Gareth E
-
Posts
498 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Gareth E
-
-
35ft boat without a home mooring, do all my own maintenance, £2000 a year which allows £400 a year towards major repairs.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Tumshie said:
How sea trout fair can depend on the river and how hard they have to work to get to it and how long the have to sit before they get a good run. They do lose condition in the river because they have all the same issues as the salmon have but if they can start with a good run they fair better later on. They regain their health very quickly once they get back to the sea and can stuff their faces.
Thanks for the info. It's fascinating how these two species live their lives, surpassed in the fish world only perhaps by the eel. It's a crying shame that it's all being destroyed, primarily by the salmon farming industry. I was on the Tweed in late July there was barely a fish in it. OK there was no water but there should have still been fish trapped in the pools.
-
Both, potentially. Spawned out salmon are known as kelts. They are sickly, close to death and not good to eat. Actually salmon begin to deteriorate quite soon after entering the river, within a matter of weeks. I'm not so sure with sea trout but I believe it's similar.
-
Just now, Tumshie said:
Since we're resurrecting old threads
The biggest difference between the fox and the salmon is that the fox has his life cut short but not so the salmon, they're born and grow up in the river then they go out to sea where their bodies change to the point where they can never survive in a river again, yes they do return to the river to spawn but as soon as the reach fresh water they start to die it is a drawn out process but they are dying, they will travel up the river they will spawn and then they will die, there are no exceptions.
Even sea trout who are able to return to the sea often don’t make it depending on the weather conditions and therefore the water conditions during their run, some rivers are naturally much harder on the fish than others.
As salmon can’t eat once they return to the river the common train of thought is that it’s not greed that drives them to take the bait but temper but who could really know, eh? It still takes a little know how to catch them on a worm but yes in certain circles spinning for salmon is deemed less sporting, though not unacceptable.
I'm not suggesting that people should now suddenly change their minds and start to approve of fishing if they don't, I'm just explaining how it is for the salmon and their life cycle.
Actually some clubs or river owners forbid fishing for salmon and/ or sea trout other than on the fly. Others only allow methods other than the fly when the river is above a certain level, when fly fishing can be impossible. Some anglers, myself included, will only fish for game fish on the fly, through choice.
-
On 30/06/2018 at 01:49, LadyG said:
What?
Not all the British upper classes are large landowners or vice versa, a few immigrants bring money in to the UK, not all are Russian oligarths.
I am trying to indicate that one cannot label all football fans as hooligans, not all youths are vandals, not all farmers are meat eaters, not all hunt followers are rich sons of the uber rich.
I enjoy a weekend fly fishing for brown trout and grayling on the Tweed and Teviot each summer, and usually fluke a splendid sea trout or two. They go back of course. I earn less than the minimum wage. Just goes to show you, it pays not to stereotype.
-
Just now, Sir Nibble said:
There is no problems with discussion of politics per se, the problem comes about from a few members possessed of a superior intellect who come along with an attitude like they are laying down the law to children and other opinions constitute answering back. Point and counterpoint is debate, point and derision is not.
Agreed, apart from perhaps the bit about superior intellect, this being the self-perception of the few, rather than being a divine fact. I also received a warning point which on reflection, was deserved. I guess everyone has their limit, I'd grown tired of the personal attacks, and my olive branches were rejected.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Alan de Enfield said:
Ooops :
As I showed further down the post - indeed 1 litre = 0.51 Kgs.
So 13kg gas cylinder contains 26 litres of propane.
Going to have to start seriously thinking about refilling my own, and work out a way to carry them on my motor bike.
Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:Yes so not quite the 'foaming at the mouth' rip-off some here originally thought eh!
Especially not once refilling costs, bottle testing and marking costs and transport costs are also added in.
No, but around 15 quid to around 34 is still a rip off, just not one that makes one foam at the mouth.
-
Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:
No he didn't, that was Alan De E!
Oops!
-
Just now, alan_fincher said:
Yes, you have got it wrong.
Where does 7 litres come from?You said one litre weighs 1.96KG...
-
I must have got this wrong, surely: 7 litres @ 60p a litre = £4.20 but sold at over £34.00. Surely not??
-
Go on, spill the beans..
-
Does anyone know how many litres of gas there are in a 13KG bottle?
