abraxus

Given the thickness, or lack thereof, then some kind of sensing wire I would think, maybe temperature or voltage.

If you mean something like this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LCD-Water-Flow-Monitor-ideal-for-Water-Filters-Stores-Data-COUNT-DOWN-/111290639151?hash=item19e970632f:g:J2YAAMXQ0v1Rc89q Then I installed one last year and it's been great. You can get them as count "down" or count "up" meters, to either show how much has been used or what's left. I chose count down, and so you need to know or measure the capacity of the tank, and set it when you first install it. After that you just hit reset after each fill. They're also supplied in different sizes, so check the size of your hoses. I installed mine right after the pump, and extended the cable for the remote monitor so that I could mount it above the sink. It was easy to install, and fitted and up and running in less than an hour. Since fitting it it's worked flawlessly, and is very handy to have.

That's probably true but, if you need a bike you can stow on either a boat or in a car boot, then a degree of compromise is necessary. If you're commuting 10 or 15 miles every day and have somewhere to keep it, then a proper bike makes sense but, for relatively short journeys, like nipping to the shops, then it's an acceptable compromise. I've had mine for about three months, and use it most days, and like the convenience of having it. They can take a bit if getting used to, some more than others. I had one a couple of years ago that never felt stable, and so I did stop using it, but the one I've got now is fine and rides pretty well, so I guess it pays to try them out.

The Thames path is in pretty good nick for the most part, so can't honestly say what it would it be like on a typical canal path as I'm not familiar with them.

I was uncertain at first about a folding bike, and so bought a cheap one to see how I got on with it. Below is a link to the one I got and, for £149 new, I can honestly say I'm very pleased with it. http://bicycles4u.com/products/monaco-explorer They have a range at various prices and sizes. I go to the shops on it most days, and I have bags front and back, so can load up with quite a bit, and have cycled along the Thames towpath from Weybridge to Hampton Court and it's a little bumpy in places, but fine. I thought the small (16") wheels would be a problem, but in reality they're not bad, and the bike folds up quite small. If, like me, you haven't ridden a bike for a while then I'd also suggest, whatever you get, that you buy a big, comfortable saddle. I got one off Amazon called a "Big Bum", that's both padded and sprung, which has made a big difference to ride comfort. Obviously a full size bike will be more comfortable, and usually faster, but then again it can't be easily stowed, and so it's swings and roundabouts.

I bought one of these to monitor water levels in my tank: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Digital-Water-Flow-Meter-flow-1-5-25-0-litres-min-1-2-BSP-Fittings-COUNT-DOWN-/351083569337?hash=item51be3620b9 I plumbed it in to the water hose immediately after the pump, so no messing around with the tank, and it took less than half an hour to fit. I also spliced in an extra length of cable so I could fit the remote display in the galley, above the sink. It's a count down flow meter, and so you just set it with the total capacity of the tank and then it counts down as you use water, telling you how many litres you have left. Whenever you top up with water you just hit reset to go back to the total. I've been using it for a few months now and it's great, as it lets me know when I'm running low so I can fill up when I have a few litres left. There's a few suppliers suppliers on ebay, so make sure you get the right one for your hose size. The blue ones are count down meters (which I prefer) and the green ones are count up meters.

The current equivalent is about £20 a month, with unlimited data, but a 4gb cap on tethering. I was told I was moved onto the new tariff (although still at the old price) with a 4gb tethering limit in Feb, but so far my tethering hasn't been restricted in any way. At the time I asked how much tethered data I was using and was told that they couldn't tell. Not sure if that's still the case.

Another happy Three customer. I have the £15 a month, unlimited data plan. I'm a heavy user, Netflix, iPlayer, Prime etc, and so far my tethering hasn't been capped. Not sure what speeds I get, as I haven't measured, but it's fine for streaming HD films and TV.

Page 4 of the manual also says never connect to a DC supply.

