Wanderer Vagabond
-
Posts
3,888 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
365
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Wanderer Vagabond
-
-
9 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:
I don’t think they have necessarily accepted liability but have accepted it came from their factory? It could for instance be a supplier of the container who is at fault.
I tried that after a deer ran into my car, sadly my insurance company set the standard and declined my request for four new tyres. Usually the standard is set by the affected party in conjunction with the insurance company which seems reasonable protection for both parties against excessive or wrongful claim.The fact that the leak came from their factory, whether or not the source was a faulty container, should come under the terms of the public liability insurance ,who should pay out and then reclaim their costs from whoever supplied the faulty container (if they can). It is much the same as if you fail to declare risks when filling out your insurance application and being granted insurance. Once they have granted you insurance they are obliged to pay out for a claim, it just means that they can then sue you to recover their costs.
The difference with your vehicle claim is that as well as being the claimant, you are also a customer so they can impose conditions that you will be forced to agree to. What they would have said was "Were all of the tyres that you are claiming for new when you hit the deer?" if not (and if you'd only driven 20 miles on them, they would no longer be 'new') you would fall foul of the 'betterment clause' in insurance.
By comparison if you drove into a Ferrari Daytona SP3 (value circa £2 million) they are going to be unable to argue against the extortionate repair costs of the third party.
-
19 minutes ago, David Mack said:
And because any compensation they do get will probably only fund a minimum cleanup, and CRT aspire to doing better than that.
And what is the financial position of Anachrome? It is not unheard of for companies to go under leaving debts behind them when faced with significant compensation liabilities.
I would have thought that a company dealing with toxic substances such Sodium Cyanide would be obliged to carry public liability insurance for precisely such events as this. If they haven't they deserve to go under with CRT first in line for money raised by the liquidation of their assets.
Also it shouldn't be for the public liaibility insurance company to set the standard for the level of the clean-up, that should be exclusively the preserve of both CRT and the EA.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, IanD said:
Spill was about 4000l apparently... 😞
Well if that is correct, it wasn't a barrel that fell in the canal as suggested earlier, or else it's a bigger 'barrel' than I've ever come across
. That has to be from a leaking storage facility.
-
7 minutes ago, cuthound said:
I used to investigate "major service failures" and "environmental incidents" for BT. It will almost certainly prove to be not following the process or lack of maintenance.
I'm surprised that either of these resulted in polluting the canal. Most responsible companies dealing with potentially lethal chemicals play "what if" to determine what could happen and the actions needed to mitigate the various scenarios.
In full agreement with this ^^^. In a former life I worked in the chemical industry (as a delivery driver) and for toxic products such as this, we stored them in compounds with watertight boundary walls with drainage 'sumps' so that even if a drum of the chemical split, the contents would go nowhere near any drainage system. What has failed here I don't know, but they need to be held fully accountable, whether or not the incident was accidental it should never have entered a waterway.
I would guess that any prosecution will be conducted by the Health and Safety Executive because the consequences of this could have been fatal.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:
There has been a bit on BBC Midlands to say they are fun raising for a clean up. so the poulter doesn't pay , from CRT Facebook
Thorough testing has allowed us to reduce the stretch of towpath closed after a chemical pollution incident in Walsall from 12 miles to just a kilometre, and we're working to reopen navigation outside the restricted zone. Here the Trust’s regional director Henriette Breukelaar explaining to BBC Midlands Today why the full extent of the impact on wildlife may not be understood for some time.
As another poster has just put, the polluter must be made to pay, significantly, (that is what businesses have insurance for) I certainly wont be contributing anything to let someone responsible for something as dangerous as this off the handle. Bearing in mind this is the Walsall Canal so any boaters on here would have a good chance of spending time down the weed hatch, this polluting incident could very easily have killed someone. If I were on CRT I'd already be calculating just how much compensation the charity should be due (a helpful source of income it they can put it into £1 million +
)
I'm not surprised that they've been able to reduce the exclusion zone down to a kilometre since, a bit like homeopathy the more diluted this poison gets the less harm it will cause, and I'm guessing that they now know what quantity has gone into the canal.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, David Mack said:
But how much H2O2 would you need to treat a km of canal?
I would guess that it would depend on the concentration of the contaminant. The further from the source of the incident the more diluted it's going to be.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Brycgian said:
There are a number of ways of destroying cyanide by reaction - essentially oxidizing the CN ion - (see https://www.sgs.com/pt/-/media/sgscorp/documents/corporate/brochures/sgs-min-wa017-cyanide-destruction-en-11.cdn.pt.pdf for example), but I wouldn't want to use any of them on 11 miles of canal.
