Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by magnetman

  1. 30 minutes ago, waterworks said:



    Bylaw 28 ( I don't have a cut and pasteable copy ) says obstruction of navigation not mooring, that's open to interpretation what the exact definition of " navigation" is,  certainly what you claimed is an interpretation. 

    Mooring a craft for a short duration (overnight?) in the course of navigation is a basic requirement unless you have a 24 hour crew available. I would wager that even back in the day of commercial carrying people did tend to moor the boat up for the night. Obviously not always but it sort of makes sense that this would happen, especially on number ones. 


    Most people don't have 24 hour crew on canal boats these days and it would be unreasonable to expect this. Therefore using a mooring for longer than one night is effectively obstruction of the navigation because it prevents others using the mooring as part of the process of navigating a vessel along the waterway. 


    If towpaths were restricted to 24h stops it would work a whole lot better but they aren't so it doesn't. 






  2. "We reserve the right to arrange for an independent inspection in case of doubt."


    It really isn't rocket science to work out what is being said here. 


    The 3rd party must be of CRT's choosing otherwise it is completely pointless. 


    The VAT is a red herring because is not a reason for the refusal to issue the "relevant consent".


    I know Tony was banging on about "licenses" and "registrations" and the PRN. He has a very good point here.

    However the reality is that the boat was S8'd and removed due to not having the "relevant consent" in other words illegally kept on CRT water. 


    This "relevant consent" could have been issued had the boat had a BS ticket or been subjected -by CRT- to an independent inspection and found to comply with the exemption requirements. 


    It says inspection. There is no mention of photos anywhere in the document ;)



    He took the piss of what is a handy exemption in some circumstances and lost the gamble. 


    Simple really. 


    Get the relevant consent THEN argue about the VAT. Otherwise the VAT is categorically a red herring in the real world. 





    • Greenie 2
  3. 22 minutes ago, Bod said:


    In a nutshell Tony Dunkley's problems started when he asked for a Rivers only Pleasure Boat Certificate, which he was fully entitled to.  


    That's not accurate. 


    He also was attempting to use the BS exception form with a degree of devilment. Basically an attempt to circumvent the requirement to have a boat safety certificate. 


    If he had obtained a BS ticket for the craft the pleasure boat certificate would have been issued. CRT do (for obvious reasons) need to retain the right to inspect where they believe someone is attempting to circumvent the requirement for BS ticket. Otherwise it would be rather a popular option ;)


    The VAT story is a red herring. 


    10 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

    CRT could promote a private Bill to change the 1994 Act, but a) it's a very expensive and long-winded procedure b) the outcome may not be what they (indeed anyone else) expected.  The recent Middle Level Act is an example of such private legislation.



    That could turn out interesting. 

  4. 19 hours ago, waterworks said:

    The PB licence terms and conditions were set out in legislation so that the boat owner would have statutory rights to a fair and accountable public licencing system, what you are doing is enabling CRT to take away your own statutory rights by acquiescing to a terms and conditions contract outside of the legislation. 


    Here is what you are enabling CRT to unlawfully do in their own words..


    " If You breach any of these Conditions the Trust can terminate Your Licence, which may result in the removal of Your boat from our waterways" 


    Your tactic of ignoring this will only work until the terms and conditions change and it affects you, by which time people will say " well you went along with it for the last 20 years why are you complaining now " ?







    What do you think the alternative is? 


    Things have changed since 1995 (coincidentally the first full year I lived on a boat). Other than primary legislation, which I don't think crt are allowed to apply for, how would you suggest matters are handled going forwards in such a way as to avoid parts of the system descending into full scale pikey like slums? 


    This is happening in some places. It's not a made up story. 


    The t&c, while being fairly severe, are a way of dealing with "problems". 


    It's quite easy to see why this is necessary if you think about it. 


    Your suggestion that eventually the canals will be rid of all boaters is nonsense. 



  5. I had a coot which climbed up onto one of my kayaks and died there. 


    The pigeon was probably on its last legs and went to drink from the poisoned pond. The effort of moving towards the water combined with the avian flu and the dodgy status of said water killed it. 


    Or it was having a bathe. 





    6 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

    I have mentioned in a post on a different thread how , when we moored at a heavily- overgrown towpath (saplings and  grass at roof height), we acquired a field mouse stowaway. Better pack a mousetrap or two if this is to become the new norm, or bring a cat with you!  

    That's dodgy of there are trees growing between path and canal. I am all for hemlock, cow parsely, etc and long grass but trees is definitely a concern due to their toot systems. 



    • Haha 1
  6. 1 hour ago, blackrose said:


    On the other hand, since they are probably the most common solid fuel stoves found on canal boats one might expect to see more problems reported. I wonder how many Squirrel stones have been used for many years and don't have cracks in the castings? 

    I suppose you could argue that but then why is the thing cracking in the first place? As far as I am concerned you don't want a stove which is liable to crack. If there are other stoves which crack regularly (I have not seen one) then I would have equally negative output about those. 



  7. The t&c in the canal licenses are perfectly reasonable to the average boat owner. 


    The situation has changed since the 1995 act and CRT do actually have to make attempts to keep up with everything otherwise it cause a problem at some stage which would be difficult to solve. 


    Can anyone point to any of the t&c which arrr not reasonable? 


    It seems to me that if CRT are stifled too much then they or other authorities will look for alternative ways to sort it all out and that could be detrimental to everyone. 







