Jerra
-
Posts
7,636 -
Joined
-
Days Won
96
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Jerra
-
-
4 minutes ago, IanD said:
Usual excuse from a repeat offender... 😉
Please point me to several posts where I have in your opinion displayed an I am all right jack attitude.
I have done it no more often than you.
However, as I said you frequently read the worst into posts and when challenged make sweeping untrue assertions as you have now.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, IanD said:
Alan: "The other way of looking at it, is that people who buy boats to go boating..."
You: "Which is probably why we have not had a problem finding pump out facilities."
Sympathetic? Really?
Yet again merely commenting on a possible reason for why we have never had difficulties. however if you are the sort of person who always looks for problems in what people say then you might read it differently.
Not my fault if you did.
-
10 minutes ago, ruthieruthruth said:
And also why they are not on here asking for advice on the very problem I am facing. Unfortunately some of still have to work. Largely to pay the huge pump out fees it feels like ATM
I didn't suggest you could move often, I merely explained a possible reason for my not noticing that pumpouts were so thin on the ground.
9 minutes ago, IanD said:Lack of understanding of or sympathy for someone in a different situation is unfortunately all too common on CWDF... 😞
#imallrightjack
Don't jump to conclusions and read my reply to Ruthierruthruth.
-
14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
The other way of looking at it, is that people who buy boats to go boating, (rather that being static) will probably pass at least one Pump-out station per week (maybe more) so it does not become an issue for them they empty as and when they want to.
Which is probably why we have not had a problem finding pump out facilities.
-
I am not good on canal geography but are there really places that are three hours in any direction to find a pump out?
We never seem to have to go far before we find one when needed.
-
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:
I don't intend to waste my time trawling through the clutter you presented.
You seem to lack comprehension.
No need to look back at anything.
You clearly don't care about the canals and boating, hence such comments as let them rot. So all you have to do is explain why you keep coming on a forum about something you clearly don't care about.
It is a little illogical don't you think?
-
4 minutes ago, Higgs said:
The income from boaters, It's chicken feed, what are you talking about. The money required to maintain the canal is a much bigger sum, and regularly.
Can't be bothered with the rest. Cut it down.
In other words, you don't give a damn about the canals and their continued existence.
Why on earth do you bother coming on a discussion forum about something you don't care about?
To quote a certain super market chain "every little helps.
-
1 hour ago, Higgs said:
Boaters have a problem..., being able to use the canal.
OF course and reducing the income of CRT makes using the canal even more difficult as maintenance decreases.
1 hour ago, Higgs said:There are marinas on the cut that do not make the moorers pay for a licence.
As far as I know, these are ones which don't need an access agreement because either they were created before the agreement was introduced or they have a historic right because of things like being a wharf.
If you can prove there is a marina which was created after access agreements were introduced you have a point if not the argument doesn't hold water (pun intended).
1 hour ago, Higgs said:To run the marina business, they do not feel the need to demand the moorers are licensed.
Because they didn't need an access agreement. It really is simple to understand. If your business needed to negotiate an access you have to agree to boats being licenced. It isn't a choice to allow boats without a licence if you need a new access.
1 hour ago, Higgs said:There is nothing binding on these marianas to force moorers to pay into the CRT pot.
There is if they needed to negotiate access. They made an agreement with CRT as the farce at Pillins showed they might escape for a time but eventually, they do need to ensure boats are licenced and they pay their dues to CRT.
1 hour ago, Higgs said:These marinas haven't signed away their independence and that of their moorers to choose. And I'm sure CRT would like to remove this freedom some marinas have.
If you are talking about those with historic rights I am sure any business running the canals would want to have the same agreement for all. However, imposing conditions retrospectively doesn't happen. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.
1 hour ago, Higgs said:And those marinas that have signed the NAA, yes, they've been obliged to demand that moorers are licensed. Those licences are, however, meaningless within the marina.
How do you suggest CRt ensure boats leaving the marina are licenced, insured and safe (safety certificate) without such an agreement? You start by saying "Boaters have a problem.... being able to use the canals" so you obviously want good functioning canals. Clearly, you don't want less maintenance, in fact probably more. So can you suggest a more cost effective way of ensuring any boat that leaves the marina is licenced?
