Leaderboard

I was in the boat earlier and I saw a group of 10 ants just running about. I made a small house for them out of a cornflake box. This technically makes me their landlord and they are my... Tenants

It's already been said but given that there are what, around 100 active members on here, the chances of the deceased's family reading the thread, given that there are 60 odd million people in this country, are vanishingly slim. Even if they did I'd imagine the 'hurt' of reading attempts at humour about the situation would pale into insignificance given their actual loss. Reacting to adversity with humour is a British trait, it's our culture, it would be a shame if this was destroyed by the bleatings of a minority with little else to do but feel offended on behalf of others.

As I recall the main penalty for this offence is not just criminalisation of the culprit,but confiscation and possible destruction of the offending "residence". For rough sleepers, it means the trashing of their tents, for travellers confiscation of the caravan and therefore for boaters, the removal and scrapping of their boats. No need for a court order or years of appeals any more - not much good winning your appeal when your boats wrecked. The problem with all this badly worded and rushed legislation is the unforeseen consequences.

Living not far from the flight, I wandered down earlier to have a look at work in progress on lock 2. The team appear to be re-pointing the lock walls, chasing out old mortar. The bottom lock is receiving attention too, the chamber covered with sheeting, while a gantry by the head of the lock suggests a change of gate. I couldn’t help but compare the equipment in use to that of the 60s on the restoration of the nearby Stourbridge 16, where I worked as a teenage volunteer. No safety fencing, wheelbarrows across planks straddling the lock chamber and tripod sheerlegs to install gates. Truly, a different world!

I thought someone might ask! Seriously I will try and answer the various points made, respecting commercial confidentiality of course. As is well known the intention always has been (and is) to move sea dredged aggregate from Hull to the new wharf at Stourton (Port Leeds) when it opens - later this year, or more likely early 2021 - both to a potential readymix plant and also 'out of the gate'. However rather unexpectedly an opportunity has recently arisen to move the material into Leeds sooner than expected so the Trust was asked by CBOA if the former Leeds Terminal (at Old Mill Lane Knostrop) could be used on a temporary basis pending opening of Stourton terminal. The wharf at Knostrop has 'protected' status conferred by Leeds City Council at least until Stourton opens and so in principle it can be used. A part of the wharf (the open area) has to be (and is) kept clear for the purpose. However there are two challenges, the first of which was not mentioned in the report. The site is currently fully let which means there is nowhere to store the sand when it's discharged. However through the generosity of one of the occupiers and CRT there may be a way forward - but it may take a bit of time to sort. The second challenge, which is mentioned, is that because the site is already very busy the Trust has had to commission a study by an independent traffic consultant to show that there will be no additional risk to users from the extra road vehicle movements generated within the site , or that any such risks can be mitigated/managed. As the tonnage is relatively small the number of lory movements isn't all that great and it's hoped that this will not be a problem. It's not traffic on public highways that is a concern. In terms of taking traffic away from the proposed Leeds Port this is not envisaged as it's expected to transfer there anyway - although Leeds City planners do see Knostrop as providing a potential additional capacity should demand be greater than Stourton can accommodate - an independent study has shown a huge potential demand. (Stourton is rather better sited for access, has no residential dwellings anywwhere near, and is an industrial zone). As far as the navigation is concerned a survey has shown a small number of locations where some spot dredging or ploughing will be needed (including Knostrop wharf itself) but this can be organised fairly quickly (as has been done before). The frustration of the customer, and indeed of the two barge operators involved, can be readily appreciated - as these things take time. I hope that helps. regards David L

It must have been the year mrsmelly was out of the country!

Just to add another aspect to idiots wandering through heavily managed farmland it seems odd that the local hunt is allowed to do it with immunity but a few harmless walkers cannot. We lost several pets to the hounds and had crops flattened and fences damaged by the horses.

I repeat, you quite obviously do not understand typical Welsh (or other parts of the UK) hill farming. And no I do not agree that there should be free access to ALL land. I have seen the damage done by idiots that do not understand the needs of agriculture, from free running dogs, to the rubbish left behind.

