Leaderboard

So it seems their "finest hour" has passed. They retreat to the depths of the interweb, having fought bravely over profile names, interpretations of interpretations, and the relevance of consent. They stand alone, spent, exhausted of reason. Finally a lone voice shouts from the depths "help us CRT", but nobody comes.

Stood out on the rear deck last night having a smoke and heard the ducks going a bit mental, looked over and saw five males chasing one poor little female, i know its the season! Then heard little ducklings going mental also, as my rear deck backs onto lock 7 at Atherstone i am a few feet away from the pond, had a look and two little fellas were swimming around and could not get out... They had dropped down the overflow bit, not sure what you call it but it looks like a little waterfall, the mother duck could get out and was trying to lead them out, so i grabbed my plank and dropped it in, the mother came up and stood near me watching, first little duckling spotted the plank and wobbled up it and over my arms to its mother, 2nd one went the other way, at this point the mother and first duckling jumped back in... so started again, managed to lift both of the ducklings out this time and they legged it off to be with mother. Took me about an hour of faffing and a couple of dog walkers were giving me funny looks, but it felt awesome to get them out and back to mother! Unfortunatly one little fella didn't make it and i guess the waterfall drowned it.. But two out of three aint bad. I swear they quacked 'thanks' at me as they went past....

All my own taken over the last few weeks on my phone.

Bak in the 70's or was it early 80's a bunch of "me, me,me" types instead of living under the radar in their vehicles decided to go on a random rampage, taking any objection as further excuse to up the stakes. At the heart were a bunch known as the convoy crazies, they had numbered tatoos on there bums. There were maybe 20 of them, the rest were well meaning human shields. Thanks to them living in a vehicle got a lot more difficult. I knew a few of the crazies personally, fighting "authority'for it's own sake was the name of the game, a disappointing lack of cunning. I lived a more outrageous life without making a fuss about it. I think mtb has a good point. Why do people have to push when it's not needed, it's pure selfishness.

I am still not convinced that if an injunction has been obtained preventing someone from bringing their boat back on to CRT waters without CRTs prior consent its just as simple as applying for a new licence to get the injunction overturned. That makes the injunction a waste of time.Logically to me one should have to apply to CRT for consent prior to applying for a licence.

Princess Anne was shortened by Geoff Wheat circa 1970 as he wanted a boat which could get onto the L&LC and C&HN. This is one of his photos taken just before being shortened. At the time, Geoff was hoping to live on board and had begun the conversion, but became too interested in proper boats on the L&LC, and then A&CN, to have the time to continue, eventually selling to Ed.

I too was expecting photos...

Having just agreed with MtB for the second time in two days as well, I am becoming a little concerned.

Yes it does, because CRT are the only organ likely to demand enforcement of it, and if they consider the terms of it have not been broken, they won't demanding enforcement.

Living on the inland waterways seems to be very hot news this week. Was listening to Broadcasting House on Radio 4 on Sunday morning, and a two or three minute piece about K&A liveaboards feeling under threat seemed to drop out of the blue into the programme. No critical discussion about it though. Then stumbled across the beautifully produced Off The Cut on this forum yesterday: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=84013&page=1, which doesn't seem disconnected from the above. Now a couple of BBC shorts, with a similar gist ... and some of the same interviewees. Curious.

From the various historical books I have read one reason could be ease of replacement. As working boats tended to spend the majority of their lives low in the water the bottom of the hull could and did get damaged. In one of Tom Foxon's book he relates where his boat, with a wooden bottom, encountered a sunken safe and damaged some of the planks. Wood planks being easier, quicker and cheaper to replace. Also the boat would be out of service for less time. E.T.A. Having spoken to "my" historic narrowboat captain today, he recons wooden bottomed boats "swim" better.

The canal is much more civilised than the real world so don't bother with keeping in touch with it? ...................Dave

I didn't take it as a criticsm. Lovely though she is, I'm kind of surprised that the "asking" for a nicely presented "Grand Union", shortened or otherwise, now seems to be in the mid £50Ks. I suppose time will tell whether such prices are achievable.

Sounds like the man deserves a plaque - on the Droitwich.

And I had visions of you with a sheep under each arm, a rabbit under your jumper and a pigeon on your head as you climbed out of the canal;----then I read the last part of your post.

Once cleaned off...rub it over with some clove oil on a cloth...(most chemists sell small bottles for a few quid) Clove oil is deadly to mould....whereas mould can survive bleach. It just goes white and you think its gone. I used it in a spray (diluted with some hot water and a little washing up liquid) I sprayed all my curtains...shower... etc with it..before leaving the boat and never had mildew..

What can I say? I manage to read people's posts on here without applying my own prejudices, I'm often baffled that other's seem capable only of asuming the worst. Sure is an odd site.

We spent a few days moored in Skipton last year and I was sent out to get the morning newspaper. I found that a rather aggressive swan had set up a checkpoint on the towpath opposite the Springs Branch and was terrorising one poor teenager who needed to get past. I had a word and reminded it that you can break a swan's wing with a man's arm. The poor girl managed to slip past while we were in negotiations. On the way back it was still there but agreed to let me pass on condition that I didn't slap it round the chops with a rolled up newspaper. Ain't wildlife along the cut fun!?

That doesn't answer the question I asked. Meanwhile here is a selection of C&RT's thoughts and motives with regard to not wanting to licence 'Tadworth'. From C&RT E-mail of 29 August 2016 :~ "Having gone through a lengthy process to get a court order for the removal of your craft from our waters, it is clearly not now appropriate that we issue you with another licence." And some more that you haven't seen before from other recent C&RT E-mails :~ "I cannot predetermine the outcome of a boat licence application for Tadworth here, either by accepting or refusing it, you would need to submit an application through the appropriate channels. However, I can point out that the application would be considered against the relevant legislation (e.g. s.17 of the British Waterways Act 1995) and all of the relevant circumstances at the time, including whether it is possible for you to comply with our terms and conditions (e.g. pay the licence fee)." And :~ "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have licensed your craft ‘Tadworth’. I must apologise as this is an administrative error on our behalf." And :~ "The licence which was issued recently by the Trust was an error because there had not been adequate consideration of all of the circumstances relating to ‘Tadworth’, and that is why it was subsequently revoked. With regards to the court order granted against you, it does not prevent you from applying for a licence, or prevent the Trust issuing a licence to you. However, the injunction does prevent you from bringing Tadworth onto the Trust’s waterways without our prior consent i.e. obtaining a licence from us. Before that can happen though, we must first be satisfied that Tadworth meets all of the criteria for a licence, including (but not limited to) the appropriate safety standards." The thoughts are muddled, . . . but the motives [spite, grudge harbouring, petty-mindedness etc.] are clear enough.

Why do you persist in arguing the toss about something that C&RT themselves don't regard as pertinent to the matter in hand, and have not disputed ?