Leaderboard

The reaction to this article on a fb narrowboat group was much the same as those on here....which did surprise me if I’m honest...I expected at a least a few to say they had done nothing wrong etc. Quite refreshing! People like those in the article make life so much harder for other boaters in general...both practically by hogging moorings and also by affecting public perception of boaters in general.

Let's not forget though we are reading an article written by someone who likely has no knowledge of the canals and then edited by someone else who is also likely to be unfamiliar with the issues involved. No one here knows any of the back story that's led them to this point and tbh it's not really our business. I would just be a bit cautious making a judgment based on the information in that article. Not saying I support them, just saying some caution should be taken before judgement is made

Lived on a boat " Near Bradford on Avon " for FOURTEEN years claiming to be a ccer

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it. Thats under 600 yds each week on average. Commonly known as bridge hopping. Perhaps enough to get to the water point and back? But the family have been told to remove their boat by 4 September, which would make them homeless. Flouting the conditions of their licence for 14 years, that can come as no surprise! Mr Holder said a permanent mooring could cost as much as £6,000 per year, plus the cost of a permanent licence at £1,000. Mine's a 60 ft boat and costs a third of that for those items - and he has to pay the same licence whether he moves or not, so that's irrelevant. "This prices most of us out. So they go to wealthy people so they can have a holiday boat, only used for a couple of weeks a year," he said. "This is gentrifying the canal and destroying our community." What a twisted logic! Does he not understand today's canal system exists only because of leisure purposes? Same as a football pitch or golf course - perhaps he should try living on one of those! The "poor me" gypsy mentality of these people is staggering.

But but why should he pay the same as others...he’s entitled to get everything for free....he’s got the NBTA involved so fellow snowflakes & freeloaders can soothe his troubled brow.

Mr Holder said he had travelled 17.7 miles, moving every two weeks, and had pictures to prove it. Then he is an idiot. Half an hour's further cruising over the last 6 months would have let him comply with CRT's minimum acceptable range. And let him keep his family home roughly where he wanted it. 20 miles is a day's cruise for me. A short day.

A few shots of a convoy trip from Limehouse to Brentford, via the Thames Barrier. The river was very busy! https://nbsg.wordpress.com/iwa-trip-to-margaretness/

I only know this because I've worked as a volunteer helping people in these situation. There are quite a few differences in the help given because children are involved. ETA - not with CRT specifically just homelessness in general.

Here is an update on C&RTs CC Monitoring programme : (Last year) New ‘continuous cruisers’ In November, we reached the first anniversary of our programme to actively advise new licence holders of the requirements of their licence. We have now begun to send out letters to those new continuous cruisers coming to the end of the first year who have failed to meet the requirements over the past year (despite regular reminders of their obligations as boaters without a home mooring), informing them that we’ll not be renewing their licence. Since January, 792 new continuous cruisers have received welcome letters, and we have been providing them with regular feedback if we have been concerned about their movement patterns. 63 are now in the enforcement process with a further 83 contacted to say we are concerned. Of these, we’ve contacted 23 with regard to refusing to renew their licences. So it looks like a goodly percentage of new CCers are 'satisfying' C&RT and those that don't are not getting their licences renewed

I’m not sure he does find it a problem. He’s probably just angling for a response from people here who spend too much time bothering themselves about what other people are doing. At the end of the day the arrangements between MK Parks and their mooring customers aren’t our business. Nor can I get too excited about whatever arrangement exists between MK Parks and CRT. JP

Snowflakes .... break the perceived rules and suffer the consequence. Mention the children and expect everyone to give in and let them do what they want. It's about time people that take the piss are dealt with properly - speaking from my highly un polished 20 year old boat .... Am I a wealthy ruiner of the canal system ?, I must have a harsh word with my self !!

Bought ours 2nd hand 20 years ago with 'thin' plate cos we was young, carefree.... And CWDF didn't exist. The current plan is to wait another 50 years, just as its about to sink, and use it as a viking burial vessel. We will get it towed out into the North Sea and set adrift. (just hope we are both dead at the time)

For clarity, it was that 1) he is bankrupt, 2) he lost the first stage, thus the legal costs now somewhat escalate, 3) there seems to be no appetite for (for example) a boating organisation or other interested party to fundraise or provide help in the funds, renders the affordability of appealing somewhat out of reach. The point being, that the time for the finer arguments over the law have now passed. He now has to deal with the practicalities of how law works within the court system. Which tend to suck, unless you have a rock solid case (and even then, defending yourself without the legal assistance of a barrister is fraught with hazards). So while in theory he can appeal, simply from the weight of the facts surrounding this case and other aspects of Tony's case eg lack of wider support, ill health etc etc, practically the door is closing upon this. I admire your meticulous approach to waterways law, of course it will always be an uphill battle against any public body or navigation authority, and sometimes its difficult to make your point properly to a judge. But I feel Tony's approach is quite different and lacks the finesse; which doesn't go down well with judges and other officialdom - some of whom are in a strong position to determine his future.

