Arthur Marshall

If they do phase out printed licences, what will they do about boats displaying no number? Or fifteen boats with the same number, for that matter. There again, it'll stop that bloke on the Bridgewater from photographing them.

It would certainly lead to an improvement in corporate behaviour all round. But as far as I'm aware, the whole point of being a corporation or a limited company is to avoid this kind of responsibility - a director of a limited company can walk away from losses incurred by the company while the corporation is viewed as an entity separate from its members and so on. This was a valid concept when businessmen had a sense of responsibility to the society they operated in but does seem outdated now. I'm not for a moment suggesting that businessmen's ethics have changed in the slightest, but when markets were essentially local they could be held to account (you just went somewhere else and they went broke) and this is no longer the case. Here, it would appear that both sides are in some ways in the wrong, there's no moral highground. My own suspicion is that as far as the shipowner is concerned, panic set in when things started going not well and he carried on in hope rather than trying to sort it out. In CRT's case they followed their usual approach of cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. I may be wrong, and one side may have been deliberately criminal and the other acting intentionally vindictively but I tend to the cock-up theory of history rather than the other.

My initial one word answer to this post has, quite correctly, been moderated out of existence as it was a personal insult. Obviously, being called a hypocrite and a homeless-person-kicker doesn't count, which I suppose is fair enough as it's an example of what houndog regards as reasoned argument. Er, the owner didn't "go" to court over the arrears, he was taken to court. There's a difference, though it may escape you as some of the words have more than one syllable. Having spent some time on the street, I really appreciate your last line, by the way.

As my opinions haven't changed over the past few weeks I doubt that I expressed anything different. Context may of course have given that impression. I have no knowledge of or history with the lightship owner, but I do have an aversion to businessmen who deliberately rip off people in order to maximise their profits and then wriggle out of their obligations, whether tbey own BHS or a boat. I also think CRT should act within the law, but not being a legal expert I have no idea as to whether they are or not. Nigel's argument are convincing, but obviously CRT has arguments that have convinced them (that we don't know about) and until these are tried in court no-one really knows. So we can only really comment on the moral / ethical position, where the only two facts that we are certain of is that someone deliberately didn't pay his dues and that his property was then removed in order to stop the situation continuing. Anything else is just speculation and hot air - until it comes to court (if it ever does).

That's how I wrote it, too. There are those who deliberately misread in order to further their own agendas - easy enough to spot them, they're the ones who sling insults about (eg rank hypocrisy) instead of rational argument, or, indeed, thought.

Possibly time also that freeloaders who don't pay their dues, licences and mooring fees and happily rake in profits by doing so also get held to account. I realise that ripping people off is normal business practice, but am surprised is seems to be so approved of by some contributors who so are quick to attack others. You tend not to be in a good position to complain about people bending the law when you've a blatant history of doing it yourself.

Eek. I didn't mean to start all this... I think I've been convinced not to bother. I suspect it would end up the way I feel about everyone taking endless photos of stuff on their mobiles - they wind up being so busy pratting about recording things they never actually experience what the world's like. And I'd forgotten how noisy they are (drones, not people with mobiles).

Interesting, my son tells me that the software on his won't let it fly within the legal distance of an airport.

That rather depends on what you do with it. Has no-one on here really got one? My son has a mindboggling video of the llangollen aquaduct, but then he uses his commercially (and legally).

Thinking about getting a drone to play with while out cruising - anyone got any recommendations or advice?

Whatever the opinion of whoever, CRT have been taking boats away from people who have no licence for a while and until a court says they can't, they'll see no reason to stop. It solves their problem of recalcitrant and uncommunicative customers and puts them in the driving seat,so to speak. In the short term it may cost them money, in the long term they lose license fees (which probably were not going to be paid anyway) but it gets rid of the problem. Possession has always been nine points of the law. In this particular case, it would be interesting to see a balance sheet to see how much money the owner took out of the business while not paying his dues.

I seem to have been remarkably lucky to still be alive. The glass in my Villager stove used to crack every winter and I never used to bother to replace it for months for various not particularly good reasons, mosly idleness and because it was too cold to let the fire out. This of course is while blocking up the door vents to stop the draughts and well before CO monitors became the norm. I therefore tend to think that the panic reaction of "don't dare use the fire under any circumstances" is a bit excessive. If the crack is tight (so tight you can't move the glass) I can't see how it can leak CO into the boat. These things happen. As long as you've got ventilation in the boat neither you nor your cat are unlikely to suffer harm. Yes, you should be careful about these things but also keep them in proportion. And if the clips that hold the glass in have fallen to bits you can make new ones out of an old tin can, cut to size, doubled over and with a hole drilled in it.

