thebfg
-
Posts
224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by thebfg
-
-
Hello everyone.
Although I have been a member for 18 months or so. I thought I would reintroduce my self.
I had been a hirer as a child with my family and have introduced my own family on to narrowboats.
After taking the in laws on a lovely trip in and around Birmingham, with thanks to the good advice here.
And another up north. They enjoyed their time so much they have brought a narrow boat. And me and my family will also enjoy use of the family boat.
We are moored in the delightful caen hill marina.
And yes a couple of people may of noticed our rather windswept first attempt at mooring in a marina environment during the rather breezy storm Brian on Saturday.
Thanks to the great boater who actually did it for me.
I am really looking to meeting some of you out there and I must thank you all for the advice I have picked up on here already and looking forward to hearing more as no doubt I will need.
Now I'm of to find threads on getting onto a pontoon in the wind. Or is that into as you neither get on or in it.
Adrian.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Jerra said:
My dictionary defines consult (from which obviously comes consultation) as:
seek information or advice from (someone, especially an expert or professional).
One noticeable thing about advice is you don't have to take it and information you are free to use as you wish. Why does anyone assume a consultation must be taken notice of?
Personally I don't. I was questioning the previous post , where he quotes the alleged below rules.
Consultations should have a purpose
Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view."
Which he based his opinion of
"MUST allow that consultation to form and shape its policies"
On.
I felt, and still do feel that it was a valid question based on his opinion.
Although consulting is to have discussions typically before undertaking a course of action.
Which although does not say it but does imply to me that discussion should assist in the course of the action.
-
12 minutes ago, Murflynn said:
what a load of nit-picking. .................. as my dad used to say - when a dog is about to bite you, don't worry about the colour of the dog's eyes.
if that was my boat I would consider the damage to be horrendous.
let's face it - that plastic tub bears the scars of endless collisions or at least abrasions resulting from careless driving or careless mooring. I feel great sympathy for anyone who encounters said bath-tub and is not able to avoid close proximity with him. I am amazed that the boat name is so easily read. I hope CRT checks out his licence, BSC and insurance details. Let's face it, this guy should be excluded from all CRT and EA waters. If he was driving on the road he would have been disqualified years ago.
He is licensed. So I presume insured.
-
35 minutes ago, Jim Batty said:
Wow, this all seems pretty cynical.
My first thought is this: CRT are a TRUST, not a company like a mining outfit, shoe manufacturer, City bank or Google. A TRUST has a responsibility to supervise the management of an asset. In contrast, a company represents assets and individuals with a common goal of earning profits to increase the wealth of shareholders. Big difference.
Go onto the CRT website and you will see that:
'The Canal & River Trust is a charity set up in 2012 to care for England and Wales' 200-year-old waterways, holding them in trust for the nation forever. ...' Listed in their charter are objectives that, in almost every case, emphasise either 'public benefit' or 'public interest'.
My second thought is this: The government has clear principles on how to conduct proper public consultations (Consultation Principles 2016) In this short, interesting document, as well as saying things like a consultation should be short, concise, informative, targeted, it also states:
Consultations should have a purpose
Do not consult for the sake of it. Ask departmental lawyers whether you have a legal duty to consult. Take consultation responses into account when taking policy forward. Consult about policies or implementation plans when the development of the policies or plans is at a formative stage. Do not ask questions about issues on which you already have a final view."
I think any trust that has been set up to protect, carefully manage and improve a public asset for public benefit and interest, and that runs a public consultation MUST allow that consultation to form and shape its policies -- and certainly NOT be a vessel for manipulating and changing public opinion, and certainly NOT an attempt to establish a preconceived policy or solution.
Any Trust that tried to engineer any of the latter with a consultation would surely be acting extremely irresponsibly, if not morally beyond the pale and against their very reason for being.
That may be the case. However there are very strong views that this stage of the consultation does not reflect the previous ones.
Where did the basis of this consultation come from if it was not from the previous two stages
Whilst it maybe above board, it does raise questions about the ultimate aim.
If 100% of consultees were against the idea, do you believe they would drop any plans for change?
-
On 21/10/2017 at 15:32, Arthur Marshall said:
It's been that peaceful till recently the subject probably never came up. Pearly & Co's entertainment value is as good as ever, but it's not worth getting bothered about. They have most of their fun in the other place, which is nice for them, because just about everyone there thinks the same. Here, we do actually have discussions with people whose opinions differ.
Afaik pearly is not over there or if he is does not post often.
