Leaderboard

There appears to more and more people on the cut who are not that interested in boating and don't want to follow the simple rules. The cut is a lovely relaxed place with very few rules, and even those are a bit flexible, but when "boaters" push things too far it goes wrong, and is likely to go wrong for all of us. We now have thug looking baliffs strutting the towpath and helping to remove boats. CRT do not have the staff to enforce the rules against serious objectors and have already had a fatality, so if they decide to hand enforcement over to a private parking company, or even a security company, can we really blame them?. People like George and his supporters are going to make things worse for all of us.

As someone who has lived in the area for more than forty years, with some legal knowledge of the K&A Canal, I can assure you that the land currently occupied by George Ward at "Smelly Bridge" between the towpath and the boundary fence of Barton Farm Country Park is owned by C&RT. It is not private property, so please stop deliberately referring to "Private Property" in an attempt to throw doubt on the land's legal status.

I'll quote everything I reply to, that way it is clear what I am replying to. If you choose to go back and edit posts after I've replied, I won't be going back to read the edits - so its worth taking a breath and completing your posts in full, before pressing "Submit Reply".

This topic is about a geyser who has been "pushing the envelope" with regards to licensing, moving and keeping a boat on CRT controlled waterways. Getting into discussion about legal status of marinas and NAA is off topic. The problem of unlicensed reprobates is going to hit hard and it won't be long before this happens. Discussion needs to be had about what the system should do.

Err, these 2 posts seem to contradict each other. I agree that "morals aren't an easy cut thing", I would argue that if CRT chose to ignore George Ward and let him live on the canals without a license or BSS they would be failing in their moral duty to all the other boaters who do comply, and potentially to the wider society. So to make it really simple, what do you think CRT should have done in this case? (And just saying something about ethics, morals or even accusing CRT of having ignored/broken/circumvented the law in relation to something else is not an answer)

From one end to the udder...

Yes it’ll spoil the imaginative flow ..I want to hear of more slashing and burning, thuggery and wild guessing.

Over the years there have been lots of small companies as well as individuals who have built one, two or a few narrowboat shells, then quietly disappeared. And mostly nobody remembers them or knows which boats they built. And as boat change hands, move to different areas, are refitted, get renamed etc. any connection with their origins gets lost. As that canalplan listing shows its perfectly possible to licence a boat as built by 'unknown', and where boatbuilder information is given it can be wrong. Nobody worries about it. When you are looking at a boat that age, current condition, equipment and facilities is much more important than who built it. And as noted above 'boatbuilder' can refer to the original shell builder, a boat fitter who bought in a shell from elsewhere and fitted it out, or a boat seller that bought in the shell from one third party and contracted the fitting out to another third party then sold the boat in their own name.

Are you sure about that? My 1994 built boat has a 5 figure number and has always had the number since new

I can smell a MNC argument here but doubt this would apply in areas that are not river sections. People who aggressively take the piss of the system should not be tolerated because they put the existence of the waterway at risk. Get rid of these people. If the K&A fills up with entitled smartphone wielding semi-organised freemen on the land it will cause significant cost implications for the CRT and one can't help thinking someone might consider taking proper action to deal with the problem.

Yes it is - I posted a reply to your post. When I pressed the "Quote" button, it took the text and formatting of the post at the time - which was the original. If you subsequently edit a post after I've pressed the "Quote" button, but before I press the "Submit Reply" button, the forum software neither amends the quoted text to update it, nor advises the original post has been edited/updated. I don't go back and review the original post manually (which would need a second browser tab, so as not to lose my unsubmitted reply) so I'd be none the wiser to your edit. But the original post stands, and must stand, and is available to see with the quote function. The onus is on YOU to ensure when you post, you mean what you mean, and don't simply post without thinking things through properly. If your post is not detailed enough or you didn't mean to type what you did, or you want to change its meaning or emphasis, then that must be taken into account BEFORE you originally press the "Submit Reply" button. If you don't, then you are likely going to be ignored or the edit remain unread. Is it a distraction because your argument is weak? Or is it because you're emotive? Or are you yourself unsure of the points your trying to make?

Especially those who live in castles.

Or tie the shower room door knob to the extractor pull cord. Open the door and it turns off the fan!

The canals are in trouble, they are declining at an accelerating rate due to limited finance. We all need to make an increasing contribution in many ways, not just financially. Those who are not willing to contribute, or even worse make a negative contribution, will have to go. In the short term this will cost a lot of money in evictions and legal costs but that has to be done. If the latest figures on global warming are correct then this is all probably irrelevent.

Last Monday. Wells Next The Sea.

Its a public towpath mooring in one of the most popular spots on the canal system, its for all boaters to share, not for one bloke to claim as his own. There is also the huge issue of needing planning permission for a residential mooring, plus a bloke running a scrapyard and upsetting the locals. A while ago CRT did convert a mooring in that area to a permanent mooring for a trade boat and got a lot of stick for doing so. I think this went wrong for many reasons but in part because the boater confused a trading mooring with a residential mooring.

It isn't as simple as that. Whether C&RT charge or not is irrelevant, they cannot permit anyone to moor residentially on the section between Bradford Wharf and Avoncliffe because previous applications for residential moorings on that stretch of Canal have been refused by the Planning Authority, it is a somewhat contentious issue amongst local residents.

