Jonny P

I wasn’t excluding anybody on account of how they boat or their motivation for being on a boat. I was merely referring to anybody that pays for a licence and adheres to the Ts&Cs to which they agreed but probably wouldn’t have done so had they had to factor in mooring costs. There’s simply lots of boaters out there doing lots of different things. They don’t fit neatly in the boxes you seem to want to put them in, all neatly labelled by their percentage contribution to CRT. I don’t see compliant boaters of any licence status as a problem.

You’re adding requirements that aren’t part of the law, hence why CRT and BWB before them haven’t been bothered. While it may be that the sequence of movement could be forced more toward ‘A,B,C… …X,Y,Z’ rather than ‘A,B,C,B,A,B,C,B,A, repeat and take a short break to D in summer’, there is no doubt that the former is unequivocally in accordance with the law, and probably so irrespective of distance. I think it’d also be very hard to argue it’s not a cruise in terms of plain English. The need to be on some form of extended cruise may or may not have been the intended purpose of the legislation - at least in the minds of those that lobbied for it - but it’s not what it says. The “continuous cruiser” terminology only exists with CRT and it’s plainly obvious that moving to a new place at least once every 14 days is what constitutes continuous cruising in their eyes. Personally I hate the term. You also fall into the use of derogatory language toward other boaters. The requirement to not have to pay for a home mooring is an enabler for many to be on the canal. To me that’s a good thing if they comply with their licence commitments. Why wouldn’t it be? There are also many boaters without a home mooring who make use of a series of paid moorings during their licence period and they are now penalised by having to pay the licence surcharge despite being on what qualifies as a home mooring by legal definition but apparently is not under the new licensing regime. They are far from “mooring-dodgers”’

The three scenarios you quote do not appear compliant to the basic provision of law unless they are deemed “reasonable under the circumstances”. I’m quite comfortable that it’s not for the licence holder to declare what is and isn’t reasonable therefore a default 14 days in the T&Cs and the onus on the licence holder to seek extension beyond where they deem it reasonable seems to me a practical application of the law. In my experience it also works well if the licence holder can provide genuine evidence as to why an overstay it is necessary, a clear plan of action and timeline for forward movement, and then doing what you said you would. The basic provision is also that it is for the licence holder to satisfy CRT of their compliance and that should be happening well before any significant enforcement action is required. Additionally that’s over the full term of the licence so the compliance of your examples can’t be judged in isolation. Is there not a flex of that nature to the school term issue in any case? Yes the legal enforcement process is somewhat obtuse, convoluted and expensive and I have no doubt that it also encourages non-compliance in some circumstances. Perhaps we can all agree a quicker, cheaper and more transparent process would be a desirable outcome from a change in legislation.

Correct, beams are never painted on the underside. Structural hardwood doesn’t need any preservative or protection. I think it was originally the case that beams were not painted and the black and white scheme was devised to aid vision in poor light when canals were worked overnight in wartime. I’m sure someone can confirm or refute this. It seems that some of the painting is now done by workplace volunteering groups. It’s also possibly the case that it has to be replaced like for like for heritage reasons although there is perhaps a good reason for only painting the white and not the black.

All this pontificating over the purpose and detail of the law and its relation to the functioning of society in general has resulted from a poster explicitly saying that they don’t overstay. What is the motivation behind people’s posts for that to happen? No person ever needs to study or understand the specific law relating to anything at all in order to leave their home (or indeed take it with them) and function perfectly well in normal society. What is necessary is to understand your obligations in any agreements you have - formal or informal - and have a sense of what constitutes reasonable behaviour. In the case of boating it’s laid out when you purchase a licence, and for boaters without a home mooring it’s explicitly referenced to the law and explains what behaviour is required. Therefore I think it’s really poor behaviour for any person to suggest in public that a boater is not boating legally unless they can back it up with evidence of action contrary to CRT’s requirements. Even then I’d strongly suggest they leave it to CRT. As for my movements it doesn’t matter a jot whether I can’t move or choose not to move in the immediate days ahead (it is genuinely a bit of both). I will recommence my bona fide navigation of the waterways as I am required to do at a time of my choosing. That is entirely my business providing I remain in accordance with my licensing commitments. Interestingly though since I’m not a liveaboard my journey of one hour made specifically to ensure I kept to my side of the licence agreement presumably must have been “bona fide for navigation”? Yet if I were a liveaboard the same journey made for the same reasons wouldn’t have been? That isn’t logical and I don’t know the answer. I’m also pretty sure nobody here properly knows either. Nor do they need to. The fact of the matter is that if you keep moving without shuffling back and forth and cover a reasonable distance over the period of your licence it will be deemed “bona fide for navigation” by the only body whose opinion matters. As to whether the law or CRT’s application of it is fit for purpose is a different matter. That debate can - and should - be had in generic terms without reference to the actions of specific individual boaters.