One of the ways apparently is to convert it to a cyanate by the use of Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) for which one of the products would be water and the cyanate salt. Since they've probably killed most of the fish in that section of canal, treating it with Hydrogen Peroxide isn't going to do that much more harm.
-
8 hours ago, IanD said:
It sounds like the secondary fermentation in the bottle -- which I assume it uses to produce a beer with a head? -- didn't happen for some reason.
I think that you are probably right. When poured it was, as I said, like a glass of Coke, lots of fizz and no head. Previous deliveries were much the same as the original bottles I bought when travelling through Bude, a perfect pint (complete with head!!). I might give them another chance but I'm not sure I'll risk buying 24 bottles in one go again
-
7 hours ago, Momac said:
You are asking the wrong question here. No one deliberately let the child wander around next to a canal.
The report indicates the child went missing from home (or perhaps it was from a house that was not his home).
I think I'd agree that it was the wrong question, for me the question would be,"Did anyone see the 2 year old wandering before he fell in the canal?". The reason is that there have been one or two accounts on this thread of people whose children have been returned to them after wandering off. Given the paranoia people these days have about approaching unaccompanied children, there is every likelihood that the child may well have been seen by people who 'didn't want to become involved'. It is possible that at 5pm on a summer Sunday afternoon the child managed to get to the canal towpath totally unseen, but is it likely?
-
51 minutes ago, Tim Lewis said:
The ‘bridge’ in question was separate from the gates and had next to nobhandrails
Tend to wonder who thought that was ever a good design for a bridge in the first place
. No rails at all would be better than that since, if there were no rails and you stumbled off the bridge you would just fall to the ground/canal whereas that design almost ensures that you are going to fall head first with death being almost inevitable (assuming those rails are as low as they appear).
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:
Have you changed dishwasher tablets / rinse aid (or run out!) / washing up liquid recently? It's surprising the effect that can have on head retention on beer.
No, it's just the Pilot Gig stout that has this problem, the Coffee Stout and other beers in my cellar all hold a decent head.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, IanD said:
David Nutt's analysis of the real risk and harm for various drugs -- both legal and illegal -- included that cannabis was well down the list, drugs like LSD and magic mushrooms further still, that the current categorisation made no sense whatsoever, and that most of the harm to society came from the uncontrolled supply and illegality rather than the drugs themselves -- except for alcohol and tobacco, by far the worst IIRC.
Which is why the government sacked him from his post as drugs tsar, because they didn't want to hear evidence that showed their drugs policies up for the nonsense they are... 😞
Even back in the days I was tasked with enforcement, it always struck me as a bit of a daft approach. So what happens when we take out one drug dealer? the value of the product for all of the other drug dealers goes up a notch. The more drug dealers you take out, whilst there remains a demand for the product, the higher the price goes and therefore more profit there is to be made, attracting more criminals into the trade. The game of Whack-a-mole probably best describes what we were doing.
-
1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Main reason (for me) for chilling lager is to make it more palatable
Yes there are some lovely porters about, the obvious one Titanic’s Plum Porter is good,
I like the strong milds too but they can be lethal,
Have you been in the Post Office Vaults in Birmingham? They used to have a hefty book with all their Belgium and continental beers listed, including rare stuff, well I suspect rare because of the price,
they always have a good selection of beer on hand pump and plenty of ciders to choose from,
I recommend it for your Belgium beer if you ain’t been in yet.
I’ve heard of shops having a sign saying “no bra money”
Yes, I've tried the Plum Porter sadly I thought that the 'plum' bit just referred to the coloration, I didn't realise that it meant they actually put feckin' plums in it!! (see my comment on fruit beers
). On the other hand I have got a bit of a taste for the Coffee Stout sold in Aldi (made by Hall and Woodhouse), but then each to their own
It can always be risky recommending beers, for the past year or so I've been contentedly quaffing 'Pilot Gig' porter from the Keltek Brewery in Cornwall. An excellent pint it has been, until the last two cases were delivered and I don't know what has happened to it but it doesn't hold any head, once poured it looks like a glass of Coke. I'm debating whether or not to give them another chance.
-
1 hour ago, Amaya said:
I just walk along canals multiple times daily at the moment. Never have a time (or rarely) without smelling weed. Whether it be from boaters moored up or others using the towpath.
Yes seems it has become acceptable. I was never consulted. But let people get on with their own thing.
Tbh. Off water around houses its pretty much the same.
It does stink, literally. But it's not something I will enter into changing. To much trouble. As long as people are okay with me. Then their lifestyle is their business.
