Paul C
-
Posts
12,391 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Paul C
-
-
A good approach would be to go ahead and canvas the shell builders, progress all the discussions etc, in private. But then report back with a time lag (of say, a few weeks or months) of the build progress on here. It would have advantages and disadvantages:
Disadvantages
1. You will lose the possible insight of others more experienced and wiser.
Advantages
2. Greatly cuts down the amount of drivel you'll have to wade through on the forum. In fact, it could virtually eliminate discussion and it just be yourself posting into an otherwise empty thread (this sometimes happens with build threads on other forums, eg engine conversions where the audience is less skilled and the poster is pretty much the most knowledgeable on the forum).
3. Long term, its a better reference for others in later months or years - because of less side-discussion which is more than likely irrelevant
Of course its a disadvantage to the audience, because this forum is "infotainment" with each thread one or other end of that spectrum, depending on how it goes.
Given how the other threads have historically progressed, I would encourage you do think through if you need the forum's insight and how it might end up if you missed it. And an alternate - for example talking to shell builders directly, paying them visits, engaging with other boaters more directly rather than online.
Heck, you could even do a Youtube on the build - its the modern way, after all. I suspect it would not prove massively popular and not achieve decent monetisation though, what with the somewhat limited audience. Its not like you're as attractive as "Betty on a Boat" for example (I'm going to guess..)
-
1 hour ago, Gybe Ho said:
I don't feel comfortable discussing this on a public forum however I could start another thread about the finer points & features when specifying a custom shell.
I don't blame you.
-
A commercial boat operating on a commercial waterway, seems fair enough to me.
How is a boat being lifted out of water damaging to it?
-
2
-
-
Normally, the value of an asset goes down considerably when its broken. So maybe, in the grand scheme of things, this is the time for CRT (with Government money...) to buy the Bridgewater. And add it to the "to do list" for fixing broken things......
-
7 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:
Very susceptible to graffiti damage.
-
1
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
No. If you bothered to read CRT's board minutes, it intended to make an application for a TWAO order in 2024. The first step in the law making process was a discussion with Defra at a Grant Review meeting in December 2023. The second step was to be the submission of a draft TWA Order.
However, Defra have confirmed that CRT did not make a submission.
For whatever reason, CRT has pulled away from pursuing legislative change and appointed a Commission.The relevance of board papers to the matter under discussion is that CRT has a legal obligation to proactively publish information on how it makes decisions. To this end, CRT's trustees undertake to publish board papers within a few days of a following meeting.
CRT stopped publication of board papers a year ago. It also stopped publication of dates of upcoming meetings.
No you don't know what the Commission does, or no you're not Allan Richards?
Given that I CBA finding them, and you seem to be unable to provide a link (or do a FOI request), does anyone else have these elusive minutes?
-
10 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
The stated purpose of the Commission is to -
review the legal framework around boat licensing, to explore whether it is appropriate for the network’s future.
The Commission does not have the power to change existing laws as you suggest. It may or may not make recommendations that CRT persues a TWAO or byelaw changes. It may or may not suggest changes in CRT's approach to existing legislation.
I suggest again that anyone with an interest in this matter reads CRT's board papers from May 2023 onwards.
I did a Google.................found https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/section_77_complaint?nocache=incoming-1161056#incoming-1161056 and got distracted. I am sure they're very interesting. You are Allan Richards, right?
I think we all know what the Commission does, its a first step in a law-changing process.
-
8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
As I am sure you are aware the "bored" can only be disatisfied on three matters.
From CRT's point of view the boater has signed up to its T's & C's and it can withdraw a licence for serious breach. In practice, it can not do this.
You've not quite got the idea of the Commission - they're looking to CHANGE the EXISTING laws you keep citing.
-
3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:
As far as I know they send an invoice to the licence applicant who may pay up or simply ignore it. As far as I am aware CRT can't refuse a licence on the basis that the licence applicant does not pay up.
That's a good one for the CRT Commission to recommend then. They'll thank you for the suggestion. They could call it "Allan's Law".
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Peanut said:
OK, so everyone pays £10 per day £3.650 per annum, home moorers, and marina dwellers get a 50% rebate as they are part-timers.£1,825 per annum on top of their mooring fees. This can be adjusted by boat length, and width.
This would bring income to CART, but wouldn't stop desirable mooring being hogged by selfish boaters, so some restriction in time, and movement would still be needed.
You could have an exponential scale for time on VM
-
5 minutes ago, IanD said:
Yes it will clear out the honeypots, but it won't raise £10 a night from all the CMers, only the ones who stay visible.
