WillC

Do you have contact details for Dave and Andy? I would like to put their election manifestos on Waterwaywatch.org Cheers Will

I agree with that but in the absence of a C&RT membership there's nothing we can do about it now (it is on the agenda). On the other hand, once the voting is over there is a lot that others can do. My personal view is that the regional Waterway Partnerships are going to be where the real influence can be made. In fact, there is already a mechanism for users to make a difference by getting together to formulate Local Mooring strategies in their communities in conjunction with BW Regions/Waterway Partnerships/user groups. How vast? And perhaps more pertinent, how many are members of other boating user groups either with double membership or through IWA affiliation (like AWCC)? I suspect that BW had a big hand in that before the Transitional Trustees came on board. But I agree that we have to start somewhere. Cheers Will

Actually - I just checked - Peter is now listed as one of the now five IWA candidates. IWA do a good job in many ways but the very fact that specialist boating user groups like AWCC, RBOA, NABO have active memberships, says to me that IWA isn't covering all the bases. I too feel uncomfortable about this. Right from the start I had a feeling that it could have been a tactical mistake; from some of the reactions on this thread I may not be alone in that. On the other hand, I'm not an expert on the form of voting being used, but if anyone here is, will the influence IWA's sizeable membership give them a big advantage if they all vote for all their 5 candidates? There are mitigating factors: 1. A significant number of IWA members won't have a vote because they are not registered boat owners. (Anyone have any figures on that?) 2. A significant number of IWA members are also members of other boating user groups who are also fielding candidates. Ivor Caplan is a good example. He is an official candidate for RBOA and IWA so I would guess that many RBOA members will vote for Ivor but not necessarily use their other options on other IWA members. 3. But even the combined vote of all the boating users groups - IWA, AWCC, NABO, RBOA etc - could well be less than 50% of all those with a vote (perhaps 30,000 if we eliminate those that have been disenfranchised because they don't have an ANNUAL license (a point which I feel is a serious flaw in the voting system - one I believe is inexcusable. As someone who has professional experience managing and manipulating databases, I would like a technical explanation of why BW can't search its registrations for all those that will have valid registrations over the voting period). I believe these unaffiliated voting boaters could be the key to this election. I've started a feature on Waterway Watch that features all candidates. The idea is to publish anything each candidate uses as part of their 'manifesto'. I can't publish anything that I don't know about so I urge any candidates to send me links and/or copy. The basic idea is to give a central point where all candidates can be compared. I have started by featuring Boating and Boating Business candidates but might expand on that if time permits. Regards Will

We are currently moored up in Aldermaston,heading for Reading tomorrow. Due Lechlade on Sept 3

One last post on this unfortunate thread. Clearly Homer's recollection is completely different to that of everyone else that was there. They weren't, by the way, asked to respond. Apart from the members of my companion boat - who I have only met on this cruise - I didn't meet any of the IWA/K&A Trust volunteers who were helping us through the locks until that very morning. None of the people that were there Homer were my friends; they were witnesses. Why Homer remembers it differently is besides the point. The point is that I only left our lock because there was a space besides his boat - why on earth would anyone leave one lock and enter another that had no space to enter? Also, if his boat didn't move over to fill the space that was there previously, then why would I decide to backout? Sorry Homer, your story just doesn't hold water (even after you edited it). I didn't see you hit your dog with your windlass; I did however see your windlass when you were gesticulating with it when you were berating me. It was quite intimidating I can tell you. Many witnesses commented on that. But, as many have observed in this thread, what mystifies me is why you are getting so worked up about an incident that really wasn't anything to get excited about. No damage was done, even when your boat hit my companion's. The way you are prolonging this thread one would think it was me that lost my temper, me that didn't apologise, my windlass that hit your dog, my boat hit yours, and I named and shamed you but refuse to identify myself and boat. I know the name of your boat and its license number but I respect your right not to identify your boat on a public forum so will not reveal it. However, I am not quite so sure about your right to defame me or anyone else on the internet (indeed, is it even something that a forum like this should permit?). By the way, I note from your posting history, that I am not your first name-and-shame victim and this is not the first time you have lost your temper in 20 years. There is such a thing as internet libel you know; shall we just leave it there and get on with our lives?