    • Greenie 1
  8. I've seen loads of Squirrel stoves with big cracks. I reckon they are junk. A stove should not crack. It's designed to cycle between very hot and stone cold (unbelievable but true) so really ought to be able to deal with this without cracking of the castings. 


    Weigh it in and replace. 



  9. I've always used stored water direct from the tanks and had no problems. 


    The issue at hand is that some people seem to think living on a boat is similar to living in a dwelling connected to mains services. 


    The idea of having to limit ones water consumption and the havoc it plays with trying to avoid moving about is what causes all of this demand for filtration. 


    The best solution is to use less water and move about more or get a mooring with a water supply but not everyone wants to do this. 



    • Greenie 1
  10. Water filtration can work but it does need quite a few filters. 


    I actually think that on a canal boat it would be better to concentrate on making a system which is able to collect rain water and push it through a much more simple filtration system. 


    The problem with canal water is the volume of sediment. 


    This can be dealt with by a sand filter or a sedimentation tank but it all takes up space. 


    When it rains shed loads of water is shed from the cabin top of canal boats. 



    I know a few people on the Thames who get all their water from the River but the main aim there is to get rid of crypto and the faeces bugs rather than acres and acres of suspended solids. 


    It can work. 



  11. 43 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

    I suppose it is but based on a realistic approach. The Wey is a small waterway and unless say going out for the weekend you are unlikely to want to cruise it that often. The maximum period for mooring when cruising is 48hours.

    Yes it's 48hrs and also no craft may be used for residential purposes. 


    That one is such a grey area it may as well be removed. 


    There are loads of people living on boats on the Wey but I guess not primary residences. 


  12. 5 minutes ago, Mike Adams said:

    I don't think that is correct but you need to demonstrate that you are moored local to the Wey, such as on the Basingstoke Canal or the Thames and would make regular use of the Waterway and of course have a home mooring.

    Sorry if I got that wrong. It was from memory. I've done the Wey a few times and I thought this was a requirement. 


    Still not fair to need to have a mooring though. That's prejudice. 

  13. 1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:


    Probably not if the aim it to get boats moving more rather than less!


    Pay per lock-mile would suit the continuous moorers very well indeed ...

    A toll is paid for time spent on a certain stretch of water. It makes no difference whether you are moving.


    Someone has to keep the water in !


    You would have zones and when you passed from one to another the daily rate would change. This could be worked out according to demand levels. 



  14. 2 hours ago, Higgs said:


    I don't understand your logic. People don't have to be home moorers. Boats are for boating, and the canal is for using. No one pays by the go. 



    The canals were originally operated using a system of tolls. 


    If, and it is an if, it is found that things become unsatisfactory and certain bias starts happening perhaps it makes some sense to consider returning to the original arrangement. 


    Canals are not "for using". They were built in order to generate profit for shareholders. If companies did not want to pay the tolls then they would not be allowed to use the waterway. 


    It seems to me that more income needs to be generated otherwise there is a danger of negative outcomes.


    Specially in terms of maintenance of ageing infrastructure. 


    Charging for mooring really isn't rocket science.


    Either that or zoned tolls. 


    River Wey is an interesting model in this regard. 


    It's not fair that it is about £100 for a week and if you want a years license you are obliged to have a mooring on the waterway. 


    This is basically pricing people out, which should not be allowed according to some people. 


    But they don't moan about the Wey. 

  15. 1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:


    I think its rooted in prejudice more than anything else.


    The notion that ccers are somehow getting 'something for nothing'. To follow that logic boaters who engage in extended cruises should pay more too.

    My suggestion was not rooted in prejudice in the slightest. 


    Admittedly the "issues" seen in London are a separate point to the availability of cc as an option on the license. 


    To be fair charging for towpath moorings is probably a far better solution than having different tiers for license costs. 


    Much more straightforward. You moor the boat you pay. Rates would vary in different parts of the country. 


    This also brings in the option of having moorings with services for people who are willing to pay a bit more. It could work out really nicely specially for people with electric boats. There would be some free moorings in areas of low demand..


    Oh, hang on !

  16. One way to do it would be like they do with council homes. 


    Find out if people are genuinely in poverty and if they are then allow them subsidised housing. CRT is currently subsidising housing. 


    You could easily find that there are very many people "living" on boats while renting out their house or flat. If the subsidy (cc option for boat license) was removed this would not result in them being homeless as they are a property owner. 


    Not everyone is in this position, obviously. 


    It's basically just squatters and freeloaders who seem to not understand the market economy who are moaning.


    Charging for something that is in demand is normal. If you can't afford it you don't have it. 


    It's not complicated. 


    Also I think in the CRT transfer order somewhere there is a bit where CRT are obliged to make profit from their assets and must not allow anyone to gain from their assets.


    So if someone is living on a boat while renting out their property then they are directly gaining because living on a boat cheaply and remaining in one general area is only available due to the 1995 act and the 14 day rule. 


    You are bound to get parasites in this situation.



    • Greenie 1
  17. A few days ago on Limehouse cut there was a self propelled lawn mower being used to mow the gravel towpath / cycle superhighway and a bloke with a strimmer knocking down the occasional valerian plant at the edge (thankfully not the canal edge side as the plants are rather pretty). 


    They came back, mower still propelling itself but this time the geyser with the strimmer had a noisy leaf blower for creating huge clouds of dust.


    Nice work if you can get it !

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.