frahkn

Yes, any connection between the law and "justice" is purely coincidental. Justice or fairness are very slippery concepts.

In my experience it is "at the edges" that the law becomes interesting and the courts most useful. Matters where the precise meaning of statute has never come before a judge are, by their nature, uncertain and only the courts can give that certainty. Parliamentary draughtsmen attempt to convert politicians ideas into reasonable legislation but there are always unintended consequences, often because of efforts to avoid ambiguity.

I ignore "no winding" signs at marinas as I rarely have to use their water to complete a turn. If in doubt I just go in, given space on the diesel wharf I will buy something, if there is not (quite common I have found) then I just go out again.

I had a few Shurflos before I knew enough to try something else. They mostly were not working long enough for the noise to bother me.

This is normally a sensible and pragmatic approach. One which works well against the random opportunist thief. But I think diesel theft is a special case. In order to steal a significant amount of diesel, the thief must come prepared - bring containers or even their boat. A crowbar or angle grinder won't be much extra burden and the need will have been anticipated.

What you need to grasp is that the majority of marinas do not/cannot offer residential moorings. If they did they would have planning issues and council tax complications. However some marinas nevertheless do tolerate "live aboard" customers as long as they can plausibly tell the local planning department that they do not. I have moored in three midland marinas, all had a no live aboard clause in the mooring contract. One strictly enforced this, both the others did not but they expected live aboards to keep their heads down. They want to be able to say to the authorities "he's living on his boat? I never knew that, how shocking, that is against our terms and conditions".

I don't agree with magnetman's original suggestion but it's not ridiculous. If, as he suggests, legislation was enacted to prevent one person owning two or more properties, this would make no difference to the number of properties available - just to their ownership.

Not really a good return for a faberge egg (unless it was more a bergen than a rucksack).

Yep, Richard Feynman.

This is an interesting analogy, there is a similar one involving marbles in a small bore pipe. The question which arises is "why the fluctuation speed cannot exceed the speed of light?". I have never seen a simple analogy which satisfactorily explains this.

And they have a reduced rate for traditional boats (or did have when I moored there).

When I bought my boat (in 2013) it had the original sales invoice from the builders and the invoice relating to its second sale (I was the third owner). These documents, unlike the service history, BSS etc, were not made available to me until the purchase was complete. I thought that was fair enough, I had the brokers word that they existed and that they constituted sufficient proof of the seller's ownership of the boat, I didn't think that the actual figures were any of my business until I owned the boat (perhaps not even then).

You may be thinking of poor alcoholics (those reduced to drinking strong lager, cider or cheap wine). My experience with alcoholics who can easily afford their habit has been that generally they are steady (ish) after a remarkable volume of alcohol. You may be thinking of poor alcoholics (those reduced to drinking strong lager, cider or cheap wine). My experience with alcoholics who can easily afford their habit has been that generally they are steady (ish) after a remarkable volume of alcohol.

After 30 odd rentals and 11 years sharing we also knew exactly what we wanted. The 70' Orion tug which we bought had remarkably little in common with the 57' boat we set out to buy. I would be a bit concerned about a lack of flexibility in someones requirements.

Blackrose's original remark about this was "I'm 100% sure the battery monitor is correct but I'll check it with my clamp meter anyway". His use of "I'm" and "I'll" seems to preclude any involvement of a significant time period in this case, so I think his later statement is illogical. So in my view one of us is correct (me) while one of us isn't (you). But perhaps I'm wrong - I suppose I have to be eventually - but then again, perhaps I'm not.

Welcome to the forum Crabby. Taking everything you have posted at face value, particularly "we will probably totally gut the interior and change the layout", I would go for the new shell option. This will be more work and expense than you estimate (about 3 times as much) but it will be less than doing essentially the same thing but with the strip-out and the resultant mess and uncertainty added. Having said that, I would do neither but instead buy a second hand boat within your budget and use it for a year or two. It will be an essential learning platform, allowing you to decide what you really need from your final boat. (Which may turn out to be neither a cruiser stern nor a reverse layout). Frank

This is not a logical position to hold. Just saying (accurately).

Welcome to the forum, interesting first post!