Mike Todd

Perhaps the dispute can be considered by reference to this clip from Google which shows the size of the bridge immediately below the lock and also that there is a much wider section just after, although the towpath is on the straighter side. I suspect that the picture on the first page of this thread was taken from the bridge. Bow hauling the boat out looks a big ask but not impossible. I think I recall that there are steps down just immediately below the lack and before the bridge (you can just see the dark line in the Google image) and the towpath does indeed extend under the bridge. However, you would need to have a rather long line. For those who don't know the lock it is numbered 8/9 as it amalgamates two previous locks (like up north at Tuel Lane, I believe, which is also vertiginously deep - however here you have to work with a lock keeper who will limit how you may operate that lock)

Thanks - yes I had found those blogs before and most encouraging they are! Still won't know what time will have as Christine has to fit in a trip to London in the middle of our time. Will just have to play it by ear when we get there but preparation makes it that bit easier.

Thanks - I had read your blog before. The Witham Fourth website does not seem to mention navigation at all - who is the best contact, did you find? We have only been down to Boston once in 2012. Did take a look at the the Anton's Gowt lock without attempting to go through (we did not really have the time on that trip) So we have seen 'the ladder' . . . actually my recollection is that it is not worse than some of the deepest locks (see another active thread re Bath locks!). However, for people who live generally without much by way of locks, or at least self-operate ones, then I guess it is most unusual to have to climb or descend such a ladder (and I'm not good at heights generally) I have, of course, scoured Google for as much info as I can find so this request is very much about personal experiences (the more recent the better) or otherwise hidden gems of web sites. Thanks to all who have contributed thus far. I'd be particularly interested in anyone who has navigated either Black Sluice, esp not in a convoy, or Kyme Eau (Sleaford). Ta everyone for your useful responses.

We were amused by this sign a couple of weeks ago when we passed through! However, I suspect it may have more to do with the legal department than anyone technical.

We are planning to go down the Fossdyke and Witham late May. Can anyone (esp Scholar Gypsy!) post any links to up to date info on which Drains are possible for 60ft nb and/or worth exploring, please?

Sadly, there are some people who seem to enjoy shouting at almost anyone that passes by, regardless of actual speed or - more importantly - what the effect is on their boat. I've certainly had comments when barely coasting by, even just arriving at or leaving a lock landing! One has to learn to smile and move on . . .

Depending on the overall way in which the lock is worked, the gain in slightly faster closing may well be outweighed by having to do the paddles afterwards, instead of over-lapping them with the boat being motored out of the lock. Although we have a general pattern, regardless of whether we are two or sometimes three, we do vary it partly to take account of individual circumstances (no two locks are ever the same) and partly for interest. Also note that when two of us we share the tasks fairly evenly although the other one is unkeen on driving into an empty broad lock, simply because of the extra effort to secure the boat before starting to fill.

It is a matter for debate and sometimes history as to whether a particular canal was ever designed for wide boats, even with wide locks. In the case of the GU, general opinion seems to suggest that the widening of the locks (perhaps save for the run up to the Port of Berkhampstead) was to allow both motor and butty through in one operation. Hence between locks only narrow boats had to pass each other, or through bridges and round bends etc.

A very long time ago, when I was a student, I opted to register for a postal vote when I anticipated that an election might be called for when I was at university. (wasn't called uni in those days!) I was most amused one day, whilst still at home in the last days of the summer vacation, to be accosted by a canvasser for a party which I did not support. I kept them talking for ages only then to reveal that they were wasting their time as I had already voted - but would not reveal how!