I agree we don't have any rights to trespass on this land, never said we did. Yes I would want "a load of path churning vandals" on my fictitious estate. Though I'd prefer to think of them as free citizens seeking to enjoy the land in which they live even if they aren't fortuitous enough to have been left a vast vast estate by their family (or water company, or made a load of money and bought the land etc). Why the vast majority of this country should be restricted to very small area's due to some archaic rules is beyond me. We know the health benefits, mental and physical, of getting outdoors. How would people feel more enabled to get outdoors if they were to get a criminal record for missing a footpath and "trespassing", they wouldn't. The land reform act in Scotland hasn't caused any problems. People exercising their right to walk over their countries land, which happens to presently be owned by someone, should be extended to England and Wales. Wales have recently be surveying to determine the benefit of bringing the Right to Roam there, my fingers are crossed. What we definitely shouldn't be doing is classifying people as criminals simply to appease some big land owners. Criminalising rough sleeping is an inexplicably cold hearted thing to do. I once helped get a homeless bloke set-up with proper camping gear after we discovered him sleeping rough in the Aston Court Estate in Bristol. To think he would get a criminal record for merely trying to survive the cold nights is appalling

The car body chaps at College rated something called Deoxydol (I think) but I don't see what is wrong with Vactan on a surface that has been prepped with a degree of diligence and used under the conditions stated by the makers. I do have some reservations about Fertan on horizontal surfaces but that is to do with washing all the dust and uncured product off.

Yes but your credibility is shot. You also occasionally mention you think we should leave the EU, ISTR.

Could a 'normal' Blue Badge not be used for boating as well ? Blue Badge = Amended mooring rules ?

Actual avoidance of actually causing hurt to real people’s feelings is not a bad thing. But it is a big world with a myriad of different people and different things that might cause their feelings to be hurt. As I’ve mentioned before, offence is in the eye of the receiver and anyone can choose to be offended, or not offended, by anything. Therefore theoretically anything has the potential to be seen as offensive by someone in the 65 billion or whatever, world population. Then if you add in the elimination of any topic that some random person thinks might possibly be offensive to some other random non-specified person they have never met (offended on other’s behalf) you are truly into a thought-police-created desert. Which of course is what some (an increasing number) strive - or at least, that any opinion not complying with the group think, be silenced. Should we stop talking about Diesel engines to avoid offending Greta Thunberg’s acolytes? Should we disallow recipes involving meat in the recipient section, for fear of offending vegans? etc etc. This policy taken to its logical conclusion results in nothing allowed to be discussed. On the specific point at hand, if my relative had died I wouldn’t be trawling the Internet looking for tittle-tattle. If for some weird reason I did, and found that someone had speculated a specific cause of death would not add to my grief as it would already be maxed out. It would not even impinge. Why would it? There is no moral reason for precluding such speculation, it is just an opportunity for virtue-signalling and puritanically taking control of a discussion, silencing any other views and enforcing compliance with group think. If you don’t know what virtue signalling is, here are a few definitions: ”an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media:” “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.“ ”the conspicuous expression of moral values” The important bit in the above is “conspicuous”. It is the advertising of one’s moral superiority to others, in order to demonstrate that you are the morally superior person. Making a lot of noise and fuss about how virtuous one is. Bigging up one’s moral virtue. Etc etc. Virtue signalling is of course therefore done entirely for the benefit of the originator, and that it might be intended to benefit anyone else is an illusion.

No actually you take note of the wishes and feelings of a tiny minority of members and select the lowest common denominator in terms of the worst virtue signalling offence-porn junkies (that was the intent behind the reference to LCD, I suspect) and allow them to take control, which of course is what they love. A number of people including myself have put the opposite view but this is disregarded in favour of the LCD. The bottom line is that if any discussion around the death of someone is to be disallowed, there is absolutely no point in having the thread in the first place other than as a virtue signalling opportunity for a few people who have never met the person to express their random condolences. Of course speculation around the death of someone (which presumably would include from a boating accident) is not proscribed in the forum rules and guidelines, so this is another example of the mod team making up the rules. i subscribe to an aviation forum called PPRuNe - Professional Pilot’s Rumour Network. Despite the inclusion of “Rumour” in the forum name, every time there is an aviation accident, up pops the vociferous offence porn junkies demanding that we don’t speculate on the cause of the accident because relatives might be upset. Fortunately on that forum, the mods stand firm and speculation continues despite the faux outrage. Ultimately the more you let the virtue signalling control freaks win, the more sterile the forum becomes. As it is, I now rarely visit except for technical threads because the rest is too controlled by the group-think. Have you ever read George Orwell’s 1984?

So any farm that only has live stock is not farming? I think you need to re-think your ideas about farming and agriculture.

The problem with making this a criminal offence is that it stops being a problem of J. Random Landowner vs encampment dwellers, and becomes a matter of The Crown vs encampment dwellers. The sentences above tell you all you need to know: this is not about landowners, it's about giving local third parties the ability to pressurise the police into prosecuting the trespassers because they're lowering the tone, or looking at the locals funny. Property rights on land have always been a way of excluding the powerless to the benefit of the powerful, and this continues the trend. You all voted for the party of the powerful though, so I guess this is what we get. MP.

