Leaderboard

The simple fact is that boaters who are "disadvantaged" have done it to themselves. The grey bit between the ears is there for a reason, though plenty don't seem to bother with it. It's no different to someone trying to con CRT that moving three miles in each direction twice a year is a continuous cruise and then whinging when their licence gets revoked. We could all get away with the latter thirty years ago, because hardly anyone did it. You can't now. No one deserves an apology for being stupid. It's a learning curve - read the instructions, and if you can't follow them, don't just depend on somebody else's advice - it might turn out to be wrong. You really have to take responsibility for your own actions, and certainly for your own output. It's no use moaning that you should be allowed to carry on being irresponsible and putting others at risk, and that "it isn't fair". Grow up, life isn't.

I don't see that. The basic problem is people believing, as too many do, that everything they do wrong is someone else's problem. From chewing gum on pavements and dog crap bags hung on fences to non-composted human excreta dumped in general waste bins. It's blatantly obvious that a composting bog doesn't produce usable and safe compost in a few weeks, those who bought them to save a few bob at the pumpout were just trying to shift the unpleasant business of dealing with their muck onto someone else. CRT, for once, tried to be helpful and accommodate these idiots. That was their mistake.

That's why I had doors fitted to my boat.

What we have here is effectively a war; on one side are the "1%" (the small number of poo-baggers who think they should be entitled to carry on doing it), on the other side are the "99%" (all the rest of the 30k+ boaters who don't do this and will be adversely affected if it continues, plus CaRT). I'm sure a lot of the 99% think "Why should I care?" -- well, because one way or another you're going to covered when the sh*t hits the fan, and you won't like it. There are only 3 ways I can see out of this mess: 1. CaRT bin contents are reclassified as "hazardous waste" (or whatever the term is) and the cost of disposing of it goes through the roof as a consequence (maybe a specialist waste disposal company is needed). Apart from being terribly non-green (can't be sorted/recycled, goes to specialist landfill/incineration) the cost of this will have to be added onto the license fee paid by everybody -- a quick back-of-envelope estimate (does anyone have any better figures?) is this might cost everyone something like fifty or a hundred quid a year. Which means the 99% are paying a pound or two a week to save the 1% a fiver a week on pumpouts, or less on cassettes. I don't need to point out how unpopular this will be with the 99%, even if the 1% are very happy... 2. CaRT withdraw all rubbish collection facilities, and the canal system turns into a 2000 mile long flytipping site. Nobody -- CaRT or the 99% or the 1% -- will be happy ? 3. The 1% stop bagging and binning, which makes them unhappy, but CaRT and the 99% are happy. But this needs to really stop which means some kind of enforcement, otherwise the 1% will just carry on dumping poo when nobody's looking. There's only one acceptable option (#3) for the canals, the question is how to make it happen. Regulation which is enforceable by CaRT is the obvious option; I know people keep giving reasons why this can't legally be done, but I might suggest that armchair lawyer time would be better spent trying to think of a way to make it possible instead of objecting? It should be obvious to even the veteran CaRT-haters that for once the 99% and CaRT are on the same side here, so surely it would be better to put the hate aside and help CaRT find a solution than carry on complaining about what a terrible organisation they are and how it's all their fault and things were better in the old days... If there really is no legal solution -- which I don't believe, what stops people pumping 50 gallons of liquified sh*t form their pumpout tank onto the towpath or a hedge bottom? -- then we're down to either the scorn of public opinion (the 99% send the 1% to Coventry) or the lynch mob (the 1% wake up to find their well decks full of the Biffa bin contents). Or maybe they find a six-pointed brown star of sh*t on their front door -- hang on, that sounds kind of familiar... ? Should be perfectly possible nowadays with social media, it wouldn't be difficult to find out which boats have composting toilets and then set up a PooTracker group on Facebook or similar to find out where they all are and who to target next. It works for right-wing hate groups, should work just as well for boaters... But I don't really think that vigilante justice ("poo-and-feathering") is what most people are looking for, so I'd strongly encourage everyone to try and come up with a workable and enforceable solution to the problem ? And how would that help solve the problem? A succinct and accurate summary.

Thanks all for comments so far. I think everything that needs saying has been said other that to correct a couple of errors in the information supplied by the applicant. The canal is not a non-designated heritage asset. It is on Historic England's list of monuments (number 305428.) We supplied information to the County Council (at their request) to get it added to their Historic Environment Record some years ago, but they have not input it yet. It also contains a globally unique and listed river crossing in Crumpwood Weir, so is of anything but a "low" significance. One of the key points about the Uttoxeter Canal is that because it closed so early, 1849, its structures tell us how canals used to function in that era. Everything else in the country has undergone another 170 years of "improving" which is why we have found ourselves looking at, for example, Carrington's Lock and wondering exactly how it functioned. Happy to answer any questions about the canal on here or you can check out the new FAQ on the CUCT website, which I am updating daily at the moment!

