Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by phill

  1. If you had read my post instead of leaping on it you would realise I was drawing comparison at the similarity in the opposing points of view, but you, when you have no coherent argument would rather take exception at my style instead - with some kind of weasel "I didn't insult him Miss" Now there's an unholy alliance. "that's when the arguments stop and the drivel begins" - indeed Johnny - like your post here - it comments on the discussion exactly how? Like with your recent pathetic spat with Carlt you don't know how to keep your mouth shut when you've nothing to say.
  2. That's much like quoting the Daily Mail except that the Daily Mail probably makes some attempt to verify its sources.
  3. yes, I think that is a boater's worst nightmare, no amount of vigilance or action will prevent something like that once it happens. If CRT aren't going to fix the gates then what they have done, with depth markers is the best solution.
  4. No, not really Johnny, I thought your reply beneath comment. I know how to use a dictionary thanks, I asked you to point me to the place in the law or even in the guidelines that requires a progressive journey. But you knew that. I expect you and your little friend one-L had a childish little giggle over that. Missing the point. If they weren't making themselves obnoxious for no reason it wouldn't cost them anything. I see no reason to support these absurdities that waste their and everyone else's time. Look at Cotswoldman's experience. That doesn't fit your model. Where the OP was (within 18 miles or 100 miles) they are still somewhere. To turn it around are you happy to stamp your feet and demand CRT chases him up and down the Oxford canal to absolutely no effect? If it's a charity with bugger-all money, why is it spending so much on these ineffectual and derisory processes?
  5. oooh, my stalker's back. Hello stalker. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or is that your wad shot for the afternoon?
  6. you would have thought so, yes, but it seems there is a sizeable minority that would rather tell everyone else how they should boat I'll email you some pictures of 100 miles away. In fact I think I'll start a Picasa album of well known canal landmarks with instructions as to how to manipulate the EXIF data.
  7. My boat will always be clear of the cill because the bow will be on the bottom gate and it's easy to check this before opening the paddles. And if you are saying a boater will check the leakage in the bottom gate before proceeding out of the lock uphill, you are, in my experience, wrong. I have never seen a professional boatman go to the other side of the bottom gate and look down before leaving the lock and don't believe this happens. depends where the bow is.
  8. You are, unfortunately, missing the point completely. This data set is only used to bully boaters. in the ultimate to take away their licenses and start a process that is intended to end in taking away their home. It's a draconian (see Nigel Moore for reasons how and why there are better sanctions they could use) and unnecessary process but it's not really intended to stand up in court. If, at the end of this process, the boater stands their ground and challenges the data and reports, they will withdraw. If the boater finds some other way to placate the beast - and money is its favourite smell - it will also withdraw. Then they start over again with the next person who finds themselves at the bottom of this food chain. Unfortunately (again) this has the support of a vociferous and malicious minority of boaters and a couple of very powerful lobbyists. CRT are completely unaccountable and, as this year's events have shown, totally out of control. On the plus side it appears than the staff on the ground are humans and will when approached manipulate this system to the benefit of the boater. Provided the forelocks are tugged hard enough and the obsiquiesence is complete. Also, if you know the right person to speak to your can cut through the crap. In the meantime, many of the less articulate are feeling threatened and bullied in the worst possible way - with threats over their homes.
  9. Interesting. It seems to me it's exactly the opposite. It seems to me to be CRT and its apologists that are continually rewriting the 1995 Act to gain what they believe to be their advantage. Even though experience is beginning to show it's anything but - it's your favourites, the marina moorers who are falling foul of a lot of the recent tinkering. Aside: funny that your favoured pattern should be exactly the same as your pattern. Why do you think that might be? The opponents of this, who in the main are just wanting to get on with their boating lives, find that all they have to fall back on is the bare minimum of the laws. Now why do you think that two people who hold such opposing views should argue the same position? To deal with your assertions about the debate behind the 1995 Act, all I can say is that your analysis is deeply flawed by its attempt at twisting the debate to fit your chosen stance. There have been many expositions as to exactly why you are wrong not least by Nigel Moore on this forum.
