Mike Todd

Being always right and knowing everything are not the same. (So long as you do know what you don't know, unlike Donald Rumsfeld)

Don't know the actual fall but it is quite a climb down the ladder to get back on the boat after going through!

Where can you empty toilet? Where is next water point? Is xxx site really as bad as it seems? Why doesn't xxx County Highways mend the potholes in Love Lane? Why should live aboard caravanners have to pay a licence fee for their car? Isn't is scandalous that xx was towed away from his roadside spot in xxx County? What's the narrowest/highest land in England? Highways England really ought to make every road wide enough for at least two caravans at a time. xxx camping site has gone out of business - shocking! If we gave it our best shot I am sure that we really could show them how to do it properly!

But which Mike?

Unless, as some do, the contract specifies that the owner may re-allocate spaces (perhaps to avoid doubt over planning) Only requires that space (any space) is available when the moorer turns up (with a boat)

Perhaps comes into the same category as when you spot that a shopkeeper has undercharged you. You may not have an obligation to point it out (it could be implied that by stating a different price it counts as an offer to trade) but is it morally expected? Not all things in life are entirely regulated by specific laws.

I'd be surprised if your are correct: every place has some form of planning designation - you cannot build a house in a field just because you have not applied for planning permission. Any activity that requires planning permission is not permitted unless granted - surely?

I did not say it was simple - law never is! However, I was really challenging the apparent assumption that planning issues were not law. Since the planning permission (eg for a marina) will have been obtained by the owner/operator the they probably have the primary duty to comply and to ensure that the use of their facility complies -which would mean taking reasonable steps etc. If the LA decided to pursue the matter then the marina owner would have to show that they had exercise due diligence. For example, they might be able to evidence taking copies of documentation that showed that the moorer has a permanent home elsewhere, but would not be liable if the documents were tendered fraudulently. The first page returned from a quick Google was this https://www.darlingtons.com/blog/breach-of-planning-enforcement-and-some-severe-penalties the headline of which is that "the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which gives them powers to confiscate any financial gains which are made as a result of breach of planning control."

Since you will be descending first, remember that this needs much more care than ascending. In the latter case, once you are in the lock you know you will make it - but watch the water from above doesn't drown you - but the former requires you to keep a very close eye as the cill emerges (actually quite a bit before then, once you can see it you are pretty much OK). Don't forget to lift the fenders!

A parallel situation occurs in places where holiday homes have been built with a condition that they are not used for permanent residence. In many cases the developer encourage (or did not actively discourage) buyers from assuming that this was just a formality until the LA discovered the situation and decided on enforcement. Always sad cases. I suspect that this may be somewhat of a legacy issue as I think that most are not very wary of granting permission with these restrictions on the basis that too many people very quickly flout the permission and dare the LA to take action. I thought that planning law was just that - law.

My point was that Cello are around 40 - 50% more expensive than the mass product equivalent - or were at least that 2 years ago when we kitted out our new boat. be available if you poke inside. Since a 12v unit will also being doing some voltage conversion it requires quite a bit of investigation to determine the relative merits of each approach -and then to apply a cost benefit trade off. as some one else pointed out, if you are already using main to power something else, especially if used with the tv, then the main losses are already incurred by having the inverter turned on. It would be necessary to know the differential losses. I am not trying to suggest one or other solution but rather to indicate that a 'real' calculation is a lot more complex than is usually suggested as there are too many hidden factors.

But where does the USB come from? First point: 12v TV's are specialist items and much more expensive than mass products designed for mains AC. Second point: whilst it is true that an inverter has losses incurred in converting the 12v battery power to mains AC, the internals of a TV are probably not 12v either - they have to convert as well. (So a more detailed calculation which is beyond me at this time of day is needed to make a proper energy comparison) Third point: increasingly folk want to view something other than terrestrial TV and so also have additional boxes for satellite, Netflix, NOW or whatever and a well thought out plan has to take these into account - do any of them have a 12v form? Many do, however, have USB and so we have to consider how the USB is generated Fourthly: unless you really want to binge on all day TV, it is not the most power hungry feature on board - try comparing it with a fridge! Marginal savings on an already quite modest consumption are not worth sacrificing convenience over energy - unless saving the planet is your over-riding ambition. Fifthly: you may also want to take into consideration that energy losses vary in respect of who 'pays' for them. If you are living 'off grid' then the cost is probably mainly one of convenience - it is hard to see wasted solar power as in itself top of the eco crime league, but if it comes from a land line, then a different matter - at least whilst it comes predominantly from non-renewables. (There is perhaps 10-15% loss between power plant and consumer) If you routinely top up your batteries as a side effect of cruising then a different equation is needed - most of the power stored would otherwise be wasted but it is not entirely free as the alternator does add a load to the engine which in turn costs fuel - but it may be hard to quantify. In my experience, nothing in the world of energy (especially in terms of eco friendly choices) is ever as simple as campaigners, from whatever base, like to make out. In some case, the over-looked side effects can wipe out the supposed gains.

The NBTA document does appear to be based on an extended or even mistaken reading of the legislation and guidance. The start point is the need for LHA's to adhere to the Equalities Act and NBTA make reference to Protected Characteristics (but Navigation Authorities are not LHA's): age disability gender reassignment marriage and civil partnership pregnancy and maternity race religion or belief sex sexual orientation (see https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics) Bargees are not directly referenced in this list but NBTA build their case from the element of race. Certainly there is quite a lot of interest in some quarters regarding the impact of discrimination on Roma and Gypsy communities and the need to combat it. The Roma and Gypsy communities are racial in original and it is right that their interests are protected. It is also true that these two groups generally (but by no means always) fall into the general classification of Travellers, although this characteristic (which is not protected) is principally defined by behaviour than racial origin - anyone can become a Traveller but you can only become a member of the Roma and Gypsy communities by birth (or perhaps be marriage) The following may be helpful in clarifying where the Equalities Act impinges and where it does not. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination/ In any event, I suspect that the case as presented would need to demonstrate discrimination rather than deprivation - which are two different concepts. A particular group of Bargees may well be deprived/disadvantaged (which sadly happens in a non-egalitarian society) without being discriminated against. Succeeding in court would, I suspect, be very complex. The case seems to have inherent internal contradictions: They assert that a boat is a home (hence the need to view a Bargee's boat in that light) but if a Bargee is living long term on that boat (and hence have the list of needs laid out) then they cannot be considered as homeless. Since there is no right to live exclusively on a boat then the best that could be established is that a LHA has, in the event that they become homeless for reasons not of their own cause, to provide them with a home. That home will be where the LHS (reasonably) offers it, depending on availability. It cannot be precisely demanded by the homeless Bargee, any more than a homeless person in, say Smethwick, could demand a home in, say, Chelsea.

Just question the correlation . . .

Has a lot of potential . . .