Arthur Marshall

It does now. It didn't originally, the whole back end was the fuel tank, the rudder tube ran up through the middle of it.

On mine it goes mostly into the bilge, some drains out through the one working drain channel. If there is an integral fuel tank in the rear of the hull, as there was with mine, I'd worry that, with that amount of rust, it was rusting through, or the tiller tube, if it runs through it, was rusting through - either would fill the tank with water. My tank rusted through the other way first, sort of luckily, and filled the bilge with diesel.

Ebikes, escooters and all motorised transport should be treated like motorbikes , which is what they are. Numberplates and registered to an owner, who is liable for damage no matter who is riding. No reason why a licence shouldn't be required to ride them, either. Just because a government can't be bothered, doesn't mean it isn't a simple solution. They pass enough daft laws - if they can make it illegal to walk slowly down a road, they could sort ebikes.

Enforcement of cyclists has the same problem as enforcement of CC rules - identification. It's impossible for ordinary bikes to be identifiable though it would be perfectly easy for electrics if the will was there, which it isn't. That would take politicians (of all stamps and at all levels) who had some interest in real life rather than playing games.

Water was so low at the T&M summit last week that I couldn't get into one of the Stoke locks, and it has rained a bit lately. The CRT bloke who came to sort it out blamed vandals for opening paddles overnight - I did point out that the gates on the flight leaked so much that a lock someone had just emptied (and mistakenly shut the gates on me as I approached it), was half full again by the time I'd walked up to it. Others on the flight, filled by someone going up just before me, were almost empty by the time I reached them. It really doesn't bode well for the summer. Until a few years ago there were anti vandal locks on the top couple, too, presumably taken off because vandalism isn't really a problem.

I passed a few hire fleets over the last few weeks and was surprised that most of them were still pretty full of unhired ones. But at the prices mentioned, and the way the weather has been (and was forecast to be) , I suppose it's to be expected. Doesn't bode well, though for them, especially with the expected summer water shortages and stoppages on the popular rings.

If you think the UK can do anything whatsoever to prevent wars, especially after doing its best to bust a local alliance, declaring its willingness to break international law and its opposition to any general definition of human rights, you really need help. We'd be a lot better off having a nice well kept water park to play on while the rest of the fools play games.

Ah, almost every sensible contribution to a debate needs a bit of racism to spice it up, doesn't it?

I'd imagine CRT keep an eye on the site, though I'd have my doubts about it even being a valid listing.

I use hire boat charges to work out whether it's worth keeping my boat. So my usual 12 weeks cruising each year would cost... hmmm... probably keep the boat , then. I can remember people saying it was cheaper to hire than own, and I suppose if you only get a couple of weeks a year it still is, just.

Before I was aware of any of the rules about renting a private boat out, I did it fairly regularly, until I realised that it always, but always, came back damaged - massive dent in the hull, deck planks broken, engine out of oil or stern tube not greased, toilet unemptied, batteries flat, internal fittings damaged and more - and these were friends or close acquaintances I was lending it to. None ever admitted doing the damage, they never mentioned it or offered to pay to remedy it. You'd spend the next six months of your occupancy putting it right, and possibly replacing the gearbox.

And if BW had had the sense just to increase licence fees all round to take into account that everyone, even Higgs, has to moor somewhere, rather than penalising home moorers alone, they could have cut collection costs in half, scrapped half the bureaucracy, and CRT would have a lot more money and we'd all be paying the same.

I'm just back from three weeks on the T&M, very quiet there. Most days saw one or two boats moving.

And continuous cruisers don't moor? I suppose that's what continuous means. Higgs, the Flying Dutchman of the canal system. I pay a farmer a rent to moor against his land, nothing to do with CRT. I also pay a surcharge to CRT in order to be a home moorer, just like you (now) pay a much lower surcharge to be a cruiser, even though you cause more damage to CRT land with your moorings than I do, and, assuming you actually do move legally, use more facilities . And, what's more, I've not spent the last ten years whinging. Or, for that matter, moaning about people who use the system different to what I do and blaming them fir everything. However, no point in confusing you with facts. It is odd, though, that you spent years complaining about the rules that affected you when you lived permanently in a marina (your choice), and now you're complaining about the rules that affect you as a cruiser (also your choice). Epicurus can be your friend. Read him and learn.

Got to give the NBTA their due, they got their side of the story splashed all over the media . CRT just sound like the usual corporate nonspeak.

Stoke Boats are about an hour's cruise from the bottom of the Caldon. They've got a slipway. The Stoke Boat Club are on the Caldon, they may be able to help.

But as they are there already, everyone else would be in exactly the same position they are now, the only difference being CRT would have more money. And saying people can't break the law just because they think they have good reason, is nonsense, because they do. You can say they shouldn't (your moral judgement), but not that they can't.

My personal view of the NBTA is that I'm pretty sure they have a fair proportion of members who genuinely need their help and are trying to boat within the law. No doubt there are plenty of the alternatives, but that's true of any association. All the grief to do with non moving CCers, and most of the arguments, are due to the fact that CRT and the NBTA are trying to deal with symptoms, not causes, which are out of their control. And so there simply are no solutions, because nobody is looking at the root cause of the problems, nor does anyone have any intention of doing so. People need somewhere to live, and want to do it where they have work, family or friends. Until someone decides to sort that out, our little waterways problems aren't going to get solved. A few quid in CRTs coffers is possibly the best they can hope for.

I saw him briefly last week on the way down through Stoke. If I can't find a number I'll try him on Facebook but I'm not sure he uses it any more. With a bit of luck I'll manage without.

Rob is the non CRT chap who helps, largely as a hobby, on the Stoke flight. If anyone has his number, could you PM it to me? He gave me a card about fifteen years ago but unsurprisingly I can't find it. He's an old friend and I do often run into him on a random basis, but this trip I've hurt my back and it would be handy if I can contact him to ask for a bit of help if it turns out I can't manage. Thanks.

The guy I met had his son with him, helping. Can't remember the name.

It won't. I think CRT just realised that the vast majority of those registered as CC were taking the mick and decided to penalise them, and that those that were being unfairly treated were so few they couldn't raise much of a fuss. All other justifications were just made up to make it look better and avoid the accusations that CRT wasn't really addressing the root problem.

Not if you don't have a licence or any ID on the boat there isn't. And once legit boats had trackers, CRT would stop any spotting, so you'd just get more and more unlicenced boats. I didn't spot him, and I'm currently an anonymous boat until I get the name back on!