Mike Todd

We have just spent a few days on ML and will be continuing our cruise in a short while, across to the Great Ouse and later back through ML. As a result we are acutely aware of the provisions for boaters! What may be interesting to grind into your mix is that the MLC state very clearly in their guidance notes that none of the moorings are provided by them. Hence any commitment needs to ensure that this does indeed become their responsibility - if they promise to double what they provide at the moment it will not make any difference! Indeed I am unclear whether the MLC currently provide any boater facilities, other than maintaining the actual navigation (including locks). But I may be doing them an injustice.!

Sadly the swan is no more, better change to be polo.

Given the nature of the boating community in the various stages of commercial usage - such as level of education, literacy, tribal communication etc etc - I suspect it is extremely likely that many different names were used for the same places. The idea of having definitive lists just did not occur to people in previous generations - standardisation is a very modern concept. After all, they probably could not even agree on the same spelling even if they could on the sound!

Your persistence in getting to the real story is really important and I trust that you will continue to do so and not be put off by those who just want to take the opportunity to be cynical. As you say, the present story is entirely credible in the circumstances. Engineering is not science and always involves matters of judgement. Sometimes it doesn't pan out (look at bridges that spectacularly collapsed as a result of pushing at boundaries of knowledge) Progress is made when folk learn from mistakes - anyone who has never made the wrong call has never learnt anything!

I know that it is comforting to knock CaRT and that some also want to suggest that EA is soooo much better than CaRT, but they should try cruising (especially not too fast) along waters such as he River Nene, where we have been for the past few days. The EA really do not have much thought for what ash to be done to encourage greater usage - we have typically seen 4 or 5, 8 at the most, boats moving on any one day. A well as the considerable shortage of water and elsan places, there are previous few places to moor, especially at some of the more interesting villages along the way. We have cruised for almost a day without seeing anywhere even for lunch. This is all the more an issue given that this is one of the best rivers to cruise - visually. Even the places that are provided are oftenb about as basic as can be.

And the confusion can be added to be the fact the lock 23, the next one northwards, is called Stoke Hammond Lock

Under what circumstances do they not need a court order to do that? One of the important differences between boats and cars is that the latter (well almost) are not places for living in.

Is that the one that has been off-on for a good number of years? Follows the line a cross the canal of something or other now abandoned.

Q = Queer or Questioning (ie unsure) I = Intersex. The latter is the one characteristic that for certain is not a lifestyle choice - and therefore cannot be ignored in the way some attempt to do by demeaning the other choices as not inherent. (I really ought to have said that at greater length to avoid upsetting someone or other but I guess you know what I mean!) I did see another letter added the other day but it temporarily escapes me!

Although what has been said about a broker being an intermediary is correct, buyers need to check as some places offer to buy for cash and I presume that they they sell them on rather than scrapping them or giving them away. As such, the usual rules about sales by a business most surely apply. Although what has been said about a broker being an intermediary is correct, buyers need to check as some places offer to buy for cash and I presume that they they sell them on rather than scrapping them or giving them away. As such, the usual rules about sales by a business must surely apply.

Anyone know if they obtained planning permission?

There are many ways of skinning a cat (as they say!) but this is about the most offensive language I have seen. It would make most people frightened to moor (or park their car when used or that purpose) Especially when introduced into was had hitherto been a fairly laid back world. There have been some well known difficult cases but, as has been reported on the K&A, actually persistent efforts by CaRT staff have made a considerable difference without recourse to this kind of language. Makes the approach that Nigel M finds so problematic to be almost benign!

If that's the one on the Staffs and Worcester (?) I have believed it to be a local joke! It's onbly becoming in poor taste as a result of the fears engendered by developments as reported in this thread.

I've no idea but someone spent quiet a bit of money making and erecting the various signs! They obviously expect to make a profit from it.

I take your points about terminology but re-reading your original post it is disingenuous to claim that it was a neutral post. The way you expressed it clearly seeks to make trouble over sewage output not being 'nicer' water. In many places such additional water will improve the canal water quality rather than worsen it!

I was not best pleased to see DE notices (in the form already described) at the top of the Hatton flight. As both a business and a PR exercise, the content is about as bad as it can get. It left even me feeling more than a little intimidated. Two specific points: 1. Although it referred to boats not authorised to moor there, there was no mention of how such authority might be obtained. 2. These notices seemed to apply to the short stretch of long term moorings between the service point above the lock and the stretch marked as two days max. I was somewhat unsure whether DE knew that they could not apply their authoritarian tactics to anyone who moored on the 2 day (note not 48 hours!) They may not even realise that nearly all boaters are already authorised to stay on such moorings for the specified time as part of their general licence. To me the notices felt extremely uncomfortable. I support the principle of taking action against boaters manifestly abusing mooring facilities but this looks like something that is about to go horribly wrong. I hope that our boater representatives will lobby CaRT in the strongest possible terms to get this changed. I suspect that 'someone' felt that this was a simple and soft option to the fuss about long term overstayers without looking too closely about the wider implications and probably unintended consequences. Since I was under the impression that CaRT (and BW before them) had stated that unused LT moorings could be used temporarily, so long as the space is immediately yielded if a rightful moorer turns up, so I am not sure about whether the Hatton scheme is even consistent with this position. Needs urgent clarification in the strongest terms. What about winter moorings?

I was not best plkeased to see DE notices (in the form already d

Seems he's quite good on LGBTQI as well . . .

They will have considerable say via contract, no doubt. However, I am sure that EA are even more stringent!

It is not quite correct to describe sewage works outfall as effluent - that is better used, I believe, to describe its input. Many sewage works discharge into natural water courses and there are strict laws on not putting out anything that pollutes the rivers etc. I know that some larger treatment works are wont to demonstrate the effectiveness of their process by offering a glass of water to visitors!

And don't forget to fill the water tank before they measure . . .

I'm not sure about your long journey comment. If you travel at 2 hours per day then - assuming all else is equal - it will take five times as long on the calendar to find the same number of problems as if you travel at 10 hours per day - assuming however that you only count problems related to navigating the boat. But the same principle applies to other facilities (eg water pump) but with a different calculation. Most problems relate to actual usage. On the other hand, many (good) mechanical systems like being used so that problems arise in the first short period of use and then settle down so that long journeys might actually be more reliable than a lot of short ones. Certainly, with electrics, especially batteries, lots of short trips have to managed carefully so as not to run down the batteries or otherwise allow them to discharge too much.

Start by consulting the Friends of the River Nene web site. http://friendsoftherivernene.co.uk

We last came herein August 2010 (but it rained and wind was a problem for several days!) Our photos show we reached almost exactly the position shown in this photo and I do not recall any special difficulty in turning. But then, we are primarily canal cruisers and use to maneuvering in tight places unlike a lot of Thames folk! Yes, it is worth going that far, so long as silting in the meantime has not impeded progress - just so long as you have that natural quirk of wanting to get to obscure places just because you can! Also lends support to the ongoing efforts to open up the route beyond here.

I trust you mean Kingswood rather than Lapworth! Otherwise there really would be some serious damage . . .