Leaderboard

I think you will find that almost everyone understands the T&Cs of their licence and a very small percentage who claim ignorance. We broke down recently, I informed c&RT and they were fine about it. in fact, the Enforcement Manager thanked me for getting in touch early in the breakdown and letting him know. IMO thats how its supposed to work. And yes we did end up being 18 days on a 14 day mooring but with permission. I'm fairly sure some of the locals and local marina dwellers probably thought we were taking the pee. Dead giveaway when someone says "still here?"

A very good post above by NC , no doubt echoing many others thoughts . The sealant over the mushrooms was beyond a joke & i feel has frustrated contributors to this thread . Some excellent , and heartfelt advice from very experienced and knowledgeable folk ( not me ) appears to have been overlooked . To waterproof those vents from rain needed a bit of tarp and four bricks . Job done till winters over . Patty ann felt sorry fro Miss Max when she saw the mushroom vents . I did not . Its plain daft and fannying around being nice isn t any good . Its her boat and her choice ultimately and as much as admire a " can do " attitude i feel it always both advisable and respectful to take on board good , well meant advice. On the whole i feel Miss Max has done this & i applaud 90% of her attitude but there needs to be some recognition that some of this boating lark is serious otherwise things can cost alot of money , time , effort and as far as safety goes then things can cost much more . That looks like a nice little boat & a potentially comfy little home for Max and the pets but it needs attention - some of that attention is more important than other bits and priorities need to be established and acted upon suitably . Anyway , enough from me , i dont mean to sound negative but sometimes its necessary and Max needs to get a grip .

Perhaps some feel there has been over reaction to Max's application of sealant around mushroom vents. I've always been taught to ensure adequate ventilation when using solid fuels...here at the cottage I've even been told not to block all the air gaps(holes). When I saw the photographs I wanted to get in my car and drive up to see if I could help...unfortunately I live an awful long way from where she is situated and ongoing issues here at Horror House have me more or less stuck here fighting a cottage that would prefer to stay in the last century...I am getting there though roof has now decided to ensure damp filters in to allow plaster to jump off the walls and in uncovering part of the roof I find woodworm have had a banquet... The reason I follow this thread is partly because I admire Max's 'have a go attitude' and also I like to know she's still alive and well...

The answer is probably not. But we can change our minds from that of immediate distrust. I used to pass a boat at the other end of the cov canal and wonder why it always seemed to be in the same place and neglected. Then when i met the owners and found they were elderly and needed hospital treatment on a regular basis it changed my view. When i now pass the boat I wonder how they're doing. Havent seen them on it, otherwise I'd stop and ask them

Used bitumen as I wasn't in the mood for doing a fancy paint job. It'll protect the boat from the worst of winter Think I've got to grips with boat life quite well (pops on specs) nothing's blown up or gone fizz. Still get to use my electronic thingies and my power consumption is not that high considering I'm a computer fan-girl. Done the lounge bit, fiddled with the kitchen bit can't be bothered with the bedroom bit ( stay like it is for now). boat place sorted out my hot water bits and engine, I'll leave them to do the rest of the grown up stuff when I come into more money. Considering vents have been blocked since September I'm doing pretty well and the chaps who had previously poked this boat are loving my paint scheme and DIY skills (mind you I was holding a hammer at the time. I have easy access to the shops, boaty place and hospital (bring my own coffee) Boyes and the Toolbox are my go to places (they understand me.....I feel so sorry for them) Not unblocking the vents. It's a boat not a Tupperware container, and why is it you chaps pick now to get offended about me shaking my fists at various members when A. It's all done in fun and B. No one objected when I asked for human sacrifices to appease the sun!? You chaps have very wonky ethics (or is it standards). It's like that crazy woman on FB saying I have a condemned cooker and a whole host of illegal hokey stuff ( I only said I don't like gas cookers) To old for the drama. You chaps continue making up or blissfully perching on a soap box and fill in the rest of whatever this thread was. Only posted to share the fun (no fun now) now if you don't mind, I'm going to try and remove my arm from the dogs mouth, its not my favourite arm but I still have the use of a few fingers and they come in handy for DIY and nose picking (my other hand is for cakes)

Hello all and thanks for all the useful stuff I have already discovered by lurking. My wife and I currently live in a 12' x 35' residential park home. We plan to buy a 57' narrow boat (or thereabouts) and we will initially divide our time between the two homes. Longer term we intend to live full time on the boat and when funds allow spend our time cruising. I should also point out that we have lived in a two person tent for five months in the past. Quite a few people have drawn a sharp breath when we have rejected the idea of hiring a boat for a week or two just to get a feel for it before we buy as we might not like living in such a small space. We have been on quite a few boats now including spending a day on one and we are convinced that space isn't an issue. Given the cost of hiring we would rather invest the money in the search and to pay for surveys. What do the panel think? Are we making a huge mistake?

