Arthur Marshall

There's a difference between fighting when your legal rights are encroached on and taking advantage of loopholes. The latter is morally debatable (sometimes valid, sometimes not) but is a consequence of bad lawmaking or changes in circumstances so that the laws no longer fit the current situation. It's the difference between "everything is permitted except what is forbidden" and "everything is forbidden except what is permitted". In the UK, we work on the first principle (at least mostly, so far). The current court cases seem to me to be when punitive action has been deliberately taken without legal justification (though I'm not an expert here), and that's very different from just avoiding the letter of the law. Me, I'm a great believer in loopholes and staying under the radar as far as possible. The law, as the man said, is a rich man's tool.

Yes but... generally, novice hirers are keen to learn and happy to be advised as they go along, after all, if they weren't interested in how the systems work they mostly wouldn't be there in the first place. Most of the really bad stuff I've seen has been deliberate by private boats, not accidental by hirers. And with a bit of tolerance (and the willingness occasionally to slow down) there really is no need to add yet another layer of paperwork and administration. Although, of course, we would all have total confidence in CRT to administer any such scheme fairly and efficiently, and certainly not withdraw anyone's rights to drive a boat without notice or explanation...

You're going to test everyone who hires a dayboat? Takes out a hire boat for a week? Every boat owner's friend who fancies a drive for a bit? Because if you don't it's pointless. There is nothing more irritating and dangerous than the self-righteous someone who knows a "rule" and is going to apply it even while aware that nobody else does. Gods preserve us frome more useless bureaucracy.

It's certainly quicker and easier to get a result from someone you can trace, but it doesn't mean things aren't going on under the radar for the hard to trace boats . Though , judging by the number who seem permanently ensconced in certain places, it probably isn't.

Of course, if you blast twice but ths approaching boat misses the first blast and only realises you are hooting on the second, could get interesting. I'm going to stick to waving my arms about and slowing down, which has worked fine for the last thirty years. Assuming an approaching boat knows horn signals is a recipe for disaster.

Much snipped, but there's nothing to stop me from nipping out to the pub at the weekend, pottering about for the next ten days and then pottering home, all in the same area, and not getting any grief from CRT. And then doing it again the next weekend. More or less what I've been doing for the past 30 years. What I can't do is have my mooring on the Macc and go and live in London for the rest of my life without shifting. And whether that's legal under the act, it's certainly ethically valid. Maaybe it's the Act which isn't fit for the purpose, or the boaters who try it on, not CRT.

Well, I would be unlikely to hear a horn, for a start, being a deaf old fart standing on an aircooled Lister. The bumper car phrase was obviously used humourously, no-one acts like that. Last thing we need is any more rules and regulations to be misapplied and clog up the small bit of freedom that remains to us.

Beats looking at trees all day.

The Harecastle records have never been included on the CRT records, same as the Anderton Lift ones aren't. I think the tunnel record is for their H&S purposes only - they aren't supposed to let you through without safety cert, and the only way to know if you have one is if you have a licence.ETA I agree it's daft, though!

My observations were to the general discussion - if it looked like anything else I apologise. Of course I accept the truth of what your OP said - be no point in posting it otherwise. With the new T&Cs, they are now.

Firtsly, of course not. You may not have noticed that the discussion has broadened out a bit. Won't bother to answer second para. I would however like to know why you think CRT are going after large numbers of boaters. In years of boating, meeting and chatting with boaters, I've only ever met one, and that was Dave Mayers,and I'm not sure he counts as compliant. Can you let me know the number of compliant boaters approached (which you obviously know) so we can get a better idea of the percentages? I accept my estimates are based on experience and anecdotal evidence only.

I didn't think there were that many boatyards left. ETA mmmmm cake.

With 8 sightings in a year, if they'd all been in the same place it would have flagged you up! As they obviously weren't, it's quite enough to tell CRT not to worry about you. 99% of the time the system works fine. 99% of the rest of the time, a short communication sorts it out. The ones you hear about are the other ones, and you never, ever, get the full story...

