Mike Todd

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 . . .

But they will still not pay out more than the boat is assessed in value at the time of loss.

That, like many of the H&S stories, is not quite how I understand the present safeguarding framework. Such rules will have been adopted by particular organisations who may, for whatever reason, go well beyond the statutory requirements. Overall, the aim is to provide a safe (in the context of potential abuse) environment - mitigating the risks of falling off a horse is a different matter - and on its own does not specify what you may or may not do, other legislation deals with what is abuse. The main protection is to ensure that there is always another person at hand if at all possible and never do something that might be misinterpreted. "When in doubt, don't" is not the same as "don't" Also, documenting what has happened is also an important preventative measure, at least preventative against malicious or mistaken accusations. Gender is also a complex matter as an organisation also has to have regard to equality legislation - it cannot, for example, assume that women are 'safe' whilst men are 'suspect'.

What about private residence with a roof of tiles?

That was what I was saying but David Mack was - effectively - reminding me that from the junction you go down and under the Leek Branch if you are going the other way to Froghall.

True - I should have said Caldon, Leek Branch.

No doubt CaRT have found that some mooring owners have not played it straight and allowed more boats than they should have - especially now that the proper marinas will be paying NAA based on the number of moorings. At least one marina, allegedly, reduced its official moorings count in order to reduce its NAA payments. If CaRT follow what most other regulatory bodies are doing which is to use a risk-based approach to decide who to inspect most frequently. OTOH, going to a marina and checking all the boats there is a quick way to up the checked-boats-count.

But it has to be available on demand and it would not be OK for a marina to have more boats registered as having their home mooring at that plae than there are moorings.

Only so if the highest pound is on a through route - it may be a dead end in which case there is just the one lock on its approach to the summit (eg Tipton, Llangollen or Caldon and plenty others)

Especially when lower than the river

Sure you did not mean less?

Access to the opposite side is down a difficult slope and I would have expected that the Council would have to post such signs to cover themselves, regardless of what action they might or might not take. People going up and down, especially in quantity, would not do the bank much good either? This was meant to be a reply to the previous post - #53

If the current legal powers are sufficient for an appropriate degree of control on the ML, I would have expected Parliament to have thrown out the Bill at committee stages - despite popular opinion I don't think they generally like unnecessary new laws, there are enough of them left over from ancient history as it is. I had thought that the problems on the ML were not dissimilar to those on other navigations in that the legal process is deliberately difficult for landlords to obtain possession of something that is someone's home. Of course, if you are a landlord (and there are plenty of perfectly good ones with small portfolios, perhaps just the one house being rented out whilst the owner is living elsewhere for the time being) the picture can look very different if you have a tenant that never pays any rent after having moved in and all but trashes the place. At the same time, the move to largely shorthold tenancies creates its own social problems - specifically with credit and almost all transactions these days involve having a good credit score! (unless under the counter . . .) The new Act, as I understand it, gives the MLC powers to introduce a registration scheme and to make some matters consequent upon that. as with CaRT, removing a licence can be seen as the simplest route towards removing an unwanted boat - proving that it is not licensed/registered is much the simplest administrative action. (Of course, that draws a veil over the process by which the licence /registration is withdrawn, usually by enforcing conditions such as insurance and safety) Much was said in Parliament during the passage of the Bill that MLC needed new powers but that these were in exchange for stronger duties to maintain and provide an adequate level of boater services, funded in part from the registration fees revenue. My impression was that Parliament sought to enable a genuinely nomadic way of life on the ML, subject to the lightest regulatory touch that was reasonable, whilst making it much harder for unreasonable situations to remain 'under the radar' or even when known, unremoveable. Anything based on a 'reasonableness' test will always be, on the one hand, better for the application of justice suited to specific cases but, on the other hand, open to suspicion that it is used partially. Nigel M may know more as he is, I suspect, still in touch with the folk on the ground, but I don't think that MLC have yet announced any action consequent on the passage the Act.

But the recent Middle Level Act will change all that.

My recollection and/or observation may be inadequate, but my memory tells me that the pallets were empty. We were not given the option of breasting up- to fill with fuel, more that it was unavoidable because the berth was occupied, but, as I indicated, we were not sufficiently needy to push it. We had other issues to deal with as well.

Depends on which locks and how they were built. You do have to have been through them to know which are which. In some cases, it is important to know (a) where to position the boat fore and aft, right froward has a different effect from back a bit (b) when to with over to using the gate paddles to hold the boat - usually the opposite one first (c) what to do when one or more of the gate or ground paddles is not provided or functioning There are very few absolute rules about locking through - except the one about being friendly to your fellow boaters - oh, and the lockie!