Phoenix_V

From the BW website, the consultation period on the proposals has been extended "We've had an excellent response to date but in light of extraordinary events – spate of public holidays and local government elections – we've pushed back the deadline to 31st May to ensure that all interested parties have ample opportunity to respond." Having followed this it seems to me that the local resident boaters have submitted numerous comments supporting their position as have those leisure boaters who are all for clearing the towpaths. There seem to be relatively few responses regarding those aspects of the plan which will affect the rest of us. i.e. the right to moor for 14 days removed from a large part of the rivers and the redefinition of place to give only 6 on the entire river. Also the punitive overstaying charges. Just a suggestion but maybe boaters from other parts of the system who anticipate visiting the Lea and Stort and might be affected by this whether continuous cruiser or not might care to submit a response to the consultation!

Which is what? because everyone I have seen offends someone For clarity I was not blaming the boaters, they didnt close our facilities BW did.

and they have hidden the lavender boat right round the back

Just trying to use shorthand please insert CMer towpath dweller whatever as desired.

I bought a copy of the Yachting Monthly tests, this was mainly looking at folding props butthey did include an axiom and a standard prop. The Axiom did well astern bollard pull 181kg against 173kg standard stopping in 7.7 against 9.3 seconds propwalk was good too at 9.3% against 13.9% However ahead max speed was 7.1 knots against 7.5 on the standard bollard pull 233kg against 264kg standard I have asked Axiom about this and they say that the competition was overpropped and if they had overpropped they would have done better ahead. So inconclusive here. Most of the information out there is either very technical or way to simplistic, I have just about got my head around propeller diameter and pitch sizing but propeller area calculations elude me. However I wonder if on our boats often the problem is not propeller area. As I understand it the area of the blades does not matter a lot until you get to the point where you are putting more power in than a given area can cope with and the prop cavitates. This would explain why 2 props of nominally same diameter and pitch perform differently if one has a lower area and fails to take the power? The prop suppliers I have asked to quote me have been unforthcoming on this point I suspect most have a limited range of prop sizes and sell what they have rather than what you need, Crowther have a good reputation but the term "high efficiency" does not seem very specific.

It is widely assumed and not denied by BW that they have closed many of our local facilities to annoy/discourage the local ccers Oh quite so but i hadn't realized it had gone national

I had assumed that the closing down of facilities was a local thing part of BW's games with the CCers but perhaps this is a cost cutting exercise they are rolling out nationwide, it would really be worthwhile listing closures both to update our cruising guides and if there is a secret policy of closures challenging it. keep them coming. I thought Feildes had reopened does anyone know. The tap is right by the disposal, I dont like using it for filling the tanks. Does anyone know if Harlow marina facilities are still available to passing boaters or have they been closed like Limehouse? Years ago when facilities were fewer BW used to make it a condition of the lease or access agreement for boatyards that they had to provide free water and disposal for passing boaters has that gone by the wayside?

?

i didnt know that do they give the 10% prompt payment on moorings as well as licenses? Where I am building the new boat they only seem to take cash

1 no 2 no

1 The site mods haven't made their position clear. 2 Sorry but I am happy to discuss issues on this forum but i dont make personal remarks and i dont expect to receive same having been on here for some 5 years i dont take kindly to being rudely told by someone that appears to have been here 3 months to leave if i criticize one decision of the thousands the hardworking mods make

Fair enough thats probably not abuse in Yorkshire, doesnt lead to a very useful discussion though

The judgment wasnt removed to satisfy the court, if it was who could argue, but it wasnt nor were the other posts,I am entitled to express my opinion without your abuse.

Just for the record i posted the original text in full for 2 reasons one was admittedly because it did occur to me that it might "disappear" from the original site but secondly i read on here a while ago that people dont like postings straight to links but prefer a quote from them. This post was removed for understandable but obscure reasons. I DID NOT then repost it i posted a link to a reputable site which still then carried the text, I understand this has been done in the past where CWDF did not wish to carry contentious stuff but on this occasion it was again blocked no reason given, so i did not "insist on reposting" and find this comment offensive. By way of update I was at a meeting today when BW confirmed that they were waiting for an electronic version of the final text from the court and would then be released under the FOI act so i really cannot see any reason why the available draft cannot be available meantime as it is thanks to members of this forum.

I think you have just repeated yourself

Ooh is that a new rule too

I understand the reason for removing the original post. I thought it appropriate that other members knew too i still do. We now seem to have achieved that The judgment is now, possibly, thanks to other forum members sites, more widely available than it would have been so we have thwarted Mr Davies efforts at censorship. Still no reason given for the whole thread disappearing though or did he request that too.

I have been ordered not to but the words "requested" and "by Paul Davis solicitor" did appear Having looked at the forum rules I note the following "Moderators will always look at all available options before closing a topic. When closing a topic, moderators will always endeavour provide a detailed reason for doing so"

It got deleted though when i copied it to the thread and then the thread went one mod deleted the posts and another the whole thread, consistent, what?

Thats not how i read the pm from which I may not quote.

The original post was pulled in the morning, an explanation being given albeit by pm rather than on the forum, no explanation has been given as to why later that day the whole thread disappeared.

The draft was private but the final has now been issued so there is no obvious reason why that state of affairs should continue

It was the draft that was published on the K and A website so in that respect it probably was private but the final (unaltered as I understand it) version has now been issued so should now be available

I can understand removal of the judgement, none of the other canal web sites has it so I suspect they have all been got at. The question is why Mr Davies and BW both want it kept secret and why the whole thread was removed all the other sites continue to debate this important issue.

I posted the original copy of the judgment, I can understand why it was removed, I've not had any messages from the mods regarding removal of the whole thread so I can only assume it was for reasons other than the judgement. No doubt they will tell us soon?