Not as far a I'm aware, for two reasons. One is that it still works with the personal hotspot disabled, and I've used it with phones/sims that don't allow tethering. Second is that you're using the data on the phone, rather than on another device over wifi, and are only using the tv as a screen.

I have a Three unlimited data sim and watch Netflix, Youtube, iPlayer etc by using the apps on the phone and connecting the phone to the tv via hdmi. Tethering is supposedly capped to 4Gb, but they don't seem to implement it yet, as I also use way more than 4gb of tethered data. Sim cost around £15 a month, although it may have gone up to around £20 now.

Never mind, apparently it's not all about size

It may be what CRT are trying to do, but specifying a range of miles seems to be an inherently flawed method of trying to achieve what John V neatly described. In my opinion, by specifying a range of miles, all you do is put an unnecessary burden on continuous cruisers, whilst simultaneously giving continuous moorers a minimum target to hit to achieve their aim. The former just want to cruise, without being told how far and for how long, which they should rightly be allowed to do, and so a mileage range unfairly inconveniences them. Whereas the latter want to stay put, and a mileage range tells them how best to do it. It might have seemed a good idea on paper, for a nanosecond. However, the merest amount of logical examination shows that it's potentially the worst of both worlds, as it inconveniences the customers you want to support, whilst enabling those you don't. At least that's how I see it.

That makes perfect sense to me, and is how I understand the moral side of it. It's a far better way of defining it than trying to do so by arbitrary distance requirements, which can potentially, and unfairly, penalise and cause unnecessary stress to continuous cruisers.

Regarding the first part, I'm not sure what you're saying, so don't want to draw conclusions, as I have no idea why he took a mooring rather than demonstrating that he'd moved enough. As for the second part, the reasoning is, if you believe that CRT are unable to monitor boats sufficiently to pass judgement, then it's immaterial whether it's regulating non movement, or managing undefined minimum movement, they would still require adequate resources or means to do so. As it happens, I agree with you that they shouldn't be imposing minimum movement requirements, but equally feel that others shouldn't be breaking the spirit of the law in order to effectively be non movers. I guess we disagree on that, but that's just my opinion on it.

Bear with me, as this is as much a question as it is comment. I don't think that's a fair representation, as what you're saying is not entirely the case. They aren't forcing him to take a home mooring because they haven't sighted him enough, they're asking him to confirm that his movements don't warrant one, as they don't know but suspect otherwise. A situation which is catered for in the licence t&c's. Whether he is then forced to take a home mooring will be dependent upon his response, or lack thereof. A more accurate comparison would be to say that you think it's unfair for a boater under enforcement to be asked about his movements, and more fair that CRT do all the logging themselves. Regardless of all that, the long and short of it is, either one asks a boater under enforcement to provide details of his movements, or for CRT to provide all the evidence. The latter, whilst not an unreasonable wish, would ultimately involve a substantial number of extra loggers, or some kind of technology, such as tracking. Either of which have as much opposition. Whilst I can see your point, if we assume that a free for all isn't an option, then I'm genuinely curious as to what you consider the alternatives to be.

Oh ok, and I actually agree with you that such requirements should be clear from the outset. I guess I just feel that they are clear in the t&c's at the point of application, in the form of "the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements.". I take that you feel that they should reiterate that requirement in any further correspondence with someone under enforcement, and not just within the t&c's? If so, fair enough, that doesn't sound unreasonable.

