BMC problems
-
Posts
185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by BMC problems
-
-
Your absolutely right Tam, thanks for your explaining more clearly of what I should have written. in Dutch they're called :"Sluisdeuren" which translates as lockdoors too
Peter.
For the old wooden Berrichon boats wit two rudders that were motorised they invented a very special system to be able to close the lockgates (got it right this time Tam
) they hoisted up the propshaft before they could fold the rudders against the stern.Peter.
That's a very complicated way of getting the last qunitale of goods into the barge.
-
In your first picture, which way will the boat go?
-
-
send him down here, I could do with an under-footman, tell him I'll up his wages to £80 a week.
-
how does an articulated rudder work ? I can see the first bit working like an outboard, but the second? more of the same?
I understand they are quite common in Holland.
-
Many of the more "marina like" places that might offer a 70 foot space will be priced in the £3K to £4K region, unfortunately - that's certainly the kind of ballpark places like Grove Lock were quoting.
£60-76 per week. How does a leisure boater justify, or even afford, this kind of price for their hobby?
-
... and reengined her.
Peter.
Bought a new donkey?
-
Thanks all for the replies. I'm sold on the idea... Though, perhaps unconventionally, I'm thinking of using chalk paint and then lacquering it. We'll see how that goes.
floor paint works well on plywood.
-
We were analysing the thoughts of BWB and the select committee in their interchanges on the detail of how long a stop should be.
Your comment is on the bigger picture, so I think not really relevant. The reasons why is it desirable for a boater wishing to remain in broadly one place should have a formal mooring is a different debate.
Of course I have no evidence. It's just me expressing an opinion.
I'll posit that equally, you have no evidence they did discuss it.
The English language has a wealth of phrasal verbs intended to express the uncertainty when expressing an opinion. 'it never crossed their minds' is a statement. In an intelligent debate it's usual, as Allan has done, to show evidence to back up statements rather than categorically state something that is purely in your imagination but, hey, what do facts matter when dogma is involved?
there's plenty of evidence to show the converse interpretation but you, and CRT, have spent 20 years putting ever more fanciful spin to obscure those simple facts.
-
The thought that a boater might move for a few hours, moor for 14 days, move for a few hours, stop for 14 days in perpetuity then be able to claim their boat is being bona fide used for navigation was so ludicrous at the time it never crossed either of their minds.
this sounds like an interesting point, you'll have some evidence for it?
-
He is completely wrong. Bona fide navigation is a matter of 'fact'.
-
I have no intention of denying it, that is exactly what I said, however I'm not quite sure how you interpret that as their breaking a law or indeed me claiming that they were.
Is English your first language because your grasp of it seems limited.
I will take your insult as a reflection of your inability to discuss things as an adult.
I have no further interest in anything you have to say.
-
Would you care to point out exactly where, in any of my posts, I accused anyone of breaking the law.
Ken
"Their only reason for moving the boat is to try to comply with the terms of the 1995 act and hence is NOT bona fide
Though feel free to deny this is what you said.
-
no
are you Dave Smith?
-
1
-
-
This is a the type of hyperbolic escalation to which Chris Pink used to resort when losing a point.
Is this you again Chris? Some of the stuff you write definitely reminds me of him.
I'm not sure what you mean?
If you're accusing me of being someone else i think you've probably reached the end of your argument.
I can't quite call this an assumption because you avoided the 2nd mistake Kenk made. Unless you're going to leap from your question to the statement that I'm not bona fide posting?
-
1
-
-
She did keep making the point that they move every 14 days -- from which you might infer that they're not minded to move more often than that, from which you might infer that they're not exactly champing at the bit to be on the move. But it would be only an inference.
you might also infer that 14 days is significant because it's part of the law and also that to say 'I move every 14 days' does not exclude moving more often.
Another assumption.
Certainly, and why should there not be? He is giving his opinion of events as he sees them, i.e. stating his point of view. If no one did that, we wouldn't have a discussion forum.
Again you miss the point.
1. I assume you do A
2. therefore you must do B
is only valid if A is true. That's not discussion.
I know you're an English teacher but it's not difficult logic.
-
Yes but there is still an assumption in Ken's post isn't there?
That assumption is that the only reason they move the boat is to try to satisfy the "bona fide for navigation" requirement.
As I have said, I know families with kids in school and working parents where I know that for a fact that is not the only reason they move the boat.
Suggesting that it is this couple's sole motivation is an assumption, unless they have public stated that to be the case.
...and one other, I know them so I have an unfair advantage.
But that's not the point.
