Mike Todd
Patron
-
Posts
5,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Mike Todd
-
-
1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I was just replying to a post that implied licence costs would have to double. No need to get shirty...
But you could as well argue that I'm being penalised because a load of freeloaders are neither paying their way nor following the spirit (and often) the letter of the law. I think there's little doubt that it's a small minority of CCers who actually, genuinely cruise rather than hang about in a twenty mile zone, avoiding locks as if they were inventions of the devil. A couple on the Macc have been doing it for as long as I've been here, and good luck to them (it's a lovely lifestyle) but it sure aint being on a cruise. And before you ask, it wouldn't suit me.
I'm not actually arguing either way, I'm quite happy paying for my mooring, my mooring fees, and my licence. I'm just taking part in a discussion.
ETA if you'd bothered to try to follow my argument instead of getting instantly nowty, you'd have noticed that it was implying that the unused spaces being paid for by the marinas would lower the need to raise licence costs for all parties, not raise them. But then, you're not really interested.
I have met quite a number of boaters without a home mooring who spend the whole time on the long pound above Caen Hill, never doing a lock, but are doing so entirely legitimately.
-
2 hours ago, haggis said:
Presumably C&RT only check insurance details if there is some doubt about them . For example, if a customer is being investigated for something else. Also, if a boat sinks and C&RT are involved in raising it, they need to check/communicate with the insurance company. I don't see them checking everyones details.
In Scotland they ask to see a copy of your insurance certificate every year. But there are not so many canal boats up here.
You have to give insurance details to get a licence.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
I’ve dumped my boat in a few marinas that work like this,usually works along the lines of “…oh, yes, you can have this mooring for the week, they’re out for the next few months”,
it’s easier to find temp moorings in the summer than over the winter at places like that,
Fazeley and Alvechurch for instance,
some other big marinas seem to have pontoons for visitors, but I’d guess they’d let them full time if they were wanted,
Gt Haywood for instance,
With the smaller mariners they know their customers/moorers pretty well and I guess through chit chat and conversation they know when someone’s off for awhile,
should they come back unexpected 🤷♀️maybe there’s a bit of shuffle about,
Happened to us at Alvechurch last autumn when we were stuck because of the landslip. They were helpful in finding a s[pace not needed for a couple of weeks but when the date for re-opening became clearer we were able to get the last space at another marina close by.
Airlines have over-booked for a log time but they do have the obligation to get you to your destination - I once had a long taxi ride as a result (not a lack of seats but they had miscalculated on loads!)
In the case of a marina mooring, the boater's obligation is to have a mooring that is available throughout the duration of the licence (ie no use have one for a few days whilst licence is renewed!) If the suggested practice became commonplace then it might well be that CaRT brought a case against a marina on the basis that be accepting a moorer they had a duty to check the type of licence - ours certainly already check on licences as well as insurance and BSS.
-
1 hour ago, PeterScott said:
Yes, Grauniad also bought this one from Alamy here. Alamy's caption was
"This historic branch of the Leeds - Liverpool canal passes through the Lancashire countryside on its way to Tarleton, Lancashire."
which was abbreviated by the subeditor to
"The historic Leeds & Liverpool Canal at Tarleton, where a lock joins it to the Lancaster Canal"
which loses something in the translation. In the context of the article, showing the wellie needed for the incoming tide would have been more fun ...
They may have bought it but it does not appear in the cited article
-
35 minutes ago, PeterScott said:
Yes, they bought the image from Alamy, here. Alamy say "Captions are provided by our contributors" which in this case was
"Lock No.1. Glasson Branch, Lancaster to Kendal Canal, Galgate, Lancashire, England, United Kingdom, Europe."
which the Grauniad abbreviated to
"Lock No 1 of the Lancaster Canal at Galgate."
and also didn't mention the photo was taken on 9Jun2011: canallers know that canal-scenes don't usually change much in a dozen years; maybe the sub-editor is a canaller ?? Geograph can do slightly better with a pic from 17Sep2018 © Copyright MatFascione and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
There were two lock pix in the original article - this is the first which is correctly described as Lock 1 at Galgate - ie on the Glasson Arm just after the junction.
The second was supposed to be at Tarleton but actually the first lock where the Rufford connects to the main L&L. It should have been the lock onto the tidal river.
-
19 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
Everybody always knows they are right.
Kurt Vonnegut had, I think, an asynchronistic infandibulum in one of his books, which was the one point in the galaxy where two entirely incompatible facts could be equally true. On this site, it's located in the political ghetto.
Methinks you are confused: in the political ghetto two incompatible statements can be held incompatibly even though neither are true.
-
1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:
Nether will back down
Why should you if you know you are in the right!
-
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
I just cannot win - when I have previously used "Airbnb" the pedants (and there are a few on here) said that wrong and to use ABNB.
AirbnbHoliday property rentals company
from their website-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
If it was inexpensive and easy to do the canals would be littered with ABNB boats.
But, it is neither !
