steve_timebeck

The Hobbit has an optional stand that will raise it by 158 mm (about 6"). If you are going to be burning smokeless fuels and wood you will need the Hobbit SE version.

Not all Victron inverter/chargers pass through the shoreline supply when "charger only" is selected. It depends on the model and how it is wired / configured. Older units usually do NOT pass throught the shoreline when "charger only" is selected.

You are both correct in a way. In this case a commercial decision was taken to bring the propulsion price below the £1 mark, in line with the "white diesel" at local petrol stations. The full amount of tax and duty is still paid to HMRC with the two pence difference coming out of the marina's profit margin.

That's the price including all tax and duty.

Denham Marina is currently charging 52p per litre (domestic) and 99p per litre (propulsion). It's self-declaration so you can have any percentage split you like. See also Bob Draper's web page of diesel and pumpout prices.

I think I've wandered into a parallel universe by mistake.

Well much as I like to read fiction, I do think one or two of these points need clarifying. "Where will the income from the Roving Permit go? Ideally at least some of it would be used for improvements in the area concerned. Sally [Ash] will seek support for this approach from the Trust’s executive." - CUB Meeting Minutes 24 April 2013 That would be the meeting held at Denham Yacht Club on 24 April 2013. All the questions I asked were through the chair with the kind permission of the the chairman. I do recall you bounding across the floor at one point, pint in hand, demanding to know where my boat was moored as Peter Palmer of CRT was speaking. I also recall that the three CRT persons present were happy to answer the points I raised. Sally Ash was also kind enough to elaborate on a couple of them after the meeting. Would you like me to publish the evidence here? Your potentially libellous suggestion that I had people threaten you is a serious one. Perhaps you could post the crime number related to the incident so that it could be further investigated. Was this the incident where you waved a baseball bat at the man on the towpath who told you exactly what he thought of you? I would be interested in any evidence you have of people being harassed, as would the owners of Denham Marina. I probably should also remind you that I work for myself and not at the marina. Strangely enough the marina continues to thrive in spite of you withdrawing your custom... Sorry I have quoted you quite a lot here and that will have upped the ratio. "[sally Ash] responded that the whole winter mooring scheme had not proved to be popular for a variety of reasons and clarity would be needed with regard to the interaction between the permit and winter mooring. It might prove to be better to have a more generous stay time in the winter." - CUB Meeting Minutes 24 April 2013 That certainly seems to be CRT's policy. While I acknowledge your noble aims, I feel that it is boaters that need help and support rather than CRT.

Sorry I missed the second half of post #62 by churchward which seems to have come in as I was replying to post #61 by jenlyn (whom the sigh was aimed at). OK first of all I do not represent anyone but myself. I do however administer the open Facebook group "Lock 88" https://www.facebook.com/groups/uxbridge.lock.88/ and I sometimes post in that capacity, but my opinions are my own. I'd better quickly explain that "Lock 88" was formed to provide a forum for the discussion of matters affecting all users of the GUC in the Cowley, Uxbridge and Rickmansworth area. Prior to "Lock 88" being formed the main local Facebook groups were "Cowley and Uxbridge Boaters (CUB)" and then "South East Boaters (SEB)". Both these closed groups gained a reputation for expelling anyone who disagreed with the party line, and this had effectively closed down any discussion of the RMP on Facebook. There is a lot more to this story, but that is not relevant to this thread and I will save it for another time. To answer your question, (in my role as the "Lock 88" administrator), the main reasons people in "Lock 88" have given for objecting to the RMP are: 1) It was seen as being unfair both on continuous cruisers who obeyed the rules,(often in difficult circumstances), and also former CC who had taken a mooring specifically as they could no longer meet the CC requirements. This was often described as rewarding bad behaviour. 2) The proposed cost of the RMP was seen as CRT taking money for something CC were already entitled to do. This impression was reinforced by senior people from CRT stating that they could legally neither define "place" nor state the minimum distance a CC had to travel to comply with the Act. This also gave the impression that CRT were setting artificial distance requirements and "places" deliberately to force CC to buy a RMP. 3) The RMP was conflated with the issue of overstaying on visitor moorings. Most members of the group incidentally support CRT enforcing the visitor mooring time limits and the 14 day CC requirement to move. 4) No alternatives to the RMP were ever discussed or seriously considered at the public meetings organised by CUB. 5) There was a small number of boaters who were not going to move whatever CRT proposed. These boaters tended to be unlicensed as well. 6) Some of the leading lights in "Cowley and Uxbridge Boaters (CUB)" were believed to be acting in their own interests rather than those of boaters in general. Two in particular were notorious over-stayers. It was CUB that invited CRT to use the Cowley and Uxbridge area to develop the RMP. 7) There were a series of incidents affecting boaters who voiced objections to the RMP. People got what they believed to be threatening emails, phone calls and visits to their boats. In one incident boat ropes were cut during the night. An email (using an assumed name) was sent to the employer of one particularly outspoken boater in an attempt to get them dismissed. To their credit their employer published both the original email and their reply, on the Internet. There were other incidents as well. 8) CRT had abolished some online moorings in the area. There were promises that these moorings would be reinstated, but this has not happened yet. The workings of the auction mechanism for the few CRT moorings that come up in the area is also seen as fundamentally unfair compared with the previous waiting-list system, and has driven up the cost of CRT moorings in the area. 9) It was not clear how the fortnightly "shuffle" of CC in the most popular areas would alleviate the alleged overcrowding in those areas. It was also generally believed that there was no significant overcrowding in the trial area. A survey conducted by CRT also failed to show any overcrowding in the trial area. 10) It was unclear what the money raised from the RMP would be used for. Facilities for boaters are already stretched in the trial area, and there already appears to be a backlog of maintenance in the trial area. When one CRT person said at a meeting he was bringing his three-foot draft boat down to cruise the Slough Arm, there were a lot of ironic comments and laughter. I do not personally share all of these views, and I cannot say if these opinions have any foundation, but they are the ones most commonly raised in "Lock 88". Hope that helps.

