Barneyp

Just because the OP isn't posting doesn't mean they or others are not reading, I have learnt a lot from this forum - mostly on threads I didn't start and often didn't post on. Automatically closing a thread at a certain point could mean it getting shut part way through a relevant exchange. The moderators could do more to keep threads on topic, but some thread drift can still be relevant, so it would mean putting more pressure and work on people who volunteer which doesn't seem fair or realistic.

Demand and supply. Not many people want to live there because there is not much well paid employment in the area, and that starts a spiral of decline, those who are left struggle to afford to maintain their properties meaning the area doesn't look great so property prices go down even more etc.

I didn't mean that the unintended consequence was that volunteers are protected, I absolutely agree that everybody should be kept safe. The unintended consequence I meant, was that it makes it more expensive to have volunteers, maybe side effect is a better way of describing it.

Also not only are people working longer until they retire (far fewer people are able to take early retirement on a final salary pension), once they do retire many people end up providing childcare for their grandchildren in the time they could have been volunteering. I think one of the unintended consequences of Health and Safety legislation is that organisations have to invest in training volunteers and provid suitable safety equipment (PPE), meaning it is only worth taking a volunteer on if they can commit quite a lot of time. Which rules out people who can only do a few hours a fortnight or similar. (for clarity I'm not saying Health and Safety legislation is wrong, I've seen the results of people working unsafely and it's not pleasant)

But most viking boats are not produced just for the "small market" of narrow canals, they are also suitable for rivers, estuaries and possibly coastal waters. I accept what I'm saying is a generalisation and there will be some exceptions. My main point was that a lot of narrow beam GRP boats were not designed solely for canals so there are some compromises in the design, e.g.. around cabin height and air draft.

I didn't say that having a planing hull made boats unsuitable for canals. I did say that a planing hull and/or shallow draught often leads to GRP boats having either quite a high Air draft or low internal cabin height in comparison to steel narrowboats. That doesn't make them unsuitable for canals, it was just something for the OP to be aware of. A lot of canal based GRP boats seem to have very oversized outboards. When I was getting an outboard for my canal based GRP boat I was advised not to get too big an outboard as that would lead to it running at near tickover most of the time, and it was better for the outboard to be run at higher revs. 25 -30hp on a viking 32 is quite a lot for narrow canal use, and even if the outboard has the capacity to charge batteries, if you only ever run it at low revs it may not produce much charge. Probably best to ask on the Vikings Owners website or Facebook page.

I disagree, there are a lot of GRP with a 7ft beam for narrow canal use AND a hull which is clearly designed to plane at speed i.e. not on a canal. Most Norman boats have a beam for narrow canals and are also suitable for use on Rivers and costal waters. And lots of Shetland, Viking and other manufacturers boats are similarly designed. There were GRP boats built specifically for canals in the 60's and 70's, but once steel narrowboats became the preference, it wasn't worth producing boats for such a small market.

As GRP boats are not normally designed specifically for canals they tend to float higher in the water and/or have a v hull. This means that in order to get a reasonable internal cabin height the air draft is to high to fit through some tunnels and bridges, or in order to keep the air draft down you can't stand up in the cabin. The quoted draft may still be similar to a steel boat to allow for the depth of the propellor in the water, this is particularly the case with GRP boats with inboard engines running outdrives or a conventional prop shaft. - I would go for an outboard, as outdrives or a prop under the boat are likely to be problematic on canals. I think around 6feet air draft would give you access to pretty much the whole network, look at the CRT website for details of the canals you are likely to use. Having a foldable windscreen will enable you to reduce the air draft. As to suggestions for a recent build 32ft Centre cockpit, unfortunately there aren't many recent build GRP boats designed with canal use in mind. The combination of most people choose steel, and GRP boats not rusting means that there is very little demand for new boats. If you are prepared to shop around, and consider getting a boat from the along way away (Road transport of GRP boats is not to expensive) there are some older boats in very good condition.

Not sure i agree, To use your analogy, someone is not a theif from the day they are born, but they are a theif from the moment they steal something, even though they may never be found guilty in court. So if someone comes to the UK and claims asylum even though they know they are not entitled to and their real motivation is financial, they are acting illegally, although they have the right to have there case heard.

So 2 immigrants (almost certainly not ayslumm seekers / refugees) are in some way dodgy or corrupt. Lots of white anglo saxon people are dodgy or corrupt. Its just that certain organisations and sections of the media highlight it more when the dodgy corrupt people are not white anglo saxon and British born. Its very difficult to claim asylum if you come from a genuine free democratic country. So while there are a lot of claims from people from democratic countries (eg Albania) they normally get rejected and the people sent home. - i think the UK government did a deal with Albania to make this easier. Most people who make successful asylum claims come from oppressive non democratic regimes eg Syria, Iran, Afghanistan etc.

I think it is an exaggeration to say that "most" of the asylum seekers and refugees are from the upper echelons of society. Those that are qualified professionals could choose to come as economic migrants rather than refugees, which would probably be easier for them. For those that arrive on small boats with no (genuine) documentation how to they prove they have the relevant qualifications and experience? The current disorganised and chaotic system is an attraction to those that are not genuine refugees, it allows them to get into the country and then quietly "dissappear" while their case is (not) being processed. They may not be welcome in their own country because of the colour of their skin, or their religion or some other reason which they have no control over. People who are "politically active against the system" in dictatorships or other non democratic countries are generally in favour of democracy, so less likely to cause a problem here.

I normally use the tone of someones ones voice, and/or facial expressions, and/or body language, or possibly emoji's to tell if someone is being sarcastic, without any of those things there is nothing to indicate that your post was intended to be sarcastic.

If they are waiting for their cases to be heard they are not illegal immigrants, once their case has been heard they may be classified as a refugee or an illegal immigrant. The flights to Africa, should they happen, will take place before the cases are heard, not after. To answer your question, they are not allowed to work for money. They could chose to volunteer to litter pick, but if they are forced too that could look like slavery which is illegal, whether that it is against their "human righs" i don't know. Also politically it could look like the government was putting people out of work by useing unprocessed immigrants as forced labour.

I was in a Canadian canoe picking up cans, bottles, other small litter and oddly lots of footballs and tennis balls. After about 10 miles we had about 4 bags of rubbish, we hadn't set out with collecting the litter on purpose, just picked it up because it was there. I took the bags home and filtered them in to my domestic waste over the course of a month or so. And yes we ignored all the larger items.