waterworks

I painted a nb stern just above the waterline with cheap red oxide from Srewfix and an old can of DIY store water based gloss , it's still there 5 years later.

Oxide primer has to be in contact ( chemically bonded )with bare steel to have any anti corrosion effect , putting Vactan under it just stops it working, a self defeating waste of time and money.

The people who broke into my mooring are Gypsy / Travellers , the police have their vehicle linked to theft of a caravan on the same night.

Our offside CRT mooring was broken into last night and a generator stolen , can anyone reccomend a camera for security? There is no mains power and I only have very limited solar in winter, maybe a trail cam ? Nothing fancy or expensive just images saved to a memory card. Good news is that there is only one entrance and exit and a tree to mount it on.

Lit torch straight down the manifold as you start it works the same as ether.

If you don't want to use ether then use a gas torch in the air intake manifold.

If its thin say 1 mm ( like mine ) then it will expand and contract and get much hotter than thick mild steel so it sheds all the soot by itself. I never need to sweep mine .

1mm stainless will last for a lifetime, I have it on my stove, because its thin it sheds soot and rarely needs sweeping out, plus the radiation you get from it significantly gets more heat into the room.

Get a Dutch oven that fits inside the stove, you only need a few coals to cook in one.

You dont need rope glue, you can use high temp silicone if you have that left over. Works the same.

If your just doing DIY projects then stick will do most of it IF you learn how to use it on low amps. Get some 2mm 6013 for sheet metal work, ( forget 1.6) which should get you down below 40 amps. Learn to use run off plates and copper backing plates and all the tricks . DIY welders run to MIG first for no real reason than they can't be bothered to learn stick welding. Oh and ignore DIY flux core.

Forget it now , too late, mods please delete this post. I should have known better to post it on here.

Can someone report Diesel in the water around Soulbury Three Locks on the Grand Union, near Milton Keynes ( Post code MK179DD,) it's at least 100 metres long oil spill, I dont have my phone on me at the moment.

You agree this highlighted part of the CRT boat licence terms and conditions document is false then ? GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR BOAT LICENCES (EXCLUDING BUSINESS LICENCES) Introduction In accordance with s.43(3) of the Transport Act 1962, boat licences are subject to the conditions which apply to the Use of a boat on any Waterway which We own or manage. These are necessary to protect third parties and to help Us manage the Waterways well for the benefit of all Our users. 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

Explain why BW put a bill to parliament in 1995 to set the terms and conditions for licences if they already had this power since 1962 ?

It's not in it. Public bodies can't do "as they see fit" , they can only do what legislation specifically allows, as opposed to a person who can do anything they want except what legislation prohibits.

It does IF they have no power to erect signs with restricted mooring time limits . Like I said , I read that power was removed from the 1995 bill.

Yes I realised that was worded wrongly so I edited it. As far as I know in the 1995 bill BW asked for the power to restrict moorings and issue fines but that was rejected . If anyone has anymore info on that from the bill or minutes I would be interested, I haven't seen it personally.

I have never argued that boats without a home mooring can stay for a year on a 2 day visitor mooring or any where else, I said they can stay for 14 days not 2.

Long term moorers don't pay for the facilities as such, like you said many have none, they pay for not having to move, winter moorings are exactly that.

If they had this unilateral and overarching power why did they seek something like 10 more acts of parliament post 1962. And the 1995 act to set out the specific terms and conditions for licences , if they could have made licencing at their discretion under the 62 act they could now have a civil licence contract with all their own rules, issued at their own discretion and instant revocation with no legal redress, something they would love to have no doubt ? If BW has this power since 1962 the 1995 bill THEY put forward would have been not only unnessary but against their own interests , don't they now complain about the cost and effort to prosecute and remove unlicenced boats and other issues due to the restrictive legislation ? The minutes to the 1995 bill don't bear any evidence that BW ever had this power and no one involved suggested they had, if that had been brought up then the whole bill would have been irrelevant and it should have been cancelled.

They can charge for use of their facilities , I never claimed otherwise, however what is and is not a facility is not defined, I have made no claim to know what is or is not a facility in this context, neither you or I know, does putting a sign up stating the area from A to B is now a facility make it a facility ? I never claimed that quote "the 1995 Act abolished the right to set any conditions on waterways use or charge for services" I said the 95 act set out statutory licence conditions and the interpretation 62 act cannot now overide that. And use of the waterways is governed by bylaws , ( breach of which carries a lawful penalty,) not CRTs arbitrary decesions on what you can and cannot do, breach of a rule CRT has invented like for instance the 8 am to 8 pm noise rule cannot lead to any lawful sanction, as i posted earlier BWs own legal Council confirmed such " rules" are advisory.

Like I said signing an unlawful contract doesn't bind you to it, so whether you sign or not makes no differnce. The practical option is to sign and forget about it because you cannot stop them doing it without a very expensive court case. The boat lift is a complex and expenive to maintain service, no argument, a visitor mooring usually has no services other than mooring rings or bollards , some dont even have that, so calling that a service is an interpretation that can indeed be argued.

You mean this Section 43 (3) Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is PART III mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the Boards shall have power to demand, take and recover such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit. The claim about this CRT now make only started after 1995 by my knowledge , before then and back to 1962 BW never claimed these powers or used them and if they did have them the 1995 act would have been unnecessary, that's why it's not credible to me take it out of context and at face value . That interpretation doesn't fit with anything BW has ever done and they were there when it was enacted, CRT wasn't. I don't see how BW can take the 1995 act though parliament to set out licence conditions then go back to a previous act and claim they already had the powers to set their own licence conditions, which they never used. You could also argue the 95 act in regards of licensing makes the 62 act superceded , you can't have two opposing pieces of legislation for the same licences ? Nigel Moore refuted this claim in detail but its over my head , I can only see the Common sense interpretation of it which is it was badly written and not clear to its context. It needs to be legally reviewed but won't be.

Nope, the fundemental mistake in your second paragraph is that no one is legally bound by unlawful terms or conditions whether singed or otherwise, on oath , in blood or 24 c gold ink, any terms and conditions you sign up to on the standard licence application form that are not statutory are not binding and unenforceable *, since the only remedy would be to not issue or revoke your licence and that would contravene the law, no contract can overide statute is a principle of the law , so no terms or conditions that CRT invent can overide the standard licence conditions, which garentee you a licence if you meet the 3 conditions ( plus payment ) in sect 17 of the 1995 act. Breach of any bylaw doesn't give any authority for CRT to revoke your licence either, the remedy is a fine, nothing else. *If you don't beleive me then here's a quote from BW legal Council in parliment. " (Licence T&C’s )“is not a legally enforceable document. It is merely advice which we give to our boaters.” “what is the remedy for a breach of condition”? ".... We have no remedy for breach of the code conditions at all . . .” Like I keep repeating, the standard licence is statutory and not a contract, it was made that way to give everyone a fair licence application process that BW / CRT cannot arbitrarily decide who get a licence or not. Boaters that now think it's a contract because of the false statements on the licence application form are throwing away the rights to a fair licencing parliament gave them in 1995.