Mike Todd

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/Inner London ULEZ One Year Report - final.pdf suggests otherwise, at least in London. Maybe it is the case that the stricter the scheme, the greater the results (surprise!)

I think that the law (a) requires CaRT to issue a licence provided that the boater has met certain stated conditions - not a lot. (b) allows CaRT to devise T and Cs consistent with legislation (both general and canal specific) and (c) allows CaRT to remove boats that do not have a licence, after due warning It should be noted that the ability of CaRT to remove a boat for lack of a licence does not specify the circumstances of that lack. Hence, it is quite possible for a boat to be removed, not because they refuse to buy one, but because CaRT has refused to issue one on the grounds that they are not convinced that the boater will - in future - comply with T and C s. Incidentally, 'being on a six month' has entered the canal jargon!

That is exactly what is being done now, except that it is six monthly.

But the law says it can set T and Cs.

Actually the law is silent on the matter of usage. Hence it is possible that the T and Cs could be altered to require at least an annual visit, ad thus is not contrary to the law.

Avoids issues over transporting waste to a separate site. And costs

If you keep the mooring (as we do) then you always have a home mooring available (that is all that is required, not that you are always there). In the terms indicated, you never become a CCer unless you give up the home mooring. Some of us actually think that a boat is for cruising not just a weekend cottage. Some poeple do. AFAIK, the marina with a 'modern' NAA pays CaRT on the basis of the number of floating moorings, and not any hard standings.

Since the criterion is 'having a home mooring' there is nothing said about how often the boat may be used. Hence there is nothing to decide should a boat be out for a long period. At least I hope so since that has been our pattern for the past few years.

More accurately the G case was that he failed to convince the Board that he intended to comply with the T&C's and so was refused a licence despite his offer to buy one.

But in this case it was a Gov requirement not a CaRT Management decision. My guess is that if it were the latter then we would have had a position in between - ie use of contractors when sensible(ie infrequently needed skills or those hard to manage eg large infrastructure projects) but retention of greater quantity of in house skills, esp those that can be deployed year round. The better planning of replacements and use of main season for some works is an example. An arbitrary but simple solution would be to say that a Gold licence confers a maximum no of days on EA waters (assuming that a Gold is primarily for boaters whose principal use is CaRT navigations) The Proposals documents make that clear.

A high proportion of my 'sightings' are located in marinas. It is open to CaRT to state that a Winter Mooring (perhaps re-named Winter Permit) does not confer Home Mooring status. In the past CaRT have said (at last to me) that if you cease to have a HM mid licence then you should update your details. This is going to be a complication with these proposals.

I don't think it was CaRT that banned it but the waste collectors. AFAIK, it is not an illegal practice as defined by hazardous waste disposal, unless it is not actually composted material. CaRT have to charge a towpath mooring at a rate based on the competition. Can you find an existing mooring in that area for less than £3K? Not entirely accurate: the email regarding the licence increases includes a link to the equality assessment of the proposals. It makes clear that CaRT is not a Public Body, as defined in legislation, other than in regard to navigation matters, but it has published this assessment voluntarily. The conclusion is that the proposals do not impact, within reasonable considerations, in a way that adversely affects boaters with protected characteristics. Elsewhere it also shows that boaters on very low incomes are less impacted than those on very modest incomes. )But income is not a protected characteristic, anyway)

As I understand iot, that is a pretty high response rate to a survey when 5% is more common! The impact on low income cc's can easily be overstated, although it is complicated. In principle, such boaters should be eligible for UC, if they are low income as defined by UC, and so are actually those most able to afford the increase as it will be covered by UC (unless the Gov pull a fast one and fail to increase UC to match) As with much of the current economic debate, it is the 'just about managing' - many of whom are pensioners - who will be most impacted. This is a group that politicians seem to take for granted at their peril. A bit of a contradiction - if you are a CCer - then by definition you do not have a home mooring, whether or not it is residential does not matter! But a shared owners boat is not a residential boat, surely?

I first spotted it in 2020 - see https://nbalchemy.blogspot.com/2020/08/alvechurch.html

As always with statistics, be careful about what you are seeing: it says 18 miles dredged across 18 miles of waterway. Since some of the projects IIRC were spot dredging, it may be that less that 18 miles of canal were dredged. But we cannot tell from that para alone.

Might have originally been made for somewhere else? This technique has now been used long enough to see some gates, where it has been used, get to their replacement date.

I read the sign as meaning two minutes from itself to the portage point, not to pass the bridge

And usually so close to the bridge that it would take a snail to be that long getting there.

I think you are making a bit of a pedantic point, I was just trying to clarify the direction of the athwartships force. However, it is the prop that generates the force to drive the boat forward in the first place. It also creates the gradient - see comments elsewhere about excess engine speed digging the stern ever deeper into the silt.

Your final assumption is, alas, correct! Usually, passing close to something results in them being drawn together. Most frequently when getting to close to a tunnel wall and being unable to escape it. In the narrow gap, the water drawn back by the prop reduces the pressure and hence pulls ever closer. Can often see the effect in narrow bridge holes.

A boat reversed past us day before yesterday uding a pole at the bow to correct the lack of steerage in reverse. They seemed to be foung remarkably well as they has minimal room either side from moored boats and they avoided touching us. Not easy in this location even when in forward.

Remember that GDPR is about collecting information in the first place as well as not revealing it without good cause. All orgs need to declare their purposes for any data collection and also, I think state for how long it will be retained.

They do if they are an earnest lawyer seeking a loophole defence.

Like car speedos that can read up to some ridiculous speed. Since most meters are at their best accuracy in mid range, it is generally good to have one that has a nominal max well above the possible max. Especially if exceeding the max has serious consequences.

Dont most if the trains switch to manual when out in the sticks and open air?