Yep, Andy and Wendy are with us. It wasn't their dog - in fact I don't think they have one with them. We've breasted up a couple of times and I haven't heard so much as yap or bark. Cheers Will

Well Homer your post certainly proves that there are two sides to every story. Here's mine. I was one of a pair proceeding up the Caen flight. I was single handed but my companion boat and I were supported by his crew and a number of experienced boating volunteers from the IWA and the K & A Trust (Thanks folks for a great job). Our pair was ready to leave our lock when your lock opened and we saw your boat waiting. Your boat was on your starboard side and after waiting a few minutes to see whether your boat was going to make the first move, I, being on the side opposite the empty space, moved forward. Midway, your boat floated to the centre of the lock so I was unable to enter. Noting that your helmsman didn't have a clear view past the magnificent plants on the roof, to avoid further confusion and a possible collision, I reversed out and manoeuvred into the layby. Having made some effort to assist your boat's safe passage I was rather surprised that the helmsman didn't respond with the usual cheery 'thanks' so I offered up 'A thank you wouldn't be out of place'. On reflection, that was a trifle sarcastic - for which I apologise - although I must say I don't think it deserved the stream of abuse which my companion boat suffered when your boat managed to hit them as it entered the lower lock. They were not askew by the way. You weren't he only one who lost their temper around that time. A husband and wife were heard arguing over the shortwave radio about not being properly secured in a lock by a rope. One of our helpers was yelled at by someone who inadvertantly stunned a dog with a windlass. As someone else said, the Caen Flight is a long one and needs care, patience and understanding from all boaters. We all have our moments, but rarely is anything worth threatening language. I sincerely hope you enjoy the rest of your cruise. Cheers Will Chapman

My understanding from various meetings with BW is that volunteers will not replace existing staff. The idea is for volunteers to help existing staff. Possibly this means being able to save the cost of hiring temporary personnel during busy times. I would guess that the Union is making this point. At the recent BW AGM the point was made that the move to charitable status will have a built-in safeguard through TUPE, the law that protects the rights of existing staff in the event that the business they work for changes. Cheers Will

Just for the record, the majority of the SOW Committee was never in favour of merging with IWA and certainly never 'got folded into the IWA'. The idea of of becoming Corporate Member of IWA was discussed at that meeting for the simple reason Committee - which had mixed views about the benefits of such a move - wanted to get feed back from members. The general feeling was that whilst it might help with finances, it was important that SOW retained its independence and the idea was dropped. You might be confused by IWA's SOS campaign which featured many ideas planned as a SOW campaign so SOW supported it. Unfortunately, the SOS campaign didn't go as far as the original SOW campaign planned and I personally resigned from IWA as a result. SOW was originally formed to campaign against the DEFRA cuts of 2006/7 and was instrumental in staging 49 protests around the country. Clearly the cuts were never reversed, but the vast majority of user group representatives who have been working together to secure the future of our waterways since then believe that the protests did bring about a change in attitude within Government. Fortunately, this change in attitude was cross-party and we now see that the new Government is also keen - if not keener - to ensure that the future of our waterways is secure. Once the results of the Government Spending Review is announced - which is expected to kick start BW's conversion to a charitable Civic Society, SOW will hold what will probably be its last meeting to review the current state of the waterways with a view to giving its supporters - past and present - an opportunity to voice their opinions. Cheers Will Chapman

