Paul C

April 21

But is there a toll, or has is been replaced by the licence (which they can and do refuse all the time)?

April 21

20 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Yes "on payment of the appropriate toll"

The problem is enforcing it to get the canal repaired - but because Peel are obliged to maintain the canal I would expect that soft power will come into play from various public bodies. "Well, we can help you with xxxx, but it won't look good unless..." It's happened before

BTW - the Creams Mill breach on the Manchester Bolton & Bury is being repaired for around £3 million (90 years after it happened!) - it must be one of the most technically challenging repairs ever. It is, however, going to be narrow beam, but that's mainly to reduce the height of the retaining wall as the land falls away very quickly so moving the wall into the hillside has big savings

They could just refund (or even part-refund) Bridgewater licence costs. With an agreement that with the refund, there be no further action. And not accept any new or renewal applications. Within a year, "the problem" has gone.

February 16

16 hours ago, David Mack said:

Those suggesting shortening the 14 days are aiming at the wrong target. What needs tightening up is the distance travelled, both between successive individual stays and over a longer period of time. The '95 Act only requires those without a home mooring not to remain in one 'place' for more than 14 days (or such longer period...), and 'place' is not defined, and neither are there any specific rules on returning to a previous 'place'. New legally enforceable rules are needed which specify a minimum distance to be travelled between successive stays, or over any (say) 14 day period, prohibit returning to previous 'places' or within a set distance of previous 'places' within say a 3 month period (with exceptions for genuine out and back trips), and a range (distance between extremities visited) within any say 3 month period which is perhaps 100 miles (or greater than the typical London boater commuter zone). That allows 'genuine CCers' (liveaboard or not) to cruise over a reasonably extensive area whilst still being able to stay up to two weeks in a particular place, but would strongly discourage those whose main motivation is limited movement within a smallish area necessitated by a fixed place of work or education or other local connection.

The precise requirements would need to be worked out, as well as the legal wording and enforcement mechanisms to enable the changes. And since CRT inspectors can't be everywhere all of the time, there will be a need for some self certification of one's movements, with pragmatic interpretation by CRT.

I think the above is pretty accurate of what will happen. I can't see specific distances and times written into the legislation though. What I think will happen this time round is MUCH MORE power given to CRT, in a much more robust way, to decide what's a reasonable distance to be moved, and/or time stayed in one place/mooring spot. And a step change in how its enforced so its not the burden it is now, or might be in the future with some other profile of movement required. It will be a package of measures including the requirement to display licence number, be tracked, possibly with compulsory trackers, ANPR or both, etc etc.

To put it another way, they may very well see the current legislation as full of loopholes, and close them up tighter than a duck's arse so they're "future proofed" for another 30 years.

February 15

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A 'continuous cruiser' cannot be a liveaboard !

You keep saying that but a boat can be multi-purpose, and a cruise can be multi-purpose too. For example, you can nip to the shops while also testing out the engine and stopping for water along the way. What's the purpose here? If the cruise is a single purpose only, then you would not be allowed (under your logic) to stop for water. Or, go shopping if its just to test the engine.

There's an argument to be made, that a continuous cruiser can't NOT be a liveaboard (but I won't make it because they can...)

February 15

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

What about cilling in a narrow lock with someone in the front?

This is a real event which does happen and can end up with the bows partly submerged.

Good point - it can and does happen to others. For example, https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/contact-and-sinking-of-narrow-boat-drum-major-while-descending-in-steg-neck-lock-on-the-leeds-and-liverpool-canal-near-gargrave-england-with-loss-of-4-lives

Having read that report, I adopted the rule of "everybody outside when locking" when I go boating (but then there's only 2 of us, so its pretty easy to adopt).

February 15

Its not considered because it doesn't happen.

Just now, blackrose said:

As a widebeam owner what I do is have a bow line on each side which I take from the bow and leave on the cabin top.

There's no reaching involved.

It's a simple solution which could be used on any boat.

I think it's a bit odd that some people think well decks are the "standard" bow on boats. They're not, not even on narrowboats. Traditional working boats didn't have well decks.

How do you "send it back" to the bow to tie it on, once you've (for example) looped it through a mooring ring? Throw it, then walk to the middle of the boat, pull the centre line, then get on the back of the boat, then climb onto the roof or walk along the gunnels (stepping over the centre line, of course)?

