Alf Roberts

no, Martin, let me explain; CRT reached a settlement, part of the terms of which were that the settlement was kept confidential. clearer now ?

I tend to agree. Neither was Wanderer Vagabond's blanket sneer that none of the petitioners were involved in the saving or restoration of the canals.

I see you haven't understood the meaning of the word 'settlement'.

I'm fully aware of the justifications for such piss taking and I tend to agree that it would have been better if Three had an iron cap of 20gb per person but they didn't and it could have (did) work very well until people like you cocked it up for everybody.

the simple, repetitive mistake you are making, or myth you are trying to promulgate, is conflating boaters who boat in a small area with those who overstay or otherwise cause a problem. there is absolutely and utterly no legal bar to a liveaboard boating within a small geographical area. I find your arrogant insistence that somehow this group of people should cease to exist extremely distasteful. mind, it fits with my prejudices about people like you in the armed forces so maybe we're about equal.

on a proper boat, underwater skin fittings and attendant seacocks are one of the most vulnerable parts of the boat.

NATIONAL BARGEE TRAVELLERS ASSOCIATION PRESS RELEASE 22nd February 2015 THE CONTINUOUS CRUISING CASE CRT COULDN'T WIN CRT settled with a boater and kept the outcome confidential in a continuous cruising case last year. The case of CRT v Wingfield (3NG01237) was heard by HHJ Pugsley in Chesterfield County Court on 3rd and 4th March 2014. The resulting court order included a confidentiality clause preventing anyone from disclosing the terms of the settlement. Mr Wingfield normally travelled between Loughborough and Newark, two places 36 miles apart by water. On Christmas Eve 2012 he travelled to Nottingham and got trapped in floods on the River Trent for two months. This meant he was targeted by an enforcement officer, who terminated his boat licence, even though Section 17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 allows stays of longer than 14 days when it is reasonable in the circumstances. Nick Brown, Legal Officer of the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA) said We believe that CRT settled with Mr Wingfield because they knew they could not win, given Mr Wingfield's cruising distance and the fact his licence was terminated when he was trapped in floods. He added It is significant that the case was heard in full before CRT decided to settle. The Judge must have given a strong indication that CRT did not have a good case for terminating Mr Wingfield's boat licence. Mr Wingfield discussed his past cruises, the 2012-2013 floods and the enforcement action on Facebook and other forums in early 2013. Boaters advised him to contact the NBTA, who referred him to a solicitor. A letter from Nottingham County Court to the NBTA on 18th June 2014 stated The Order of 4th March does specifically say that settlement was reached by the parties and that a copy of the settlement shall not be released to anyone other than the solicitors for the parties. Normally CRT publishes the court orders it obtains in Section 8 cases on its web site here https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/publication-scheme/publication-scheme/court-action-to-remove-boats-from-our-waterways. The case was transferred from Nottingham County Court to Chesterfield County Court due to pressures on Court time.

you'll have evidence for that then? or simply an empty prejudice?

he's a broken record Tom, time after time reiterating the same old tired rant which has never said anything more than in his opinion hippy trash should be hounded off his waterways.

remind me; how long did Tom Rolt spend moored in one spot at the top of Tardibigge?

is it your opinion that everybody who wants to should be able to achieve such high data usage on the mobile networks or are you just taking the p? in my opinion unlimited should come with some sense of responsibility. I am by no means a light user but I would expect to pay (a lot) extra if I was bringing in that kind of bandwidth. it will seriously piss me off if I lose my unlimited data - which to me simply means don't worry about it, not start archiving the TV channels - because of the selfish actions of a relative few. and especially those who boast about it.

what does this emoticon of yours mean Pete?

surely it is very dangerous for site crew to incite someone to do something clearly not in their best interests? I am glad to see Tracy has knocked you back. for an ordinary member to do this would be bad enough but from the site crew? as I said earlier - I see no evidence that you have asked CRT to put their case in the public domain.

the way I would express it is; Here's a public body with immense powers, I would like their actions held up to scrutiny because there is a suspicion they behaved with less than probity. with the exception of, predictably, Tony Dunkley, Mayalld and Naughty Cal, most of the advice had been about routes to take if the owner feels they have been wronged. The members above simply assume their usual entrenched positions without regard to the possibilities. if CRT has acted outside the law, it would appear to be another example of them acting as if they were above the law. if they have acted within the law then they have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

if she did then she would be far more stupid than she appears. tell you what... you get CRT to put their side on this forum and I'll guarantee to get the other side posted also.

so.... lump it or f**k off? so constructive

And why should those with a home mooring - who have, I understand, your sympathies - not be able to go to the same place repeatedly as they are able to now. What problem exactly does this attempt to resolve? Why?

I do agree with this. I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Laurence but his recent posts have been spot on the mark. For someone who has given so much to BWB, BW and then CRT to be treated as he is is simply symptomatic of the absolute mess the organisation is in. Even the apologists and sycophants can only trot out what is becoming a bit of a tired line; "most boaters won't notice". When this becomes the main plank of their argument you know something is seriously awry. edit: text

what website is this from?

No

Maybe difficult to describe but I inherited a system where the top bunk had slats that interlocked so you could push the side towards the cabin side and end up with a shelf half the width. To set it up you pulled the rail toward you that then fitted into a couple of supports on fore and aft bulkheads (if you didn't have these bulkheads then chains are favourite). The bed cushion was the back of the bunk below when not in use. It made a handy and substantial shelf when not in use (most of the time) but could be easily converted into an upper bunk. Because it was half the width of the bottom it didn't get in the way (shoulder space) so didn't feel too cramped. It's a fundamental of boat berth design that the minimum width for a comfortable bunk is 18" - possibly less than it intuitive but true.

It seems to me that even if one personally has no issues with CRT ( their actions have yet to affect me) then it is beholden on us to stand up for those who are currently being picked on.

That's a very good point. I wonder where in the addled 'brain' of CRT they decided to stop short of this given how many other instances there are of them riding roughshod over the legislation. Mind, the tone of their enforcement policy statements does go a mile down this road, telling boaters who they believe don't comply to get a mooring. Translated into real world terms - if you are subject to this kind of enforcement you have two choices; take Nigel Moore's suggested 'attack first' legal policy - expensive and complicated or get a mooring.

And you don't think those opinions are weighted? For instance IWA and APCO having undue influence? To give one example; there are many cases where a few vociferous residents have obtained 'No Mooring' signs outside their houses. How can you say these are a majority?