I'd have been on earlier but struggling to get a decent mobile internet connection. Martin is right, I never said barge and the correct location was Dover Lock Inn bridge. We (there were several other boats moored there and three of us were on board), surmised that it was arson because the boat was moored amongst us just before midnight. When I saw it burning - around 1230 I think - it was on the other side of the canal nearly opposite me. That suggests its mooring ropes had been released because there was no sign of them or burning at the spot where it was moored. As I was calling 999 the boat started moving closer to me so I quickly untied and reversed away - that proved to be a good move because by the time the fire brigade arrived the boat had floated to the very spot I had vacated. The Fire Brigade pushed it back to the opposite side again. It is interesting to read about the 'police investigation' - elsewhere I was critical of the lack of investigation. The only questions asked were by the Firemen that we made a point of approaching and offering information. Whilst the firemen were there, several of us heard an hysterical female 'expressing concern' followed by someone saying words to the effect 'we'd better go, the police will be here soon'. Other moorers told me me later that the boat had been purchased just two weeks before and it had been there unattended for most of that time. This was my second close encounter with a burning boat and I hope it is the last......not a pleasant experience. Thank heavens I was reading late - chances are that boat would have been alongside if I hadn't spotted when I did. Cheers Will

I have just objected with: This planning application will have an impact on the wider community of people that enjoy the inland waterways - for example, many of the nearly 35,000 boat owners on the inter-connected canal system of British Waterways will have a vested interest in ensuring that this application protecting the heritage of the waterways. Accordingly, we submit that the application should be the subject of a much wider consultation than just the local community.

We need to see more details but I'm inclined to think that the idea of selling the family silver will not be raised again. My reasoning is based the last paragraph in the announcement that the property will be placed into a wholly owned subsidiary of BW. I am hoping that this subsidiary follows the KPMG review of of BW which recommended that the property should go into a CIC (Community Interest Corporation) which both protects the assets from privatisation via an asset lock as well as giving BW access to normal commercial finance (whatever that means these days!). This would give BW an opportunity to borrow money like any other property development company - something the present arrangements don't allow (they can brrow money from Govt but have to pay it back in the same year). I am at a WUSIG meeting tomorrow and I will ask BW whether the new company will be a CIC. Whatever, this is excellent news. Let's see if there are any negatives in the budget - there has been some chatter that the £15 billion Govt cuts will result in BW being hit with a £5/6 million reduction in grant-in-aid. So fingers crossed..... One other point is that a couple of months ago SOW chaired a meeting of the heads of the major user groups where we briefed Anne McIntosh, Shadow Environment Secretary, on waterways policy and as privatisation of BW was once Conservative policy, one of the issues we emphasized was the importance of not selling-the-family-silver. We understand that current Tory policy will not follow that line again. Last week, IWAC made a very strong case against the proposed sell-off and I personally feel that would have had some influence on Govt thinking. That letter is well-worth reading and I will see if we can publish it on the SOW website. Cheers Will Chapman Chair, Save Our waterways

We have a Kabola E13 on our 60ft nb and have been very happy with it. Someone said they were expensive to maintain.....I'm not sure what there is to maintain. It is a simple matter (though a touch dirty) to do an annual clean which is basically just scraping off the coke that builds up gradually over winter. Someone else also said they don't run on 12v - odd that, we have 12 v on nb Quidditch and it runs fine. The only elec requirement is a compact inline pump that draws only a fraction of an amp and runs virtually silently (so quiet, to hear it you have to switch it on/off to detect the difference). Go Kabola! Cheers Will

An application has been submitted by the owners, John Holloway Ltd, to fill in Valencia Wharf. They attempted to infill without planning permission but someone spotted them and they were forced to stop. There were boats moored there but we understand that they were 'persuaded' to move away. It is important that we get as many objections in as soon as possible. You can get to the application (note top left button 'Submit Comments' at http://tinyurl.com/b6vgcx Here is some guidance provided by John Whitehouse: Cheers Will Chapman Chairman Save Our Waterways - have you joined? www.saveourwaterways.org/join

I would guess that it is related to the current look at BW assets (there is a Gov-wide look at all departments) to see whether BW has any assets that can be sold off to help alleviate the current monetary crisis.