-
I suggest you re-read Kenk's post.
-
Are you saying they don't live on a boat or their children don't actually go to school? Or is it something else which was the wrong assumption?
yes.
But that's not the point. The point is that to make assumptions about people is extremely rude.
To then use that to allege wrongdoing is malicious.
-
Next time a C&RT employee is asked the question possibly they could use the following as a reply.
The 1995 act requires that either a home mooring is available or that the boat be used Bona Fide for Navigation. The question then arises what does "Bona Fide" mean.
A judge in one of the section 8 cases used the example of the Mersey Ferry. The ferry transports passengers from one side of the River Mersey to the other and back again. It only travels a relatively short distance each time. The purpose of the ferry is to move passengers, in order to do so it must navigate the river, therefore navigation is a necessary requirement for the ferry to perform its primary function and hence is bona fide.
Now consider the case of the lady boater on the BBC 2 radio show. She, her husband and children live on a boat, it is used as far as we know as their main residence. Her husband needs to commute to his place of work and the children need to be taken to school, I do not recall if the lady herself worked. None of this activity requires movement of the boat, in fact movement of the boat is actually prejudicial to the activity. The purpose of the boat is accommodation therefore navigation is not a necessary requirement for the boat to perform its primary function. Their only reason for moving the boat is to try to comply with the terms of the 1995 act and hence is NOT bona fide.
Im not a lawyer but I would suggest that the above is a straightforward example of what bona fide means in practice and resolves the, how far do I need to move question, which C&RT cannot answer.
Ken
Don't you think it extremely rude to make assumptions about a pair of people you've never met?
Assumptions with which you've then gone on to accuse them of wrong doing?
-
That would be a direct contravention of the 1995 Act then.
-
So somebodies telling lies then.........
Indeed. It will be interesting to see if there's any collaboration for either party.
-
"It is time for CRT to enter into a transparent and constructive dialogue with the continuous cruising users of the waterways, and to cease prohibitive, unclear and constantly changing measures for how continuous cruisers can maintain their licenses and their homes. These positions have been much more eloquently presented to you by boat dwellers themselves, and they must be addressed by CRT."
S'funny - thought he was writing to complain about the language someone used in conversation.
Anyone would think that the writer had another agenda altogether...
Reads to me as if he ran out of steam after the "I never said that" and the rest of the drivel is a simple cut and pasts from various CRT press releases.
-
The 12 month K&A plan concluded at the end of April 2015 with the following results :
Between 1 May 2014 and 30 April 2015 262 boats have attracted the attention of enforcement staff for not complying with the Kennett & Avon Local Plan. Below is a summary of these boats.
Action Number of boats
Boats which have received pre-enforcement warning letter (pre CC1) 262
Boats which have received first enforcement letter (CC1) 99
Boats which have received second enforcement letter (CC2) 44
Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have now secured a home mooring 33
Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have then taken a winter mooring 28
Boats which received a pre CC1 letter but have since been sighted outside of the Local Plan area 65
Boats which received a pre CC1 but have not had further enforcement action. 163
Boats which received a third enforcement letter (CC3) 22
(In the last quarter) Between February and April, (2015) of the 279 boats only sighted in the Local Plan area, 231 did not attract any enforcement action.
A further 60 boaters had taken up winter moorings.
33 additional boats had been sighted both within and outside of the plan area. Of these, none had received pre enforcement letters and none are now in the enforcement process.
14 boaters have received pre enforcement letters (pre CC1)
10 have received first enforcement letters (CC1)
13 received second stage enforcement letters (CC2)
16 received third stage enforcement letters (CC3)
At the end of April (2015) 33 boats were still in the CC enforcement process. However, many cases were closed in readiness for the new CC process. All boats that had only received a pre CC1 by the end of February had their enforcement cases closed.
It reads as if the K&A is a breeding ground for CMers.
Thank you Alan, so KenK's assertion is pure hyperbole. Surprising that.
At the end of April (2015) 33 boats were still in the CC enforcement process. However, many cases were closed in readiness for the new CC process. All boats that had only received a pre CC1 by the end of February had their enforcement cases closed.
It reads as if the K&A is a breeding ground for CMers.
Really? Can I have some of what you're drinking?
33 boats in enforcement (bit different from 200 KenK) and that from 291 - although CRT's figures don't add up.
10%, if it's a "breeding ground", it's not doing very well
) they hoisted up the propshaft before they could fold the rudders against the stern.
The Vine Prog Today, Friday
in General Boating
Posted
So people are allowed to slag me off but the posts countering their insults are removed.
Even-handed moderation, not.