>sigh<

Once again I bow down in amazement at your diplomatic skills and skilled oratory. Truly you are a silver-tongued prince amongst posters. Forgive my misunderstanding of your post as a request for clarification or the correction of your ignorance, for I now realise I should not have bothered you at so late an hour with my inconvenient and redundant facts. I am also deeply sorry to have troubled your perceptions of parallel reality. If you will however allow me one further pedantic point, churchward was replying to a post by alan_fincher, and neither of these two esteemed commentators were in fact addressing a question to me. Or for that matter, to yourself.

I take it you mean the open Facebook group "Lock 88" https://www.facebook.com/groups/uxbridge.lock.88/ . Oppose the RMP? Not really, just to tell people what the RMP was and discuss it. It was very difficult to find out about it when the group started as people asking awkward questions tended to get expelled from other groups. Certainly some members were against it, but you were an early member and wrote a piece called "WHY THE ROVING PERMITS" before you decided to leave (then rejoin, leave again, etc), which argued the case for. In fact I seem to remember that at one point you were a member of "Lock 88" under several simultaneous aliases. The group's agenda? Certainly:

Alan if you read my past posts on the subject you will find that rather than being "vehemently against the idea", my opinion is that the RMP might be a solution for some boaters. I have also always said that if the RMP came into existence, it should be available to all boaters, and not just a few individuals selected by CRT as persistent rule breakers. The majority of continuous cruisers obey the 14 day rule, sometimes in difficult personal circumstances, and CRT have in the past treated the few individuals who are unable to do so as individual cases. There seems to be no compelling reason to change that. You do not feel that the "legality of RMP" was an important factor then? From their press release it certainly appears that CRT do. As to who will help those who "still in the same position", hopefully CRT will now examine each case on an individual basis in line with their recently stated policy. I also suspect that most boaters will still be helped by their friends and neighbours. Presumably the Waterways Chaplaincy will continue their good work in this area. It might even be something the ACC would care to look at. That's right, I don't have a boat at the moment (I sold it in 1980), but I hope to buy another in the near future. Of course if I am not allowed to have an opinion on those grounds, you would also have to disregard the views of many CRT people... Sorry if I confused you.

The tragedy of the whole RMP saga is that CRT, perhaps misled by certain groups and individuals, became fixated on the permit as the only way of solving the "problem". Other ways of resolving the situation, such as dealing with individual cases as compassionate exceptions, were consequently discarded in favour of a one-size-fits all policy, which stood little chance of success. The idea of making a special permit available to a small group of CRT defined rule breakers, was never going to win support within the wider boating community, and the legality of such a scheme was questioned right from the beginning. It would be interesting to know how much CRT money and time was wasted on this aborted project. There are no winners here.

May I politely point out to all concerned that this issue affects the homes and lives of real people, and is not just some sort of academic, legal or accounting exercise. If I remember correctly the discussion of a matter that is sub judice (as this appears to be), can be viewed as a contempt of court. I suspect that CRT's curiously worded statement may well be referred to when the Judicial Review takes place.