As you correctly state the smell of cannabis is now so ubiquitous it rather begs the question of why it remains illegal. I don't use the stuff, nor ever have or even want to in the future, but other than speed limits, there is probably no other law that is now so widely disregarded, so what actual purpose is served by it still being illegal. ALL recreational drugs are better treated as a health issue rather than an enforcement issue, we have seen the decline in use of tobacco over the years and alcohol is now falling in popularity, both over health concerns. In terms of harm, cannabis probably causes less damage than either of the two previously mentioned legal recreational drugs. You are never going to kill a market by enforcement (I cannot think of a single successful example, but willing to be corrected), the only way to kill a market is to remove the demand for the product, as has happened with tobacco. This is why the tobacco companies are now pushing vapes as the 'safe' alternative🤣🤣. The reality is they depend upon the addictive nature of nicotine to sustain demand, whether of cigarettes or vapes.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, gatekrash said:
Reminded me I have this t-shirt in the drawer...
Yes, I've got the same T-shirt somewhere, I'm finding that the older I get, the 'darker' my taste in beer is becoming (porter, but not Guinness). If abroad I will occasionally partake of a lager since they are relatively harmless as they don't taste of anything, anyway so chilling them isn't going to make any noticeable difference.
The place I've always found curious with beer is Belgium. They make some truly excellent beers (Triple Trappist) but to balance that, they also make some of the worse beers I've ever tasted (fruit beers
).
-
When you have completed the Silver Propeller Challenge, how do your register it? I've tried twice on the IWA site filling in the appropriate details on their completion page (https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=v_4gd_stMk-dqOpbh7u_kJ23w9xMyxJMjn7J2G5raXFUNEZBMkdRSDhNT0dZNlhSUUpQVzVWU09YTiQlQCN0PWcu) and heard nothing at all from them. Am I missing something?
-
2 hours ago, haggis said:
Can anyone recommend anyone who could clean the cratch cover for our boat? When we bought the boat several years ago the cover was a bit green and despite our efforts to clean it with different products it is pretty disgusting. We are having the boat repainted later this year and it would be good if there was someone who would remove the cover, clean and reproof it and return it to the boat (in Northwich) during the time the boat is in the paint shed.
We did think of bringing the cover home and tackling it ourselves but having tried to clean the covers on our Sea Otter earlier this year, I don't have much faith in our ability to do a decent job 🙂 but that is the fall back position.
We did ours at the start of the season using this (https://www.amazon.co.uk/IOSSO-MILDEW-REMOVER-CONCENTRATED-CLEANER/dp/B06Y53VWRS/ref=sr_1_5?crid=21YYVNSPMQHDP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.FzItYitbI42nm01T8Tq-tf6JILneriykcjizU8tXPCBNihImXMjaTI8skHv_44wDjOKKJyJvg7JBOOpejMgdYQv2uSZo6bYbQJMa_ouxJucKm-jgIBXqQpgS8q20x0fsKDyZADgauc5A4pK1ePLfyUkQnE-M9QeAc3vTggu2rM758PbLMit18LXGeSNsJunQcPsLpiwzO-R9CsX5Sep0bT0EYBjVa4oiVjBYFv4e3GHMCk7DSHqleLzRXXrr3RtIsCspDP8qZ3Kd9PzlySYiMujFj3sDzOzHMZCsXDQ0ol8.bxuJ8xPRM18Ew03cz7tM2sYfXaloxHWLyaS2tCUOYDA&dib_tag=se&keywords=iosso%2Bmold%2Band%2Bmildew%2B%26%2Bstain%2Bremover&qid=1722016382&sprefix=ioss%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-5&th=1) which seemed quite effective. (Sorry for promoting Amazon, but it's the only place that I've been able to find the stuff
)
-
21 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:
I find it’s best to reply “two thirty” or “Birmingham” when shouted your going too fast. Theres no point in replying about tick overs generators engine revs or anything else. It just ups the argument
You probably won’t see them again and it’s best to leave them pondering why “the idiot” replied in such a random way. I’ve only been shouted at twice and it worked both times.
I suppose that, in a similar vein, when someone shouts,"Slow Down" at you, you could reply,"Oh, yes please, if you would be so kind", it rather turns the tables and has potential for a bit of fun. I seem to remember an old comedy sketch along similar lines where someone knocks on a door (it may have been Marty Feldman, but I'm open to correction) and the guy then opening it is treated as though he is the one who is disturbing the door-knocker.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, IanD said:
They don't only have slack ropes, they have them close to a right angle with the bank, which pretty much guarantees that a) the boat is going to slosh backwards and forwards, and b) the increased tension due to the almost-right-angle is going to either slacken the ropes off even more or pull any mooring pins out...
