Mike Todd

We are hoping to do Wissey, Little Ouse and Lark before we spend a few days in a marina at Huntingdon - but today's extra trip down the Relief Channel (and a lengthy boat clean) means we are not sure where we will be! Surprised that we have enjoyed the Relief Channel - with no flow the pontoons are well known water amenity sites (ie places to jump in or launch canoes from) We will be back up through the lock tomorrow. Enjoy the crossing from Salters Lode - when are you booked? Mind you, when we rang two days ahead we were told just to turn up when we wanted to. OTOH, ringing is he easiest way to find out the passage times! Coming back is probably the trickier. A local boater had suggested that it is best to get a weekend mooring ahead of time as it is likely to be busy . . . come back rain, all is forgiven.

try telling that idea gto the police . . .

Tyler Wilson (you'd soon know if you had to clear the prop!) and all the rest by Phil Herrington, Stem to Stern in Stafford. I'm a bit prejudiced but I'd happily recommend him to even the fussiest client.

I'd been keeping an eye out for you and wondered if you had passed us whilst we were in March on Sunday morning. However, Maureen at Marchmount (plus daughter and grand daughter!) assured us that they had not seen you so we already surmised that you must have stopped before where we were moored.

We were there last night! Ah I was wrong twas not that one (at least if you mean the one just out of the town centre)We stayed on the very short piece just before the sani block actually just by the library. It is better than the one directly opposite and was very quiet. Shops just a couple if mins walk.

Sorry not to be able to stop and chat thus afternoon but the Fox's day boat was just passing! Having had a slight delay at Maureen's lock we were a tad concerned about mooring in U well but in the event it was fine. No-one else! I was also so unclued-up about your location, what with not wearing my hearing aids on account of engine noise and avoiding the other boat, that it was down to Christine to realise what you were saying. Having cruisesd for ages with not much happening, why does it all happen at once?

ditto

Sorry to be unclear but I was referring to the photos that I took last month when cruising from Northampton to Peterborough. A few are included in our blog nbalchemy.blogspot.com

My pix clearly show that Earls Barton is electrified

They would definitely require more paperwork! (A collection in a public place)

Found the other one: Woodford. We noted that one in our blog because Christine had help from an EA staff member cutting grass!

Ashton and Perio have wheels

According to my photos, Upper Ringstead, Denford and Warmington are definitely manual wheel operated but that Elton is electrified. I cannot be sure about Perio and Ashton so I will check other sources. There is a lot to look through to find the missing one!

At least a month ago when we came down the holes were still there where I bothered to check. However, they are well in from the outer edge and so the mechanical advantage is significantly reduced. The man at EA must be all muscles if he imagines them to be silky smooth. On the other hand, there is none of the grating feeling often felt with badly greased ratchet paddles, for example, so - yes - they turn 'smoothly', but requiring quite a bit of sustained force to keep them moving. That said, we managed and only felt that we had had a good workout rather than distressed - but we knew what to expect, save for a misplaced hope that some might by now have also been electrified. I suspect the remote location of some makes the task quite expensive but, IIRC, one is next to an Archimedean screw under construction so perhaps they will be able to syphon off just a few electrons to aid aged, weak and feeble boaters (like us!) 'Tis all part of the experience, in my view.

According to the HMRC website, they no longer have a preferential call on debts during bankruptcy. I suspect some of the other comments assume that issuing an RCD is equivalent to a guarantee and that the boat builder is responsible for remedying any shortcomings. Whilst that may be true when the company is still trading is it no longer a preferential creditor once bankruptcy takes place - see the link to Citizens Advice Guide https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice factsheets/Consumer Affairs/c-supplier-has-gone-out-of-business.pdf Much will depend on how nearly solvent the company was when it was made bankrupt. Sadly the end process of a company often leads very quickly to there being very little left for unsecured creditors.

They will not take on the case unless they can see that they will be paid.

