mayalld

Indeed I will wish to contribute on that subject. However, rest assured that I can manage the workload of contributing to multiple threads

So, on the basis that the highways department of a council got lumbered, you presume that BW will be lumbered. The BW is NOT a department of the council that can have it dumped on them by the council. You may theorise that some change in the law will make BW responsible, but it is just scaremongering to suggest that it will happen without legislation. As for your desk jockey comments, the old "I worked at the next desk to a guy who did this, so I must know more than you" line really doesn't wash.

Indeed so. It is, of course convenient that my tone should render you disinterested at a point in time when you don't actually have an answer to the question.

Why are you so worried about what I concern myself with? You need to get a hobby or something to fill the time.

I wonder what the calorific value of an incandescent bleeding-heart-liberal is....

Was the question too difficult? can you point me at some legislation that makes it BW's responsibility to provide for the needs of travellers?

OK, cite any legislation which might impose an obligation on BW here.

Any obligation to "do something" would fall on the local council, not BW. In essence, provided that there is adequate 14 day mooring in an area, and adequate provision of sanitary stations, there will be nothing to do. Where there is a shortage of sanitary stations, or 14 day moorings, the council may be obliged to provide facilities (and will have to pay BW as landowner for doing so). In areas where there are lots of "fake CCers", who are out there bridge hopping because they can't get a residential mooring, councils may be faced with a choice between paying out money to provide for these "travellers", or granting residential PP and collecting CT on the resulting moorings. As I see it, all the likely outcomes are good for the canals.

And how do you work that out?

Bottle of plonk per mile. You free next saturday to go ahead of us and Kiki during the big boat move?

In order for it to be safe the other way (no prospect of a shutdown in use), I would want an automatic disable function, such that engaging gear brings a "don't stop" relay into operation. Idealy that would be arranged (big capacitor??) such that it stayed engaged for 5 minutes after the engine was last in gear.

In another thread, it has been suggested that apart from me, nobody really cares about continuous cruisers and whether they abide by BW's interpretation of the 1995 act, so the questions are simple....

Perhaps we will have to run a poll on that.

Ah, lovely, some pointless distorted statistics. How many of those 8000 members are actually aware of the thread? I really must do polls like this more often, so that people can see you throwing a hissy fit and demanding that things you don't want to discuss aren't discussed.

Of course I expected opinions and controversy, and they are welcome, even when they don't correspond to my own. What I do find disturbing and objectionable is that Chris isn't just arguing that my views are wrong. He is arguing that my views shouldn't even be expressed. He is having a major league tantrum just because I have dared to raised the subject. Remind me when Chris Pink was appointed "thread monitor" in charge of dictating what we are allowed to discuss.

I use the canal rather more than once a year thank you. And, whilst there are threads running that criticise any regulation of moorings, I'll offer my opinion. If you don't want to listen, then feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, but kindly grow up and give it a rest with the whole "If you try to express your opinion, I'll try every possible way to detrail the discussion" I'm sure that it hurts you to the core, but I am not alone in my views about fake CCers.