  10. nope, not seeing the word "progress", can you highlight it for me please Many moorings available around Oxford for £1,500?
  11. Please supply a reference to a requirement to progress around the system. Your friend with one L has gone quiet since I asked him this.
  12. It's normal practice for a(ny) boater to check all gates and paddles before locking - that would be especially those behind the boat. Just to put an oar in the debate about cill notices. I think they are in the right place, on the top balance beams. This means that as you go into the lock and look to the side to judge your speed you not only see the notice but it is, at that moment, more or less over the cill marker. On a 70' boat I am unlikely to pay much regard to a notice 70' in front of me.
  13. The ghost of Sally Ash lives on. Never mind though, you'll be OK, you know Laurence Hogg.
  14. Yes, I agree with this modification of your original statement.
  15. Exactly so. Ignoring the usual arguments on here from the usual vocal "people" we do not need to know what pattern the OP is making, and they will probably, as usual, shout and scream as much as they usually do. So to Boston, ignore the crap, this really isn't the place to get a sensible answer. My suggestion would be to raise a complaint with CRT.
  16. Your guess is wrong. But by locking safely and efficiently (many 1,000s of times) I have avoided any major incidents without losing any time whatsoever. And yes, I hope something like the Huddersfield Narrow situation happens to me (or you) because I don't believe there's any infallible method of avoiding disaster in this situation - other than avoiding it in the first place.
  17. 1 ) As someone with an amateur interest in the law you will realise that evidence of hearsay is impossible to obtain. We either believe the OP or we do not. 2 ) You are simply answering the question 'no' (in your opinion) You see, no pattern of movement required. Unless, of course, you suggest that if the movement have been far and wide and suiting your concept of compliance, you think that the OP should not have to take photos to prove it.
  18. Please don't you start perpetuating this myth. Judge O'Malley did not say "10 miles is not enough" - or imply it. Your use of the quote implies a causal relationship where none exists - I accept this is CRT's intention. I suggest you read the original (if you truly want to be educated) rather than rely of CRT's 2nd hand version Download
  19. I suggest you read the OP before making a statement on it that is factually incorrect. " in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance. Surely this isn't right?" What facts do you need to make a judgement on this question? That's a misquoting of the judgement (a kind of Daily Mail synopsis - that's what you would like it to say). The distance was in no way salient to the judgement. it is as a result of this judgement that BW removed the statement "progressive journey' from their guidance Exactly this. At the close of the day there's still exactly the same number of boats moored. I blame the misnomer "continuous cruising" - where did it come from? it always makes me picture the Flying Dutchman
  20. A reference to the law that says that please
  21. An interesting point: CRT say that the winter mooring permit is a 'home mooring' for licensing purposes - does this mean that person does not qualify for the winter mooring permit the next year? So only those who decide to cruise all summer and moor all winter and have license renewal time in the summer months escape this contradiction? For some reason, those who this would benefit seem to be the people most opposed to the idea of a roving mooring permit. Unfortunately (from the POV of your idea) the law doesn't allow this to be a licensing condition. There are those that believe the winter mooring permits are illegal but paying ,money with menaces is preferable to continual harassment. There is also a vested interest at work here. There has been a recent spate of letters going out criticising the cruising patterns of boaters, many of which seem spurious, strangely con-incidental with the issue of winter mooring permits. Is it a conspiracy theory to see a connection?
  22. The MTB 'concept of CCing' - why would that be the arbiter of legal behaviour. It's not a particulary intelligent debating tactic though often used by those who can't put together a more cogent argument. Make a statement with a false premise. When did you stop beating your wife?
  23. "post on here your true cruising pattern" ? Are you having a laugh? Why would anyone be interested in having "those on here" "believe you are trying to stay legal" ? The OP was about the behaviour of CRT, nothing to do with the judge and jury of this forum.
  24. No, sorry, it might contradict your idea of 'CCing' but that's not what the law says.
  25. A few years ago it would have been scousers and before that the Irish.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.