I have dealt with this aspect long ago. It would be utterly unfair to make those who relied on the authority's representations of false entitlement, suffer for that. The proper way to reduce these towpath moorings is as BW and then CaRT have done, taking them out of use as offline facilities in the vicinity are made available [and the same should apply to online but offside moorings]. Having made that clear, I would, however, suggest that where existing towpath moorings do remain, CaRT have an obligation to ensure that everyone moors appropriately so that impeding the navigation is minimised. There can be NO justification for these moored boats to require slowing down of passing boats, and rather than pander to their own neglect, CaRT should give priority to ensuring that until lawful alternatives are made available, these towpath moorings sites should be adequately dredged; the mooring rings etc sufficient in number and strength, and all berth holders required as a condition of their agreement to moor properly. Anyone on these moorings screaming abuse at lawfully navigating boats should have their agreement terminated and the site vacated.

I'm just going to wade in here, going back to the school thing - I think there's some misunderstanding about whose rights are at issue. People are right to say that the Equality Act makes no specific provision for the parents of school age children in this context, but Article 2 of the 1st Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the children​ have a right to access their education. Whatever moral judgment it may or may not be appropriate to make against individual liveaboard parents, it is not appropriate for any of us to punish or blame their children, and it is not appropriate under the law for CRT to act in a way that is unlawful or disproportionate and which has the effect of obstructing or denying a child their right to access their education. CRT have specifically anticipated the presence of school age children in their cc guidance, by stating that needing to stay within commuting distance of a school is not a good enough reason to stay within one locality. This means that they acknowledge that this is an issue for people, but yet, still now they state that the only time it is relevant to them whether a boat is being used as a home is when they want to use enforcement proceedings under s8. They set their guidance in the clear knowledge that it will affect children's access to education, but without taking this into account for the purposes of their interpretation. The law does not define place, neither does it set any minimum distance requirements, nor, as far as I know, any powers for the Trust to set them themselves. The law does say, at s3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that 'So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.' This means that CRT's interpretation, which must by law be human rights compliant when they ​make it, as well as when a court does, is clearly not. It is not appropriate or lawful for CRT to interpret the 95 Act entirely in their own favour and without regard to other relevant statutes. I have no children. As far as I know, the law provides me with no rights whatsoever to leisure and tourism opportunities of my choice and convenience. This would not be 'in the public interest', clearly. Conversely, it is indisputably in the public interest for us to educate and care for all children. To this effect, the law provides every child with a right to non-discrimination and the right to an education. The question of 'fairness to other boaters' surely must take into account what the law considers to be fair, rather than what the 'other boaters' do.

EVERYTHING! I have not found one part of this life I do not enjoy, even pump out day!

The best bit is looking forward to next year's boating during the winter months – from the comfort and space of a house.

This^^^^^ Messing about in boats has always appealed to me ever since I was about 3 years old, when I used to watch "Tales of the Riverbank" on the telly. I totally LOVED it when Hammy out in his little electric boat. Hooked me for life. Latterly, having a boat is a reason to own and run a charming slow-revving vintage engine oozing personality.

In no particular order I think for me it is: The peace and quiet. A slow journey through a landscape you can take in and appreciate. Wildlife, flora and Fauna. Messing about with boats The heritage of the waterways. Meeting like minded folk. ... and lots of other stuff too.

Geo - I have just had a look at the ISO 13297 and it interesting to note that the second edition (2000) stated that "each receptacle located in the galley, toilet, machinery space or weather deck shall be protected by a GFCI (RCD) having a maximum sensitivity of 10 mA." Note that this is not related to system voltage. Everywhere else being protected by a 30mA RCD. However in the latest 2014 edition of the standard that clause seems to have been removed and now the craft only requires a 30mA/100mS RCD, again there is no mention of voltage. So for Recreational Craft Directive compliance irrespective of system voltage there is no requirement for an RCD with a trip current of less than 30mA. So I think it is probably best we agree to disagree as to the need or even benefit of having a 15mA RCD.

The adventure, the cosiness, the people you meet, the view, the sound of my RN engine. the mugs of tea from her indoors, the pub visits, the herons, kingfishers and bizzards (sic)