That's a little unfair about everyone agreeing. One minute we are all there to argue and the next all agree.
I think it really reflects in the number of posters. Over there there is only a small amount of regular posters but here 1000 people could agree on a subject but as there are lots of other people someone is still bound to have a different opinion.
It could be fair to say that on some threads here there are only one or two posters disagreeing.
Sorry for the digression but I think it's a fair point and make it with respect.
I did note you did say just about and not all. I love a good debate.
-
On 13/10/2017 at 09:58, Mike the Boilerman said:
This argument taken to the limit says a widebeam dropped into say the southern Oxford between two narrow locks should pay no licence fee as he can't go anywhere.
Would they then have a reasonable excuse not to cc.
-
30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
I am not sure that is quite what the Judge said, I believe that it was :
6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.
But - hey - don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.
I am not questioning your post.
however are they still trying to control boaters, even after a judge has cleared the matter up for them.
Now is this controlling just a way of managing the waterways for everyone's benefit or is this bullying from power happy control freaks
now I am not anti crt but I can see why people would get scared receiving a letter and may not be happy or comfortable challenging that letter. some people will panic or get stressed over it. that could constitute harassment or bullying.
However I cant see the benefit to Crt unless its a personal thing, which I am sure will happen. or used to inflate targets and justify jobs. I.e we had 2000 overstayers and the enforcement team dealt with them all and 1995 carried on navigating. so lets have a big bonus. in reality they told 1500 people to get on boating that they had no legal right to tell.
-
3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:
I believe so, and people have posted on here that they have been so affected.
Irrespective of the implementation of the new ‘rule’ C&RT do not have the power to just write into their T&Cs any T&C which over rides the law.
For example, should C&RT decide to charge the same for their ‘River Only Licence’ as for the ‘Canal & River licence’, would you accept that they can do that ?
I quite agree and to query mtbs other point, if someone does have a home mooring and decides to cruise another part of the network for a year, why (based on their powers)should CrT do anything to stop them. Any enforcement because CrT feel they should adhere to cc rules could be considered harassment and/or bullying.
-
Nice job.
Does this mean you have a very large bathroom now.
-
16 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:
Bought and fitted today. Can only get the ARC app to play music off the phone. Cant find any options to control the head unit, e.g. Source, radio stations, volume, etc..
HELP!!
I see it does everything but volume.
-
On 22/05/2017 at 09:18, Neil2 said:
These days when you see a rusty three year old transit you know it's because they make the paint just thick enough to last until the fleet sends it to auction, not because Ford use rubbish steel.
It doesn't matter much what steel a 30 year old boat hull is made from, what does matter is how well the owner has looked after it.
I know I am late to this party. I worked at the transit factory in Southampton when I was younger.
I worked for DuPont.
Now while the paint was probably not thick, thick it was mostly OK the main problem was if there was blemishes in the paint work, overspray or drips for example.
The way they dealt with it was a quick sand and respray by hand. This often took it down to bare metal. The paint was just sprayed back on very thinly. Ripe for rusting quite early. However there was not time on the line to do anything different., of course not sanding down to bare metal would of helped.
Of topic comment, finished.
lady g, how is the boat hunting?
-
2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I don't think we need to panic yet. It's not due to take effect till 2025 and will only be at specific times when pollution is already high anyway.
yea correct it also mentions small zones. so only the worst affected areas.
of cause it's just talk at the moment. will it actually come into force.
-
11 hours ago, Athy said:
Now, on golf we may agree.
oh no.
with golf and cricket, I won't actively watch but they make great background tv.
if your busy doing something else you can just watch the good bits as and when.
-
23 hours ago, Richard10002 said:
Is this a bit like, "if lights were compulsory on bikes at night, it would prevent some people from being able to afford to bike any longer" ??
Well, they are compulsory, and plenty of people dont bother to have them - Perhaps the government should be buying lights for those who "cant afford to buy them".
I agree that insurance isnt compulsory, but it's not a bad idea, and relatively cheap, given that it usually covers the bike itself, as well as third party risks.
I'm pretty sure at one point. I believe it is still the case, that my local constabulary will give you a set of lights.
no excuse really.
on a different note through membership of the cycling tourist club now cycling uk. I get free 10million pounds worth of 3rd party liability insurance. British cycling also does the same.
I also agree that no new laws need to be made, existing ones need to be enforced first.
