Alf Roberts

see the Laws of Thermondynamics. ( more complied with than the 1995 Act )

enough of this 'genuine CCers' nonsense. why do you, Bassplayer, who is generally talking sense suddenly bring in this divisive Daily Mail crap? if you want to use the lazy term CC, feel free, but don't think you've started parcelling people into your meaningless categories. even Mike, with his right-wing views has more of a handle on it than you

maybe but it's an interesting point.

I think, stripped of this conjecture, CRT's pontification over 'distance' rules is simply people in an office trying to be seen to 'do something about the problem' to appease the lobbiests. imagine; rules come in, boats have to move x miles per year, per month. lots more boats fall into 'enforcement'. now what? take 1,000 liveaboards to court? where's the money? where's the will? and even with the money and the will, we're still in dodgy legal areas so it won't be straightforward. boaters will become educated and organised on legal matters. yes, there will be a few more press releases on boats seized but these will be the vulnerable and the 'don't cares'. would you rather CRT divert resources to this? or maybe it would be better if they used those resources to maintain the canals, something we all agree on.

do we have any figures for scrapped boat? I can count the ones I've heard of in the last few years on the fingers of one hand. boats don't get scrapped, in general, they just get cheaper.

classic scenario - to be played out on a canal near you in a few weeks: Easter bank holiday, boats come streaming out of their winter moorings straight to the hot spot locks and visitor moorings. result; queues at locks and over-demand on choice moorings. the sensible CC goes nowhere that weekend, far too sensible result; said leisure boats, now wound up by congestion, look around and throw insults at 'boats that never move' I think you 1. over estimate your 3. and 2. fail to take into account that they will sell their boats to new people who will become your 1 and 2. it's already considered to be only a few boats that would be affected by any requirements over distance. the headline figures on the K and A, for instance, given by CRT, are being strenuously challenged by boats who have received letters based on laughably inaccurate records of their movements - the coal boat is one, apparently doesn't move enough because the boat checker always turns up on his loading day.

exactly. you are right on both counts. thank you for agreeing with me but don't do it too often, people will begin to talk

it's not a trip I would do in a boat I had less than 40 hours on I think that's unfair. it's a discussion forum, this is discussion. around and about equipping a boat to cross the wash. it's public. what that means is anyone can read it, learn what there is to learn, ignore the rest, disagree if you do. that includes but is not restricted to the OP

Yes, I hear what you are saying. But the people replied, did so in good faith, most of them have been there. As a boater on a shoestring, the thing that takes the place of money is experience, learning and knowledge. Study navigation. Boat on the rivers you have access to. Practice setting an anchor and retrieving it. Make MOB procedures. Etc etc. You can go to sea with no equipment at all. I'd rather go with someone who knows what they are doing and no kit than someone who has all the kit but knows nothing. Good luck with your venture.

I am sorry but you were, and are, coming across as inexperienced and worse still, arrogant. The help you were offered early in the post was given in good part by people who have done this before. It's for you, as the one asking the question, to listen and sift through the information without getting arsy because that helps no-one, especially you. The equipment you need to go to sea - it's trivial compared to the experience and knowledge you need, and once you have that knowledge you won't need to ask about the equipment. Equipment is only as good as the person using it and you don't give the impression you would even know how to deploy an anchor, use a VHF competently or legally, use a lifejacket safely. What is your experience of MOB procedures? You are coming across as the kind of arrogant know-it-all that we see weekly in the newspapers being rescued by the RNLI because they thought they knew a whole lot more than they do.

The only people I see trying to 'push the boundaries of the act' are CRT. There are some, a small minority, boats who don't conform to the law - but they don't need to 'push the boundaries', they are simply taking no notice and breaking the law. CRT/IWA are trying to encompass far more boaters, those that specifically, BW gave undertakings to Parliament that they wouldn't.

that's not law, that's a bunch of piss-takers trying to bend the law to their own benefit.

it's perfectly possible to run a private hire boat, I know several people who do it. you will need to be pretty hands-on and near to where the boat is moored. it costs quite a lot in yearly overheads so marketing it will be your main issue. you need to write a proper business plan and see how many weeks you need to break even. you will also need to be very practical, certainly when starting out there will little spare cash to pay maintenance wage bills. I do know people who make a success of it but they are very focussed and business minded individuals. it's a lot easier to rent it out as a liveaboard but that wouldn't enable your wife's occasional use.

unfortunately for you, though luckily for the people who want to boat in ways you disapprove of, it's not up to you.

exactly. though when people try to do it they are called 'piss takers' - why is it then that CRT are not do labelled?

I didn't say I had to comply, I said I was using my boat 'bona fide for navigation' - and 3 judges so far have concurred - and if I was, then a boat without a mooring would also be using their boat 'bona fide for navigation' exactly. and if you were stupid enough to insist this was the only reason you would probably end up with the same judgement as Paul Davis. as I say, distance has no place in this discussion (excuse the pun) no, I'm not missing the point. it's a completely different point. pragmatically you are right, as 'the board' must be 'satisfied'. but that doesn't remove the fact that CRT would have to present a court case, if so minded, in which distance is not the crux. it is becoming obvious over time that the concept of distance is not within the 1995 Act, if CRT want to use distance as a criterion then it is purely a device to imply compliance with the law, not a reading of the law

if I moor in a marina, every weekend I cruise two miles to the pub and back again that is 'bona fide for navigation'. it is impossible to apply another set of criteria to a boat without home mooring.

he might want to, you might want to, the man on the Clapham omnibus might want to but what the successive judgements have shown is the 'place' within the meaning of the act is not a geographical construct. once again it returns to intent - which doesn't have to be commercial, the Dog and Duck example shows that.

finally..... the voice of common sense hits this thread

it's already been established that obstruction can legally include moorings abuse. CRt also have byelaws they can use to move boats. their love for big grandstanding court cases is shoosmith's bigging it up and CRT swallowing the guff.

follow the installation instructions.

so if you keep repeating something it becomes true? if that's about the level of your debating skills it's no wonder nobody can be bothered to put you right...... .....again.

oh, was it? I walked past it and an Admiral class boat yesterday and they are uncannily similar so made the erroneous leap !!