On this forum it would be better to refer to Airbnb to avoid confusion with ABNB a reputable boat broker (or perhaps you were trying to amplify such conflation!)
-
18 hours ago, dmr said:
That works out well and was roughly the quick mental calculation that I did.
As mtb says, there are CRT owned moorings where they get the lot, EoG moorings where there get 50% with no real outgoings on their part, all sorts of farmers field moorings where the CRT percentage likely depends on various historic arrangements, so in general I expect the CC surcharge is probably a little less than the CRT mooring cut, but your equality is a good first approximation.
The surcharge has the added bonus that it might deter a few "cheap housing/not really interested in boating" future CCers, while hopefully not forcing some of the interesting canal characters off the cut.
Thats the downside, its a lot of grief, possible bad publicity, potential legal challenges, and other expenses for not a very big extra income, but maybe lots of extra little incomes might be the only way to save the system.
That is what you always get when you transfer the cost of a service from the public sector onto individual service users.
18 hours ago, dmr said:I expect CRT also thought long and hard (I hope) about not reducing income by forcing too many boaters to give up. CC'ers really are sitting ducks, its their home and lifestyle so hard to give up. For some leisure boaters its just an expensive hobby and a new hobby could be found, or maybe a return to hiring. For many the economics must be pretty marginal anyway without huge price increases,
'sitting'? - CCers, never!
5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:But going back to the OPs requirements I think the conclusion reached is that to be able to get a business licence (to do ABNB) she needs a residential mooring and not a leisure mooring.
As well as finding a mooring whose owner agrees with the business usage.
-
12 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
So, is it a 5% a year increase on the standard licence (as you and Ian suggest), or,
Is it a 5% increase year on year with year one being 5% on a standard licence, 10% increase in year 2, 15% in year 3 ..............., as described by C&RT ?
Maybe Ian didn't actually write what he meant to write ?
It is the surcharge rate that is going up, not the actual licence fee (as the underlying base rate may also increase)
-
On 14/02/2024 at 14:04, Arthur Marshall said:
The op should (assuming they are serious, which personally I doubt) also remember that, in general, advice given for free is worth what they've paid for it. Odd, too, that the boat owner seems to know nothing about either marina regulations or continuous cruising. And appears incapable of reading anything CRT has produced on the subject.
And also does not seem to understand that, for licensing purposes, continuous cruising is not relevant - the criterion is whether or not there is a home mooring. Whether you comply with the moving rules for the type of licence that you hold can only be determined after the event - hence why CaRT have a convoluted process for denying a licence to non (or insufficient) movers.
-
On 14/02/2024 at 13:26, Alan de Enfield said:
I thought this covered that point ?
Twas this I was referring to:
as is 2x10 litre cans if you already have 11+litres on board the boat,
I assumed that the 11+ on board meant in the tank but I see from later posts that it probably did not.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Just be aware that there are laws about how much petrol you can, buy and store in a car or a boat 'in loose cans' (ie not a built in fuel tank)
Too much would not only be illegal (is it only illegal if you are caught ?) but would also invalidate your insurance if it could be proven by raking thru the ashes.
For example :
Buying / transporting / storing 2x 20 litre Jerry cans is illegal,
as is 2x10 litre cans if you already have 11+litres on board the boat,
as is storing 3x10 litre cans.
Petrol Storage On Boats
https://www.hse.gov.uk/fireandexplosion/petrol-storage-club-association.htm
You can store up to 30 litres of petrol at home or at non-workplace premises without informing your local Petroleum Enforcement Authority (PEA).
You can store it in:
suitable portable metal or plastic containers
one demountable fuel tank
a combination of the above as long as no more than 30 litres is kept
For these purposes 'premises' are as defined in the Health and Safety Work Act, etc. 1974 and includes, for example, motor vehicles, boats and aircraft.
What containers can I use to store petrol?
The legislation allows you to store petrol in the following containers:
plastic containers storing up to 10 litres
metal containers storing up to 20 litres
demountable fuel tank up to 30 litres
Suitable portable containers are defined in Schedule 2 (para 6) and Schedule 3 of the regulations. UN approved containers are an example of such containers.
More detailed information on portable petrol storage containers (PDF) - Portable Document Format is available.
Does the petrol in the fuel tank of my car count towards the total I can store?
No – the petrol in the fuel tank of your vehicle, including boats and aircraft, does not count when you are calculating the total amount you are storing.
How much petrol can I store on a vehicle?
You can store up to 30 litres of petrol in a maximum of 2 suitable containers in your vehicle. For the purpose of these Regulations a ‘vehicle’ is interpreted as any type of vehicle so includes boats, aircraft and hovercraft. This type of storage counts towards the total you can store at non workplace premises. Carriage of petrol is covered by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods (CDG) and the European agreement (ADR).
Small point on your examples - the text cited does seem to exclude fuel in the permanent tank.
-
10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Yes
If you have a home mooring then you will not be CC ing.
-
57 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
you did a great job, I remember liking it,6 weeks? sounds like a long time to me but I guess layers of paint and drying times add up,
out of interest where were you able to rent a wet dock for 6 weeks?