I doubt it! So by arguing against insisting on a licence in marinas, you are arguing in favour of the canals degenerating and being worse for boaters and boating.
Realistically which would you prefer no NAA and the vast loss of income or canals degenerating more slowly and being available for slightly longer?
I know which I would choose.
1 hour ago, Higgs said:There is no legitimacy about them. Marinas are neither the legal body that issues them, nor the legislature, so cannot give that power to CRT, and cannot make the licence a legal permit within the marina confines.
Have you ever been in business? We found with the two jewellers shops you made pragmatic agreements with your suppliers. To not do so made the business less viable.
All an NAA is is a pragmatic agreement between CRt and the marina entered into voluntarily by the marina. The developers of the marina could have weighed up "do we want the marina here and sign an NAA or should we move to waters that aren't CRT controlled". Clearly, those with an NAA chose CRT waters.
It is a simple common business practice.
1 hour ago, Higgs said:And now that some people have seen fit to load use of the canal onto some licence holders, moorers that never leave the confines of a marina are due a big, big discount. If the unfair practice of forcing moorers to buy an unnecessary licence isn't stopped, I'd suggest at least a 75% discount.
I look forward to you giving a detailed description of one of two things, your choice.
a) How CRT maintain the canals in their current state let alone a better condition with drastically reduced income.
b) How CRT make up the loss of income that you are pressing for.
Assuming you can do neither then your opening statement re boaters having a problem rings hollow. If you don't have an answer to either of my last two points you clearly don't give a damn about boaters being able to use the canals, as without more income let alone the loss of income you are pressing for the canals will rapidly cease to be navigable.
So the ball is in your court, choose a) or b) and give a detailed answer. Failure to do so clearly shows you have no interest in the survival of the canals as a navigable system.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Higgs said:
The licence is a legal entity. Condition of use and need apply, in a legal framework. The T&Cs of a marina is not the legislature that give authority to the licence conditions.
The agreement regarding the marina and CRT has nothing whatever to do with licence conditions. IIRC there are three licence conditions and they have nothing to do with any business agreement between the marina and CRT.
So basically I don't understand why you are trying desperately to link the two.
5 hours ago, Higgs said:Be ok, if we were discussing it. But I'd challenge CRT to take the clause out of the NAA, specifically relating to the need for boaters to have a licence on the marinas private property. Then we will know if the marina will then choose to apply that to its T&Cs.
I realise you won't accept this but I spent 40 years trying to get recalcitrant young folk to understand things so I might as well try with you.
CRT have a problem, they need to ensure all boats (well as far as is reasonably possible) are licenced. They go for the most cost effective solution. That is to come to an agreement with a business that produces a win-win situation. All perfectly normal and legal. They agree with the business that the business can have a private entrance to their system (as opposed to lifting boats over the bank) in return the business agrees to have a requirement in its T&Cs that boats must be licenced. All perfectly normal and fully legal.
Just as it is legal for a business to lay down conditions in its T&Cs e.g motor vehicles must be taxed and insured.
What law has been broken? What business agreement is not normal? Why do you consider such everyday practices make CRT like the mafia?
-
2 minutes ago, Higgs said:
Yes, the Mafia are an savoury bunch. CRT, too, are unsavoury; not, perhaps, in the same league, but nevertheless, have some questionable ethical standards.
"Which of the many laws of the country have CRT broken?" Which law, that applies to needing a licence, have they or the marinas followed?
So despite your wild assertion, you quote no laws broken and yet liken them to the mafia. Totally illogical.
The situation with the marinas breaks no law it is a business agreement to allow the marina access to the canal. The marina like all businesses decides if the agreement suits it and its business. Nothing wrong or illegal merely pragmatism by both sides.
I am off out for the day so will have to reply later.
-
4 minutes ago, Higgs said:
You and others make the argument that the only justification is in the needing of funds. How does that differ from the Mafia.
The difference is simple the mafia kills, robs, etc. CRT doesn't.
Which of the many laws of the country have CRT broken? Does the number of laws broken equal those broken by the Mafia? Was the mafia formed by a legally elected government (albeit elected by a minority of voters)?
-
2 minutes ago, Higgs said:
As I've said before, the MAFIA want funding, and you think it's right for that to be the best argument.
The mafia are a criminal organisation which criminal organisation are you dragging into the discussion and does it have any relevance?
