MartinC

Insurers have been tighting up on the question of unoccupancy. There are several insurers that would now not count one night a week as occupancy. Also a lot of insurers have cut back from 60 to 30 days. The changes are often included in a long list at renewal.

Agreed, that is why (post13) I suggested that the council need to look at the Home Office guidance which lays emphasis on this type of approach, instead of going straight to a PSPO

Our boat is 12 years old. One cable snapped at 8 years and I replaced the other at the same time. The route of the cables is not very good but nothing can be done about that. What sort of time frame should I be looking at, or is it "how long is a bit of string"?

Having lived in London through the great smogs of the 50s and 60s I can assure you that the playing field picture is not smog. Smog came down, that picture shows normal rising moisture from the ground. Can anybody find evidence in the Council papers to show that they have complied with Home Office guidance on steps that could be taken before resorting to the draconian PSPO? On a general note we all do need to be concerned about the legislation which gave rise to PSPOs and the fact that it creates a new whole raft of criminal convictions. Bear in mind that the Home Office have confirmed that the Orders will overide any other bylaws or conditions.

Normaly marine policies are on an agreed value basis although some marine underwriters have moved away from the industry standard to offer market value. I must confess that this is the first time that I have seen a "mongrel" policy providing both at the option of the underwriter. "Replacement vessel of a similar age, size and type", endless room for arguement, not an option that I would wish to see on my policy.

It is very complicated and the problem is that media "commentators" will cherrypick to suit their own prejudices. The EU "Best Practices" paper on flood prevention (which does not mention dredging!) does have a lot of very sensible suggestions, some of which are now gradually happening. As an example, in the insurance world, the creation of Flood Re as insurer of last resort due to be launched in April 2016, long overdue.

Well said

There is the element of a reasonable idea in this. How about lots of those very long fishing rods? An example of another context where obstruction worked. A small village in Oxfordshire became a rat run when the by-passing main road was shut for six months for sewer work. Fed up with accidents caused by speeding vehicle on a road not built for speed, the residents arranged their parked vehicles on the road leaving a zig-zag for a mile and a half length. It worked! As mentioned elsewhere the DfT guidance is that if cyclist want to go fast, even on cycle tracks, they need to use roads instead.

Good to see that some Fire and Rescure Services still have spare money from their council tax receipts and government grant. In Hampshire we are facing cut backs in both firefighters and equipment to close a £5m shortfall.

The particular case which is the topic of this thread appears to be in the High Court where a "guarantee" of costs can be applied for. Any award of any costs in any level of civil court is in the hands of the presiding judge except where his/her hands are tied by Court Rules, particulary relevant to money claims in the so-called "small claims court".

This web site, relating to our local solar farm, answers a lot of the points raised http://westsolentsolar.coop/about-us/about-the-solar-farm/

Hopefuly 38 degrees are getting to the point where they will implode. Their petitions get more and more stupid, but, of course, any publicity is good publicity! Check out their site: "38 Degrees keeps costs low by maintaining a small staff" Total staff and office costs last year just short of £900,000 out of £2.5m Corporation Tax paid £575 because virtually all the income is donated. "2.5 million 38 Degrees members across the UK." "The only requirement of membership is to take an action, as simple as signing a petition, or attending an event"

A P Herbert first raised this topic in his "Uncommon Law" satirical book, Rumpelheimer v. Haddock - Is a flooded road a waterway or a road.

The only reason I can think of is that the tow passed under the flight path for Southampton Airport and they wanted to keep the usual collection of media helicopters at bay.

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/hantswebnewslist?id=661258&stdate=1419425181475&relatedlinks=no&pagetitle=Hampshire%20prepared%20for%20a%20wet%20winter