Mike Todd

But the use of misinformation, both deliberate and accidental, is far from new - it as been a part of warfare for as long as history is available. (The Trojan Horse was a form of fake news!) The arrival of cheap and fast air travel meant that diseases spread further and quicker and the internet similarly allows misinformation (bad news always spreads quicker than good, for some reason) to reach places that hitherto it would not, just because it attenuates with distance. Now there are few places on the earth where internet (mis)information does not reach.

It somewhat depends on what is mean by 'the internet'. The first fully functional wide are network is usually said to be ARPANET which began life in the late 60's. X25 came in a similar time frame but TCP/IP overtook it in popularity (money talks louder than logic!) . It was a much more 'hard-wired' approach back then with specific applications using the packet technology to send data over telephonic links. In Europe especially, the main impetus was for email to enable communication between researchers working collaboratively on large projects with teams in many countries. Many people think that internet = WWW but it was not until around 1992 before that latter became available and turned the internet into a repository of information as much as a means of communication.

Something about 'ability to pay'? One problem is that if you set the charge at a level that everyone can pay then you raise very little from those on better incomes or resources. Not for nothing is our system called a 'progressive' tax.

If you zoom into that map quite a bit it appears that there are services at the upper end. Only when zooming in a lot more is it revealed that the services are actually on the Cut not the river. I recall that it was not long ago that a boat had to be rescued much closer to the weir (from below). I am wondering (and there are better experts around on the Forum to reply) whether this section does still have a right to navigate, going back yonks and never extinguished. In which case the notice at Wilford is perhaps advisory and not mandatory. There are plenty of places where sections of both rivers and canals are not advised for navigation but which various people see as a challenge. Compare the reactions to this story to those about the cruise up to Welches Dam and the inclusion of some points on the IWA Challenge list. The part which MartynG linked to clearly indicates that the river around Cranfleet and Sawley Cuts are not navigable whilst it explicitly shows the par above Wilford as navigable.

That depends on the examiner using the correct email address. It may have bounced and she/he did not spot it. (We had this a few days ago when a quote for some work on the house was sent by email and the chap was chasing, somewhat indignant that we had not responded. Turned out that he had inserted an extra x in the email address. If it is a corporate sender then the bounces may just go to an IT admin person or be dumped altogether)

If a surveyor finds a problem, they will tell you (it is in their interests so to do unless corrupt). What they don't find they cannot tell you about although in some case they can warn about where they have not looked. So you at least get something - usually more effective when it stops you buying a bad boat and less comfort when buying a better one.

Straight out of the laissez-faire textbook? (other political philosophies are available!) Yup - the problem is that (which I realised as I wrote wot I did) is that one person's tax avoidance is another person's tax planning.

It is not quite that simple. Such logic works well in a commercial 'selling' organisation and helps to maximise turnover (which often incorrectly is used a measure of success). However, in organisations with largely fixed income and whose whole ethos is about how well they spend their income, it can have a detrimental effect as it appears that the organisation has lost income (rather than reduced expenses). I know as I have been responsible for a multi-million charity that keeps going through this debate. It is tempting always to end up deciding to do the opposite of what we decided last time. That is the nature of 'democratic' decision making: it attends to the problems and ignores the existing benefits.

'any well run business' would do all of these things, depending on the specifics of their market. How else, do they gain a 'good grasp of their business'? Of course, personal contact is important and ensuring that it feeds up the food chain but a large business, in numbers and in geography, has to resort to more than word of mouth as it can be quite distorted - as can listening here at times! I may have misunderstood an earlier aside about the survey but it does no good at all to ridicule respondents for their answers - it makes it look as if i was set up to achieve a specific outcome rather than an objective measurement.

Difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is criminal and both are immoral.

As I have read it, the intention was to allow broad beam to Birmingham (actually just south of Camp Hill which was never planned to be widened but that the works only got as far as widening the locks. Then the traffic and demand for wide barges did not materialise enough to justify investment in what happens between the locks, especially in terms of width (especially for passing) and depth as well as loading/unloading facilities. This also makes more sense of the Hilmorton situation. We do also have to remember that it was not necessary to allow for moored boats other than at recognised transhipment points, where it would probably be widened anyway. This is what makes today's context rather different and more contentious.

Not exactly 'made up': The law specifies that The Board have to be satisfied that the pattern of cruising constitutes bona fide navigation and what it has done is indicate what conditions would make it difficult for a boater to persuade The Board. AFAIK, they have very carefully avoided any statement that says what you must do for the reasons stated. That, however, does not mean that they have 'made up' the conditions as they are entitled to impose conditions subject only to the possibility of a judicial review that says that they have done so unreasonably. (Assuming that 'made up ' is intended to imply that they are acting outside the law) The term Continuous Cruiser is, I believe, just common parlance in the same way that Continuous Moorer is. In some context both are derogatory terms! The proper term 'boats without a home mooring' is factually determinable, save for the issue of so-called ghost moorings, in a way that Continuous Cruising is not.

It seems a bit contentious as to what the original intentions were for some of the so-called broad canals -whether they were intended for boats > 7 feet beam or for better passage of two narrowboats. As far as I can see, some of the 20C improvements were not properly followed through in term so of improving the infrastructure between locks following the construction of wide locks. The increasing usage today was, as far as I can see, never achieved in the days of commercial carrying.

I was aware of those citations and also that the matter is not limited to them.

Nothing to do with CC - private marinas can set whatever restrictions they choose - could even be zero nights. Matter for their business plan and their interpretation of planning permissions. Our boat is currently in a marina that has options for 'heavy usage' but they are quite vigilant about not being sole residence.