I moved today for not much other reason than I hadn’t moved for a week and I’m not sure I’ll be able to move again during the coming week. I think perhaps we should reflect that the movement requirements of the law are enforced at the discretion of the Board i.e. CRT and are reviewed against behaviour throughout the whole term of the licence. I could offer an acronym for my thoughts on some of the above.

Do you think there was the same volume of boats in 1975?

The majority of working boaters went home at night throughout the history of regular carrying, since most trade was local. However I think there always was long distance trade that required the men that worked the boats to live aboard while in transit. The difference perhaps being that they also had a home. Even once families lived aboard from the later 1800s onwards research has shown most retained a house on land, albeit sometimes shared with other members of an extended family. Perhaps by the time most of the literature about working boat life was written the norm was that families lived aboard and this skews the perception of how boat families lived. My great grandfather operated a pair of horse boats from the Midlands to London and always maintained a house for the family at Sutton Stop.

Yes, that would almost certainly have been her brother, next youngest of the siblings. He lived close to Charity Dock in later life.

Of organising boats, yes. But a public facing role requires some skills that one volunteer I’ve encountered is lacking.

They don’t like passing boats in the top pound. There is one volunteer at Watford who likes to let you know who’s in charge.

I think you need to check the distances shown in CanalPlan because there plainly isn’t 2 furlongs between the features shown as Deep Cuttings Junction and Deep Cuttings Bridge. As for the name of the junction(s) this is an age old debate and I’ve never seen anything definitive and certainly nothing to suggest there were two distinct junctions with two distinct names. It’d be interesting to know what/who was the source of that information.

It’s Audlem. And tbh I wouldn’t be best pleased if someone hung about in a lock, particularly if I was going in the opposite direction. I’d be inclined to stop on the lock landing and draw one paddle and buy myself a bit of time while at least appearing to be in the process of working the lock to any observers.

Doesn’t really matter where they left the boat while perusing the goods unless you think they’d have allowed you to go past them. I wouldn’t let that happen. I often dive into the bottom lock shop at Braunston while locking through.

The lock has been the subject of a stoppage notice for a considerable period of time due to a broken paddle. However it has never been locked out of use and has continued to be used. That’s possible partly because it is shallow and leaks sufficient water to make it passable. But it’s entirely conceivable that one too many boats has helped the gates on their way as a result.

Does the same apply to the distances? The two locations are shown as being two and a quarter furlongs apart in which case having two different names would be logical. In reality it’s more of a crossroads and I think it’s generally accepted that Old Turn and Deep Cuttings are two names for the same place.

I’m sure that my granddad - who lived almost opposite for 45 years - said there was once a steam engine inside the pub. I think a young me took this to mean a railway locomotive but a stationary pumping engine would make more sense.

The Lee Navigation is essentially a big canal at the London end. It’s independent of the river (which is called the Lea).

I don’t think employees are routinely used at Watford or Foxton. The boater clearly isn’t in charge if access to the locks is under control of the CRT representative. They don’t ask if you want assistance.

For their own management purposes. At Harecastle it’s because they have to know who is in the tunnel and with how many souls aboard at any one time. At Watford and Foxton it’s so they know the numbers waiting and the order in which they are to enter the flight. On the Severn it’s because they check the licences back in the cabin. At places like Braunston and Atherstone they keep a tally of boats passing through while the volockies are on duty but won’t necessarily record names and numbers.

I prefer that as well which does puzzle some folk when sharing GU locks but they’d understand if they single handed. With Watford being (mostly) a staircase it’s a bit different as they are quick and access on and off the boat isn’t always easy. At busy times it’s best for everyone if you just do what’s quickest and that’s probably staying aboard.

I’m not sure they expect it but you can. I tend to get off to wind the paddles while the volockie closes up behind, then I’ll reboard once they arrive. Most of my trips involve descending, going up I’d be more likely to stay aboard. It rather depends on how busy the flight is and how many volockies are on duty.

You’re usually assisted and the volunteers work most of the paddles. Not always though. I have worked through the flight unassisted. But you can only proceed with their authority.

And it’s why we all carry insurance.

May not be so straightforward with the way CRT control and operate the Watford flight.