I'm am only lusty on a Thursday!

Or they are trying to ensure any new traffic goes to their proposed new wharf at Stourton that the council tax payers of West Yorkshire are paying circa £3 million for.

It depends! If there is a suitable long pound not more than a couple of locks up then I'll do it my self and then ring CRT to tell them I've done it. They do need to know so that they can replace the water you've used, even if it's from a 10 mile pound. I've never been told off for doing this.

B, especially if its where empty pounds are known to regularly occur, such as Atherstone, Hillmorton, Braunston etc. I have done it many times, sometimes annoying people who have phoned CRT and think that nobody should do anything until rescue arrives. Certainly in the Summer when starting early, I'm not going to sit waiting several hours for their 9am ish start.

Nothing to do with a loose prop, (unless the shaft is worn and stern gland leaking) but shows an extreme example of what can happen if you rely on the sellers survey : The vessel was fitted with an air cooled Lister engine and, in accordance with common practice, had a ventilation jalousies cut into the topside aft to give the necessary combustion air supply for the engine. The overplating was such that the jalousie at the engine room was within 65 millimetres of the waterline. That highly dangerous situation was not helped by the presence of a small lop on the water surface. Some five people plus a dog called Gus were on board (three of them sitting aft and two in the cabin) to make the journey and, hearing unusual noises from the engine, the engine room cover was lifted and the boat was found to be rapidly taking water. The situation was made worse by all of the people on board moving aft to have a look and to try to bale the water out, thereby increasing the trim and pushing the lower edge of the jalousie 50 mm under the water. The boat rapidly filled and sank within 10 seconds but, fortunately, a nearby RIB and a police boat arrived within two minutes and all personnel, plus Gus the dog, were picked up by the police and the nearby RIB. Despite the fact that none of them were wearing life jackets and at least one of them could not swim, there were, thankfully, no fatalities although all were suffering from shock. What Gus said was not recorded. It was later said that the owner had relied on a marine survey report prepared for the previous owner https://www.iims.org.uk/the-dangers-of-overplating/

So the horse would be purely for decorative purposes?

Game keepers are a pain when I ride up in the north york moors. I find it immensely alienating that such huge portions of this land are kept off limits simply so some folk can shoot some birds. I agree with keeping a watch on game keepers being more difficult too. The report that came out a year ago makes this important, though there's no evidence of illegal killing, a hen harrier is 10 times more likley to die / disappear on a managed moorland than elsewhere. Again, we need to follow Scotland's example and in this case make estates liable for the actions of their keepers. Making it a criminal offence to step off a footpath is completely in the wrong direciton

It could certainly make catching gamekeepers shooting rare birds of prey more difficult. Back in the days when the RedKite population was down to 70 birds of prey there were permanent watches in some places. This could at a stretch be classed as encampment.

Apologies again for taking this off topic. Agriculture land I agree on. No sense in it. But vast areas of land in this country are owned by huge estates, it is these areas which we should be free to venture upon. I ride my mountain bike regularly through forests owned by water companies. Now and then a 'ranger' comes to try and give me an earful. For the simplicity of exploring our land I would not want to be made a criminal. There were many arguments against right to roam in Scotland, barely any of the fears properly materialised and the right they now have is something we should aspire to. If you were to be treated as a criminal for merely walking though much of our / your nation, how can you really belong to that nation?

I disagreed, it should apply to all trespassers. I bet if I was to wander about in some 'townies' front garden, digging holes, taking flowers, breaking fences the Police would soon be called. Why as a 'land owner' should I be treated any differently ? I had years of the 'Badger Protection Tree Huggers' breaking fences and wandering across my fields to make sure I had not dug up the Badger sett since their last visit a couple of days ago. Even with the damage, the Police said it was a civil matter and they could do nothing. There are many, many footpaths, bye ways and bridle-tracks, areas of 'Right to Roam' & permissive rights of way why should they need to be able to wander freely across agricultural land without the land owners permission ?

Obviously luckily for me I have not watched the latest canal blog "Killer Canals with Kris" where he invites his fellow moorers round for a cup of tannic acid and homebaked rubber fenders.

Shiny boat refused to share hatton with us last year so we dashed down towpath and asked hire boat if they would wait 10 mins while we caught them up. lovely dutch people who owned 2 boats in holland and were about to buy a narrowboat in uk. Spent the rest of the evening in the pub with them in warwick.

That's not quite what you said in your OP and Daily Mail style headline

You could always go back and help a litter picking group rather than just rant about the bloke who is in charge of raising awareness and money ...

How much do Aldi charge for Snake oil, chocolate fireguards and Pie in the sky?