stort_mark

I saw that earlier today. Quite amazing, eh!

"A single flat rate licence to be on the water regardless of boat size, and an additional toll for movement". This debate does indeed come up regularly on this forum. As soon as it does, the aggressive responses - like yours - come out in full force, so reducing the risk that people - perhaps quieter people - might participate. Personally, I am interested in hearing the views of different people and the different perspectives, but perhaps without the invective common to many difficult debates on this forum. We are fast becoming a community of intolerant bigots with little respect for the opinions, diversity and ideas of others. In the bigger scale of things, it's how wars start; in the smaller scale, it's how a young lad in London can be murdered simply for looking at someone.

I now have most of the Hadfield series of books, both the area books and the more specific books looking at one or two canals or rivers. I've come to the conclusion that while the general series is a good start, there is a huge amount of information missing. On several occasions when looking for specific details about individual canals or places, I have found the books wanting. However, the more specialist books on individual canals are so hard to plough through. They have almost interminable information about some aspects (toll rates, parliamentary bills) but little or nothing about the real context of the canals. You get, for example, a lot more out of Ray Shill's brilliant publications than from the David & Charles books about the BCN. The downside is that Shill has published suff over numerous smaller books so it's not all in one place. Is it time to encourage David & Charles to 'revise' the series of general/area books, and continue/complete the specialist books? In the last 30 years,many of the canal societies and restoration groups have done a lot of historical research that could be extremely valuable sources for future publications. Just idle thoughts.......

Isn't everything rose-tinted? And hasn't that led to rose-tinted TV...Waterworld, Locks and Quays, everything done by or for Dibnah? You'd be hard-pushed to work out why the 40s to the early 60s were called The Austerity Era from all these books and TV programmes.

Where is your photograph? I'm interested! I recently received a copy of "The Canals of Eastern England", one of the Hadfield series, and have been very disappointed at its coverage of Bottisham Lode. There is, arguably, more useful and original historical information in this thread than in the book. I'm getting a bit disillusioned with this series of books (and I spent a fortune on this volume, and it had to be shipped from Australia!). The chapters on the Lee and Stort are pretty weak as well.

I know. I feel bad about posting it....and not just because I have had a go at people before for being pedantic about spelling! There are many people who, for genuine reasons, cannot write well in English. But this was just so appalling and the use of certain words suggests that he or she is perfectly able to write properly.

I really do try to avoid criticizing the grammar/spelling of others - and have chided people for doing so in these forums - but....... are you communicating with us in English? If so, I have struggled quite hard to read anything you have written. Many people here would like to help, but if we have to spend considerable amounts of time translating your weird drivel into something that approximates to English, then the desire to be helpful quickly melts away. So.....have a look around the lower right-hand side of your keyboard, where you will find a nice collection of dots, lines and dashes (we call them punctuation, but don't let the technical aspects get you down) and try to sprinkle them into your sentences. At this stage, it doesn't seem to matter exactly where you might put them, just put them somewhere. The point of (even vaguely) correct grammar and spelling is that it enables writing to be used to communicate with others, whereas your writing would appear to be simply a random collection of letters, perhaps as if your cat had typed it out for you.

I think the horse will be long dead by now.

Yes. They have two boats - one narrow and one widebeam - and the Lee north of Broxbourne is particularly rural. Highly recommended. 100 or so for the day.

Fully agree Dominic.

Like a few others, I predict a resurgence of budget boats. 21st century Viking/Shetlands/Normans that appeal to people who want to get out and about with the minimum of fuss and expenditure. It wouldn't surprise me if some entrepreneurs rent them out, like easyBoat...bright orange boats, maybe coin-operated. (Sorry, getting silly now) I also agree with someone's comment about sea-going canal boats. I am particularly interested in getting a boat that could safely get around the inshore waters to the Broads, the C&BN, the Medway and even down the South Coast. If flat as a millpond, it is possible with the Vikings but maybe new ranges will appear that will enable people make the shorter inshore crossings (Wash, Severn, Thames, Mersey) more 'doable' with more confidence and comfort. (The Viking Owners Club website has a good diary from someone who took a Viking 26 down the Thames to the Medway and back).