Mine appeared to be quite obsessive about it. For example, when I proposed an HDMI cable under the floor boards he would not fit it until he had checked out whether it was OK or not (signal cables may be different from power ones . . . ) HMRC priority ceased some time ago

I'm not sure that I agree with the 'poorly thought out' epithet but, as I indicated a few days ago, I do rather cringe at MLC seeming to claim that they will, as a result, increase their provision of facilities for boaters when, at the moment, they provide none at all (save for their statutory duty to provide a navigation). I see no reason to alleviate them from that particular duty as it was - in effect - the price they paid for having their land at all. Yesterday I was reading a slightly dated EA publication (whilst researching the history of the Denver Sluice complex) and it went out of its way to make it clear that without on-going maintenance of the water management, the land would very very quickly cease to have any value at all - no-one pays very much for land under the sea! In fact, without quite considerable maintenance, the continuing shrinkage of the peat as a result of drainage, inundations would become increasingly frequent. This applies as much to the ML as the catchment of the Great Ouse. Ironically, the navigable waters have maintained their level whilst everything else is sinking around them! Hence the need for extensive pumping as the water can no longer be removed by gravity.

That was not our experience - there was very little excess momentum and the wheel would stop almost as soon as we stopped spinning it. But, hey, that's all part of why inland waterways are so fascinating! If you don't like doing some work, just cruise up and down the Thames all day long!

The fact that your suggestion is even plausible is why great care has to be taken over any financial activity that claims a charitable connection: In the past, fund raisers at every scale have been found to donate quite small proportions of money that looked as if it were in aid of charity went to any charity* with the rest going in expenses, often to pay salaries or fees to those involved in the activity. Hence the need for transparency. Normally, it is considered sufficient to state the object of the fund raising on any publicity and when that has been done it is necessary to implement it. (Hence charities themselves are advised to be cautious about stating too specific a purpose just in case the amounts raised are insufficient to proceed with that particular project. On the other hand, it is often the specific project that attracts donations rather than the general purposes of the charity) In my view, if there is any doubt about what either the Charity Commission or the Fund Raising regulator might or might not require, then always err very much on the side of transparency - even if it is a pain. This is as much for the protection of the organiser as for the charity itself. It is not generally a good idea to make a vague, generalised statement about 'going to charity' as that undermines one significant part of the transparency ie the feedback from the beneficiary. It is also important that there is clarity about how the amount of the donation is to be calculated. What deductions are to be allowed? How is VAT computed? All of this is, of course, quite different from companies making charitable donations out of their taxable profits. They can decide unilaterally what to do with the money that belongs to the company, save that they have to account to their shareholders. But, in that case, they should not promote specific purchases as having a charitable connection, unless they engage in transparency. (Question: who is actually making the donation? Is it the shareholders in forgoing profits or is it the purchaser in agreeing to a price that includes more than the normal cost of the item?) I emphasise that I make no suggestion about specific activities. * Disclosure: a very long time ago (circa 1966) I was part of a small unconstituted group of students that produced and sold a small booklet in aid of a specific charitable purpose. We were not the first or the last to fail to make an adequate business case - we failed to allow for the fact that not all printed copies would be sold at the cover price - and so the charity received very little of the sales income which barely covered the production costs - no-one involved benefitted. I would not go anywhere near such a scheme today!

I think I counted six manual still when we passed down last month. I'm not sure I'd want to try fixing a handle in the hole as I have seen described on several occasions. My understanding is that the large wheel was introduced for good safety reasons! Nothing short of electricity makes them any easier . . . just watch the one that starts to rise when you walk to the other end.

I was not making any suggestion of impropriety.

The use of the present continuous tense ('he complies') was meant to indicate that he consults the surveyor along the way. I can only testify to what I picked up as we were not (I confess) monitoring the project to that level of detail - there comes a time when you do have to rely on truest and over-arching duties of your builder. Takes long enough to get a boat built as it is . . .

Probably a bit more complicated than that under Charity law. Raising money for charity requires any publicity to state the destination of monies raised and it would be an offence to direct that money elsewhere. It would also be good to make sure that there is traceability of the monies. For a business, it is not a good idea to channel charity fund raising through their accounts as that might compromise things like VAT etc. Best kept separate which means that there needs to be some means of clear accounting and checking. None of this prevents fund raising but charity law (and I know how sensitive folks here are about charities!) is intended to ensure safety and transparency about the money. Like so many things, these rules generally follow cases where something went badly astray.

I believe that our builder (Stem to Stern) employs an independent surveyor to ensure that he complies with RCD.