-
3 minutes ago, Higgs said:
What do think I'm wishing for. Just because people think CRT should be funded, it doesn't mean fair or foul means are the same, and that no account should be taken of ethical considerations.
Personally, I don't see anything ethical about it. There are a number of things in life I would have liked to have done but couldn't as I couldn't afford it. Also, there are things I have had to stop doing because changes made them unaffordable.
Life is like that, boating is no different.
-
1 minute ago, Higgs said:
Those who wanted to slap a surcharge on CCers must think they are acting in a fair way. Use of the system can now be calibrated. It's now a concept. Not using it can also be part of calibrating it.
As I said be careful what you wish for! If you are happy with a massive drop in income and the associated degeneration of the system fair enough keep pushing the concept.
I would suggest those who don't want to move about get the boat onto a hard standing or buy a land based property.
I really can't understand any boater who wishes to reduce the CRT income whether by fighting surcharges or licences for being in a marina.
I think "shooting yourself in the foot" fits the bill.
-
I suspect that if marinas were allowed to have boats without licences CRT income would plummet.
1. All those who use the boat as a country cottage and never move wouldn't buy a licence.
2. Those who go out only for the odd weekend would risk not having a licence.
3. Those who go out slightly more often or for an annual holiday might buy a licence but a short-term cheaper one.
Do we really want CRT to have another cut in their income? If it happened imagine how the wails about lack of maintenance would rise.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:
Just don't...
I wouldn't bother. I did try, I really did, but ten seconds was enough.
I am pleased it wasn't just me.
-
45 minutes ago, Chris Lowe said:
That would be my meaning as well, coming from Windsor.
And mine coming from Cumbria
-
42 minutes ago, Frankgh said:
Sack Barrow? Oh, you mean a Hand Truck! Thank goodness for google translator!
That's a new one on me I have never known them called anything but Sack Barrow.
I have used one of the collapsible ones, stores away in a very small space.
Edit to add:
A sack truck, also known as a hand trolley, dolly, stack truck, sack barrow, cart, two wheeler or bag barrow originated in the 18th century to move large sacks of spices on docks by young boys, who were unable to lift the large sacks by hand.
Perhaps this is why I have only ever heard it called a sack barrow.
-
10 minutes ago, MrshappyH said:
So I read you're not meant to mix enzymes with the aerobic bacteria (obv there will be some in there) but if you're going for the numbers of total aerobicness 😆. It was just a Google search that told me that. Apparently the conditions for enzymes are different? And the two don't mix. We aren't doing enzymes anyway as it's way harder to get the balance right apparently.. sigh if only I could opt for a compost. We've got 3 friends with composts on their boats..
Ok though your point is noted. I have been advised that they aren't suitable however ?! 🤷♀️.
I assume you can't opt for a composting toilet as you have nowhere to finish the composting. If you had it would be no problem Peterboat manages well with a composting toilet.
-
I see frequent mentions of "not using chemicals". I am not sure I would class Odorlos as a "chemical" in the sense most people mean when they say chemicals.
The treatment is a blend of enzymes, friendly bacteria and surfactants (compounds that lower the surface tension of the liquid) which help to break down waste and tissue. Odourlos (Odorlos) is 100% organic, biodegradable and suitable for any black water tank system and chemically sensitive people.
-
She is a very talented artist.
-
22 minutes ago, IanD said:
Thumper was a rabbit in Bambi -- as I'd have thought most people would have known, not just @MtB's mum ! -- who said "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all" 🙂
Isn't that a double negative? Which means you should say something, are we sure that is the wording?
I would think:
"If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all"
Would be more appropriate.
-
5 minutes ago, Tonka said:
We haven't banned it, so either the government don't care if they are making money from it in taxation
Is vaping taxed?
-
27 minutes ago, Tonka said:
But we still allow smoking and vaping and that kills
As far as I know, the health damage caused by vaping hasn't been established. Do you have any more up to date information? Having a brother who vapes I would be pleased to know.
Cr@ppy problem on new (old) NB - to cassette or not to cassette?
in Boat Building & Maintenance
Posted
As I said before it depends on the attitude of the mind that reads it.
I am still waiting for your proof I am a serial offender. Any reason why you haven't provided it as you seemed so confident I am a serial offender?