5 hours ago, mross said:Yes. When I was an active motorcyclist I objected to the notion that we were responsible if a car driver did not see us. I also objected the ' headlights on' campaign. Car drivers cannot estimate the speed of an oncoming motorcycle when it shines a bright headlight at them. But. I learnt to ride defensively and would never overtake cars near a junction as I knew they might brake or turn suddenly. Nor would I filter past stationary cars where they might pull out or turn right.
I always find it's very hard to judge distance and closinf speed on a vehicle with one light. that's why it's easier with cars. if they have both working that is.
-
14 hours ago, David Schweizer said:
I realise that. However, as fartas I am aware, where the Highway code "rules" state that cycilsts "Must" or "Must Not" the rule is based upon legislation. Where it uses the term "Should" it is advisoory.
there was sort of a test case around here last year. a motorists ran down and killed a cyclist. the sun blinded the driver and he dident slow down or see the cyclist.
the courts said that as it was only advisory to slow down when blinded by the sun he had committed no offence.
-
Any review of cycling rules/laws is a waste of time because ultimately the police will not police it.
What is required is the police to actually use the powers they have and take action against cyclist that break the law.
asking for cyclist to have registrations and such like is a waste of money and resources and will ultimately go against government policy by pitting people off cycling.
I would also hope, in the event of a review , that they will actually decide to put in proper cycling infrastructure and srop putting in mixes use paths.
-
1 hour ago, mross said:
Just be aware that, in the event of an 'incident', the police could impound your dashcam and use its contents as evidence against you.
I would say. they could only use footage of the current journey. they may have issues with proving who the driver is otherwise.
-
2 minutes ago, Jerra said:
What I can't understand is why "people in another place" should be concerned about CWDF and what it does or for that matter why people in CWDF are concerned about "another place".
Each to their own! If people like CWDF they will use it if people like "another place" they will use that. Some will even, heaven forbid, use both places!!!!!
So in the same token. why should anyone be concerned if people use both?
-
15 minutes ago, bigcol said:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/faversham/news/blaze-at-iron-wharf-132085/
Eight boats destroyed plus buildings
looks as though it was nasty, happened early hours of this morning
huge fire destroying boats
sad to see
let's hope the man arrested is nothing to do with the company involved so there is no complications paying out to the boat owners.
-
11 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
thats ok, I don't work for them. they can do what they like.
they are quite a big independent society though. much like a franchise. They can go bust as it won't affect me.
It's those type if ones that give us a bad name.
we're the big one with over 3000 stores.
they are the expensive one with queues that give all co-ops a bad name.
I have had interference at a lock. some woman demanded my crew shall go to the next lock while they finished that one.
but it's a boring story really.
-
1 hour ago, Laurie.Booth said:
Let's hope the Co-Op goes bust.
I hope not. we do too much for our local communities and I would have no job.
A few years ago when the bank went belly up we were about two hours away from going bust. dark times and a credit to every colleague that we have turned it around. it may of been decisions at the top that saved it but none of could of been carried out with out us.
-
52 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:
Isn't it actually branded
CO
OP
Rather than COOP?
yes it is. that is a nod to the cloverleaf branding we used to have.
Athy, I apologise. did some digging and officially it is co-op now, seems most of my colleagues never realised either. I'm sure it got added after the rebrand launch.
I suppose if I had not jumped the gun and thought about it, it's because our latest mantra is back to being co-op. mainly to forget the bad times and indeed bad press the business went though whilst known as the co-operative. But also to go back to the principles that the co-op was built on.
Perhaps it worked as we reached our mission of becoming Britains no.1 convenience store.
-
we use both too.
I have the nicholsons at the back and she has pearsons down below so they can keep track and see what might be worth stopping for.
-
8 hours ago, Athy said:
Nick, anyone who tries applying analogy to the English language is on a hiding to nothing! Think of the eight (at least) pronunciations of "ough" for example.
You're certainly right about the Co-op, though the French call it "le Coop", I guess they sell chickens. A hyphen can help to clarify a word's meaning.
just a small point, the shop was known as the co-operative and is now known as the coop as it used to be known many years ago.
Hit and run
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by thebfg
If the first hit was at a certain velocity and momentum, would the following three be at a lesser rate than the previous one with the last being quite a gentle hit.
I'm not sure if having the accelerator on will make a difference or not. As after the first hit the momentum to build up speed is lost.
Or am I confusing myself as well as others?
Seemed logical in my head.
Eta. Still not a nice thing to happen and I hope the insurers deal with it.