Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/02/18 in all areas

  1. Surely this " vessel " is a pile of litter cunningly crafted into something that looks like a house. If it is not registed as a boat , it has no bss , no insurance & yet it has a means of cooking & heating (?) then it is basically a pile of rubbish thrown together in order to create a deathtrap . As is usual with such " accidents waiting to happen " it is unlikely to be the owners who go up in flames but poor innocent nearby . Suppose the authorities wait until the gas bottle explodes or it catches fire near other more boat shaped boats then folk will say " why oh why did the navigation authority not do anything about it ? " . Then , as if the owners stupidity wasn t plain enough they moor up 6 feet away from a No Mooring sign . Times are tough , folk are struggling , rents are bonkers but frankly these muppets are taking the piss . CRT have responsibilities to other people on the canal & adjacent to the canal & they are more important than the fuckwits who put that pile of crap together . screw em
    5 points
  2. Borrowed beer kegs? this suggests that they were to be returned to their rightful owners at some point. Then the structure could not have survived that anyway. I see no difference from this to kids building a raft or a den, and the council getting rid of it. It seems a bit on a non-story.
    5 points
  3. Also if you leave it then how long before someone else manages gather together another pile of litter & turn it into " accomodation " Get in , tear it down , send a message to other would be piss takers , potentially save lives , potentially save the emergency services from having to attend etc etc . Then deal with the repercussions . CRT did the right thing by putting the wider community & thier wellbeing ahead of some dumb muppets good
    3 points
  4. You have to imagine yourself as a very old man, sat in a chair in the nursing home, probably in a slightly damp chair at that, and maybe even dribbling a bit. You can either watch tele or chat to the old fart next to you. You talk about the old days and so can either talk about the things that you DID, or the things that you thought about doing but didn't do. One life! ..............Dave
    3 points
  5. The grounds of the IWA disappointment over the failed bid by CaRT is hard for me to see. Their article on the rejection states: “With increased pressure on general EA budgets through Defra and the need to prioritise other services such as flood control, the funding for navigation seems likely to decrease and navigation assets deteriorate further. There is evidence that if navigation structures such as locks, bridges and embankments are not maintained to a proper standard this could result in a major failure leading to lengthy closures of the navigation, damage to local economies, increased local flood risk and the need to expend large sums on remedial work. [my bold] IWA believes that these matters should be capable of resolution and that a transfer of EA navigations remains the best way to ensure the future of these waterways with the minimum impact on the public purse.” I was gathering the impression that CaRT were living up to the prognostications of Evans & co, in overseeing the BW navigation assets gradually deteriorate, even more so as their expectations of increasing income have been disappointed, and they are seeking loans to cover the serious overheads such as management pay packets. I fail to see how taking on even more national assets in need of continuing maintenance will help their budget. Given the rapidly approaching date for withdrawal of DEFRA funding for CaRT, the position can only worsen.
    2 points
  6. This Sir , with all due respect is complete bollocks but then you know that dont you .....?
    2 points
  7. So if it appeared in your local marketplace what do you think the council would do ?
    2 points
  8. it concerns me more than slightly that a boater who has been on here for more than 7 years and considers himself competent to wire stuff up was not aware that the hull is connected to the negative (earth). how on earth has he managed so far? there are so many books and internet links explaining how steel canal boats work and, even with 50 years general boating experience under my hat, I bought a few books before I ventured into canal boating. ..... try The 12 Volt Bible for one.
    2 points
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  10. Receiving stolen goods at a guess Not like they were stolen - "A bloke who I don't know down the pub said it was OK if I took them" ...