Grey Lady - I am confused by this post although I note you do not capitalise smart gauge. Smartguage is a proprietary name for a battery state of charge meter. It only reads Volts and percentage of charge so it can not read 5 Amps. It is probably the most accurate of all such gauges but can still be up to 10% under charge. If by smart gauge you mean one of the gauges that have readouts of Amps, Volts, percentage of charge, and time left to flat or some such then it is far from smart -in fact in most boaters hands it tells downright lies apart from Amps & Volts. If your gauge is one of these then 5 amps is about right for a 500Ah battery bank. It would be better if you continued charging until the charging current (Amps) stopped falling over roughly an hour. That will be fine with an alternator but may not be fine with a battery charger. Modern "smart" chargers will lower the charging voltage at some point so the charge just about keeps up with the self discharge of the battery. This is typically 13.4 to 13.6 volts. Unfortunately they all too often drop to the low voltage (float) far too early so the batteries never get fully charged and also confuses the boater by dropping and stabilising the charging voltage. If you charge from alternator then ignore the above unless you also have a Sterling A to B charger. If you charge by a battery please turn it off for a few seconds and then turn t on again if it drops the voltage before the charging current stabilises. This will force it to do its calculations again so it will charge at around 14.4 Volts for a while longer. i am also concerned about the mention of battery blankets. They will help keep the battery warm so it can produce a higher discharge current but that implies that you are suffering from low voltage/current problems which I do not think you should be in the UK, even in the depths of winter, unless you are over discharging your batteries and not fully charging them. I would suggest that within half an hour of charging the batteries will be slightly warm simply from the charging action. I am not sure what help that may be, but it sounds to me like much shoreline or engine charging is needed.

Its often said that if you can formulate the question correctly then the answer will become obvious. Asking questions correctly is not easy so its no surprise that people who don't understand the subject struggle to ask the question in a way that satisfies the experts. Sometimes the experts should use their expertise to try to understand what the question really is. ...but those who ask an initial question then fail to provide more detail when asked can be a bit frustrating. ...............Dave

Its not that. I thought you'd spelt illiterate wrong. You hadn't. I cocked up

Perhaps you misinterpreted my post...I do not recollect saying I felt sorry for Max..she's doing her best and sometimes despite having a go, doing your best it doesn't turn out quite as it should...Ive bin there, got the T shirt and if I lived nearer and Max wanted some assistance and if I could help, I would go up...Just as I help others I can...for example the knotweed I fight is not actually my knotweed..it is the responsibility of disabled farmer but I've dealt with it because he cannot and if not done it will invade my property.. I never ask anyone to feel sorry for me..nor did I expect it...and I don't think Max wants anyone to feel sorry for her. Max is getting to grips with a world she knew little about...and hopefully the advice on here is helping her. Have a good day

What you are doing sounds almost about right! I say that because these things appear to have a character. Clearly though, all is not right. A quick resume of how things work... For a fire to sustain itself it must have: fuel; heat; oxygen. With our closed box stoves, we also need to get the smoke and combustion gasses up the chimney, or we won't draw fresh air in. The top vent passes incoming air from above over the front of the glass which helps to keep it clean (airwash). The bottom vent provides air from under the grate to feed the fire most strongly. Essentially, you feed a solid fuel fire from below and a wood fire from above, but we usually always need some top vent for airwash. In practice, folk get to know their stove and it's ways and learn the vent positions that work best for them. When you leave the fire in overnight, it has to have sufficient fuel burning slowly enough to reach morning. I achieve this by some top vent and a closed (for Excel) or almost closed bottom vent (fuel depending). The fact yours goes out overnight having used all the fuel points to too little fuel or too much air. Since you say you never close the the top vent, all seems right and is pretty much what I'd get using Excel. So your technique isn't far off there, except that the fire goes out. Answer: not enough fuel or too much air. Then you have trouble lighting it and keeping it going, when not trying to achieve the balancing act of overnight tick over mode. My technique here is max bottom air (bottom door ajar), full airwash until the box gets hot enough to close the door with my bottom vent open, then gradually reducing bottom air til the burn is what I want. If it's still burning hotter than I want with no bottom vent, I reduce the top until its right. It sounds to me like you've got the idea of that and also you don't overwhelm your fire with too much fuel too early. Adding fuel brings down the box temperature, so too much too early can make things worse. Attend the fire until the box is hot, and keep it there. An inexpensive magnetic stove thermometer can help there as what you think is hot might not be hot enough. Last but not least, if you're doing all the above something like right and your fire goes out, look at the draw. Is your flue clean, unobstructed, long enough, and is it getting hot? A cold flue makes for sluggish fire and a smokey boat when you open the door whereas a hot flue fair pulls the air in through the vents for that cheery fire you're looking for. Above are the factors you're tackling. Where exactly your problem is I can't say without playing with your fire, but I'm minded towards a sluggish flue and a bit of technique, because the damned thing seems to burn itself out quite happily overnight, yet when you're attending it it goes out! I hope that helps to either give you confidence where you're doing OK, identify where you might have an issue, or maybe a bit of both! If you still have problems, get a stove bloke or chimney sweep to have a look for you. Good luck. Edited to add: it took me so long to write the above that 3 other good guys have come up with good stuff in the meantime. I think we broadly agree, but sorry to tread on any toes!