-
If someone can sell at 25 quid and make a profit and the 'suggested retail price' is nearly 10 quid more I smell a big rip off.
-
1
-
-
I have a gas fridge, use a bottle every 5 weeks or so. Still better than having an electric one I reckon, with me being off grid, but the advantage is reducing!
-
I was charged over £34 for 13kg today, the same place charge me just over £30 2 months ago. A year ago I was paying £27 and a year before that around £24. Has lpg massively increased in price or have the suppliers decided to start ripping customers off (even more)?.
-
My advice is do not buy a Vetus engine as parts are just ridiculously expensive. For example: one set of piston rings last year: £92.50. Cylinder head gasket for the little 2 pot engine: £82.50. You may be able to get some of the parts from a Mitubishi plant motor dealer but even then they are only 10 or 20 percent cheaper.
-
When child allowance and child tax credits are totted up, added to all these clubs etc. etc. It seems that the cost of having children is being born by everyone but the parents themselves. Small wonder maybe why having children is such an easy decision these days and perhaps, why we have so many social problems.
-
2
-
-
Is this part of the however many hours it is free childcare that the government announced a year or two back, or is this yet another state intervention into family life?
-
Just now, Tanglewood said:
Of course, but, as a for instance, Buckinghamshire and Dorset will be the first Counties to lose all their Government grant in 2018/19. The immediate effect of this in Buckinghamshire will be the loss of 35 Children's Centres.
Forgive me, I know we have schools and all that, but what's a children's centre? Isn't it the job of parents to look after children when they aren't at school or has the government now taken on this role?
-
Just now, Jerra said:
The current state pension is well below what is recognised as the amount to have a reasonable standard of life (the real living wage?). OK there are a good number with other pensions but there are many without. The government could improve the conditions for those on the least money by such measures as not taxing them or relieving them of rates (assuming that everyone in the house was on the low level of income.
I would suggest that for many pensioners who have only the state pension any decline in living standards would be very serious.
OK but let's not forget that a shift from council tax to funding local services via paye and self assessment would benefit less well off pensioners, not impoverish them.
-
Just now, Jerra said:
The same for us.
That could be taken care of by the payment I suggested for those not paying tax. Incidentally why might it be undesirable for only workers to pay?
I'm not saying it would be undesirable, just entertaining the notion! There's much talk at the moment of the elderly being 'protected' from often declining living standards. There are universal benefits such as free public transport, free prescriptions etc. and the so called triple lock on pensions. If you remove the need for pensioners to pay council tax and instead pay tax on probably mostly modest incomes they will more often than not save money. It would be for society to decide whether a further shift in the burden in cost from the elderly to younger working people is desirable, or not.
-
Just now, Jerra said:
Yes that would work. As I said I am sure there are a lot of ways it could be achieved.
Thinking it through some more I guess the only downside might be that the burden of cost for local services would be switched more onto the working population, that might not be desirable.
-
Just now, KevMc said:
Isn't the reason it is calculated on "earned income" because at the time a certain amount of benefits that were supposedly paid out of the "insurance" were related to earnings?
And while we are at it ... isn't all income is earned, either through the sweat of your brow or by careful investment?
I don't know. All I know is that all my income comes from investments and I'm not required to pay any national insurance contributions at all. If a future government required that national insurance should be paid on all incomes, I wouldn't have a problem with this, it would seem fair, income is income...
-
Just now, Jerra said:
Had the tax come anywhere near implementation I feel it would be possible to have some link to wealth. Perhaps based on some thing similar to rates. e.g. person in Band A pays X so in my example single lady pays X house next door with 5 pays 5 X.
Another set of houses in say Band C pay Y or X+n
Alternatively you could base on an individuals tax code with a set payment for those who don't pay tax.
There are I think a good number of ways it could be thought through.
How about very simply, x percent (to be determined) of salary deducted at source via paye for the employed, and via tax returns for the self employed. This seems so obvious and fair, easy to administer too, without need for additional departments.
How much does it cost to run a narrowboat ?
in General Boating
Posted
Sorry chap don't agree. Even if you own a house outright you'll be paying at least £2K in council tax, gas and electric and t.v. licence, probably more like £2.5K. If you don't have a mooring for your boat the equivalent costs will be lower, and houses need maintaining too.