And, even better, they also utilise the centre line also at right angles to the boat to pretty much ensure that any boat going past at any speed is going to cause their boat to tilt, spilling the ubiquitous 'hot kettle of water'
.
-
Mooring on rings can be problematic for setting up a spring line but I have been known to use the centre line either going well forward to a ring or well back to one to create a spring line (doesn't seem to tilt the boat quite so much then).
Most other places I try to moor on Armco and a few years back I acquired a short length of rope (about 1.5metres I would guess) with a spliced loop on one end and a 'nappy pin' on the other. First thing I do when mooring up is put the loop of this over the stern mooring bollard on the boat and drop the 'nappy pin' into the armco. Stern now temporarily moored I then go and tie off the front pulling the boat as far back onto the rear mooring as I can, and then go back to the stern and tie off the actual mooring line on a chain putting tension on the mooring line with the 'nappy pin'. Once moored like that you may come past me at what speed you like because my for and aft movement is going to be minimal.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Lady M said:
It seems to me that those who are unsympathetic to my situation are probably a lot stronger than I am.
I'm not sure that is really the case. You either hold the boat on the engine, which isn't going to call for any real strength, or you wrap your mooring line around a bollard. I have to say that I have seen people struggling to control mooring of their boat in strong winds, whilst standing alongside a bollard.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, LadyG said:
We know Nick is always right, it's in his DNA, but there can be strong byewashes at the exit point, which make it tricky to hold position, and one does not always know how many boats are in the lock.
The other day the CRT, I assume it was them let down a huge volume of water, overtopping the locks , I was glad I wasn't trying to hover .
I think that if a 'huge' volume of water came down, I'd rather be hovering with the engine running, than moored on a bollard with the boat tilting due to the forces involved (one assumes that if going past at speed is going to cause a boat to tilt and rock, so would a 'huge' volume of water). By the same token I don't empty locks 'gently' when I'm coming down in case someone on the lock mooring below hasn't moored properly. I will give them the opportunity to moor their boat (or hold onto the centre line if that is their choice) and then I will let the lock go, not let it dribble out so as not to rock their boat.
-
2
-
-
58 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:
My post was referring to the boat waiting to enter the lock, I had slowed down by the time I was past him for which he takes the glory for indicating to me to slow down. If you were the second boat I would have been doing a suitable speed.
I always find this a bit curious at locks because personally I'm not bothered what speed people may choose to come out of the lock. If I'm waiting to go in and they come out at speed all that happens is that I move forward as they approach, and move backwards as they pass, I'm not standing on the canalside struggling to hold the boat in position, because after they've passed you seem to end up in much the same position as you started at. I will often take advantage of the backward movement to push the stern out so that I can then set off towards the lock with the engine thrusting in the middle of the canal (where they is less chance of picking up crap from the canal bed). I suppose the only issue would be if I were the third boat in the queue for the lock (the first two occupying the bollards) in which case I simply wouldn't stop that close to the last boat in the queue so that I wouldn't get drawn onto him/her.
I'm not promoting any idea of rushing past moored boats, but my position would be that at a lock you aren't actually moored since the engine will probably still be running, so you are 'in transit' and I don't slow down just because I'm passing another boat in transit.
-
7 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:
This. I think you'll have change from 2 5 litre cans per coat. Either buy on a sale or return basis, or black it somewhere you can buy as you go along. Don't delay booking it in somewhere though - it seems to be harder to find a suitable slot every time.
Yes, very much the case. I book mine in a year in advance but since the slipway fee is now just £120 for lifting it out AND putting it back, including power-washing the boat when it comes out it's not surprising.
Toxic chemical spill in Walsall Canal
in Waterways News & Press
Posted
The insurance probably wont cover your losses if you were negligent (loss of vehicle wheel) because you wouldn't have be complying with the terms of their insurance, so you breached the contract. They would be obliged to cover the third party costs of the hedge owner (to address your example) because third parties don't have any contract with the insurance company to breach. If the insurance company regard you are being negligent to the degree of breaching the insurance contract, there is nothing stopping them from then suing you to recover the losses that they've paid out for.
That would be the outcome from a public liability insurance claim, if the insurer regarded your failures to amount to a breach of the insurance contract they would be obliged to pay out to the third parties, but recover whatever they pay out from the offending company by way of a civil claim.
Yes, indeed the taxman is usually at the top of that list, but I would guess that a company/charity that has been harmed by the actions of the company will have priority over suppliers/workforce etc.