Some boaters don't want to move. A lot of them are broke, but on benefits that will apparently pay licences & mooring fees. If you can't spot the solution... You may not want to see a load of cheap tatty boats crowding certain areas. However, as that's what you've got anyway, and you can't do anything about getting rid of them, might as well take their (or the government's) money, just like the rest of the slum landlords do.

Later boats do indeed have similar to a VIN but that shell will likely pre date that. CIN iirc when I fitted my new hull out several years ago. The exact date evades me and google will be your friend. However not all boats comply and some still do not.

Yes really has been poor. Fortunately I was able to swap some work around and go and play with boats yesterday where the weather wasn't terrible, which means doing yesterdays work today I genuinely think the biggest challenge and the most key skill involved in getting a project like this done isn't any of the technical aspects, it's being a project manager and ensuring that you have plan A, B and C in place before a session so that no matter what the weather, equipment failure or just random other factors you have the stuff you need to get the job done each time you turn up to the boat. Sometimes I manage it... Proper 70s spec isn't it. As i've said before I think the hull shape of these Fernies is great and I wouldn't be bothering with this work to an ugly boat, but it's definitely worth taking care. I have a tyre with an interesting tread pattern* to be cut up and adapted as a bow fender which should hopefully add a bit of squish to a crash *Bar grip 900*16, if you know you know

That bow is lovely, but dangerous. My first boat had a bit of a pointy high front end and I was ever so careful.

In the case of the George Ward situation the CRT have executed a section 8 which legally allows them to remove a craft moored without awful authority. This is, for rather obvious reasons. something which a navigation authority will be allowed to do. If they were not then it is not at all difficult to work out what would happen. Be careful about people advising you as to the legal status of the CRT activity around unlicensed boats. In a lot of cases these people are simply internet ultracrepidarians. It is a common problem afflicting forums that people who know nothing present as knowledgeable persons. https://jswilder16.medium.com/the-age-of-the-ultracrepidarian-2245b5d41516 https://psychology-spot.com/we-are-surrounded-by-ultracrepidarian/

They don't mangle the law, they just do something you don't understand. Promise?

Higgs will probably take 10 yrs to answer your question. Morals and all that.🤭

If you approach buying a boat in a logical fashion, sooner or later you will arrive at the most sensible conclusion: don't buy a boat. Thousands of people have "been there and done that" and gone ahead and bought a boat anyway. Its fun - its a lot of money, but its boating.

Why quote my post if you are going to completely ignore my question. What do you think CRT should have done about George Ward? Lots of commercial contracts involve a large organisation stipulating the terms and conditions under which they will do business, no one has to open a marina, and presumably if it wasn't financially viable with the conditions CRT impose they wouldn't go to the trouble of building them Marinas that were connected before the obligation to ensure all boats were licensed did not have the condition retrospectivly enforced on them.

I guessed it was your usual (totally false) hobby horse. C&RT can apply conditions, within the contract, that allows a marina to operate - it is nothing to do with the 'waterways laws' that you appear to accuse C&RT of circumventing. Unless you can come up with actual, real, examples we will just ignore your outrage.

What has ethics got to do with it ? George Ward has failed to comply with the law, a court has convened and the Judge found him guilty and said he must pay the penalty - can you cite any actual law breaking by C&RT, where they have been prosecuted and found guilty ?

He is right. We were looking for a boat no bigger then 57ft with windows. If it had portholes then it had to have windows in the front bulkhead. So our boat is 62ft with portholes and no window in the front bulkhead.

I'm saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't believe CRT act in an altogether ethical way themselves.

This is the normal process. Moat people do it. Then when they start actually looking at boats they find they don't actually 'like' the boats that look good on paper. Then by chance you, I mean they, will go aboard a totally unsuitable boat for a look at <something or other>, and the boat will make you fall in love with it and you'll buy it, and all your spreadsheets will have been for nothing. Hope that helps...

Or this Time Delay Relay Module, Delay Relay Module 5v 12v 24v Timer Switch 50ma 0.01s-9999min, Delay Off Cycle Timer Module Timer Relay with Lcd Display (1) https://amzn.eu/d/j4m1QYc 555 timers might be old tech but do the job Google "555 timer kit" for more results

Pre covid, so 2018 or 2019, we were stuck for two days at Rumps lock waiting for water levels to be increased in the pounds up to Wheelock. We were visited regularly by C&RT staff who assured us they were doing all they could to feed water down from Bosley locks. Apparently the main feed for that stretch of the T&M is Todbrooke Reservoir and Coombes Reservoir. If that is true, there is no wonder water is low at present and will remain low until 2025. Rog

Don't go off topic with your own agenda. Start a new thread if you feel its worthy of mentioning.....

If they acted much more quickly to deal with overstayers, then their costs would be substantially lower because it would discourage, rather than encourage others with a similar mindset.

So according to the article the canals support 80000 jobs and contribute £1.5B/year to the economy. Meanwhile the government is crowing about the JLR battery factory generating 4000 jobs "and thousands more in the supply chain" -- so lets add the same again to get 8000 total -- and is said to be subsidising this development to the tune of £500M, and how this is good value for money and great news for the UK. So on the same basis, didn't they ought to be willing to kick in £5B to support the canals with 10x the job count? Without eating into the capital, if this yielded even 3% a year that's £150M a year -- which funnily enough is the existing grant plus an extra £100M/yr to solve the maintenance backlog. I'm sure some people will say this is ridiculous -- but why is it? For starters the canals are likely to last a damn sight longer than a battery factory, assuming they don't wither away die to lack of maintenance...