The letter does state: If you think that the decision is incorrect and that you feel you have been continuously cruising in line with our Guidance please get in touch with your local enforcement officer. You will need to tell us your reasons and we will ask you to provide evidence." Whilst that paragraph appears to refer the initial licence restriction, it does seem to set the expectation that any disagreement over a future decision would also require supporting evidence, as they have made it clear they will ask for evidence if you disagree. So, whilst it doesn't specifically state one should keep evidence of the 3 month licence period, common sense would suggest that it's a reasonble expectation if one was under enforcement. The upshot being that you can either demonstrate they were wrong in the first place, in which case matter closed, or be expected to demonstrate your future compliance. I get your point though, but it would seem to be a picky one as, whilst one shouldn't have to jump through hoops for no reason, it's not unreasonable to be expected to jump through one or two after you've been shown to be transgressing. I also understand how some may feel that the onus should be entirely be on CRT, but that could just as easily lead to them getting sufficient evidence first time round, ditching the 3 month licence, and simply refusing to renew. To me it seems preferable from a boaters perspective to have some dialogue and input, and be able to provide one's own evidence, rather than have your fate entirely in the hands of another. That's just my opinion though.

And that's a different matter to the point I was answering, and if true then I don't disagree with you on it.

But that isn't what they're doing, at least not in reference to the other thread. They haven't just randomly written to a boater and said we don't know what you've been doing, so you have to provide evidence. They seemingly have noted what he was doing sufficiently to put him under enforcement, and restrict his licence to three months, and only after that have they asked him to provide evidence of his subsequent movements. Now of course you may not like that either, but the justification for it comes from the licence t&c's which state: "Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by the Trust. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements." Assuming they advised the boater at the time of initial enforcement, then it seems the justification is there, at least if one accepts the licence t&c's. However, if they gave the boater no such advice, then it isn't.

Not by a long way. People seem to be getting confused with the difference between committing a criminal act, and its consequences, and applying for a service, which are two entirely different things. Not least because one is after the fact, and the other before the fact. There is a significant difference between being accused of wrongdoing, and being asked to provide assurance that you wont commit a future wrong. The burden of proof rests with accuser if they seek to remove an existing right, such as the police wanting to imprison someone or, in this case, the removal of a licence. However, in the application for the provision of a service, the burden of proof often rests with the applicant. There are many examples in normal life, ranging from quite minor things, like wanting to buy a drink, to more important matters, such as a mortgage, a rental tenancy, or a passport application. In each case the burden of proof rests entirely with the applicant to show that he's eligible for that service, and will meet the required terms and conditions.

My only advice magnet is that you might need a bigger keepnet.

It is a requiremnt of the licence t&c's, as it says the following in Schedule 2: "Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by the Trust. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements. Failure then to meet the movement requirements, or to provide evidence of sufficeient movement when requested by the Trust, can be treated as a failure to comply with s.17 of the 1995 Act." So it seems from the way it reads that CRT appear to take the initial burden of proof, and only after that do they require the boater to keep evidence of future compliance.

From what I can see there's no legal distinction, although I guess there are practical ones. With a new licence (assuming we're talking CC) CRT have to pretty much take you at your word with regards to whether you'll comply, and so the bar for satisfying the board is quite low. However, with a renewal, you have a cruising history, which can be used towards raising the bar and providing more quantifiable satisfaction as, if a boater made a previous commitment to comply, whether he honoured that commitment or not, goes some way to indicating whether he may or may not honour a future one.

If I've read correctly I think Nigel answered your question in part, with regard to what it says in the 1995 Act, but you also asked about what CRT's licence terms and conditions have to say on the matter, and a quick google throws up this from Schedule 2 of the licence t&c's: "The law requires the boater to satisfy the Trust that the bona fide navigation requirement is and will be met. It is not for the Trust to prove that the requirement has not been met. This is best done by keeping a cruising log, though this is not a compulsory requirement. If however, the Trust has a clear impression that there has been limited movement insufficient to meet the legal requirements, it can ask for more information to be satisfied in accordance with the law. Failure or inability to provide that information may result in further action being taken, but only after fair warning. Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by the Trust. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked to keep adequate evidence of future movements. Failure then to meet the movement requirements, or to provide evidence of sufficient movement when requested by the Trust, can be treated as a failure to comply with s.17 of the 1995 Act. After fair warning the boat licence may then be terminated (or renewal refused). Unlicensed boats must be removed from Trust waters, failing which the Trust has power to remove them at the owners cost." Make of that what you will.