Jump to content

Mike Todd

Member
  • Content Count

    4063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Mike Todd last won the day on November 1 2017

Mike Todd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

700 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Devizes

Previous Fields

  • Boat Name
    Alchemy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Is it close to the marina - can see moored boats in the left but not clear? If so, it is not that close to any properties, is it?
  2. Not unlike the response when recently CaRT concluded that 'composting' toilets could not be emptied into their bins. And while they are at it, perhaps they could tackle those moorers who build rickety structures out from the bank in a way that significantly narrows the available channel!
  3. I have now tracked down the post and the rowers were from Broxbourne Club.
  4. Some planning authorities would require proof of failure to sell before considering the loss of a commercial property.
  5. Perhaps I misunderstand the CaRT argument but I thought it went sort of: Too many rowers collide with navigating boats because the available width has been reduced so much by moored boaters. That, of course, is quite a complicated argument to defend scientifically (if, indeed, it is the argument) as it requires some quite complex statistical modelling to put numbers to it which would sit alongside actual data from the current situation.
  6. Not so sure as land is only entered on the register when it changes hands and CaRT just inherited from BW via legislation. (SI?)
  7. No, it means the least it could be - in this case it could be 0%. In this case it means well below what 'I' want - rather than need. BTW. the last time we came down the Lee Navigation (I forget exactly where without going back over the blogs) and it was perhaps 6 or 7 years ago - we had an incident with a couple of chaps out rowing. They took notice of what was ahead their boat (ie behind them) and I could see that they were a danger to others so I came to a stop. Despite issuing an audible warning, they continued towards us relentlessly. One of them caught their blade
  8. That's not really helpful! The issue is that the 'rules' are far from clear even if the intent is clear. As a result it is a field day for those who want to sail as close to the wind as they can get. What you are probably saying is that those who stick to your personal interpretation of the rules don't have much to worry about from the T&C's.
  9. To us, and within reason, coping with the various problems that the canal system throw at you is all part of the experience and that includes the few occasions when calling out CaRT is necessary. If encountering a drained pound automatically cause you to throw a wobbly then perhaps you are in the wrong leisure activity. Canal cruising is not always for everyone - most of us are self confessed eccentrics anyway. I suspect that those who find this unacceptable are too often on an over-tight schedule. Anyone with a modicum of experience knows to build into their plan a good margin for
  10. As I understand it (and as far as I know this has not been tested in court) there remains the significant difference in terms of bona fide navigation in that a CC is expected to be making reasonable progress around the system but an HM may go out and return as often as they wish (or not) and for whatever distance but that they are still subject to the same restrictions regarding the length of stay at any particular 'place'. I seem to recall it being said, officially, that as soon as a boater returns to their home mooring then the clock is reset. (even though I am not sure what that means!
  11. Ah but it is law - Contract Law. Some folk tend to forget that much legislation is couched in quite general terms, allowing - in the end - judges to use their skill to make a judgement6 on what is fair and just. Hence, even though something like the CC 'rules' are not specifically set out on the face of an Act does not mean that they are unenforceable by legal action. Exactly so - when CaRT state an acceptable cruising pattern eg 20 miles range, they are not inventing a new law. What they are saying is what a boater is likely to have to do in order to 'convince The Board' th
  12. It used to be said of certain shops (think Bond Street) that if you have to ask the price the you cannot afford it. Much the same, it seems to me, to apply to cruising/mooring rules (aka expectations): if you have to ask if your hoped-for pattern is acceptable then you already know that it is not. This is made even more likely since CaRT are only able to pursue the most egregious cases and anything that even begins to look like an acceptable pattern will be accepted. Those who seek to have a legal rule on how much they have to travel are more often than not those who w
  13. There was me thinking that the railway was always stationary and the trains that moved . . . . !
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.