    1 point
  11. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  12. I have scanned the various replies and am not sure I agree with some of them.. 22 years ago , following the death of my wife, I looked around for an interest in life. A long term coastal sailer I had never set foot on a a narrowboat. I was a lifelong 'pen pusher' with no technical qualifications beyond an 'O' level in woodwork. I was practical and was able to read. I was also able to afford to make mistakes (pride requires me to say I didn't make many). I also had no deadline or time constraint. Indeed the longer it took the better from my point of view. I bought a 55' bare shell in primer and turned it into an excellent (though now dated) boat. Throughout, the very best of materials were used. Oak ply, no MDF whatsoever, African then Brazilian and English oak hardwoods. Overspeced wiring, plumbing, fittings etc. That's not to say I threw money at it. The engine (a BMC 1800) was a £100 scrapyard purchase that I stripped to the last nut and bolt and re-built. At no time in the boats life has anything broken or fallen apart (apart from normal wear and tear). I doubt if the same could be said of many production boats of it's age. Somewhere I'm sure I've got one or two photos of various stages of build but not a chronicled record. I did it as a labour of love not a record to prove what I had done. I may have lost track of the OPs point (it was a good bottle of wine) but my advice would be to look in depth and objectively at any boat. Paper and photos don't float. Frank (hic) Ref the statement " nothing has broken" etc. I forgot about the gearbox separating inexplicitly from the engine a couple of years ago
    1 point
  13. Ok maybe this might help explain. Logged in I cannot find the thread just by looking through the forums but if I click through from MtB's post above I think I eventually after a couple of links get the "you do not have permission" message. BUT I was browsing from my work computer (yes I know, it was a quiet day) as a guest and found a section for Newbies and Guests including, I think, the missing posts. It is a section above Boating on the first page. Strangely when you are logged in it is not visible.
    1 point
  14. Seems to me that it is exactly the PR they were aiming for. You put rubbish in the canal, we dispose of it. Next......
    1 point
  15. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  16. I've read this with interest asked an accountant friend of mine (who has an interest in waterways) to see what he could find out about CRT borrowing £150m. He explained that it is not unusual with big charities etc with large assets to borrow at current low interest rates. For example, he said the Welcome Foundation, one of the UK's largest charities, have just raised £750m, repayable in 100 years' time, with the interest rate fixed at 2.517% pa. (To put this in perspective, they have a £23bn investment portfolio. Last December Oxford University borrowed money for 100 years.) CRT are apparently borrowing £150m. My accountant friend says he would expect repayment to be on a staggered basis, not all at once. (30-40 years is more usual than 100 years.) Only charities with large investments can do this as there is a need to comfort the people providing the loan. He had a look at CRT's 2017 accounts which show investments of £787m. Charities without large investments can't do this. Under the 2012 Government deal, apparently these can only be sold if the proceeds are re-invested; they can't be used (without Government approval) to prop up maintenance spending - this is something that many don't appreciate! If all the property were sold there would be a bonanaza and lots of money to spend on maintenance, but once it was gone there would be no income from it. The income (£37m last year) is for spending on looking after the waterways; CRTs total income last year was £185m.The loan of £150m is only 19% of the investments - he said this is very low by property company standards. The money borrowed is invested to yield more than the interest cost. In the CRT case, they can get over 5% p from investing in good quality buildings ( a very good retrun) which are let to good quality companies. The interest rate CRT are paying is not given but let's assume it is 3% p.a. - more than Welcome. So CRT will make a profit of 2% pa - that's £3m extra income a year for spending on the waterways. The original comment claimed CRT had "ever declining funds". Had the author looked at the accounts, he would have seen total funds (including the property endowment fund) of 2014 £596m; 2015 £660m; 2016 £734m; 2017 £721m. After ignoring the growing endowment fund, the general fund shows 2014 £17m; 2015 £25m; 2016 £19m; 2017 £24m. There's also been comment about the pension fund. He said this is now closed. The 2017 CRT accounts showed the deficit for funding purposes was £4.78m and thus £5m was paid into into the pension fund. To put that into perspective, the pension fund had assets last March of £448m". Not my field, but I hope that helps. Regards David
    1 point