A case of glass houses and stones I would think. Tony made himself a very public and outspoken figure on this forum, and made his battles with CRT very public. He has also made all manner of untrue accusations about various people, myself included, when they were not in a position to defend themselves. If he had won anything he would have publicised it extensively so can't expect privacy if he has lost. .............Dave

Just a natural response to you spiteful comment about landlords.

As a former shell builder I can tell you that 6/6/3 was pretty standard for that style of boat of that vintage. Indeed 6mm is still pretty common for hull sides, base plates have got thicker to compensate for difficulty in painting effectively. 3mm cabin plating is perfectly adequate, the move to thicker plating is to do with trying to keep a flat finish, but its not structurally necessary. As an aside a benefit of 3mm cabin plating is that it lowers slightly the boat's centre of gravity which helps a bit with stablility. I actually built some shells for Brum Boats around that time, but this was not one of them. They didn't start building shells in house until around 1983, so this one would have been bought in, possibly from either Colecraft, or more likely R & D Fabrications. You need to try and get access to the August survey and see what that says about plate thickness, as loss through rusting (often internal) and also the amount of pitting need to be understood. As matty40s points out he fact that it has just been surveyed, 5 months after listing, and it is still for sale needs looking into. Was it the seller's survey or a potential buyer's? If the former you should be able to get a sight of it.

Most people seem to want to stay where they grew up, or where they have worked for some time. When you have kids, you don't want to shiift them about too much if you can avoid it. It's pretty normal, really. Of the people I know, there's only one other who has moved around as much as I have (9 towns so far). You can't blame people for wanting it, but it still doesn't give them the right to it.

Nah, JP usually says sensible things!

If you walk down to your local shop 1 mile away, and then walk back home, your DISTANCE is 2 miles, but your RANGE is one mile. If you do that every day for a month then your DISTANCE will be 60 miles but your RANGE will still be only 1 mile. C&RT have 'suggested' that if you have a RANGE of less than 20 miles then you are unlikely to be complying. However if you shuffle back and forward 1 mile 25 times per year you have a RANGE of1 one mile and that suggests that you are tied to that area and are just 'bridge-hopping' and definitely not complying. Here’s what we’re looking for when we’re seeing if a boat meets our expectations for bona fide navigation:  Range: We look at the furthest points a boat has visited over the year, not just the total distance. While the British Waterways Act does not stipulate a distance, boaters often ask us to give them some indication of how they need to travel. We’ve said that it is very unlikely that anyone travelling a range of less than 20 miles (32km) would be able to satisfy us that they are bona fide navigating and that normally we would expect a greater range. If you’re cruising in a smaller range than this you may run into trouble when it comes to renewing your licence.  Overstaying: We check how often boats overstay, either for longer than 14 days on regular (unsigned) stretches of the canal, or for shorter periods at places like visitor or short stay moorings, where a sign will tell you what the time limit is. Many boaters will occasionally need to stay somewhere for longer due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, so we look at overstays in light of the overall pattern of range and movement pattern. If you let us know when there is a pressing need for you to stay somewhere for a little longer, talk to us. Every year we grant hundreds of approved overstays, but we need to hear from you to be able to do so. Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences have always been intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around our waterways, not for staying in a small area. They were originally added to the British Waterways Act 1995 as a group of very passionate boaters argued that, because they continuously cruised around such a large extent of our network, it wouldn’t be fair or necessary to require them to have a home mooring as a condition of their boat licence. As well as establishing an acceptable range we’re also looking for boats to be generally on the move within that overall range: for example if a boat stayed in a five mile area for most of their licence and then went on one 60-mile trip over the course of two weeks, they’d be unlikely to meet our requirements for bona fide navigation. We don’t want to set a rigid pattern and we know that sometimes boats will turn round every so often if they reach the end of a canal, revisit a favourite spot once in a while or go back to refuel etc. What happens if someone can’t meet the movement requirements and needs to stay in an area? We encourage boaters to get in touch if they’re having problems moving in line with our guidance: we can only help if we know something is wrong. We issue regular reminders if a boat is overstaying and communicate actively to guide people and, if someone’s boat has broken down or they are ill, we can arrange for a boat to stay a little longer in an area whilst this is resolved. But it would be neither fair nor feasible to apply this to everyone who wants to confine their movement to a small area indefinitely, for potentially very long term reasons like work or school. If a boater wants to stay in a particular area then they will not be continuously cruising and this type of licence is not right for them and they should consider obtaining a home mooring. What about families – isn’t it difficult for those with kids to continuously cruise? The Trust understands that boaters with children of school age may have more of a need to stay in one area close to a child’s nursery or school. In general we don’t believe that we can simply waive our licence requirements (i.e. to navigate throughout the licence period) by allowing all parents with school-aged children to remain permanently in the area of the school, given that their children may attend a particular school for many years. The choice to be on a boat without a home mooring being at the individual’s discretion.