The Equality Act 2010 listed a number of Protected Characteristics and one of these is Pregnancy and Maternity. It is clear that the provisions under this heading relate to discrimination arising from a woman being pregnant and the immediate consequences of giving birth (including stillbirth). These benefits are specifically restricted to 26 weeks after the date of giving birth, and there is specific protection for breast feeding. There is no mention in the Act (AFAIK) of paternity and so I suspect that a court would normally expect to restrict its attention to matters that arise from the physical and mental consequences of pregnancy and giving birth, especially as it limits the ability of the woman to access services or to return to work. Parenthood is not mentioned as a protected characteristic. AFAIK, the Equality Act does not, as far as I can see, lay any duties with regard to the provision of Education (Schools specifically) other than on the providers ie controlling bodies and local authorities. There does not appear to be any more general duty to enable children to access a school (eg transport providers do not have to offer positive discrimination in the respect). (They, along with all service providers) have to treat other protected characteristics fairly) Land-based parents have to cope with non-trivial travel distances, especially in rural areas. Up to three miles there is still the assumption that children can walk there! At times when 'popular' schools are over-subscribed then some children may have even further to travel and it is the duty of the parent to ensure that this happens - or to provide alternative education, such as home schooling.These distances probably lie in the grey area between definitely not CC compliant and obviously compliant. However, it is clear that parents can legitimately be expected to enable their canal-resident children to attend school and also to engage in some regular movement. There is no requirement on anyone to provide employment within a given distance from home (alas!) and many, many people commute for well over an hour each way each day. AFAIK, access to benefits as a result of unemployment impose a quite stringent test for availability fo work, such as daily work seeking activity and very regular attendamce at job centres (or whatever they are called today!) The issue of indirect discrimination (which seems to be inherent in the matter under discussion) is always complex and depends on showing that there is a causal link between some act or inaction by a service provider or public body in the way in which their terms and conditions impact on a protected characteristic differentially. (It is not enough to say that all users/employees are equally badly affected - that might involve a recourse to Human Rights Act) A high profile set of cases related to discrimination on religious grounds of uniform regulations by certain employers (can employees wear any form of religious symbol, cam employees demand to wear hijab or even burka) These have gone either way and depend on fine detail, sometimes, I recall, relating also to Health and Safety issues. IANAL As an individual, I find that I am often conflicted between, on the one hand, my inherent belief in Human Rights, and the consequent Equality provisions, and, on the other hand, that extreme, sometimes seemingly frivolous, claims have led to growing support for a government to abolish many of these rights. (It seems that The Sun shines on the Right not the Righteous!) A fundamental problem with Rights is that there is no absolute basis for them (save for some a recourse to Natural Law) and depend on a state to enforce them. That, in turn, depends in a democratic society, on the willingness of the majority to grant such rights. We are rapidly discovering that the 'will of the majority' is not necessarily a guaranteed route to civilised society.

Eh? Are you sure these girls weren't real at some time? I think they are particularly attractive zombies, just look at the building in the background. Definitely some sort of haunted Munsters house, connect up a car battery to the inverter, clip the crocodile clips onto a couple of sticky out bits on the girls and they would come to 'life'.

Are they? Then why do other boating people who live in the area complain about certain elements of the continuous moorers in that area? The fact that people have children gives them no increased rights. They cannot be compared with those with health or illness issues. If they are continuously moored without paying mooring fees then they are causing an obstruction (as confirmed earlier) and should either abide by their licencing agreement with CaRT or get a proper PAID FOR mooring.

Do I have a problem???? I still do a bit of work for big corporates and "problem" is pretty much a taboo word in corporate newspeak, you have to say opportunity! As Billy Bragg says, there are two sides to every story, and I do try to see both of them. Bradford on Avon is a good place to moor, and live. and get the kids educated, and if I had discovered this way of life 30 years ago I would be down there myself doing exactly the same and seeing how much I could get away with. But, as I reckon you know, there is a big problem. If one or two boats do it then its ok, but if 40 boats do it then Bradford is gridlocked and the other 30,000 boats on the system are denied their chance to visit. This is a bad thing. Another big and interesting aspect is that CaRT have very limited legal powers and have to apply them fairly, which means that in order to resolve Bradford and London All boaters everywhere see a lot more enforcement. The BoA boaters will find a way to stay because they have a lot to loose, but others who were just shuffling up and down in the wilderness will (and have) chosen to leave the cut. .................Dave

Well that's a turn up. I have just given Naughty Cal a greeny, never expected to do that.

Good afternoon Dunkley.

I would say that that is quite close to the truth in many instances Arthur. Not the emotionally based driving force that the British public should expect from those granted authority over them. Of course, for so long as the majority of vocal customers applaud such responses, they will continue. They are not effective in maintaining and improving use of the system for the benefit of all, but they serve to placate the atavistic urge for retaliation against those perceived to be getting something more than oneself can get.