  17. Thanks P, was not aware of this.... So for private boats, priavtely managed in private use, i.e. private leisure and pleasure or owner-occupied domiciles, the the navigation authorities (via BSS Requirements) does not regulate on matters related to first party issues, carbon monoxide poisoning being the prime example. The owner/skipper has that burden of responsibility. The navigation authorities regulate on the risks that a boat presents to other people and property surrounding it (fire, explosions, pollution) However, Examiners still have commonlaw duties of care and the the HSE advised us that we should continue to check and advise on risks such as faulty flues, appliances and under-ventilation that could lead to carbon monoxide dangers - hence the checks we call advice checks related to those issues. The BSS is also asked to devise, produce and promote CO safety tips and advice - hence my occaisional outbust hereabouts offering the best information we can lay our hands on. In 2016/17 the BSS Technical and Advisory committees have been tasked with the job of the 'consideration of alarms (CO & fire) on private boats'. There are three basic scenarios no change introduce advice checks introduce requirements with checks to meet BSS certification In addition, these basics can be mixed and matched to certain circumstances like the hire boat checks and those relating to buildings. For example hire boats only have to have a working, suitable CO alarm on a hire boat with a solid fuel appliance. Hire boats only have to have suitable working smoke alarms when there is overnight accomodation i.e. not a day boat. As a hypothetical thought, it could be said that only boats with petrol engines in use (generators/outboards/inboards) need CO alarms as petrol exhaust fumes have killed the last nine boat victims on pleasure craft. However gas appliance have a record in fatal and non-lethal incidents and solid fuel stoves have also been cited in inquests as well as regularly featuring in alarm actuations we see on social media. So it would be good to resist knee-jerk reactions either way to teh petition. In preceding posts there have been some very good and thoughtful posts made for and against the petition as written. It is those thoughts and all the shades of grey in between that need to feed into the consideration when it starts. As such, I recommend you feed your thoughts to NABO, IWA, RYA, AWCC, TBA (the Boating Assoc) as and when asked on whatever comes out of the discussions. I hope this helps. Rob
    1 point
  18. What could you use... maybe a bunch of Foxton’s sale boards, C&RT have a few in London...
    1 point
  19. Maybe the fact that they were using old Foxton sale boards was doing a 'Banksy' and sending a political message about the state of the housing market
    1 point
  20. Sort of reminds me of a proactive rescue. Rescue person off unfit dingy. Stab and sink dingy to stop others boarding it or others spotting it and calling out a false alarm. Danger to themselves and others. Illegal too. High chance of rehabitation and recourant hazard....... so remove hazard by destroy/remove.
    1 point
  21. If, contrary to the CaRT spokesperson’s description of it as a “craft”, it had been considered simply as an object, then you are correct: s.8 would not apply; s.9 of the 1983 Act would apply. That authorises CaRT to remove “anything (other than a vessel) which is . . . in the waterway or reservoir without lawful authority.” As I have noted, that is not an authority to destroy it; s.9(2) requires that if anything so removed is identifiable as the property of any person, suitable notice must be given giving the opportunity for the owners to retrieve it. It is conceivable that they could have relied upon s.9(3) on the grounds that it was “not so marked as to be readily identifiable as the property of any person”, but in the circumstances as described – if accurate – that would be a very tenuous justification. In any event, if they were accurately quoted as acknowledging it as a craft, then s.9 does not apply anyway. But s.9 is the answer to your query as to what they can do with non-vessels.
    1 point
  22. Not particularly directed at you just at people who want to complain about every iota that CRT do and hold it up to legal scrutiny.
    1 point
  23. A few years ago (OK decades) I worked in IT for a large London based brewer. The next team to me were working on a stock control system for the barrels which involved bar coding each barrel to track it from brewery to pub and back again - why ? 'cos they were constantly being knicked and sold for scrap - so I can't see how any pub could legitimately 'lend' someone a barrel .. never mind the number that they appear to have there (looks like 40).
    1 point
  24. I think it looked splendid, and brightened up that dismal cutting.
    1 point
  25. If people are going to take the piss then they deserve short shrift. CRt may or may not have acted within the law but the law wasn’t drawn up with the expectation of this sort of idiocy. I am sure the vast majority of canal users would support CRT in this action. Can I suggest that you “choose your battles carefully” as this one isn’t going to have much support. And how were the signs procured? Probably stolen from the front of houses whose owners are going through that most stressful of events - house buying and selling.
    1 point
  26. Thus speaks a man with s secure pension in place, probably public sector. tin hat back on again...
    1 point
  27. Ah I see. I suppose they could sue crt for compensation. About 50p perhaps...
    1 point
  28. I totally agree too, i sold my house in UK in 2007, walked away with 93k after paying off the mortgage, moved abroad and bought a flat for cash with plenty left over. If you look at all the tales of being cautious then you would never do anything in life. Everyone said i was mad to sell up and move but i took a chance and it worked, owning a house is not the be all and end all of life. I own 2 now and a small boat in 2 countries but if i was single i would sell the lot tomorrow and come back to UK and buy a narrowboat. You are here for a good time not a long time, live your life now, no point in worrying what may or may not happen in the future. One life, live it.
