Dave Clinton

couple of questions: what do you use at the other end of the deck wash ? A karcher lance or such like? And do you pick up water from the canal or feed it from fresh water? I saw this http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00EUW28JUfor £17 , it says it's 0.8mpa which google helpfully translates to 110 psi - so I guess something doesn't add up but it might make a good deckwash

This Dylan Winter? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cc5mr

Here in France we have exactly what you propose. A boat with a mooring pays when it navigates, if it doesn't navigate it doesn't pay. Short term licenses are a high portion of the year license so there's no sense of anyone not paying their way. There's also plenty of boats that don't go anywhere paying a yearly mooring fee. Neither of these figures are the laughable amounts you pay in England. €3,000 to stop by a towpath with no water and electric. Incroyable! We also have the VNF who know how to run a professional canal and river system, a government who sincerely believes it works on behalf of the people. What we don't have is the mickey mouse outfit CRT who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.

Again you assume she was without insurance. Are you alleging the boat was unlicensed too? And I'll ask you. What should she do now? Sleep on the streets?

A privileged world.

I am not quite sure what Dave believes the next steps for Ms Dunne should be, the workhouse presumably.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, as should the cowards that gave you greenies. I hope you never ever come on to this forum or anywhere else seeking help. and you

Have you tried Port Saint-Saveur - it's the port du plaisance run by the mairie in Toulouse? If they don't have one they will certainly know of one. port-saintsauveur@mairie-toulouse.fr 0033 5 61 22 22 17 in fact they do have one "une rampe de mise à l'eau" There's also one at Ramonville-st-agne 11km along the Canal du Midi - but that's cheating I guess or, if worse come to worse, speak to the VNF at Toulouse, 0033 5 61 36 24 24 - there's a woman there who speaks English, Stefanie Johnson

Thank you Mark.

Would you mind answering a few questions, Mark: 1. Why were/are not NABO willing to share the decision with Nigel Moore if they were prepared to share it with CRT? 2. Can any of NABO's members obtain a verbatim copy of the advice? 3. What is NABO's policy of aiding with legal advice any of its individual members who find themselves on the wrong side of one of CRT's recent actions?

we'll let us hope the counter argument is effective.

as it is the property of its members there should be some transparency about it.

Thank would be my assumption. In the absence of any facts it seems fair to give her the benefit of the doubt. The boat is afloat and she's dealing with it. some support for that would be good rather than a Mail-alike pack of hounds.

Indeed ;-)

pot kettle black.

Sorry Geoff but that's just contradictory rubbish. What did you need legal aid for if you had the arguments? Shoo smiths will not 'run up your costs' - they will certainly make an attempt but mostly they fail, courts are not, despite your impressions, stupid. They would rather you weren't a litigant ion person but once you are they have to deal with it. It's the law. I suppose Arthur is part of the conspiracy against you when he says you are 'ranting about women' - which has absolutely nothing to do with your case If you think you are successfully challenging CRT then you delude yourself. They won. You allowed them to win. You continue to allow them to win as long as you refuse to take the action allowed to you. NABO do not represent boat clubs - at all. But I agree, they don't do on behalf of their members what I would hope they would do but then perhaps you weren't a member? Emotions are, as I say, motivational, but have no place in the courtroom battle. That's exactly how they won. You don't help yourself. Exactly so.

just as a matter of idle curiosity; what's the problem with mooring on the other side in your photo?

It strikes me from reading Geoff's site that there is a real danger of allowing emotion into the arguments. whereas emotion is immensely useful as a motivator it should be left behind on the day. I don't know but suspect, Geoff was alone in preparing his case, I think a clear-thinking friend, preferably with experience is almost essential. having said this I would always go for the route of litigant in person. I trust myself to be able to make a more thorough study of the laws, principles and argument than a billable-hours barrister or solicitor. But the most powerful tool we have is the accumulation of knowledge built up by those such as Geoff, Nigel, Tony, Panda and Nick. presumably we will soon add Leigh to this roll. It would be nice if NABO were a little more active in this field, whereas their expensive legal questions are useful to challenge CRT in the executive their role on the ground is rubbish.

you. fool. http://www.snopes.com/autos/grace/sugar.asp

If it happened to you, you would certainly describe it thus. How else can you describe the removal of an old wooden boat from Cheshire to Gloucestershire against the express wishes of the court where it was allowed to sink in 18' of water? Certainly seems to fit the Theft Act 1968 to me - 'intention to permanently deprive' (are you familiar with this Act?) If you would prefer 'contempt of court' then ask Geoff respectfully to change it. Either way it's an illegal act by CRT and the destruction of his home, Geoff is perfectly entitled to get exercised by it. That he doesn't have your superior powers of articulation is no reason for your bullying derision.