February 15

Its a "no" from me, purely from the extra effort required to stretch over and grab the bowline EVERY TIME you need to moor up. Its much easier to do the various tasks needed with the bowline from within a well deck. It wouldn't take too much extra distance from bank to boat (you know, at those shallow canal edges, curved sections, missing armco, irregular bank, etc) to put that bowline tantalisingly out of reach (where on a normal boat, it would be a stretch but possible to get into the well deck) and then you're walking along the gunnel or walking along the roof, as IanD has explained the access route is.

Turns a 5 minute mooring task into a PITA.

I agree that the "no escape access" isn't really the big issue, because the likelihood of needing to do it are so small an inconvenience there can be tolerated.

February 5

The problem with crying wolf all the time, is that if/when it does actually happen, nobody will support them. "Keep your powder dry", I think, is the appropriate saying here.

February 4

A boatbuilder who makes their living from building boats would hold more sway than the average forum poster, though. So, broadly, you'd have to take the fact that they've put their name to it and says it complies, at face value.

February 3

PCA

February 3

4 minutes ago, Beats88 said:

Yes Tonka makes a good point. I'm just 100% catastrophizing worse case scenarios in the event i buy this boat and then stricter rules comes into play in the future.....

Effectively it already has - it used to be the case that sailaways got an Annex III (part complete) declaration, then the subsequent owner/DIY fitter out either completed the boat and did all the RCR admin too; or didn't sell it for 5 years. That interpretation of the rules was later deemed wrong, and RYA(?) gave up their role in administering the issuing of numbers for DIYers, someone else (BMA?) took over and clarified the situation to say all those boats aren't built right and in theory need a PCA. That's why there's so many >1997 boats without RCR.

In theory another, tighter, interpretation could occur officially too, but I don't think its likely.

I'd not worry too much, because you haven't bought a boat yet, you're aware of the situation.

February 3

There's 2 aspects:

1) The loss in market value due to not having RCD documentation etc. This is obviously an opinion and a perception but that's what determines market value anyway.

2) The fact that a similar boat WITH RCD is likely to be better quality due to its builder being more diligent etc. This is moot too; but could be determined to be so with a detailed physical examination of the boat. Possibly even an entire PCA process done on the boat. If the non-documented one "passed" the PCA without any work or mods needing doing, it could have had an RCD anyway......

So long as you are aware and you can negotiate an appropriate reduction in price (or have an accurate valuation done etc) then there's nothing to be concerned about.

February 2

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Random thoughts :

I have the feeling that trackers are going to become a mandatory requirement in the future.

There have been suggestions about having 'regional' licence costing differing amounts in different parts of the country. This can only work if 'you' know where the boat is. But, then what do you do when a boat goes on a cruise, registered/licenced for Yorkshire, but goes across the border into Lancashire, or down into Nottinghamshire and the Midlands ?

Without tracking how is the boater who makes a false declaration (however unlikely that may be) that he is in 'a cheap licence area', but is in fact, in the South East / London monitored ?

I agree with MtB that getting residential planning permission en-masse for the canal tow-paths is about as likely as someone winning the lottery who has never bought a ticket.

On the subject of liveaboards, how can that ever be controlled or monitored - could a similar rule to that that many marinas use, be implemented ie you must present a Council Tax bill in your name showing you have a primary residence that is not the boat, before a 'leisure' licence is issued. No council tax bill and you will be automatically be charged the 'liveaboard rate'.

According to a Judge, as the law stands currently, no liveaboard can legally be a CCer.

Nigel Moore :

"As one online commentator noted at the time, if the letter of the law is being followed, it really does not matter why. To say that Mr Davies' movement pattern was unexceptional in itself (the 'continuous journey' argument of BW was rejected - “I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - was ludicrous. Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies."

I know you like historical C&Ping of Nigel's thoughts on the existing rules, but they're potentially irrelevant since this is a discussion on how the rules might look in the future, when CRT Commission (well, the process that follows) changes them. And on that topic, indeed planning permission may be relaxed to the extent of allowing liveaboards to stay in one place much longer (possibly with a charge on them).

I think its more likely they will alter canal-specific rules to make it worse for CCers, than alter planning permission to their benefit. Just a guess.

Regarding trackers, there is an easy way around the privacy concerns. Simply offer the licence at the "max rate, highest priced-area" basis. To earn a discounted licence, you have to have a tracker (with a bunch of necessary rules regarding not interfering with it, etc, much like tacho regulations on HGVs) and the discount is earned against (for example) a monthly payment option of the licence.

February 2

49 minutes ago, MrsM said:

........................... In this case people are already living in homes on the blue bits that happen to be boats. ......................... Many don't want their homes to move, despite the fact that is what they are theoretically designed to do.