    1 point
  29. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  30. Your bridge number kinda slips off the tongue though huh... Ian.
    1 point
  31. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  32. Thanks Eeyore. Engine wouldn't start this morning. Waggled relay as you suggested and it started straight away. Does that point to poor connections on the relay or a failing relay? Cheers, Neil
    1 point
  33. It should be the the norm. ? My wages were froze for years then had 1% pays rises. I sold the house and quit the job. Bollocks to it.
    1 point
  34. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  35. You could do Black Prince from Wigrams at Napton and head up the Asby, that would be 4 locks each way.
    1 point
  36. Yeah, impractical that. Better to bag it up over several days so as to have enough to decorate several trees.
    1 point
  37. Hi - just wanted to say that I've just put my bought and paid for flat on the market with a view to moving onto the local canals, hoping to get around 100k, looking to spend around 30-40k on a boat and spread the rest into diverse 'pretty safe' investments and continue with my self employed work, which doesn't bring much in, but I don't have/lead an expensive lifestyle, I mend and make do and am pretty resourceful. The flat is in a really nice village, very picturesque, but I find myself bored and not feeling like I could ever settle there, and actually feeling trapped and scared when I consider that before long this may be forced upon me. After nursing a partner and recently my Dad through long illness and eventual death, I basically said 'Fxxk it, I'm doing this while I still can'. Renting it out/buying a cheap boat isn't an option practically, and neither would I want to. I'm knocking on 50, and the general response I've had to my plan online is "Nooooo!!!", from friends it's "Yes!!!!". Nobody is wrong, though it's mostly my friends who have the accurate picture of matters of the heart. Also, every other person on the internet seems to have a doomsday cult mentality on the direction this country is heading with regards to care, social security and everything else, and you are making yourself a blank canvas for them to paint their opinions on. They may have points, some things will come to pass, others not, but the negativity is much louder than anything else you'll get, weigh accordingly. With few exceptions, it's a given that property isn't even on same spreadsheet as a boat as far as 'security' (investment, stability, er, security) goes, and though I've plenty of my own, you may as well well just put one cell with the words 'money pit' in it to represent a boat. Running costs may be comparable, but what you get at the other end isn't. It's a terrible idea, everything is more difficult, you'll be up shit creek (boom boom) in the future. You'll regret it if you do, and regret it if you don't. You should definitely do it, and best of luck to you. Andy
    1 point
  38. David you should know that in Mrsmelly's eyes its always the hobby boaters to blame for things that happen on the cut, the others stay in the marina
    1 point
  39. It’s not just the canal our road verges are worse, in my opinion prisoners should be put to work cleaning it up
    1 point
  40. But where is the community? A single male is not going to fit seamlesly in with anyone other than another single male with similar social interests, so it's likely to be more isolating than a marina and just the same as the housing estate problem, only muddier.
    1 point
  41. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  42. I thought CRT claim to look after 2000 miles of canals and rivers, and pay around £10 million to Fountains to do basic grasscutting and towpath maintenance. Which sounds like £5000 per mile per year to me, suggesting £25,000 a year for a five mile lengthsman. And of course the contract staff are not allowed to clear bywashes etc - they are there just to trim hedges and cut grass. With regard to the lengthsman walking from his home to work, does it really make more sense for a crew to drive 100 miles to cut a stretch of grass on a towpath than to have a local person do it? I think this is the argument that comes out of the Carillion mess - it's easier for CRT to hand the whole lot to one contractor than it is to manage lots of smaller local contracts. I am fairly sure that some of the local landscape contractors would be delighted to pick up a 20 mile section to mow occasionally.
