Leaderboard

There are two sides to every story I know Vaughan, personally as well as professionally. I do not intend to get embroiled in a discussion about various elements of his work in the past, we have not always seen eye to eye - if I limited my contact to people I didn't have differences with I'd be in touch with very few people. However, I also have very little faith in the IWA as things stand, and have found myself apologising for my membership on occasion (I am a member because I am, notionally, on the Inland Waterway Freight Group, but that is almost moribund). I would say that the IWA will come out of this with virtually no credit. My reasons are this: Vaughan was named in a bequest to advise on how that bequest might be used: he felt the advice he was giving was being ignored by the IWA, and asked to be relieved of the obligation to offer that advice: this has caused offence to the IWA heirarchy who deemed his behaviour "inappropriate", even though it was Vaughan who was named in the bequest. Vaughan sought third party advice on the matter (not from me), he was advised that his role in the bequest was personal and nothing to do with the IWA. The IWA wanted to question Vaughan on Saturday, Vaughan was already committed to another meeting and, following advice received, had decided to walk away from the Restoration Committee anyway. In considering this, we should bear in mind that another recent resignation from RESCOM is Geraint Coles, Geraint is widely respected and has been heavily involved with the restoration of the Chesterfield Canal amongst others. Geraint had issues with the way that the IWA heirarchy were treating the subject of restoration and members of RESCOM. There were significant differences of opinion between Les Etheridge, the IWA Chairman, and members of the committee. Geriant's resignation has not drawn any comment, although it is, I believe, very damaging to the IWA if he feels he can not work with them. In reporting the above, I have sought to avoid speculation and also minimised reference to my own opinion. As far as I'm aware I have not breached any confidences with the above, and I don't intend to.

For me, this thread confirms that the cut that I have known for most of my life has changed....or rather those that now use them. I have every sympathy for those who have suffered real damage at the hands of others, though such instances are mercifully rare. In the main, steel sided canal boats are robust things and most collisions result in little more than loss of blacking or perhaps a minor score in the steelwork. I've been surprised at the number of suggestions to collect evidence for possible future legal action, sad that the " sue your arse off" mentality has now arrived on the waterways. I'm not sure that I want to venture out in such circumstances....I'm sanguine about the occasional accidental bump, usually occasioned by someone else panicking and responding poorly, such as the hire boat that swung broadside across the cut in front of me. I stopped within inches of their cabin side. No harm done, I took no notice and carried on once they had sorted themselves out. Should I have logged a near miss or informed the hire company? Disappointed Dave

I can't let that go. He posted an entire article as an IWA Branch Chair that couldn't possibly be taken out of context, because it was quite simply that - an entire article, not a carefully plucked out comment. The article was based on prejudice, because if he had any real exposure to what he was writing about, he would have known he was spouting complete nonsense. It was actually highly offensive from somebody appointed at the time as a boaters representative. I have no idea just how many great works he may have done in the world of canal preservation, but even if he were as good as David Hutchings, (which I rather doubt), it would not excuse his outpourings in my view. The IWA might become a more viable organisation again if it manages to step away from views like his. I can't support something that has people like him as figureheads, however good an organisation they might otherwise have the potential to still be. (Let's see how long that stays here!)

I'm headed that way, and have tools. Will be going up Hurlstun(?)flight tomorrow am. PM me the boat name & crew names, if I find them I'll be in touch. Do they have Belt that should fit? Bod

I think when a year or two has passed and people look back on these times and perhaps study them with the benefit of historical perspective it will become clear that public opinion has been horribly perverted by some very unpleasant people. There are quite 'nice' people I know who hold some shocking opinions. The likes of Farage and columnists in 'family' newspapers have legitimised the holding of the most hate filled attitudes. Its not that difficult to turn people into monsters. People in my own family who used to be on the 'reasonable right' are now, frankly, almost racist neo Nazis. Thing is that they still think they are reasonable.

The 2VTH being stripped down, hoping it would just need new rings and liners.. Being towed backwards to have the engine lifted out. Engine stripped, at which point it was found to be too bad and too expensive to repair, with many parts unobtainable. We found that the engine had different injectors, one being the right one and one being from a VSH which is a higher psi.. No idea what that means.. A 1VSH was purchased to replace it. This was originally a cement mixer engine, from a rather big mixer... All unnecessary parts removed to be sold.. The inside was cleaned, especially the sump under the oil strainer and all new gaskets made and fitted. The engine has already had a new liner and rings and has had the injector and pump serviced. Engine given some new paint. New engine bearers made as the others aren't the same size.. That's it so far... Don't like to work too hard... Casp'

