Alf Roberts

innit.

then there is provision within the FOI act for this ( as your are aware). Your criticism was against Allan Richards for FOI requests in general so really you are clutching at straws in your reply and my points stand. incidentally it is amusing that you should consider blogging to be an inferior channel of information but, strictly as point of interest, could you point me at Allan Richards' blog please.

how is it you criticise Allan Richards for making FOI requests rather than CRT for not being open and transparent with the data he wants?

my memory was that it was the then legal director Nigel (?) Johnson who was determined to take it to the wire. Of course, it wasn't his money, home or livelihood at stake.

Was Nigel Moore offered a settlement in his case? At what point was that? During the case proper or during his appeal?

Wouldn't you? If an all-powerful said "we'll lay off evicting you if you keep quiet about our reasons for backing down" - would you accept the terms and keep your home or fight with the possibility of losing for any unforeseeable reason - one of which might be continuing to fight after your opponent had offered to withdraw the claim? Courts don't take kindly to 'grandstanding' actions even when they are justified. There is, of course, no reason for Mr Wingfield to pursue his defence to the bitter end just to please the observing public. Pragmatism is the order of the day when your home is at risk. and... let's enter the realms of speculation for a moment (as seems the fashion here) - what if CRT had said "keep quiet and we'll give you a cheap mooring" ? Again what would you do? As I say speculation. So your statement "Looks like Mr Wingfield agreed to accept a compromise!" doesn't say much about him or CRT or the case. I do hope one of the FOI requests arising from this is how much of our money was given to Shoosmiths to pursue this action when is was apparent to all observers long ago that compromise could have been reached without court action.

a little too long.... yes battery terminals when load is applied. they recover their voltage pretty quickly once the load is removed and there is no fault with the load. I'm pretty sure they've had it, I'm just a little surprised at the behaviour of semi-traction batteries ( versus a starter battery) under these circumstances.

My feeling is that the solar was 'almost' keeping up hence the light being on when I arrived but over the months it had gradually drained the batteries. I was assuming sulphation hence a few 15.5V equilisation charges. I have an old fashioned Sealey charger with boost charge so I might replace them and then see if, disconnected from the system I can jolt them into life. I am curious as to what would he the chemical process of 'battery death'

this one is slightly out of my experience. A pair of 6v us2200 copies, so 232Ah. Left on a boat for 3 months this winter with 80W of solar, commoned with a start battery 664 type. I returned to the boat to find a 2W LED light had been left on and both batteries flat* - though the light was still on. They've been on charge for a couple of weeks, being gently cycled with 3 equalisation charges. *flat = the 664 at 10.6V the 2200s at 7.4V The 664 has recovered fine, is now sat at 12.8V and after being left a couple of days starts the engine easily. the other two are behaving a little strangely. they seem to charge OK, take them off and they run low power loads fine, seeming to have capacity. As soon as I put a medium load - theoretically around 10A on them they just die, going down to a terminal voltage of 4V (!) now my feeling is they are dead. so far so simple. but they have had an easy life up until now, 3.5 years old, landline, easy loads, constant solar so it seems a little odd they should 'just' die. what is going on in the battery that causes the death? is it extremely heavy sulphation? have they shed their lead? any ideas as to a revival programme or shall I just junk them?

Three ways: 1. bootlace ferrules and chocolate block 2. 2 5mm machine screws through a block of wood with M5 x 4mm2 uninsulated ring terminals and heat shrink 3. barrier terminal and M4 x 4mm2 uninsulated ring terminals and heat shrink

Including one notable member of this forum moored in a lock for weeks. Does that not count as overstaying? Perhaps locks are excluded from time limits.

Presumably, from now on, data will be per GB with providers trying to undercut each other. Someone recently suggested £1 per GB which seems to me about right. I know that 4GB per month is only going to be any good for occasional users, even moderate users go over that, especially when 4G is common.

Yes, 4G does change the ballgame completely. As for Dropbox, it's been dropkicked off of my computer after using 1GB in a day - I have nothing on my local computer to justify this, my shared folders (with 2 small exceptions) are all on the web. I still don't know what it was doing to use such bandwidth. I think it pays absolutely no attention to bandwidth. I know a lot of people who have been caught out having dropbox installed. We will, one day, live in the world where data and bandwidth keep up with our desire. Until then, it's more a case of what you need rather than what you want.

This is essentially my experience. I do from time to time, with a critical eye, download TV and movies but you have to be dedicated to get over 20Gb or so especially, as you say, as it has to be done between 0000 and 1500.

My sincere apologies; I overlooked your question. I shall now answer it. I have no idea, why don't you ask them.

it's not rocket science to realise that if unlimited Is seen as an opportunity for greed that the offer won't last very long. there's a real difference yo anyone with half a brain that unlimited can mean, don't worry about it but don't take the piss rather than the childish and absurd everyone can have as much as they can download

Exactly. And at the expense of those who signed up in good faith.

Even giving CRT an unfeasibly amount of benefit of the doubt; if Mr Wingfield insisted on confidentiality as part of the agreement CRT should have refused.

removed

Personally I think it's one particularly bad egg. Unfortunately (for CRT) he has the personal backing of the Chief Executive which kind of makes it a systemic problem. I think it would have been wiser for Parry to distance himself from this person and instigate an open investigation but it seems he has chosen to put the reputation of the organisation behind the individual.

NBTA are a pressure group, I think it natural they would put a slant on any facts that support their agenda, that's what pressure groups do. Where have they told the lies you are accusing them of?

It is interesting that, despite the absurdity of their name and being part of a minority group, they are rapidly gaining credibility and support from boaters of all types. As for 'economical with the truth' some might agree with my post above that CRT have far more reason for absolute probity than a pressure group.

This is the main commonality in all these recent cases. We have a public body with an almost monopoly control over the inland waterways and immense powers over people's lives. Yet much of the opinion on here and in the larger associations is that they shouldn't be held to account. Of course they must be held to account for each and every action. They must not only be seen to operate with the utmost impartiality and probity they should also bear in mind the legal absolute that in all such disputes between public body and an individual the individual is the one who is given the 'benefit of the doubt'. I have reported this personal abuse.

But Dave, I thought you said you didn't think it was CRT who inserted the confidentiality clause. In fact, to the casual observer, you implied you had reason to believe it was Mr Wingfield. Now you state it's because it could influence other cases. Are you changing your mind or is this simple hypocrisy?

OK, I accept that you may have a valid criticism of NBTA - I don't say I agree with you but your points merit consideration - but don't you rather think there is something worth investigating if you, a vociferous supporter of CRT, find something there to criticise? Interesting that you should, with no data whatsoever, jump to this conclusion, exactly as you did in the long thread on Tony Dunkley's case until proved wrong. You don't learn by your mistakes then Mike?