    1 point
  43. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  44. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  45. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  46. An old post (2007) by Liam : Once upon a time, not so long ago, last Friday, Winston (or Win to all those knew him) was proud to be a British Waterways lengthsman. He was responsible for a length of canal and had a short dumb workboat which he moved along the canal to wherever he thought a job needed doing. The boat had a small wood burning stove and Win, using his boat as a work platform, would saw down overhanging branches from the offside, break them into short lengths, stow them in the hold and use them to warm himself on a freezing cold day and brew a mashing of tea for his lunch. Any trees or other problems which were a hazard to navigation would be reported by Win and dealt with by the maintenance gang. Win would walk a different length of towpath of his section everyday, carrying a long handled blade to clear away any small shrubs growing out of the towpath wall and trim long grass and towpath hedges as he went. Win was responsible for several locks along his length. Every morning he would clear away accumulated rubbish from the by-wash, occasionally oil and grease the paddle gear, paint the balance beams and keep the lock surroundings clean and tidy. He knew the location of the culverts and the best way to keep them clear. Win would inform the local Licence Enforcement Officer of any boat navigating his section without a licence. Win would instruct novice boaters in the workings of a lock and show them the safe way to work the lock and how to wind paddles up and down. Boaters would wave and smile at Win. He would smile and wave back and tell them of any problems or stoppages to the best of his knowledge. Walkers would enquire of Win how the locks work and he found the time to tell them. Win was everybody’s ray of sunshine and instant point of contact and the fount of all knowledge on his length of canal. Win never won awards in the best length competition but his work was respected by all. But ‘The Office’ said, “How does Win do his job without instruction?” So they created a planning position and hired two people, a Section Supervisor to write the method statements and one person to do time studies. Then ‘The Office’ said, “How will we know that Win is doing his tasks correctly?” So they created a quality control position and hired two people, one to do the risk assessments and one to write the reports. Then ‘The Office’ said, “How are these people going to get paid?” So they created a payroll department and hired two people, one to be time keeper and one to be payroll officer. Then ‘The Office’ said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?” So they created an administrative position and hired three people, a Section Inspector, an Assistant Admin Officer and a Legal Secretary. Twelve months later, ‘The Office’ said: “We have had this system in operation for one year and we are £125,000 over-budget, we must cut back on the overall costs.” And so, of course, the first thing ‘The Office’ did was make Win redundant...
    1 point
  47. Some of you are being very pessimistic of late. Perhaps you should go out boating a bit more and enjoy yourselves.
    1 point
  48. It was lovely last night, nobody in the way( except for the swans), no queues, and you couldn't see the network collapsing in front of your eyes.
    1 point
  49. A little bit of inconsistency over the causes of the shortfall : Source : Third Sector Financing (24th August 2017) C&RT had pension losses of £66.8m in 2016/17, causing its pension fund liability to more than double over the course of the year, its latest accounts show. The charity’s accounts for the year to 31 March 2017, filed with Companies House this week, show a significant change from the pension valuation in 2015/16 when there was a gain of £36.8m. This left the charity’s pension fund liability at £116.1m compared with £51.4m the previous year, the accounts show. The accounts say that the pension loss is mainly due to "adverse changes to discount rate and inflation assumptions". A spokeswoman for the charity said that lower investment returns and higher inflation were factors in the increased amount of future pension liabilities. The charity, which was formed when British Waterways was spun out from the public sector in 2012 is part of the Waterways Pension Fund. The government promised at the time to provide the charity with more than £800m of funding over 15 years, including a one-off payment of £25m to compensate the pension deficit. As of 30 September 2016, the defined-benefit scheme was closed to future benefit accrual. The pension losses meant that the net movement in funds at the Canal & River Trust show a loss of £12.9m in 2016/17 compared with a £77.3m gain the previous year. But income has increased at the charity over the past year, rising from £189.7m to £202.9m in 2016/17. The charity made a £48.4m gain on investments compared with £37.8m the previous year, which amounts to a 28 per cent increase, according to the accounts. The accounts also say that the charity’s pension accumulation designated reserve – which is reserved for repaying any pension fund deficit that exists when a government guarantee expires in 2031 – had risen to £18.6m from £8.4m the previous year. Stuart Mills, property director, was the highest earner at the charity, and received a total salary of £207,887, while the charity’s chief executive, Richard Parry, earned £194,405, the accounts show. There was also a 12 per cent increase in volunteering with more than 540,000 hours given over the course of the year, the accounts say.
    1 point
  50. Happened to me when I was an apprentice electrician... or so I was told!
    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.