If they're not moving, or not moving enough, then they're living there illegally. Something happening which is illegal, isn't a reason in itself to relax it or change the rules in their favour (otherwise, why not set the speed limit on the M5 south of Bristol, at 85mph?)

49 minutes ago, MrsM said:

Let them stay but charge them an appropriate amount for the privilege. Planning permission is needed but is not a reason not to do this.

The underlying reason(s) behind the requirement for planning permission, and the likelihood of PP being denied, is the reason not to do this.

February 2

2 minutes ago, MrsM said:

If some London residents, that happen to live in boats rather than in bricks and mortar, need to be static I still think all of the city towpath should be monetised. Designate some areas as chargeable visitor moorings. Police them rigourously and fine any overstayers. The rest of the towpath could become official residential moorings. CRT would benefit from the income (set at an appropriate level to reflect the central location). Moorings would be subject to council tax so local authorities would receive an income. Admittedly it would be more expensive for boaters than it is currently, but more commensurate with what is paid by the rest of the resident population.

This is often suggested but it would mean the change of use of the land (planning permission).

Also, why just the canal?

I think it was this thread I mentioned it on before, but if one were taking a holistic approach on looking at "more housing", one would choose the green bits not the blue bits.

February 1

Would be interesting to know how it is eventually recovered, given the location and that winching off the bridge is a no-no. Can vehicles access anywhere even vaguely near the site?

January 16

51 minutes ago, Jim P said:

now have a very fixed dog walk…..

At least the dog isn't broken

January 15

There will be "boilerplate" forum risk assessment documents available, no doubt. It would be a C&P of that (and maybe even actually publish it, even though there's no need). I took a look at the link, and here is a snippet:

What activity is the Online Safety Act trying to prevent?

offences related to information likely to be of use to a terrorist and offences relating to training for terrorism
hate offences such as stirring up of racial hatred offence and stirring up of hatred on the basis of religion or sexual orientation
sexual exploitation of adults such as causing or inciting prostitution for gain offence
human trafficking
assisting or encouraging suicide offence
the unlawful supply, offer to supply, of controlled drugs, and the unlawful supply, or offer to supply, of articles for administering or preparing controlled drugs
weapons offences such as offences relating to firearms, their parts, ammunition, including air guns and shotguns

Since the forum is more/less in the "family friendly" end of the spectrum on the internet, its pretty easy to align the forum's rules to comply with the above without altering the utility of the forum as-is. Put simply, there will be an end to unmoderated forums (for example, Thunderboat wouldn't have survived were it still going) but this one, no real issue.

January 15

Its an ideal opportunity/learning experience for the mods to "wake up and smell the coffee" and possibly ditch the "no moderation" policy currently in place. Its attractive to some and its off-putting to others. There is a balance somewhere but this isn't it.

January 14

6 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Because I couldn’t remember the password or email used for the mods to confirm, I’m not exactly hiding anything by coming on with a completely different name am I ?

Its not my call

January 14

21 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

No ban just new phone, which logged me out and couldn’t remember an old log in password/email. Thats why I rejoined, at least I didn’t try to hide with a completely different username.

Seems strange, why not just do a password reset? Anyway, reported for the attention of mods, they should help out and merge with the old etc.

January 14

Did BoatingLifeUpNorth get banned?

January 14

6 minutes ago, truckcab79 said:

Mods don’t seem to care or maybe understand the effect of the tone on the forum.

Moderation seems all but absent in recent times - I've pointed out a few gross breaches, and not even had the courtesy of a reply. Yeah yeah, its a volunteer job etc, but that's an excuse and it ought to still be done right.

Or maybe the current forum regulars prefer bickering and drivel?

January 14

8 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

Left forum

No need to announce it though - you can just FRO if you want to. Its like Hotel California on a forum, unless you contact admin and they physically delete your login off the system so you're unable to log in again (and they're not obligated to do this anyway).

January 13

You know when you're searching for a secondhand car, and you go see it, then later the dealer texts you and says "sorry, you've missed out, the car you were interested in has just been sold to someone else". They've not really sold it, they're just filtering out undesirable customers.

Its a great list but I can't help thinking its too long and too customised, it will put off a well respected shellbuilder from dealing with you, even though on the face of it its a sound idea to have it. Maybe a better approach would be speak to 3-4 previous customers, get a feel for what their boat is like, whether they're happy, whether the process was easy and enjoyable, what happened during snagging, etc. And just go with a gut instinct rather than overanalyse it.

I wish you all the success though.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Gallery

Blogs

Store

Posts posted by Paul C

What activity is the Online Safety Act trying to prevent?

Important Information