Paul C

Are you sure?

at a loss

Its a red herring because its not about "alternative lifestyle" etc, its about whether CCers comply with the law or not. (And by that I mean, actions which are clearly against the spirit of the law and might lead to enforcement eg staying in one place for months, not the technicality of "I'm not a criminal yet because I've not gone to court and been convicted"). A corollary might be that instead of going out to work and earning £12/hour in a boring job, someone chooses an "alternate" income which involves stealing cars and selling them. One is within the law, one is not. There's plenty of CCers who DO comply with the law and plenty who, quite clearly, don't.

answers

Don't remember it but is that where the number of strands; and the size of each strand, is specified? So you could identify different (for example) 4mm2 cables, one with many fine strands which will be very flexible; and one with fewer thicker strands, not quite so flexible but probably cheaper.

The "opting out" element is a red herring. Its just a philosophy towards borrowing money vs saving up first then buying/owning something. People get a mortgage on a house simply because they don't have savings or the ability to save in the timeframe they'd need it. So, they enter into a mortgage agreement. (Of course, its also worth considering this is secured lending rather than unsecured lending).

Do you mean a mortgage? Of course, a mortgage eventually gets paid and then you own a property (probably including land) - an appreciating asset. A boat doesn't really appreciate.....of course, its like comparing chalk and cheese but its not as simple as "boating is cheaper"

For the sake of clarity: either— (i)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; or (ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

I think you are, AND a home moorer. An analogy might be if one parks their car in a public street, then gets into a truck. You are still a "car owner" because you were the last one to have driven your car, so any penalties relating to excess parking, obstruction, no insurance or road tax etc will still apply. At the same time, you're also a truck driver because you are now in a truck, driving it. CCer is a fairly neutral, commonplace term for "a boat(er) without a home mooring or other place..........blahblahblah" and is much easier to use in conversation. I don't think anything more than the distinction of the (no) home mooring arrangement, is applied by using the term.

But then later you ran out?

I believe what LadyG is referring to, is that some vendors won't allow a 100% domestic declaration if you're clearly a CCer (how they'd know, unless you told them, I don't know.....or maybe they guessed from the stuff on the roof). Or if you are clearly travelling in the boat, ie you stop at a marina but its not your mooring. Of course, the way the rules are structured is that its the responsibility of the boater to correctly declare the split, and its nothing to do with the vendor. Neither can/should they restrict the availability of splits. Their only legal obligation is to record the boat number and some other personal details as required by legislation on red diesel sales to boats.

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Computer says no, huh.

Common sense would have interpreted it as meaning 20% or less.

The problem is, if a cost-benefit analysis was done, it would probably be shown that the canal isn't worth opening again. £££ saved for CRT

1. Paul rides motorbike to destination, Mary follows in the car. 2. The motorbike is left at the destination, they both get in the car and one of them drives it back to the start. 3. They go on their boat trip (start to destination) 4. Paul gets on the motorbike, rides it to the start. 5. Paul leaves the motorbike at the start, gets in the car (let's hope he remembered the keys), drives it to the destination and collects Mary. Then they both drive to the start again. 6. Paul picks up the motorbike and rides it to the destination, while Mary drives the car to the destination. I don't know if it can be done in fewer steps. If its real-life, sounds like a complete ballache and waste of fuel and time!!! They should look at doing round trips in the boat instead, or getting public transport instead of a motorbike.

..........And the bit that you've missed, is that he could have used the Direct Debit Guarantee to have that payment refunded, but chose not to (for............charitable reasons). And in any case its a different thing, since I offered to PM my bank details, not put them onto the public domain.

I'll PM my bank details if you like, then you can "accidentally" pay some money in (can be an arbitrary amount), then let us know how you get on clawing it back without me sending it back to you. Money where your mouth is???

It’s not legal advice. But yes, sure.

Maybe that's what this guy did: Except the bottle cap eventually jammed, causing no water flow to the pump, taps etc.

I think its because they can only calculate the actual chargeable fare once "the day" or maybe "the week" ends, because if you (for example) made 4 bus journeys but the "day ticket" rate was less than £8, they'd charge you the day ticket rate. Bus companies vary (a lot) in their approach, some would just keep charging £2 singles for each journey though (so you'd need to know in advance, if you were going to use the bus again and again that day).

I'm not disagreeing with your approach - which is sensible and I do exactly the same. Its the terminology. You're right, most people would say the lock is "full" if it makes a level with the pound above, but if that pound is low its not full. So grounding on the cill is a real risk. In this instance it appears to be an underwater object, not the cill, but we don't really have enough info to go on. Most people aren't super familiar with the shape of the boat under the water or the architecture of the lock underwater features. And nobody is familiar with unknown underwater obstructions which are hidden by the opacity of the canal water. I won't speculate further on this instance but in general, if I sense a grounding I'll stop and reverse rather than try "plough" through it.

They often do a holding transaction of 10p but a few days later it will show as a £2 transaction