Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

NigelMoore

Member
  • Content count

    3,835
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

NigelMoore last won the day on October 15 2017

NigelMoore had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

571 Excellent

3 Followers

About NigelMoore

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,990 profile views
  1. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    That post has been reproduced on the NABO facebook page an hour ago, with the preamble: "This relates to the bill to allow the middle level commissioners to charge for boat licences and insist on a BSS certificate. There is talk about the provision of facilities but nothing in the bill insists that they do." That is a step in the right direction; it would be good if they elaborated a bit more, so that their members had a proper appreciation of what the Bill means to boaters there. Positive additions/amendments need to be sorted as early as possible, and representative 'petitions' prepared in time to enter within the limited time slot - 10 to 14 days from the 28th, unless new rules accompany the new 'template'.
  2. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Received by email today - Dear all, Further to my email below, I am writing to let you know that a debate on Report Stage for the Middle Level Bill has now been scheduled for Wed 28 February. It will be in the afternoon, starting probably around 4 pm, depending on the progress of business that day. You should be aware that Third Reading may also take place that day, and if it passes, the Bill will go to the Lords the next day, which will trigger the start of the petitioning period in the Lords. Since petitioning in the Commons we have made some changes to the petitioning process, including the petition template – though the principles remain largely the same. We are aiming to have guidance published next week, prior to the start of petitioning. Mark Cooper (cc’d) is the main contact for the Private Bill Office in the Lords, and will be able to advise on Lords procedure. "COOPER, Mark" <COOPERM@parliament.uk>
  3. Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.

    I meant sewage of course, my carelessness. I will, but I am of course something of a literalist myself.
  4. Narrowboat at sea adventure

    The narrowboat ‘I Francis’ was the subject of several topics on this Forum, with a preponderance of cynics posting on the likelihood of narrowboats crossing the Atlantic.
  5. Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.

    In 2016 the company Thames Water were fined a million pounds for polluting the Wendover Arm. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thames-water-fined-1-million-for-pollution-to-grand-union-canal Hailed as a record level of fine back then, it paled into insignificance last year, when the same company was hit with a £20 million fine for polluting the Thames with sewerage. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/thames-water-hit-with-record-fine-for-huge-sewage-leaks So far as I recall, however, BW/CaRT always had someone else to blame for canal pollution – as in this potential case - and Shoosmiths wouldn’t be bothered anyway.
  6. Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.

    Unusually pedantic of you MtB! Shoosmiths do not expend resources trawling through this site; their gleaning of material is third hand from their client – and yes, I agree that the focus will be limited. It is ‘debbifiggy’ who keeps an eye out for anything that might be of interest, and she emails the relevant department with copies of the posts that catch her eye. It is many a long year since she was visible on the site, let alone make contributions, but she is active nonetheless, and cannot be alone. It would be nice to think that she &/or any others were alert to news items and opinions that their bosses should be interested in, not just looking for ammunition.
  7. Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.

    They certainly do! Whether they read everything is debatable of course, but they do keep track of certain posters and topics. They have even exhibited posts in the High Court as evidence, BW/CaRT members of the Forum emailing copies to the legal department at least.
  8. Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.

    That is correct. Ironically, s.8 was designed – as I understand it – specifically for boats without known owners [known owners of unregistered or unlicensed boats could and should be pursued under relevant statutory or byelaw offences respectively]. So any boat sunk, stranded, abandoned, or unlicensed/registered without a known owner, can be subjected to the s.8 procedure without further ado [having done their best to ascertain and contact an owner]. It appears that a letter was left on the boat, and provided that was because any contact information held was not useful, the necessary provisions were met and a s.8 Notice could be issued allowing 28 days for the problem to be sorted. Failing anybody turning up and sorting the situation out within that time, the boat could be removed. Additionally, if pertinent, if the boat was considered an obstruction CaRT could move the boat away so as to ameliorate the obstruction - and do so without any notice at all.
  9. Boat left adrift/abandoned? Hyde Lock, Kinver.