We are currently moored in Braunston beside a sign - not a CRT one -which says no mooring from 18/6 to 1/7 ie two weeks I may be wrong but I thought the boat rally lasted for 2 days not 2 weeks Why is mooring not allowed for so long? Surely it is not outwith the capabilities of those attending to indicate when they expect to arrive and depart and for the organisers to reserve the appropriate number of moorings at the times when an attending boat will need them I and many other boaters I have spoken to say that they would have stopped in Braunston to shop or have a pub meal but during this two week period we don't feel we can This must have an impact on the shops and pubs in the area and having just mentioned this to a couple of shop owners they say they were not consulted and they actually lose money over the two weeks Surely this can't be right and it made me wonder how much legality these non CRT signs are Haggis

Posting this in case someone can help - might be in Langollen with the kit. On Friday found a blue boat 'Drowsing Nymph' broken down between the narrows 1 mile from Langollen. Crew an elderly American couple unfamiliar with the cut who have the boat on swap for their Colorado condo. Anyway - stopped to help - broken coolant drive belt. Pretty simple repair - no tools or spares on their boat. Tried to fit one of mine of correct size, but stumped by seemingly impossible to slack off other alternator belt in the way. (very odd belt installation to my limited experience). Anyway obvious solution a Fenner belt. They had RCR - but their USA phones not working in UK. So lent them our phone. Called out RCR and explained - engineer sent. Should be end of story. Got a call from RCR on Saturday. RCR engineer apparently couldn't fit belt (like me) on friday. RCR phone desk saying they were looking for a Fenner belt as 'engine would have to come out otherwise'- which is ridiculous. She made Fenner belt sound about as obtainable as Unicorn horns. We left Langollen by car for London Sat PM - crew swap - and I am worried the American couple may still be stuck there if RCR have failed. Their cassette is full, and they are a bit distressed, they have no phone. Maybe someone in the basin has a Fenner belt and could help them out, or drop by and see if they are OK? Or maybe they got sorted out in which case wish them well!

And I'm meant to know that that ^^ actually means Barrus Shire?? I thought we were talking about one of your ol' putt putt engines, which I know nothing about! ^^ First post in the entire thread that the word Barrus is actually used!! Give me a break - I come from 30+ years of hospitality work. Ask me a question to do with food/drink or customer service and I'm your girl ANYWAY - we managed to get ours from a very helpful young man named Lee from a company called Woodley Auto Factors 011 894 40024 He was able to take the number we had in the engine manual and translate it to a car part # (that was the first hurttle) and then ordered the part in for us to pick up the following day. Luckily we were moored fairly close to Reading at the time What size Barrus are we talking about? ours is a 40hp and I have the part # they will need for a replacement if that helps at all.

it also depends on what masking tape you are using and where you are painting it. Low tack tape can be used 24-48 hours after a coat, if indoors shaded from the sun. If outdoors, the tape may pull the existing paint if exposed to sunlight quite easily. Normal masking tape must have 3 or 4 days drying minimum before use.

It is a great pity that such a person as Vaughan Welch has stepped down from his roles at the Inland Waterways Association. He has made a major contribution to waterway development, maintenance, restoration and the understanding of the history with which is associated. This was particularly the case in the West Midlands. The resignation of another important person in these matters, Geraint Coles, is particularly worrying. The contribution of both people will be missed, in fact the IWA will be the worse for it. It is time to ask where the IWA is heading, and what Les Etheridge, the National Chairman has to say on why these people have left the fold ? Ray Shill

Please forgive my going slightly off topic, but Dave Mayall's comment here immediately struck a chord. This is precisely what the Environment has done in the Thames Marina case which they lost in a lower court and is now going to appeal at the High Court. The EA's application for the 2010 Order sought to add Thames 'adjacent waters' to the statutory definition of the river given in the 1932 Act, and did so by specifically describing those 'adjacent waters' as "any lake, pit, pond, marina or substantially enclosed water adjacent to any of the waterways to which this Order applies and from which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock or similar work) into the waterway." The Environment Agency "set out to have certain powers enshrined in statute". On the adjacent waters powers they failed; the Secretary of State ordered the provision to be removed. The Environment Agency "turned round and then claimed they already had these powers, immediately after claiming that they needed an Act." That same genie is out of more than one navigation authority's bottle!

Beta blockers should be an important addition, in case the engine gives you heart burn.

I always found Vaughn helpful and knowledgeable. He suffered bad press for comments taken out of context. He certainly worked hard for IWA and the waterways.

Yes indeed. The recruiters of extremist organisations target the vulnerable and those who feel dispossessed offering them a "family" and somewhere they feel they belong.

Can't add to anything that has already been said about this tradgedy apart from this: http://thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/864/101/396/award-the-george-cross-to-hero-who-fought-attacker-of-jo-cox-mp/ FWIW I've signed it.

Assuming this on the river in Bath, I tried to find it (or rather the surroundings) on Google Satellite. But no joy.