Let's also not forget the reporter was probably keen to produce a 'story', so probably listened to Mr Holder's biased story and swallowed it whole thinking what a great article it would make. Then decided he ought to approach CRT 'for balance' and got the rather sketchy statement from Matthew Simmons, possibly by email. So I agree there is probably whole back story still to come out, one which might well make CRT look like highly reasonable in what they are doing!!

A bit off topic, but I had a friend with a house in Godalming, at front of his house was a tiny patch of concrete that he owned, then a road. On said concrete was a council lamp standard, and he found out that the council was meant to pay him a peppercorn rent, so he wrote to the council asking for the rent, and got a nice letter back, with 20 peppercorns attached on sellotape, for back rent and future years. My friend was vastly amused and kept the letter and peppercorns.

The next will be No. 2!

Looks OK from pictures, simple boat, possibly ex hire. My concern is that it's been on sale since March and has had a survey in August.....meaning someone has just walked away from buying it. You need to find out why, and if the survey highlights why the boat was epoxied in 2016.

Clearly true, but buyers still worry about low original build plate thicknesses, the OP being a good example. ISTR the member here "Junior" agonising about whether to buy a boat with a 6mm baseplate. He bought the boat cheaply due to the 'thin' baseplate and used it without issue for a number of years. A boat built from thin plate but still in good condition can easily turn out to be a bargain due to this effect.

That explains things, with two eco fans they set up an aggressive standing wave that knocks smartgauges out of calibration...........

Must admit I quite miss Tony's take on things, which is why I nip over to the other forum every now and then though never bothered to join it. He does have a wealth of knowledge and can be enormously helpful, as well as on occasion being a serious pain in the wotsit. I could never understand why he wasn't from Yorkshire.

..... after painting 67 ft every 2 years, you will wish for 22' less.

after you'd had 45' for three months, you'd be wishing for another 22'

I hope the OP claims for the docking and repairs, in the small claims court if necessary.

But one will end up going to Llangollen to wind around anyway, although there is a winding hole about half way! The narrows tend to get people agitated, maybe its the slowness due to waiting for the water in front of you taking a long time to get behind you because of the small channel and its depth. Remember, always send a crew member up front to warn others coming the other way that your coming, and get them to take a phone with them too, so as you are kept informed about whats happening. That may sound tedious to the OP but it's simple in practice! Nipper

The bit I'd be more inclined to avoid is the Trevor to Llangollen leg. There's often a snarl up in the narrows that seems to take an inordinate time to sort out and its actually quite a pleasant walk. There's a pub about half way and you can also enjoy a smug moment when you pass the boat traffic jam shenanigans! When it rains, which it seems it can do occasionally in Wales, there's a regular bus back to Trevor.

Nah. Go for it straight away. Ellesmere is OK if you like Tesco and a couple of pubs, but Llangollen is great. There is nothing complicated about the aqueduct. I know people who have a fear of heights who just leave the boat in gear and hide in the cabin until they are at the other side ... but I think it's a shame because it's beautiful. Go for the good bit first and do the rest if you still have time later.

I aspire to tread a middle path. Amusingly, out cruising on my 30 year old boat (with it's now dull but perfectly serviceable original paint job), I have been labelled a "shiny boater" and a "scruffy boater" by different people both on the same day!

Are you for real? I spend closer to £100 a year than £1,000 year on paint to maintain my three boats.