Mr Badger

Scaffold poles might (or might not) evade the LBR byelaw as such but in any case they would need to be licensed by the EA under the Thames Conservancy Acts. The EA would never licence scaffold poles and they have the power to remove structures placed without a licence.

In any case on the stretch between Teddington and Staines-upon-Thames the riparian owners don't own the river bed. The reason being that Staines-upon-Thames was the original natural tidal limit before the river was canalised.

On the OP's question, if you don't own the garden yourself you will normally have to pay the landowner for the use of his land. CRT expect to be paid as well, for the water space. So it's quite possible to have to pay two charges for the same mooring.

A 1922 magazine article about a pair of Vosper built boats, Albatross and Osprey. I don't think Fairstar actually is one of these but there seems (to me) to be some similarity in the overall look and the length and beam.

There is chart of sea reach here: http://www.visitmyharbour.com/harbours/thames-estuary/canvey-area/chart/A463092588731/ray-gut-leigh-canvey-and-benfleet-chart-2014

1" seems a lot for the gap - it adds up to 2 square feet which might be a bit draughty. You do need an expansion gap but 1 cm would be plenty and I would draught proof it in any case. I would also fit insulation (Kingspan or Celotex) between the bearers.

Great to see her afloat at last and in relatively good shape too. Congratulations to Marcus and everyone concerned!

Perhaps they still intend to use straps under the hull but need the cleats to secure them in position.

Using the correct seaman-like terms for things seems a bit unnecessary on canals, a bit like flying a red ensign.

I would say 14 days. After that I reckon any kind of anchoring would be counted as an anchor mooring. I would say 14 days. It would just be seen as mooring using a different method to the usual tying up alongside the towpath.

Very good hunting skills are needed to find a Focus DIY store, including the ability to travel back in time to 2011!

I think they are private channels used by yacht clubs and marinas for communications concerning the movement and berthing of pleasure craft and the control of races. They aren't actually in the international maritime VHF band.

See John6767's post above. They still do monitor 16, though it's no longer a dedicated headphone watch, and they will respond to a request for a radio check. Some CG stations may use another channel for routine calls (e.g. Solent CG use 67) in which case it is better to use that.

Yes, my bad re. DSC.

Inter-ship channels are for operational communications. There are no channels where social chat is allowed, if you want to comply with the rules. That said, I suppose nobody else would be able to hear what was being said in a private conversation using DSC mmsi numbers.

OK, here is an explanation which I find persuasive. The frequency of waves caused by canoes coincides with the resonant frequency of narrowboats. From Wikipedia:

Transmissions should be confined to safety or navigation matters. Social chatting isn't allowed.

The river used to be tidal as far as Staines before the construction of Teddington Lock which would account for different river bed ownership below Staines. The theory that the name "Teddington" is derived from "Tide End Town" is a load of rubbish.

I wonder if the treatment processes could be miniaturised for use on board. No pumping out or taking on water.

Yes: http://www.waterprojectsonline.com/case_studies/2010/Thames_Hampton_2010.pdf Absolutely! It's my drinking water! Discharging sewage into the non-tidal Thames from a boat is definitely illegal. But in practice the water treatment process would take care of it. It is an urban myth that when a Londoner drinks a glass of water it has been drunk several times before, but it seems recycling sewage water for drinking is coming.

I don't think the paddles can have that much effect. The whole idea is that the paddle blades move minimally in the water so that most of the paddler's energy goes into propelling the canoe forward, rather than shifting water backwards. The paddle strokes of even an unskilled splashy paddler would have little effect compared with the bow wave of the canoe. My theory is that the bow wave of a passing canal boat is at a relatively obtuse or blunt angle so the wave runs along the moored boat from end to end and the main effect is for the boat to pitch slightly fore and aft which won't be too uncomfortable with a low wave height. The bow wave of a canoe however will be at a relatively acute or sharp angle and will hit the moored boat more side on which will cause the boat to roll uncomfortably from side to side. So its the direction of the wave that makes the difference. Perhaps.

I think I might want to draw a distinction between the inevitable and foreseeable legal consequences of continuous mooring etc. and the arbitrary and unlawful use of lethal force.

He could take out a licence with another navigation authority and make a dash for their waters overnighting in marinas or remote countryside. I doubt that CRT have got the marina entrance staked out.

So now he actually has a permanent mooring, why doesn't he apply for a licence on that basis?