Arthur Marshall

Sounds like the waterways version of an urban myth. If I remember the Rochdale, admittedly from some years back, it would have been hard pressed to go much further downhill without dismantling itself.

Must be slow foxes. Might just as well go for a ramble.

I had real trouble selling a house as had no passport or photo driving licence.

Transport and the need for it is going to be one of the casualties of climate change. Business travel is becoming less necessary with zoom meetings etc, holiday travel is just a luxury that has only been around a short time and won't be missed much. Car journeys multiplied with the death of corner shops and growth of supermarkets, and that's easily remedied.

Usually if the prop gets jammed the flexibly coupling disintegrates, that's what it's there for. The next thing I'd have thought would be for it to wreck the gearbox, which it what the coupling is there to prevent. To hoick the engine off its mounts would surely have broken some fairly hefty bolts, with failures all along the way. You do need to go have a look and try to find someone who saw what happened. Also, to get advice, it would be good to know what the engine is - ancient or modern could make a big difference. And finally, get a second quote.

I would have thought if he's living on it, and appears to have done so for a while, knows a bit about the boat and has a few licence demands and safety certs, then it's pretty unlikely it aint his. There's no proof, really, but equally there's no proof anyone else does either. Buy it, register it, if you're still worried change the name, repaint it, and who's going to argue? I bought mine on a handshake ,a bagfull of cash for a deposit, a cheque and a scribbled receipt. It was there when I went back to pick it up and no-one's asked for it back yet.

Ah, but the huntsman only wants a good ride - his prime purpose, as we have seen, is not to kill foxes as that can be done more efficiently in other ways. He does it for the sport, same as the dangler. Unlike the bloke back at the Thames, who did it for money. I suspect there's more thrill in that. Althhough I am not entirely sure MtB is taking this seriously, unlike me.

Thread got sidetracked by one of the notorious stirrers. Thread drift is one of the charms of this forum. Always worth checking back occasionally to find out what the OP was!

Because it's here, so one sees it? And it's a discussion forum. I don't bother with the politics bit much because it's mostly full of stupidity and circular arguments. The pub does come up on VNC.

If it has an exception, it aint a rule, it's a guideline. If my ruler says something's a foot long, there is rarely a time it's eight foot six. If the speed limit's seventy, arguing that you can do a hundred and ten because you're just proving the rule may not go down that well.

It's an interesting ethical debate, though. If the foxes were really a problem to farmers, they'd just be gassed or shot, like they do badgers and other creatures they consider, rightly or wrongly, to be dangerous to their trade. So you have to assume that they aren't, but people just like chasing, hurting and killing them for fun. And if that isn't ok, then you have to question angling too. If the latter's acceptable, so is hunting, hare coursing, dog fighting etc. Or do you just draw a line when you think the lifeform looks cute and isn't slippery? Or just where you think you can get support? But it still doesn't have much to do with the Thames, and merits a section either in the pub or the ghetto rather than general boats.

I like sunny up, for people you don't like. It implies that the word you use, in this case "scum", is actually a lot nicer than the one you'd like to use, so you've sunnied it up. Although, in this case, one should remember the difference between the words scum and dregs, as used to describe folk in a society. The scum rises to the top, the dregs sink to the bottom. Both are useless, all the real stuff gets done by the people in between... This is true. As for the case under discussion, the simple use of the word "criminal" might be better to describe those who go hunting. It's unemotive and accurate.

Got a bit far from the Thames, haven't we? Got a bit far from the Thames, haven't we?

Well, the oiks have generally been happy enough with dogfights and in the past cockfights for their bit of fun. Fox hunting is just a more expensive version, with the added laughs of occasionally trashing other people's property on the grounds of tradition. However, animals chasing and killing each other for no good reason is common enough - as has been said, foxes do it, mink do it, people do it. Must admit I don't feel very passionately about it either way, it's just a shame those who support hunting lie so much about why they do it, but then hypocrisy is about the only thing humans can do which other animals can't.

A point surely is that hunting is a pathetic way of controlling fox numbers. It's got nothing to do with it, as has been seen above, where an area is entirely rid of them by gassing. Hunting is an excuse for a good ride, with no concern for other people's property or preferences, with the added excitement of it being unpredictable and with the prospect of seeing something killed. I mean, what more could you ask of a sport? And, it being such an expensive pastime, it mostly keeps the oiks out, too!

The irrelevance to which I referred was that of confusing the use of words for a mooring licence/permit. Of course it is unlawful to refuse a licence because of other fees outstanding. It is, however, not unlawful to refuse a licence because, due to past history of nonlicensed activity, and refusal to make reparations, the board cannot be satisfied that the CC conditions will be met. That's why the point is largely academic, unless the person concerned can afford better lawyers than CRT, and if they could do that, they would probably have paid their bills. If you live aboard, it's possibly a better idea to pay one's dues, though I accept that these days that's a bit of a novel concept to some. Oddly enough, it works for those who live in houses, too. Playing with words rarely keeps a roof over one's head. Nor, often enough, does relying on an amateur's interpretation of the law.

I suspect exaggeration for effect... I can believe the quid a week and it not being paid. Must have been a while ago though, because now they charge homeless people sleeping rough hundreds of quid in fines and jail them for nonpayment. And, of course, single parents on benefit go to prison for not having a TV licence... Anyway, I like to maintain a balanced view, so me, I'd shoot most dogs, huntsmen, and the farmer who owns the field behind my house. And squirrels. Lucky I've only got an air rifle, really.

That many?

Definitely not came with mine this year. Can't remember last year, last week's hard enough. I well recall Mr Dunkley telling us all in his own inimitable manner, when they were still fairly new, that mooring permits were illegal and that none of us should pay them. Surprisingly the courts disagreed. Thinking that whether you call something a licence or a permit in normal speech is a matter of vital importance is essentially ridiculous. It may matter to a lawyer, probably because that's the kind of thing that makes them rich. As is quoting a nine year old document, hoping no-one notices the date (even if it should have been updated - or maybe it has. Who cares?) The proper response to the original post is "So what?" Should we all be pleased that some people do their scrabbling best to avoid paying their way and leave everyone else to pick up the costs? And that you could just not pay your fees for years and there's no resource, apart from expensive and possibly pointless court action, for them to be pursued?

Technically, I think it's a mooring permit. They don't issue them any more. It was always generally known as a mooring licence. You had them at EOG moorings as well as CRT ones. There can be a difference in law between a licence and a permit, but for all intents and purposes they're the same. They both let you do something you wouldn't be allowed to without them.

The farmer who had the field behind our house got into trouble some years back after a dog persistently attacked his sheep. He tracked it back to its owners house and shot it in their garden. Can't remember the outcome but sympathy was certainly with him. It's all very well saying there are no bad dogs, just bad owners, but sadly you can't shoot them.

These damned woke lefties again.

There you go. Constructive as ever! And it only took you three weeks to put all those words together, some of them even with more than one syllable. Well done.

Probably praying for another lockdown next Spring so they can ban boating again. A fortune saved! Bonuses all round!