I used to go for a Sunday walk with my dad along the derelict Chichester canal when I were nobbut a lad. And now it's got a trip boat on it. These things get in the blood.

That's what I did after failing with the cheap stuff. Mine are fine after three years, though I do put a cover over the back deck to keep the bulk of the snow off them over winter.

I got bollocked by one of the Bosley volunteers a while back for something or other I was doing - can't actually remember what, but it was certainly nothing I hadn't done a hundred times before and was a perfectly normal part of my locking. Some of them are as bit officious - I'm surprised they knew what was going on down the flight though, they usually just sit at the top drinking tea. They certainly have never come down the flight to help me as a singlehander. I came through Middlewich a month back - one of the volunteers had bust a strap on his lifejacket, so he wasn't allowed to go anywhere near the lock. His mate didn't seem to want to either, the two of them just stood and watched a series of boats working through by themselves.

Must admit when I bought mine I knew nothing except that I wanted a boat. I was right, too...

Does anyone really, really, want a CRT boat tracking system that is 100% efficient and accurate? I suppose a camera on every bridge with registration plate recognition could be arranged - it works on motorways, after all.. Either you want no tracking whatsoever, or you have to have a system which you meet halfway with your own records and be prepared to have the odd discussion and maybe one or two heated arguments. Thirty years ago nobody cared (for many reasons) much if you hardly/never moved, but now they do. The endless "not fit for the purpose" chorus is getting a bit dull - I've not seen a constructive alternative suggested yet.

Can't see how they could. Defining area is so vague you might actually be crossing a CRT defined area boundary anyway. But you're still only in a "place" for 14 days, just shifted for convenience, no different from moving up on your original mooring to let someone in.

I got asked if I lifted my fenders up when cruising. I said yes and they told me I must be a hire boat. Mind you, damn thing would probably cost me less if I was...

To be honest, if you move a short distance once in a while I suspect you wouldn't have any problems. If you claim to be on a continuous cruise and move 400 yards in a year, I suspect you will. If you have a home mooring and hang around a 400 yard area for a year without ever going home, you may have problems too as you may get asked why you don't have a home mooring where you want to keep the boat. Some of this hassle may be in accordance with the letter of the law and some may not, but it may well be morally justified. Or not, depending on your view of what the law is for or how much you want to get up the nose of other boaters. It's an old argument and a pointless one. Best maybe just to do what you think is right, act in a way you would like other boaters to, and only get involved in a fight if the other side starts it and you think you can win.

Bugsworth's is how mine currently works, but as said in some areas I get no reception on FM or DAB, and in weak areas I get interference as I movre round in the boat. Is this normal?

Yes, sorry about the confusion, I mean an aerial with a built in signal amplifier, not one that whizzes up and down. I'll try a standard one and see how it goes. BUT, I'm now confused about "A car aerial shouldn't make contact with the hull. If the aerial doesn't make contact with the hull then it doesn't have a ground plane and won't work very well. So... the usual method is to separate the screen from the aerial and reconnect it via a capacitor." The first two sentences seem to contradict each other. On my aerial, there's a serrated washer that fits underneath and grips into the bottom of the metal roof as you tighten it. Maybe, if this is wrong, this is why the bog standard VHF aerial isn't working well - advice? ETA what I find is, that if the signal is a bit weak, moving about inside the boat can affect reception considerably on FM, slightly less so on DAB. Looking back at old threads on this, should I have the radio itself earthed to the hull? I don't understand the technicalities behind it all, as you will have gathered.

I want to instal a DAB aerial onto the boat roof, and most of these are powered. On a car, they just have one live connection and presumably the negative goes through the car body, which won't work on the boat. Should I just connect the negative wire to the bottom of the aerial? And could this be why the splitter I'm currently using doesn't seem to function very well - it's only got a single red wire connection.

It's a lot more letters to fit on their little badges. Anyway, it's normal behaviour for rubbish management. You either count stuff of change the names of things. Makes it look like you've achieved summat, so you can get your bonus for the year... doesn't actually fool any of the people on the ground though.