Leaderboard

Please call Customer Services (or speak to the on-flight VLockie if they are on duty) if you think there is any chance of a failure. I'm sure Canal & River Trust would rather use an hour of the Ops Teams to check it rather days/weeks of Engineering repairs. The VLockie has access an incident reporting system to ensure it gets captured and managed if needed. (Apologies if I am teaching granny to suck eggs .....)

No, its on the Oxford - Look thru the arch - you can see all the widebeams and a solitary NB on the RH side

Admiral Nelson, Braunston today. Not the usual crowd ?

It's a good question which I don't know the answer but in my opinion it misses the question of the basic recyclability ( is that a word) of the products we use, neither landfill or incineration should be our primary means of dealing with our waste, they should be last ditch

Me too. We used a mix of disposable and washable for our two babies. 50/50 on the parent nappy-changing workload of course when you wash things it often uses electrical energy which comes from somewhere. That's an odd thing to say considering the economy of the entire industrialised world is based on extraction of buried materials. If the materials become valuable humans will extract them depending on the financial benefits. Open cast disposable nappy mines could well become quite popular in future.

The duck likes diamonds.

You are still conflating the 2 distinct elements, which only serves to confuse the relevant issues. Attachment/touching, however temporary, remains a distinct act of potential trespass depending on what relevant rights either public or private attend the situation. US case law in this area is more comprehensive than here in the UK, but even so, the extent of permissible temporary (even accidental) contact with land over which one may legitmately float, has been the subject of judicial examination over centuries. A land owner may grant a right of 'occupation' that still requires an extra right enabling a less transient occupation. Where a boat can be kept stationary by means of attachment to the ripa rather than to a 3rd party's fundus, then the elements are satisfied - but the fundus owner in granting an occupation right over the fundus is not thereby obligated to also grant an attachment right to enable mooring TO the fundus in the absence of an adjacent riparian owner's consent. So far as I can see in this particular decision, the judge has been very careful to keep the distinct elements separate. It very specifically does.

Lovely lock side this day 2004 Nivernais canal. It was still the same last time we passed in 2018

I sent all of my kids nappy waste in plastic bags to the HQ for testing and experimentation purposes. They can't get enough of it.

80621 is a BW asset number and the boat is still in BW livery, so it's safe to say at the time of that photo she was still in use a maintenance boat or very recently disposed of. The bottom photo could be the north end of Fazeley yard - all built over and called Peel's Wharf now.

No idea if the authenticity but this is the cabin top of Scorpio and Leo.

Not sure of the day/date, so perhaps I shouldn't have used this photo.

Not so elaborate when I went through last summer, but still an attractive lock, with a family living there. It seems to be a tradition:t through a succession of occupiers the surroundings have alwasy been enthusiastically tended, with a sprinkling of gnomes thereabouts.

True there is no option, well there is they are called terry nappies, like were used on most of us when we were babies. However accepting however environmentally good it would be if people reverted to them it isn't going to happen. However IMO there is a heck of a difference between a soiled nappy and a bagful of feaces gathered over some weeks.

Suggest you try climbing in and out a few times to see what its like for entry and exit. Looks to me that its not a boat for singlehanding.

Or use the rule of 9. ie set 1 when 8 is fully open, set 2 when 7 is fully open etc. etc.

I first read through this judgment in some dismay at the unquestioning swallowing of the Boat Licence “contractual” nature, alert to any knock-on effects in relation to other current issues plaguing yet another sector of boaters, with offside moorings that CaRT refuse to recognise. The refusal of the Appeal Court to consider my marshalled arguments on that topic (in the interests of focussing on a single issue), meant that the EoG situation has remained since then, where Stoner & Co had left it at County Court levels – that the boat licence did NOT confer any right for the boat to occupy “land covered by water”, this being (on Stoner's argument) a 'right to keep' a boat on the water, rather than a 'right to use' a boat on the water, both rights having been abolished by the TA 1968. I have always maintained the nonsense of that argument, by reference to the wording of the 1976 byelaws, which provide that the PB licence confers – very specifically – the right to bring onto, let for hire, keep AND use the licensed boat on the Board's canals. The effect being that no further consent on CaRT's part is needed to avoid any trespass action simply for floating over the canal bed. Since those 'simpler' times, of course, CaRT have finessed their whole boat licensing scheme theory into the realm of contract law, instead of the truth that it is bound by the terms of the relevant statutes. This has 'allowed' them (in practical reality, however illegally) to give or withhold the licence at will; limit what the licence does and does not permit, and render it all subject to their agreement, based on the boat owner's enforced submission to an agreement to the arbitrary (and ultra vires) T&C's. Now, however, this recent judgment has – in at least ostensibly accepting and wholeheartedly endorsing the contractual nature of the boat licence – determined the effect of that to be a grant of consent to occupy the land beneath the water on which the boat floats. Further, that this applies across the board, whether on a CC 14 day basis or in a home mooring situation. The further unexpected serendipitous effect of this judgment therefore, is to hoist CaRT firmly by their own petard, and remove their long-held false rationale for giving or withholding consent for boat owners to moor to their own property. Interesting.

The payment of Housing Benefit is administered by local authorities but funded by national government via the Department of Work and Pensions.

Hi all, We're back onboard and safely moored up outside the Marina. No issues on the journey or when collecting the boat, only saw 2 police cars and they were heading south on the M40 on blues & two's. (We were heading north ?) Staff at cropredy were again fantastic and couldn't have been more helpful. ?