Señor Chris

I've used both - Fertan needs to be wiped down and immediately dried off again and is better for car bodies and shiny boats where you need to prime-sand-undercoat-sand etc. Vactan is easier to use and better suited to water tanks and bilges. I would consider using bitumen paint for the bilge as ordinary paint is not waterproof under standing water.

Rinse off with clean water to remove the sludge then leave to dry for a few days.

Was reading about this earlier: Poor tenants pay for landlords to live like kings One surprising fact is that there is actually plenty of housing to go round - it's the second home owners and landlords who leave properties empty who are the real cause of London's housing and boating problems.

I wouldn't panic - looks like the inside of my water tank before I treated it. Good thing about using Vactan is that you don't have to get back to clean steel before applying it which is difficult/impossible where it is inaccessible and you don't have to dry it out completely beforehand as it's water based anyway.

With the distances I cover I have no problem with CRT interpretation whatsoever. I just wish they would refer to it more accurately so that other boaters wouldn't come out with the "if you're leaving it and going home for a week, you can't be a continuous cruiser" type of nonsense.

It clearly means different things to different people. All I am really saying is that you should learn more about it and form your own opinion rather than going off on one based solely on what CRT tell you.

I would certainly agree to that but not that it has to be done continuously as CRT try to imply.

Now you're just making things up, presumably because you can't answer the point I was making - why do CRT falsely imply that continuous movement is required for bona fide navigation when neither the letter or spirit of the law require it?

It was you who brought up the subject of canals intended use, not me.

I always thought the canals were built to move stuff around which results in boats neither remaining permanently in one place nor being continuosly on the move. The terminology only becomes irrelevant once you become familiar with the legislation and learn something of the history and it is obvious from talking to people as I travel around the system that 'continuous cruising' actually represents some boaters' total knowledge of the subject.

So why do CRT falsely imply that it needs to be continuous? Nonsense - that's like saying that if you need to seek tax advice then you are a tax dodger. Clarification IS needed precisely because CRT have adopted such misleading terminology.

Which doesn't justify CRT flipping the law around with their interpretation.

It's perfectly clear to me. You have to navigate around the system but the law allows for repeated breaks which, by definition, is therefore not continuous.

Exactly. Movement should be genuine navigation around the system. No requirement whatsoever for it to be continuous.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/buy-your-boat-licence/continuous-cruising