Basically, until Nov last year we could use low tax/duty agricultural diesel for recreational use. Due to EU rules that has now changed and we must now pay the full rate of tax/duty. However, through some excellent lobbying by user groups - notably the RBOA - a compromise was reached whereby we only have to pay the higher rate on diesel used for propulsion. Any used for domestic use remains at the lower rate. So there are basically now two prices for diesel - last time I filled up at Barton Turns the two prices were 65p/l domestic and 108p/l propulsion. According to the rules the user is allowed to declare their usage and will be charged accordingly. The so-called average is 60:40 propulsion:domestic and some sellers have adopted that rather than allow the user to declare a ratio. Being able to declare a ratio means that a static live-aboard, for example, could declare 100% domestic, and in the winter someone like me with diesel heating could declare more for domestic than cruising. In other words, it is down to the user to work out their usage ratio (which is likely to change with the seasons) and be prepared to back it up if they were ever challenged. Personally, I think this is a near perfect compromise and I hope no-one abuses the system to the point that it will be changed. On the other hand, in the spirit of tax avoidance rather than evasion, it does occurs to me that if a boat needs to run its engine 4 hours a day simply to charge its batteries, then the owner could probably argue that as long as they don't cruise for more than, say 3 hours a day, then they could declare 100% domestic. Hhhm, sounds very close to the pattern of most continuous cruisers and very close to what we do during our long summer cruise. Perhaps I'll bite the bullet and ask HMRC. Cheers Will Chapman Have you joined Save our Waterways yet? Its only a fiver. www.saveourwaterways.org

The latest on the Valencia Wharf affair is that Holloways didn't get planning permission and, although it was required, Council think filling in a basin is a minor event that isn't worth pursuing. Council have, howver, told Holloways that they must request full permission if they plan on completly filling in the basin. Here are summaries and links to the most recent exchanges via FoI - personally I think this is outrageous and worthy of escalation: -- Valencia Wharf -- Sandwell Borough Council sent a response to Will Chapman (23 January 2009) "Dear Mr Chapman, Thank you for this further email. To date, no application for planning permission has been received and I also understand that..." http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vale...#incoming-14021 -- Valencia Wharf -- Will Chapman sent a follow up message to Sandwell Borough Council (23 January 2009) "Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that the owner has been let off the hook. The damage has already been done; a unique part of our nationa..." http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vale...#outgoing-11120 Cheers Will Chapman

We were with CraftInsure when we hit something underwater with such impact that the engine stopped. Subsequent investigation showed that prop and shaft were bent. The bill for replacing shaft and straightening prop (number one mistake there - we should have sent it to Crowthers) was around £600 and on claiming through CraftInsure they asked for proof of damage. I sent them a couple of pictures and they paid up immediately. After the fix, the engine seemed to be not so quiet as before and we assumed it was the prop that was still a bit bent. However, next year the premium went up from around £250 (60ft narrowboat) to over £500. We did a shop around and found Saga for around £250 and switched. Two years later, we started to get increased engine noise just after we came off the Weaver. On heading through the tunnels going north there was an a big clunk and much wobbling of engine so we turned round and headed back to Anderton to find a boat yard. Whilst mooring up for the night, I went into reverse to manouvere and there was another clunk and I found I couldn't steer. On subsequent investigation we found that the engine had come off all four bolts. One was so polished that it seemed likely that it had snapped some time ago (we think at the time of the original damage to the prop & shaft, but had been missed by the engineer who did that repair). We suspect the second bolt went after leaving the Weaver, one more as we headed back to Anderton and the last as we were mooring. All was sorted out - costing another £600 or so but this time no chance of claiming on insurance as no chance of demonstrating that it was caused by underwater damage. During the repair it was noted that the prop was still in need of a visit to Crowthers but, unfortunately, they were closed for two weeks on summer hols so it still needs straightening. Postnote: When the yard replaced the engine blocks, they couldn't find a direct replacement for those put on by Beta. Had they called Beta they would have had them from stock the next day. The result was that the replacement blocks were too stiff so I now have a more noisy engine (it seem Beta did some comprehensive testing on which were the best blocks and the favoured ones are quite soft). Moral of the story is: get a second opinion when you experience under water damage, ideally from our engine manufacturer, and make sure your insurance covers it. You never know when it will strike and it can be costly to fix. Apologies for the long post but I hope it is of help to someone.... Cheers Will