Such ad hominem slander does little to advance the arguments. By all means assert that, in your view, there is little evidence for a particular claim, or that there is no need for change, but the best way to approach this is to ensure that the overwhelming bulk of responses made to the consultation conform to your view. Of course, you may also wish to assert that, in your view, there is a covert agenda with which you fundamentally disagree, but it is much better to state what you believe that agenda to be. Otherwise the rest of us will not know and may well take the consultation at its face value. One of the hardest positions to maintain - and it is sometimes well justified - is that nothing needs to change. In general there is acceptance that in everything in this world there are ways of improving life. Otherwise we would still be living in caves (or worse). What is needed in this matter is an argument that says that no proposed alternative is better than the status quo - in every respect. Reality check - most new ideas tackle specific shortcomings of the status quo and ignore the fact that most things are being dealt with quite well. A new idea has to be tested against what works well not just that which does not. If you wish to argue for the retention of the status quo, one of the first things you need to do is to tabulate all those matters which you think are right about it and then proceed to admit that which is not so good. The debate then is about balancing the one with the other, factoring the differing uncertainty about how the new will turn out in practice compared with the greater certainty about what already exists. When someone proposes a new idea (in whatever domain) it does not really help to respond by asking what evidence there is for a change. At least the proposer will see all the benefits of the new and may well be blind to the good that already exists. What you really need to do is to present an objective assessment of the current licensing arrangements in order to highlight all the successful aspects so that any new idea can be tested (again objectively) against them.

Only done the Link once (in each direction) Going up we were warned that we might have to divert to the basin overnight which indeed proved to be the case. However, we were slower (for all sorts of reasons) than the rest of the convoy and by the time we were close to the dock the controller(?) was giving us quite a strong message to hurry up. Once inside the first gates ee thought that our problem was solved until we were further reminded to make haste to get through to the second gates. We soon saw why! Pity it was not explained in advance . . . It was a great experience.

A well rehearsed argument - see various threads going back over time! Partly, a boat ties up to the land above the water (ie the river bank) and thus is trespassing,l but also the riparian rights extend to mid stream, so it is trespass over the land under the boat. But Nigel M is the expert!

Gives a different cause than previously suggested here?

It seemed to me that the point of the advice was to recognise that there is no direct technical reason why a mobile phone should cause an explosion but, just as when driving, the distraction cause by talking, texting or googling etc whilst fueling can itself be the bigger source of danger. For the most part, mobile phones today are treated as always-on so, even if not being answered etc they will be in-use whilst on the forecourt. The safest place for them during this time is inside the car - out of temptations way. After all, the call itself may be 'incendiary' . . .

It is worse than that (depending on your point of view): for complex assessments (such as for DLA) the criteria are published but too few of the claimants are aware of this unless they seek independent advice. Advisers reasonable well trained will be aware how seemingly similar replies can lead to very different scores and hence levels of benefit. OK, so it may well be designed to weed out those whose reply to anything is that they cannot help themselves, but any system devised for relatively unskilled operation will be a blunt instrument, one that is clearly skewed towards not giving out benefits. There is no absolute standard by which it can unarguably be agreed that above you get no benefit, below you definitely do get help. It is inevitably a relative standard - in the 70's and 80's we became increasingly as a society concerned to make sure no-one was allowed to fall through a safety net. As a result, the total bill for benefits rose substantially (although perhaps not as much as some politicians and voters would like to believe and not always for the reasons oft quoted - life expectancy is the largest factor) with the result that the banking crisis was almost designed for those with a long standing ambition to fade 'the state' out of existence. Such people set the above mentioned bar at a very low level, believing that almost anyone should be capable of supporting themselves, if only they tried hard enough. We have not gone that far (yet!) but there is very considerable downward pressure with the result that many people who have come to assume (either as a benefit recipient or otherwise) a given level of support are now disappointed that they do not qualify. Sadly, the fact that our streets (especially those in leafy suburban Surrey) are not stuffed full of people wholly incapable of finding anywhere else to live/survive, is grist to the mill of those seeking further reductions, or at least to justify the present cuts. We have entered an age of 'self' and so the overall trend will be to reduce benefits downwards yet further until the whole thing collapses. The sense that I grew up with that society did mean something (not that 'there is no such thing as society') is now much maligned and taxes are seen as something to be resisted at all costs rather than a part of a way of obtaining a fairer society. Sadly even self interest does not have an effect, recognizing that even for the better off, a fairer society will make their life better as well. I don't actualluy believe that 'they' have deliberately created a complex system solely in order to deter as many potential claimants as possible - I don't think 'they' are that clever - but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is exactly what has happened and that there are few in positions to change it with a will to correct the problems.