Ok, let me inject some real thinking into this thread which seems to be dominated by a number of peeps who are doing a lot of guessing. The company I am director of licenses technology to companies to recycle plastic (mixed rigids) from council and industry collected waste. We have plant operating in Newcastle and buy our feedstock from Biffa, Viridor, Shanks etc. I have spent the last 2 weeks trying to get info on where this new CRT thinking comes from – discussing with our guys in Newcastle who source the feedstocks and talk to the waste management companies on a day to day basis. It is now clear to me what is going on. This is nothing to do with transfer of waste being illegal as Alan is saying. The laws on transfer of waste are quite vague and done principally under waste codes. My colleagues say that will not be the issue. It is not about 'waste' laws. The CRT decision is nothing to do with that. The problem is that today 90% of 'black bin' waste goes to incineration not landfill. This number has grown significantly in the last 5 years from a position before, where land fill was the predominant method. The crux of the matter and the real driver is that Biffa (and the like) do not want to put this waste into their incinerators. It does not contribute to the energy recovered therefore they dont want it in as it costs them money. This is purely an economic argument. There are no laws that are being broken by it being put in – black bin waste and the stuff coming from the CRT which is as Alan says is industrial waste can go in – it's just it is not good for the incineration process. What I hadnt realised was the huge swing to incineration means very little is landfilled today. Landfill is more expensive than incineration so the Biffa's of this world will avoid this type of waste going in. The main driver for the pressure coming on the CRT is therefore economic, not health related. I talked with the guys about how waste is handled. All of them said that very very little black bag waste is handled by anyone anymore. Only very few actually put black bags on picking lines and almost all this waste goes direct to an incinerator with no human intervention other than driving trucks, mechanical handling etc. They said that the type of waste from a 'solids' toilet would be similar to nappies or dog poo bag in that it is not a hazard for collection or transport but that becomes a significant issue for disposal ie where it ends up. Note this is the 'solids' waste only and not the 'wee & poo' in a bag which is a health hazard if its leaking all over the place. I've talked about nappies a lot in the past which are classed as offensive waste and could be present in large quantities in dumpsters – but the key here is that Biffa (and the like) are happy to throw them in the incinerators as they have a significant plastic content which is beneficial to the energy recovery. Nappies are therefore seen as beneficial. Not so sure about dog poo. “Dun no” was most of the responses I got. So there it is! You can choose to believe me or not, but the word out of the professionals who work with waste management companies every day is that Biffa (and the like) will be pushing this through from an economic point of view and nothing to do with health as they don't want to bugger up their incinerator economics. Me.....I'll just carry on composting which is not affected by the above. I am however fully in agreement with Dora above in looking for answers from the CRT – who I think should rigorously try and defend the current position of waste disposal in light of the commercial push by the waste management companies – who will say its a health decision not economic......ie they will lie! Trust me, that is what my colleagues are telling me. The waste management companies will win though as money talks......and chaos will rain here. Given that background, I wouldn't want to be in CRTs position. I'm just going to carry on composting.

Blimey!!! Here we go again: I'm an idiot, I'm a half wit, I'm illiterate (not sure how I'm typing this!), I can't use my brain, I'm stupid, I'm selfish, I don't think of others etc. etc. I did read "should not be composted" but didn't stop there, I went on to read in the same sentance "but if you can not do this it's ok to double bag and put in our bins". Ok, CRT shouldn't have said this BUT THEY DID and many people read this and made informed decisions based on CRT's advice. As I said earlier up the thread a few days ago I'm getting seriously fed up of being slagged off on here simply for following the advice of CRT. CRT have handled this extremely badly. There should have been warning, there wasn't. This has created hate on social media for which CRT are to blame. As it happens our circumstances have changed and I am now able to take the dry stuff to our house and put it in a spare wheelie bin to compost properly.

They may be illiterate, though, because they obviously can't read the instructions on the stuff they bought. CRT are a navigation authority, not an expert in waste disposal. Would you accept boating advice from your dustman? Would you want a CRT office bod to tell you how to weld your boat? It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

Shocked, apalled but not surprised, nothing it seems is safe from the developers these days............................... The plans and reports are extensive it will take some time to get through all of them. The developers must have spent a fortune in having these prepared...............small beer I suppose in the overall development..............but the future restoration plans whilst not omitted are clearly being brushed aside by them. Having been involved in the restoration of Lock 1 and the basin along with many other volunteers I think I can speak for them all when I say I didn't give my time up for something like this to come along 15 years later.................

There is always @athy s gagarden to moor on

Lol. Its all really much better than it seems. Same as any River- if youre not a nuiscance no-one cares.