Yes, that must be it. The photo in the mag is very small so good to see more photos on Apolloduck. Thanks for the tip.

April's Boats and Yachts For Sale has an advert for: 23.8m x 4m converted Lee and Stort tug on residential mooring in central London. Lovely boat in highly desirable location. etc. Price....225,000. Anyone know more about this (or other Lee & Stort tugs?) How much would it be without the residential mooring? In comparison, interesting that a 1930s Thames tanker conversion is only 180,000 and a 1948 Weaver "packet" (?) is only 50,000. Or that the UK's last manned lightship is only 139,000. I'd have any of them.

Thanks for posting full-size pictures. It's really good to see the detail of these historical boats!

Who will be choosing what counts as sincerity and what doesn't? A later post talks about biofuels. Interestingly, there is a big switch in opinions. These days Greenpeace and FoE are against it and farmers and the NFU are for it. All environmental issues need a lot of research, and often the answers are not obvious. Several countries have banned electric bicycles - and there was a big outcry from many people. However, it was pointed out that the cost of disposing of the fairly nasty contents of the batteries was enormous. Now we just need a similar term for an anti-environmentalist who is ENTIRELY INFALLIBLE and therefore sees no need to enter a debate with anyone of divergent opinion, politics, or aspirations.

As seen here, at Nanchang in Jiangxi Province. The fishing cormorants are being shepherded along by the three boats at the front.

Alternatively, do as the Chinese do and train your cormorant to bring fish back to your boat!

Read recently that tap water is actually better for you than bottled water.

What about organic food at the supermarket? Many would suggest that part of the "merit", as you say, of many products and services is that they cause less ecological harm. I remember being at a conference in London when someone pointed out that the bottled water came from Fiji. The ecological footprint of shipping water from the Pacific to London is enormous. A few years ago, one company was proposing bottling groundwater from Sidcup and selling it, so why are people prepared to buy water shipped across the world. Oh..and anothing thing......(knowing this will drive a lot of people really nuts)...is that a lot of our better environmental legislation comes from implementation of EU directives.

Indeed. As many others are. 52, I think A lot of people feel the same way. However, sometimes it becomes difficult: we 'inherited' a microwave when we bought our house - it is very old, in fairly poor condition and we don't know how efficient it is. Should we keep it until it packs up or replace it with a more efficient one. Similar argument with the car. To be honest, the vast majority of eco-friendly activities can be justified on cost grounds alone (you gave a few good examples of this) and there are many eco-friendly activities that are probably the kind of thrifty things that many who hate environmentalists have been doing for a long time: composting, allotments, reusing and recycling, cycling, walking, etc. Not sure there is any correct stance, and who is telling you to take it anyway? None of us can change our past, and I don't think anyone can expect us to feel guilty for it.

Moreorless agree with most of it. Agree. I have a lot if sympathy: there are a lot of people who simply use an environmental agenda for simply objecting to anything motorised....then jet off on eco-holidays in Costa Rica or Vietnam. I am the first to agree that there is considerable hypocrisy, but it's not just from the 'environmentalists'. Environmental impacts (not just climate change but things like litter, water pollution, air pollution) are affected by many things and action is needed on many issues. However, it's also worth remembering that an awful lot has been achieved over many years. No idea. The reality is that almost be definition a boating holiday is environmentally friendly. I remember being very smug with myself a few years back when we travelled both ways to the hire base on a train as well.

...inconveniently forgetting to mention that his house uses renewable energy only (either in situ or paid as a premium to the local utilities for renewably-sourced energy). Yawn.

You are not. Suggesting that you had to ask the doctor if you were paranoid. I tend to agree with you (although I admit I am not sure quite why we should expect it; where does it say it?) The fact remains that the vast, vast majority of politicians at all levels are not corrupt and do their job diligently.