    Section 8 does not really cover this situation [except insofar as they ought to have dealt with an apparently abandoned boat long since, from what has been said]. 28 days from the present parlous state could be too long. So far as CaRT is concerned, a course of action could be to employ the safety provisions of the 1983 Act, section 7. If an officer of the Board has reason to believe that a boat presents a possibly urgent danger to property, he may immediately inspect it without notice, and if that reveals imminent danger, may serve a notice under s.3. That, of course, does not address the potential pollution problem if no owner comes forward timeously, but s5 states: “Where a notice given under subsection (3) of this section is in force, the Board may at any time move the vessel or take such other steps as may be necessary to remove or abate any source of danger on board or arising from the vessel.” So far as they or any member of the public is concerned, there is the Water Resources Act 1991, and guidelines issued by The EA advise on contacting them in events such as this - Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines for marinas and craft (PPG14) The Environment Agency is responsible for the protection of "controlled waters" from pollution under the Water Resources Act 1991 and it is an offence under the Act to cause pollution, either deliberately or accidently. "Controlled waters" include all watercourses and canals, estuaries and coastal waters out to three miles. Diesel, oil and petroleum spirit, sewage and contaminated bilge water can all cause pollution if discharged into controlled waters. . . . The most frequently reported type of water pollution incident involves fuels and oils. By following the guidance in this section you can minimise the risk of your boat or marina being a cause of such pollution. If a spill should occur in freshwaters contact the Environment Agency Emergency Hotline (0800 80 70 60). I suspect imminent danger of such an occurrence would qualify for their attention.
  10. Have just been sent a copy of material from the Court of Appeal – a couple of weeks late! Leigh has been trying to get some work overseas, and was relying on friends to keep track of his mail. Still, it is fairly comprehensive grant of permission to appeal on all the grounds for objection to the 3 issues at stake.
  11. The bath and floor on 'Gilgie' was coated in thick 2-pack clear 'fibreglass' resin instead of varnish. It has withstood the last 15 years. Were I to do it again, I would add fibreglass tissue, though the absence of it has not, in this instance, affected the result.
  12. Wine Cellar - Baseplate cold store

    Why? You could design the shape and size as you wished, to suit whatever location. When family camping we used a small one to keep butter and milk in -- no more than a foot square and about 18" high. Not a Coolgardie safe, but using the same principle, we always had large hessian waterbags hanging up in the local railway stations when I was at school, with chained enamel mug attached. The water was icy cold during summer days. Every car venturing into the outback always had smaller, flat versions hanging from the roo-bars; I even had a couple hung on my front pannier rack when cycling across the Nullarbor.
  13. Wine Cellar - Baseplate cold store

    Have you thought of building a Coolgardie safe for outside? The absolute best method for really chilling drinks and perishables without power; the hotter the weather, the colder the insides.
  14. You could always try building your own. I built a laminated pine bath for ‘Gilgie’, 4’x2’, deep enough to float in. You can’t see much of it for all the stuff Gilly stores in it, unfortunately. It can be used with the hand shower if a bath not wanted [high fixed mount for it, currently used as bag-hook, RHS], and has copper bar-jets as well [or as option], to match the heated towel rail opposite. Mirrored walls make everything feel more spacious [when the clobber is removed, anyway].
  15. London gets tough

    A question that has not been clarified is whether the people demolishing the craft were CaRT employees, sub-contractors, or a mixture of both. It also remains unclear as to what powers they were purporting to exercise. Taking the facts as related in the article as true, it is obvious that the occupants were somewhat ignorant as to the legislation – or at least hazy over the details. I can understand that; I had much the same idea nearly 40 years ago, when knowing nothing of the legal ramifications. In fact, if they were seeking registration, they knew more, though conceivably the order of steps to be taken were not known; carlt’s comments [#92] are apposite. Taking the facts as related in the article as true, it became immediately known to the wrecking crew that people were resident aboard. The question that arises from that is whether the crew were as ignorant of the pertinent legal situation as were the occupants. If the crew were solely sub-contractors, then it may be understandable that they were ignorant – but that reflects upon the management decision to instruct them; it is the responsibility of the legal/enforcement departments to ensure that anybody they use in this way is fully aware of the law. If the crew included CaRT employees, then it is less understandable that they could be ignorant, but some most certainly are, and again, it is the responsibility of their employer to ensure against that. Taking the facts as related in the article as true, what should have done was to immediately cease operations, and refer the matter to the legal department, while apprising the occupants of their responsibilities under the law. They ought to have been given the opportunity to regularise their position, if possible. It is understandable that, having committed funds and manpower to the exercise, everybody was more interested in completing the task regardless of legalities, so creating a fait accompli, but this is not a legitimate justification for CaRT to act against the law. They do seem to believe that it is, as witness their arguments in Jones v CaRT, agreed with by the County Court judge – as the Appeal Court noted: “Ground 3 is directed to the County Court judge’s view that it would “impose a quite significant burden” on the respondent by requiring it to deal in every enforcement case with any possible Article 8 points raised on behalf of a defendant.” [my bold] McCombe LJ: “I do not consider that the judge was correct in identifying the “burden” of dealing with Article 8 defences as a reason for striking them out summarily.” The argument that the navigation authority should not be expected to comply with law where that would be expensive for them, is not new; the British Transport Commission offered the same argument in the High Court back in 1955. “ ‘Is it right?’ Sir Andrew Clark had asked during the course of the hearing, ‘to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a canal merely because one man wants to sail a couple of boats on it?’ " “His (his Lordship’s) answer to that tendentious proposition was: if that was the law, then it was the duty of a statutory monopoly to obey it, just as much as anybody else;” Perhaps [again, accepting the veracity of this story] CaRT were also relying on the same hope as their predecessor – “The defendants well knew, he (his Lordship) was sure, that their failure to repair it was unlawful, but they hoped, he supposed, that no bargee would be able to find the means to contest their inaction in the High Court.”
×