Just stopped where we fancied

Thanks.. now I know , and the list will come in useful in future. The cockneys round here did not know what I was talking about and some got quite agitated when I asked the question!

Thanks Bob. It's nice to hear from a more reputable source than the tsunami of idle speculation dressed up as fact that we've had so far. There you go. Problem solved. Renegotiate with Biffa to take the extra waste. Then record composting toilets on the BSS and charge the supplement accordingly. If I were about to get a composting loo and then found out I had to pay a bit extra, then I could make an informed decision on it. Sounds fine to me.

And that is a bad thing ?

Not a great picture, but a reminder of the days when locks on the Seine were less than user-friendly. With rough sloping sides they made up in size for lack of sophistication. Taking an age to negotiate, they had separate groups of lock-keepers for the two ends. Communication seemed to be by bicycle. On the Seine today, despite the vertical walls, there are often no lock-keepers at all. Someone sits in an office somewhere else, looking at what the cameras tell them then pushing at buttons.

It might be a bit quiet in that region in the forthcoming months / years.

But they were told it was OK to behave like that by C&RT, until a month ago they were doing nothing wrong in C&RTs eyes. I would add I think its discussing to put it in bins but the people who have installed these toilets were IMO badly advised.

Man-up & accept things evolve and change as new information comes to light. He is totally wrong to advise "if you want a composting toilet just do it, it is not C&RT policy just one guys opinion" Newbies watching blogs and you-tube stuff like this, and followng his advice, are literally going to be in the sh$t. C&RT were wrong 3 years ago to give the information they gave (not having done proper investigation into the law), but now the requirement to cease using bins is being forced on them by the Waste Carrier and the law. C&RT have no alternative but to comply.

When ever I passed, Athy had a glass in his hand

As long, you only stop overnight and leave no trace that you were there. Most land owners don't mind. It's the bargee traveller who piss's them off, setting up base, dumping their crap over the bank and having to be removed by court order. From the minuites of the Navigation Advisory Committee November meeting Temporary Rural Moorings David Thomas said that consideration was to be given to the provision of temporary rural moorings at locations on the Middle Level waterways where the Commissioners owned the bank. He noted however that whilst it would be possible to provide these moorings there would not always be access beyond the moorings to other places unless the bank was a public right of way. The proposal was to mow the reed fringes and allow 24-hour mooring. It was hoped that work on thefirst few temporary moorings could commence immediately and be in place before Christmas and that information would be issued about their locations on the Middle Level Commissioners’website on the navigation page. John Revell had contacted David Thomas and put forward a number of suggestions for these24-hourmoorings outside of the main link route, which was considered useful. Chris Howes stated that a good location for a temporary 24-hourmooring would be where theKings Dyke met the River Nene as this was approximately 3 hours travel time from Peterborough.Colin Ovenden advised that rural moorings would be difficult for cruisers to access and asked if some sort of floating pontoon arrangement could be provided at some key locationsto assist the owners of cruisers.

Do you actually understand what gaslighting is? We've heard a report from people in the industry who are quite clear that this is a cost issue, not a hygiene issue. If that makes you question your previous assumptions and makes you reconsider the next time you dress up those assumptions as fact - then good. It's not gaslighting though. Bob's post has clarified the issue adequately. If you want to continue arguing, then be my guest, just be aware that it might make you look foolish. Sometimes it's wise to know when to keep your counsel.

You'll also need to match the flow rate. A cheaper one may not flow as much gas as the one you have and say, not be able to feed enough gas for all the burners on a cooker. Replaced mine last year and did this as the system and regulator were fitted originally by a gas safe registered fitter with the appropriate LPG and boat qualifications, so I knew it was probably OK!

I presume you mean disgusting rather than discussion ? Blooming auto correct. While I agree that people were badly advised (or say they were) but the CRT web site did say that the solids should be composted before going on to say that they could be put in bins. In my view (possibly wrong again) it is unbelievable that anyone should think it was Ok to dispose of their s*** by chucking it in a bin. Haggis

You don't know this for sure. You're just guessing. If this is because CRT have no choice then why have they not announced it properly, explaining what's changed? I'd guess that half of all boaters never read the boaters update. Why have they said nothing about updating T&Cs or the BSS? At the very least, why have they not apologised for the unnecessary cost which they've forced on boaters who had carefully followed the rules which CRT themselves set?

You simply look for the little red-flag in the window as part of your daily checks. If the red-flag is 'flying' you change the bottle on that side. It really is quite simple and you never either run out of gas, or, have to get out of the shower to change cylinders over.

That's terrible. Charging rent to live in a boat that is upside down. Should be a law against it. Is Holidays Afloat the right place for this topic! Jen

So he wants a public consultation, and the change of policy incorporated in the terms and conditions. And then what? He still won't be able to dump his shit in CRT's bins!