 days from our trip due to unnecessarily lock closures. It is also very arrogant of you to think that anyone who wants to go faster than you must be "rushing". People wan to go at different speeds, GET OVER IT. You are not the God of canal speed. By all means go at the speed you want to, but equally don't force others to go at your chosen speed. That is plain selfish. If you are so incompetent as to find allowing following boats to overtake difficult, may I suggest some tuition?
  48. 1 point
    My website is on a crappy server in Las Vegas...yet again it has been hacked (this makes the third time since its creation, way back in 1997). Most of the index files have been taken down, as you really would not want to go where they were pointing! When my mate that hosts it has found another server, I will probably get around to uploading the On Tour years...maybe even with higher res piccies of the interesting bits.
  49. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  50. 1 point
    Some years ago I was hiring on the Shroppie for the first time and chatting to the guy doing the boat handover to me.... I asked him if there were many 'shouters' on the Shroppie. He smiled and said that when he was steering his own boat there weren't any, but when he was steering one of the hire boats there were a lot! Very insightful, I thought.
×
×
  • 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.