Regarding the validity of conditioning licences on the T&C’s, this also from Tuesday 29 June 1993, BW’s presentation to the Commons Select Committee on mooring control clauses – “Essentially we have put into the pleasure boat license conditions the type of mooring advice that is, to a degree, in the provisions of the Bill. We similarly put advice with regard to moorings in the Waterways Code for Boaters, which every license holder is sent . . . This however is an advice code and my advice is that this is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters. - [there is] no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all and therefore the powers that we seek in the Bill enable us to clearly establish where boats should and should not moor and have a simpler and clearer means of dealing with breaches.” Those powers they were seeking did not survive passage of the Bill, so the situation remains that as conditions attached to the licence, they are not enforceable as law. Needless to say, they relied back then, as they do now, on s.43 to justify conditioning the licence with such “advice”, and allegedly empowering them to revoke a licence for any breach – even though such breach carried no legal remedy, as admitted. Regardless, however, whether s.43 would have so empowered them at the time [upon which we profoundly disagree], the fact that the 1995 Act s.17 restricted them to the 3 reasons for refusal has laid an emphatic gloss upon any such alleged powers in this respect, under the doctrine of implied repeal. So IF you are right regarding the scope of s.43, in other words, you are equally right that this was a "spectacular bullet in foot event". The new approach taken since passage of the Act - disregarding the truth of what I have quoted you as saying above - has been to act as though none of all the previous palaver with Parliament is relevant; they have realised that they can succeed in doing what they want virtually all the time, simply by unilaterally asserting their right to do so. Why bother with the expense and trouble of getting new byelaws?

Thanks Andy, I suspected that the job wouldn't be trivial. I have also wrestled with a Shire in the past and know some of the odd things they can throw at you Richard

It appears from the listing 'posting to the UK' was one of the delivery options. All the buyer has to do now is transfer the £5.9k using Paypal and wait for the postman to arrive on Tuesday!

For light relief, BW's early ostensible views, dating to 29 June 1993, in their presentation to the Commons Select Committee - BW’s barrister assuring the Committee: “the Board, like any other body possessing similar byelaw powers, it is not in their own interests to start expending huge amounts of court time pursuing people who are accidentally moored in a way that is an obstruction. It is in that sense a fairly unlikely scenario that a malevolent Board is going to spend huge amounts of time and effort prosecuting people in those circumstances.” BW were asked: “Is licence revocation realisable?”, and the response was: “I am sure that had we thought that was the appropriate way to go forward that would have been a provision in the Bill. We believe that this is the appropriate way to go forward. Licence revocation would remove the ability of the individual to carry on using their pleasure boat even after they had mended their ways, if you follow me.” [my bold] Very sensible approach too, but as we have seen with Andy Wingfield and others, the present authority is fully prepared to spend huge amounts of time and effort prosecuting holders of paid up boat licences for mooring against private property, let alone on the towpath for longer than necessary. Worse, BW having failed to get this made an offence, CaRT revoke the licence and s.8 the boat. So does that make them, in their predecessor’s words, “malevolent”? It brings to mind the plaintive protests of BW to the Committee a bit earlier: “You make it sound as if we are going to go to court every time a boat is moored which is an obstruction, which is plainly not the Board’s intention.” The Chairman responded: “But you will accept that – my colleague said that to Mr Dodd I think – it is not you we are worried about, or the present enlightened Board, but it is their successor who we do not know.” Now, we do know.

...Something that the far right islamaphobes neglected to consider when those equally deranged madmen slaughtered Ian Rigby of course. Mair may have been a disturbed individual with mental health issues but his extreme right wing links cannot be ignored. All extremism is vile and it is not confined to, nor does it define, any particular race, colour, creed or belief.

They must have money to burn...

I don't know that it does raise Political Questions,perhaps just being the random act of a Madman.Maybe a more important Question is the Care in the Community Scheme and closure of Mental Health Facilities.Again its a time and a place,and we should all offer our condolences.

I cannot make my mind up if you are making posts like this due to pure insensitivity or if you are trying to provoke a backlash from political opponents for your own gain. Whichever it is, it is the wrong time and place to do it .... as you are well aware.

Please let's not turn this thread into a way of venting our political spleens/agendas. A good person has been lost and folk have a lot of sympathy for Jo Cox's death and the awful position her family now find themselves.

The first step to that is looking up from your phone to the sky above.

Do you read these threads? In this case, the sun is an extreme example of a bright light, and if such a bright light was fitted to the front of a narrowboat you could tell where it was even the other side of a bridge Or city Richard Or planet

The Folly have Old Rosie Cider on tap in case you get sick of drinking ditchwater and fancy a pint of something decent. I've not eaten there (other than a bowl of chips) but it always seems to be packed when I have visited so it can't be too bad. I ate at The Wharf once and it was crap.

Step off with the stern rope? This is how I do it: Photo by Andrew Denny on Granny Buttons blog. http://www.grannybuttons.com/granny_buttons/2006/08/fulbourne_at_na.html