If in difficulty, or just needing help, contact local Citizens Advice. They are one of the few such organsiations whose advice - whilst given face to face locally - is backed by a national system of information to ensure best advice whenever possible (of course this does sometimes involve telling people that they cannot get that which they expect!)

On another forum, a former inhabitant of this village has asserted that there are no safety standards applicable to canal boats that are outside of BSS (he actually said BSC) - or at least he accused a CaRT person of lying when he stated that there were other safety standards. Does this incident not indicate that there is definitely a need for safety standards other than those enshrined in BSS? (Leaving aside the fact that RCD and BSS are not wholly aligned).

I thought that you had to have the riparian owners consent in order to moor legally. If you don't know who the riparian owner is, how can you obtain their consent?

A lesson too often overlooked by public bodies, especially those in a near monopolistic position: you can push so far in reducing charges or increasing prices, but if the other party has no obligatio other than to make a profit (whether for owners or shareholders) then if pushed too far they will simply stop playing the game. See it before especially in services that are difficult to replace. Happening in a big way with care homes - for too long the Government (although it hides behind the local authorities but actually pulls the strings) has paid below costs, leaving private operators to cross subsidise from private clients. We are now in a near catastrophic melt down as many providers are just handing back their public contracts. Interesting to note that Trump has mis-judged the American mood: he put the abolition of Obamacare in order to fund tax cuts at the forefront of his election campaign and at that stage it worked. However, 24 million people (not to mention their relatives that would have to help out with cash) have now realised what it all means and are in revolt - although the well-off may yet win out.

Is it just me or is the Other Place (aka the Dark Side or Narrowboatworld) having a serious technical problem?

I don't have a problem with the situation you quote: if a boater can properly satisfy the board and can show the necessary documentation (BSS, insurance) then as it stands there is a right to have a licence (along with a duty to abide by it!). I would not be keen on moving to a situation in which CaRT or their successor had the right to deny a licence without having to show reasonable cause. Go to a private supplier and they can shut their door in your face if they do not like the look of it and, save for cases covered by laws against discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic, you cannot force them to supply you. (Marinas are, for example, permitted to ban boats they think make their site look untidy!) I am a bit unsure how you think a byelaw (current or future) would help in the particular situation. As I said, I think there is greater room for debate about what happens after a s8 rather than before it.

I am well aware of the direction of travel in Nigel's argument regarding proportionality but I too was wondering how well it might fly. Firstly, almost every legal situation has multiple means of seeking remedy to a specific situation and it is up to the litigant to determine which they present to the court (I know that sometimes litigants hedge their bets with optional alternatives if the court reject the first one). Just because one litigant chooses a specific route does not bind all others to follow suit. This means that as well as showing that there are alternatives to s8, it is necessary to demonstrate that those alternatives are equally effective as well as significantly less punitive. (If in doubt, consider the Shylock case!) Which then leads to the second point: the context of the EA waters is very different from those covered by CaRT under canal legislation, not least because of the Right of Navigation, however that is interpreted. This may well mean that it is not easy to argue that the EA approach will be as effective in the CaRT context, although I note that EA can be quite draconian on occasions - it took agreement with a LA to change byelaws to sort some long stay problems! Where I would have thought that there was room for argument (as in another well known case or two) is whether the subsequent action with a seized boat is proportionate. On the other hand, how many s8 cases have there been which did not have considerable history that is germane to a case based on having to satisfy the Board that the commitments made by the boater are genuine? As far as I can see, the only argument open to a boater once a s8 case is initiated is to seek judicial review that the Board were not reasonable in failing to be satisfied. Once they are reasonably 'not satisfied' then all else flows naturally from that point.

That's 5 sigma

But they do need to be where a disposal company is prepared to bring their truck to empty them! I doubt whether CART wanted to move them.

Many a piece of software has failed through inattention to the precedence of operators. Yes I know I was using shorthand but I was not really expecting to encounter fellow mathematicians . . . so wrote as one speaks. But it is nice to meet a fellow pedant