There's no need anyway; if they don't have a HM then aren't they going to be mooring on the towpath by definition? Just charge an annual fee and have done with it.
You could even call it something like, ooh, let's think -- a "CM surcharge"... 😉
I think the idea was that even if they did have a HM, if they're not on it and they're on the towpath then it still gets charged.
1 hour ago, cuthound said:Given that CRT are strapped for cash, I think that it wouldn't be unreasonable to charge all boater £10 for each night they are moored on the towpath.
That would bring in at least 2-3 times your estimate.
Original post this stand came from, with ALL highlighted in red and bold.
59 minutes ago, IanD said:It might not be unreasonable, but it's certainly impractical since CART would have to know where every boat was every night*** and then collect the cash somehow...
*** would need unhackable tracking devices fitted to every boat
Your reply immediately afterwards, in which you quoted cuthound (quote-in-quote isn't a thing on this forum platform).
Of course, one way to do it would be to blanket increase the licence fee by 365x10, then have optional trackers for the home moorers which shows the number of overnights at their home mooring, for which they earn credits for next year's licence - or a refund if they cash out of the system. The tin foil hat wearers can pay the £10 if they are worried about being tracked.
-
Just now, IanD said:
If you don't cover the whole network and only check populated regions, the CMers who don't want to pay will just move to where the checkers aren't...
Which is kinda the point? If they FRO the honeypot visitor moorings, we are half way there.
-
1
-
-
The failure was most likely because of the instability of the bank due to its method of construction combined with the torrential and prolonged rainfall that evening, which had the double effect of weakening the ground and raising the level of the canal (since it performs a drainage function and its overflows were overwhelmed by the quantity of water).
-
He was the Legal Officer for the NBTA at the time. I am unsure whether he still holds that position, or if he (possibly with help) paid the £15,000 costs incurred.
-
I believe part of the problem with Nick Brown's "challenge" was it was all theoretical - he was asked to bring a case to court of his own circumstances, rather than against the guidance in general. But it was a massive own goal, all the same.
-
1
-
-
p=mv
They just need the momentum of a car and the load rating of a decent strap to impart the necessary impulse on the cash machine. Because of the v term too, its possible a car can generate sufficient momentum to do the job. A truck would be slower and more conspicuous for the getaway, after all.
-
31 minutes ago, IanD said:
Nope.
There is a danger that your tone and frequency of posting loses its focus after a while, and you edge closer to the "drivel" we have seen an amount of, in recent times, on this forum.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:
But that would require legislation to disapply the effects of Jones v CaRT 2017
That's the key issue - and why the CRT Commission has been set up.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, IanD said:
Thanks for posting that 🙂
"Next Steps
...
Developing a comprehensive repair strategy and we will be working closely with stakeholders to implement it"
You'd think they could have written it in English, but it looks promising -- at least, at first glance.
Call me cynical, but I note that there's no commitment to actually reopen the canal -- "repair strategy" could equally well mean "permanently safely and securely blocking off the canal at each end of the embankment" -- that's repaired then, no further risk of flooding or collapse. Shame no boats can get through any more but hey ho, we never promised that did we?
With companies like Peel you always need to read carefully *exactly* what they said, not what you thought/hoped they said... 😉
Give them a chance though - they've not even properly assessed it. Rome wasn't built in a day, and canal breaches don't get fixed in such a short timeframe either.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
I think Tom's blog shows the income
I can't find it
-
21 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
Because if it brings in a steady four or five million a year, the repair cost hardly dents it over a ten year period.
I can't see how it would bring in that much per year.
-
To be honest, if all you can do is monitor voltage, you'll only get a very basic sense of what the batteries are like (good/fully charged, knackered, or somewhere in between).
If you're getting back from work at 7pm and being its winter, its hardly worth running the engine for an hour. I assume you work 5 days a week?
-
13 minutes ago, frangar said:
But they are providing more updates than peel seem able to….
You have to feel sorry for them. I suspect, after an initial couple of weeks flurry of "Someone is going to Die!!! The canal is breached!!! Water is flowing downhill!!!!!!", being beached on the drained Bridgewater water point is going to get a bit, errr, "samey".
-
Are you Allan Richards?
-
1
-
Bridgewater Canal Breach
in Stoppages
Posted
If they can fix and maintain the Anderton Lift, then they can fix/maintain the swing aqueduct. Of course, the problem is the aqueduct's cost/(visitor)-attractiveness ratio is much lower, so there's not much incentive to do it.