57 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
you did a great job, I remember liking it,6 weeks? sounds like a long time to me but I guess layers of paint and drying times add up,
out of interest where were you able to rent a wet dock for 6 weeks?
That's about the length of time quoted by a very reputable painter - to achieve the same result I would expect it to take an 'amateur' rather longer, unless breaking the Working Time Directive!
-
1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:
Tree branch scratches are not inevitable. When you have paid 10K + you don't tangle with trees.
I have never intentionally tangled with trees or other vegetation growing from the bank.
However, I have had plenty of scratches from such encounters, mostly inevitable - passing another boat in a restricted section, emerging from a lock where avoidance is impossible - eg Allens Lock, Oxford, thin branches that have been broken off leaving an unusually and almost invisible sharp point. etc
-
2 hours ago, IanD said:
Except that's not how it works, your NI contributions pay for the pensions of other people at the time you paid them, they don't go into a "my pension" piggybank.
Your NI contributions have paid for other people's pensions over the last 50 years. After you retire, your pension will be paid for by the NI contributions of those still working.
Though actually even this is a fiction, it might have really been "NI" when it was introduced to pay for the NHS, but not any more because it's not hypothecated (allocated to a particular purpose) any more than "road tax" is.
NI for a long time has just been a stealth income tax that goes into the same massive cash bucket as all other government income including income tax and VAT and car tax and every other tax, which they then decide how to spend -- for example, by funnelling some into the pockets of their cronies.
You might as well demand all your other taxes back that have been spaffed up the wall... 😞
The term is 'current funded'
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, system 4-50 said:
Some ideas for the government:
1. Students must live at home. No student accommodation is to be provided by Universities. If going to a university in a different town then the student must arrange a parents swap. The current student accommodation can then house a family instead of a part-time resident student.
2. Divorce is not to be allowed unless/until both parties have found a new partner. This way no intermediate single housing is required. Certain days of the year will be recognised as "swap" days. Dating systems will be extended to include property details in addition to the normal vital statistics.
But you would also have to make marriage mandatory, no cohabitation!
-
On 03/02/2024 at 12:26, MtB said:
The actual law says "the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere"
And carlt (IIRC) used to often say on here that he had an "other place" to keep his vessel. This "other place" was a bit of canalside hard standing he knew of with a crane available.
I have my doubts about whether the board would be "satisfied" with this.
OK (?) if out of the water - plenty of people do this seasonally, mostly at a marina/boatyard. It is assumed that they calculate that they will save money on the licence - seems to me that they must have access to exceptionally cheap cranes!
-
On 03/02/2024 at 13:45, Alan de Enfield said:
One man's high is another man's low.
Yup - when you get under you are low and when you don't , you are high!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:
Shouldn't this be in the virtual pub ? Maybe we should ask Admin
I didn't think it counted if you only had a virtual pint with someone.
9 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:I knew a guy who looked like Graham Hill.
No answer to "if shorts are allowed" so I will submit to having a whiskey with Bernard Manning.
Only counts if you have the real stuff (ie whisky) and not the other stuff!
-
1
-
-
On 30/01/2024 at 16:49, LadyG said:
Sounds like third party.
Have you tried any companies who do boat insurance , it may be worthwhile asking for comp as well, as there may not be a huge difference, you are running a business, so expenses are tax deductable.
I don't expect insurance company will be interested in the frequency of hire. When I say hire, that may be how they view things, even if you have another viewpoint.
Have a good look at the Scottish Canals website
There will be a few UK boats that have a similar hire, have a look at their websites.
I know from my sailing days that trying to charter yachts is not worth the candle, but you may be in a better position with a permanent mooring.
They may well oft come together but wreck recovery and third party are different things. Wreck recovery covers the costs incurred when a boat sinks or blocks a navigation. It can be rather expensive to recover a boat that is under water in an offside position. There may also be claims for pollution control. Third party is when a boat injures, or worse, someone not connected with the boat and may be the result of a moving incident (ramming into another boat and throwing an occupant into the water, or causing significant damage to the boat) of static, such as when it catches fire and the passes the flames on to an adjacent boat.
-
2 hours ago, David Mack said:
And is it a listed building? If so it needs Listed Building Consent rather than Planning Permission. The process is pretty much the same but LBC applications are free.
PP and LBC are not alternatives - they do different things and at times you need both.
HS2 and the Grand Union
in General Boating
Posted
I am not an expert on HS2 (although I suspect people in 10 - 20 years will rue the planning of the past year) but a quick Google look indicates that there will be an additional station on the Elizabeth Line, which is adjacent to Old Oak Common) which will give good links out both west and east (tough if you insist on living in Dulwich!) Also there is a strong possibility of re-connecting to the Acton-Northolt line with further connectivity for the suburbs out towards the Chilterns. In any case, North Acton is only 500 m away, if a proper pedestrian link is provided. It looks like it will be much the same distance as the HS2 - Moor Street walk.
Whilst the whole situation is a mess, it does not help to over-state the case.