homer2911

Benefit scrounger = a thief of resoures available to genuinely needy people Non-licence payer = a thief of BW's resources A thief is a thief, and If I see a thief, I'll report him - end of.

Well, as a non-boater you can't be expected to know that BW are actually putting more people on the ground to identify defaulters, and if I, as a fully paid up boater, can do anything to eradicate the free-loaders, then I am happy to do it. Yes BW spends money on stupid things, and we will all make our voices heard in protest at that, but that is not an excuse to stand by and watch parasites work the system. Ok, let's all embrace your socialism, and all live off benefits. Oops, I forgot - who will pay the taxes to provide the benefits? Not all taxpayers are fat-cats you know. Hell, thousands of them are pensioners!!

Every reply to this post misses the point. If our government had wanted to leave things as they were, they could have found a way - in the same way that our continental friends pick and choose which EC regulations to adopt - have we all forgotten that France has still not paid the fine imposed by the EC following their illegal banning of British beef? However, when did Gordon Brown ever miss an opportunity to raise taxes?

If you were employed and paid taxes, and living next-door to an entire able-bodied family living on benefits, would you be annoyed? If you have a boat that is licensed, insured, has a current test certificate, and where relevant, a mooring permit, are you not bothered about boaters that couldn't give a stuff? Freeloaders whose non-payment of their dues keeps your boating costs higher than they might otherwise be? If you travel the system, every day you will see evidence of p*ss-takers who want all the experience of the waterways without bearing their fair share of the costs. Here's an opportunity to clamp down on the parasites.

This is a start, and is to be applauded.

What Post Office? I thought the village Post Office had closed.

Try one of these:

You know what? Even as I wrote that phrase, I knew someone would take it the wrong way. Thanks for confirming my fears!

1. The 'high right hand arch' actually now has a 'No Entry' sign on it, so was avoided. 2. There was no reed growth at all, so that the next arch on the right appeared clear, with no underwater obstruction visible. 3. As I said, having clocked the No Entry sign, and being positioned to aim for the right hand side, I saw the blue arrow on the left too late to stop. 4. No-one wants a proliferation of signage, but if the centre arch is now impassable and needs a No Entry sign, why not the arch where I ran aground?

Coming down the Avon and approaching Bidford bridge,at the last minute you might spot the arrow marking the extreme left hand arch, under which you must go. However, I first spotted the No Entry sign on the centre arch, and wisely avoided it, but in favour of the right hand arch, which had no signage on it. Too late a nearby angler warned me that I would run aground under the arch. It turns out that one of the signs marking the left hand arch (which might have made it clearer that this is the only way to go) has been down for some time. If only there was a No Entry sign on each of the arches which spell danger, I wouldn't have got stuck, and neither would all the other boat skippers who got stuck throughout this summer. Full marks though to Bidford Boats, summoned for me by the aforementioned angler, who arrived within 15 minutes and pulled me off, for a very reasonable £25. Incidentally, they told me that some people, after being rescued, just carry on downstream with not a word of thanks, much less asking what they owe for the rescue.

Oh dear - got a real hang-up concerning what you think constitutes 'middle class', haven't you? Add to that your prickly reaction to some fairly reasoned argument - 'I am assuming you are drunk, bored or just a troll' - and you have a recipe for getting shot down in flames on a regular basis. Beware of generalisations.

At last! Some common ground! Did you know there's a documentary about dear Humph on BBC Four telly tonight at 9pm, followed by footage of his last gig?

I bow to your (quite obviously) infinitely more developed knowledge of economics. Let's all stop paying shall we, and all become parisites on society?

If my boating fees are significantly higher because other people refuse to pay theirs, beyond doubt, that makes it my business.

I regularly pay my licence fee and mooring permit fee on time, but then invariably get angry at the number of parasites who pay neither. If reporting one of these antisocial bastards makes me a 'vigilante curtain-twitcher' or a 'busybody', I am more than happy to plead guilty. If BW won't get off their backsides to police them, then I will.

Over the past three years I must have pulled about three dozen windlasses out of locks, most of them responding to a quick wire-brush and an equally quick flash over with an aluminium paint spray. Once spruced up thus, they are sold for £3.50, all the proceeds going to a charity that I support. I've had some odd finds though, including a complete moped on the Staffs & Worcs, and a delightful all-metal, well-made garden fork last time out on the Soar. One intriguing find in a lock was a metal hammerhead. In the same lock, some yards away, was it's metal shaft. My mind conjured up a picture of the head coming off and being lost in the lock, closely followed by the shaft, thrown away in disgust!

At Northwich on the River Weaver is a 'Floatel', a hotel with the bedrooms built on pontoons

None of the replies given so far take account of the fact that, although the posters may have been wrongly accused of not slowing down, there is a sizeable minority, maybe even a majority,, of boaters, both private and hirers, who make no effort, or only a token effort, to slow down. Your right to rock my boat ends when I am about to pour scalding water into a cup or pot, or when my wife is about to inject herself with medication

Fit a water filter just for your drinking water - luvverly!

Just checked Sterling's web site - they reckon the shunts are safe to 1000 amps!

The neg of the start battery and domestic batteries are connected, so both go through the shunt - does that make a difference?

One of the three shunts feeding information to my Sterling Power Management panel has failed - for those familiar with it, there is a strip of metal brazed to two brass terminal posts and one of these brazed joints has failed completely. The shunt in question was taking in the main negative feed from the battery bank and out to both the inverter and everything else that needs a neg feed. The fault was difficult to spot, being intermittent in terms of open circuit characteristics, but It has set me wondering about recent electrical problems and whether they are connected to the failed shunt. 1. My (90 Amp) alternator regulator has given problems in recent months 2. The glowpug relay has failed 3. There appears to have been premature battery failure, although the jury is still out on that - in the last few days I have charged all my batteries at home and then checked the SG. Every one of five domestic batteries, including two about a year old, is showing very, very low SG readings on every cell. The start battery, which is much older, is reading fine. Could an intermittent negative connection be responsible charging problems or for failure of batteries or glowplug relay? I will call Sterling after Easter and see what they say. Reply

Your personal message t me went missing when the web site was down the other day - would you be kind enough to send it again. Also, have a look at my post regarding Sterling - it raises some questions but may also be a clue as to answers Thanks and regards

I think my glowplug relay is knackered, but rather than speculate £50 on finding out for sure, I would like to find someone to give my engine electrics the once-over. Any recommendations for someone around High Onn on the Shroppie?