Well, we are more concerned with towpaths than roads on here, and we are more likely to be mowed down by cyclists (some motor assisted) than by manic car drivers. I might mention that the death of most people is actually a bit sad, so it's a bit pointless mentioning it, especially if you're complaining about people being emotive. I don't think many of us hate cyclists, bearing in mind most of us cycle, and the idea of clouting thoughtless passers by with a mooring pin has struck most of us at one time or another, though I rather doubt we'd actually do it. Fantasy is sometimes a calming thing, and I have many a time thought dark thoughts about stupid kids on motorbikes hurtling past my boat at full pelt, careless of pedestrians or anyone else. The lake in Stoke and down by the Wedgewood Musiem seem to be blackspots. Anyway, the answer to the OP's question appears to be no, we don't know anything about it.

That's the problem with litigation - it's not exactly nippy. But surely it wouldn't take that long to get an injunction forbidding the sale if the courts considered there was a valid case to be considered? It's now over three months since the ship was seized.

They appear to consider they are in the right. The fact that noneof the threatened legal action seems to have got anywhere suggest they are correct. Nowhere where the landlord (sealord?) expects to get paid!

It doesn't seem to have got anywhere if it's being advertised for sale.

I thought the story was that the owner was getting some kind of injunction either to stop a sale or to get his boat back, or to sell it himself. Presumably he hasn't taken any legal steps - probably glad he's rid of it.

Tesco trolley round the prop.

That's not the first time I've been told I act like I'm only 6.3% grown up.

My Villager Puffin (I think it is) has the only control as opening the ash pan door, which really gave very little control at al - the fire was either roaring or out. I drilled a circle of holes in it, drilled a hole in the centre of the circle for a bolt and added a regulator wheel which could be either shut or opened to various degrees. It all got much more controllable. I think more modern fires all have adjustable sliders or wheels at the bottom as well as this newfangled airwash thing, which i wish mine had.

Excellent second paragraph. It sums up the whole problem really. It ought to be looked at in a wider context than just the canal laws, but unfortunately it won't be, because politicians don't do that. And the idea that school buses will be provided to take boat kids to school under the current financial constraints on councils is plain daft. It doesn't matter a jot what the statutory obligations are, either for health, education, social care or whatever - if the money isn't there, it aint going to happen. Luckily, there's was plenty for a garden bridge in London, HS2, Trident, fracking... not a lot for education, housing etc. It's all a matter of priorities.

I don't think anyone's really trying to dump blame onto anyone. Half the stuff you see posted on FB (and in the Daily Mail) is complaining that kids today don't do anything like what we used to but just stay at home playing with gadgets and they should go out and have adventures. All you can do with kids is tell them to be careful (knowing that they won't be) and then hope they come home at the end of the day, as any parent knows. There are always kids jumping off bridges into the canal and not many of them die. The fact that some do is just that, a sad fact. Some do other things and manage to kill or hurt themselves. Most don't. All children think they are indestructable, and all parents know they aren't.

Their list of parts they'll replace for you is: Starter Motor, Starter Alternator, Water Pump (engine only), Injection & Lift Pump, Gearbox & Drive Plate, Couplings (including aquadrive, python drive), Hydraulic Pipes, Engine Mounts, Remote Mechanical Steering and Hydraulic Controls (pumps, ramps, morse), Fuel Injection Pump (excluding injectors), IC Igniter/CDI Unit, (outboard), Carburettor (outboard & petrol). (Taken from the manual) They've replaced my starter (though I'm not at all sure that they needed to). If you break down completely they'll organise and pay for a tow for you, either home or to the nearest yard that can fix whatever's gone wrong. When the clutch went in my gearbox, they said they would get me a tow but I'd be better off getting home by myself if i could as the cost of it would come out of the contribution they would make to the cost of the repair. Had to haul it down the Bosley flight but got towed by a variety of friendly boaters the rest of the way.

Bronze with RCR. Cover is more or less the same whatever level, but bronze only covers the boat if I'm on it. They'll replace starters or some other bits and help when you break down but their in-house engineers are useless for old engines so they buy in contractors. But you do get sorted in the end. They paid £1000 towards my last gearbox disaster and may well be doing the same again next week, which I reckon covers my subs for the rest of my life...

Catalytic, indeed. I did survive, though it melted part of my guitar case and nearly removed my eyebrows once. That was when I got rid of it and put the stove in. It was the only heating in the boat when I got it.