Allan Others seem to have managed it but I get a 404 error (page not available) when I try to access that link. I've also looked at most of the current articles and can't find any reference so Simon Salem. Has the article been removed? Cheers Will

We cruised up to Barton Turns yesterday to get some diesel. They have a sign up at the entrance 'Diesel 66p - 108p/litre' The office have a computer set up that prints out a declaration for you upon which you provide name and address, name and license number of your boat. I then declared that 60% would be used for domestic (that is a rough calculation based on my experience of running our Kabola E3 for central heating) and they gave me a printed invoice with the breakdown (60% at 66p and 40% at 108p). I won't be buying any diesel from a supplier unless they offer this declaration process. Cheers Will

We picked up a similar cautionary warning on our summer trip. Apparently there have been a few boats around Rugeley that have lost mushrooms (and several being drained dry of diesel - we personally met 3 boats that had lost diesel). Seems those after mushrooms may not bother unscrewing them - preferring to bash them off with a heavy implement. I was talking to Dom Cole of Colecraft about such incidents and he says the biggest problem they have come across (in having to repair the damaged boats) was the use of battery-powered tools (cutters). What a sad society we live in these days.... Cheers Will

Ours was made by them and repaired once. Since then the owner has retired and the new management in my experience isn't that easy to contact. One the way back from Rickmansworth I called them to set up an appointment for repairs and left a message on their answerphone telling them I would be there in a few days. When I got to Braunston I called again and still got an answerphone. I left another message. I tried calling again several times but no answer so I gave up and headed home. At least ten days later I got a call - too late as I had identified a local company in Lichfield that did a fine job and much cheaper. Send me a private email at nbquidditch at dsl dot pipex dot com and I'll send you their coordinates. Cheers Will

Good point. I agree. If you look at the messages that are coming out of Government there is a distinct move that is encouraging other government departments (not just Defra) sharing the responsibility for waterways (they reap most of the benefits so why not some of the costs too). IMO, the department that benefits most is DCLG (Department of Communities & Local Government). Just look at their website and see how many aims and objectives you can find that could well include waterways. Here's a sample: Did you notice that line that says they spend £8 billion (not million) - the £25 million shortfall that BW has in its budget wouldn't even make a dent in that. And before I forget, John Edmonds (Chair of IWAC - the council that advises govt on waterways policy) told those at the SOW Strategy meeting that an ongoing study by Sheffield Hallam University shows that a £1 investment in waterways yields a return of £10-14 - now that is a powerful reason for LA's to get more involved in enhancing waterways as it would not only help achieve the above DCLG objectives, but it will also provide a good ROI. SOW is attempting to tap into all this action by building groups of activists (drawing from all types of people that use the waterways, not just boaters) at a constituency level. Through such groups we can influence the local MP and councilors in a way that takes into account local issues and objectives. To make this happen, we need people who care enough to get off their bum and help us get a local action group together. That is why I need convincing that a PIWA is needed - what I think is needed is for more people to join SOW and help us get local pressure groups together. Cheers Will Chapman

Your memory may well be better than mine....... ...exactly. The principle is for BW to get the dosh but from all boaters not just those that pay for a mooring (in a location where BW can charge a 'connection fee/levy'). Potentially BW should benefit whilst most of those who have a permanent mooring would pay no more (that might be the weakness in the idea - some marinas might be happy to benefit from not having to pay 9% to BW but not pass on the saving to its moorers). The idea needs more research and perhaps we can find a body with more resources than SOW to look more closely at the idea. Cheers Will