Mike Todd

It seems that there is quite a back story to this boat which perhaps means that the few residents of the apartments whose light might just be affected are being used as a weapon in another war. At one stage the BBC described it as a 'ransom' boat when the developers of a site alongside its former mooring (where it was a permanent residence) threatened to pull out of the much-needed redevelopment unless the boat was moved. This involved the council having to buy out the resident so that they could relinquish the right to moor there. In turn, there has been a battle over the re-development with the movement to rewove all signs of Colston agitating for a community use for the site rather than a commercial one. This story may still have yet more legs to run, helping out a poor reporter with a piece to fill with anything that makes a Labour controlled council look unable to do anything sensible (ie something makes an already rich person richer!)

This is very much the same as with house estate agents. It is up to the seller to present the product as best as they can.

As far as I can see, taking a realistic/pragmatic view, that is not substantially different from what I said as far as canals are concerned. Whatever duty may be laid on the navigation authority it has always been subject to some individual contractual consent. That is, unless you paid the tolls you could not navigate in the same way as a right of way would indicate. A licence now replaces the tolls. As far as the railway owners, they had a pretty good try at closing canals by not doing maintenance. I always understood that there was at least one case where they obtained closure on the grounds on non-use over a period when the canal was closed by a breach or something similar!

You might just get both if the hydrogen fuel cell generates electricity with batteries as a buffer store.

I don't think there ever was a right to navigate in the same sense that was always championed by Nigel Moore - the Public Right to navigate that applied on navigable rivers, ambiguities in which underlay the dispute with Tony Dunkley. The only statutory right was to be granted a licence under certain conditions. The debate here is about those conditions. The statutory duty to maintain certain waterways as navigable does not in itself confer any right to navigate them on any individual.

But is that true of Punchbowl bridge? (My understanding is that it is owned by a third party and was damaged by a vehicle attempting to cross it and the third party is dragging its feet)

You may well be right but how many narrowboats are water powered? Even the mills have ceased! But at least, for now, we have enough to float in - mostly.

Normally true but on our short excursion earlier in the year between lockdown 1 and lockdown 2 the lock keepers were not taking payments and suggesting phoning. Alas the telephone service did not work at weekends whilst we were there! No-one seemed terribly worried!

I thought that I had read that only the first two episodes were completed before the first lockdown stopped all filming. Since then it has been reported that they have made two more which are in post-production no doubt (turning reality into fantasy?)

I think that 'overriding the law' is too strong: you are invited to sign the T&Cs at which point they are subject to contract law which permits reasonable conditions. To sustain your argument you have to show either that the condition is unreasonable in contract law terms or that refusing you a licence on the grounds that your refuse to sign the T&Cs is itself contrary to the law. Whilst the latter point has been aired before, I am unaware that anyone has successfully convinced a court that it is contrary to the law.

As I understand it, Punchbowl is not owned by CaRT. How then is it mismanagement?

You say there are far too many cars on the roads. What is your criterion for that assessment? Since cars do not come for free, I guess that almost all owners will take the view that having a car is a necessary or desirable option. At what level is the number of cars acceptable? Does that level always include your car? BTW, living in rural county have to ask the question, what is this thing called public transport that folk keep mentioning?

Run - the bus is going without you!

You are right to describe CaRT as " a navigation authority" but would be wrong to say that it was only a navigation authority". To sustain its financial position it has to fulfil a range of KPIs which encapsulate the government's view that the canals should be enjoyed by more than those who boat in the water. I have yet to see any significant evidence to support the description 'financial mismanagement' (be careful regarding libel!) which is not a conclusion justified simply because you disagree with their priorities and budgets. Given that they are trying to achieve the impossible (a funding package that is, by all authorities, considered inadequate, set without any effective plan for how they might magically close the gap) it would be reprehensible if some of their initiatives did not work out. "Anyone who has succeeded at all they do has never done anything much" If there really had been financial mismanagement over the timescales you imply then any responsible auditor should have qualified the accounts by now. (But they would not be first to fail to do that!)

Interesting history here: http://www.boat.la14.uk/pages/dawncraft-history.php but it does not explain how the Dawncraft of wroxham came about.