Derek R.

Government Minister's are activists, and a few clouds of snow will disrupt very effectively. The latter best in the short run. (Or the longer - Winter '62 - '63 snowed on Boxing day - lasted until April, and there were several others). V.A.T. back to 17.5% Jan. 1st - Who activated that? Then again, it takes only one unhinged person (Tony Blair?); Dunblane, Hungerford - about neither there could be said to be any doubt. Democracy, now there's a thing. Was our present PM democratically elected? Does Brussels democratically operate? Have the accounts for the last 14yrs of the EU been audited? Will they ever be? Are we and others in foreign countries spreading Democracy with ordnance? Are we not all terrorists through accessory by paying for all this with our taxes? And what can we do about it? The latter is clear, we can lobby our corrupt MP's in the democratic manner, and vote for a new government. They then will continue in the same vein following the same protocols as has been laid down for generations - in short - No Change. That's democracy. Keep the people believing they can make a change, and you can lead them anywhere. Or we can protest on the streets, get 'kettled' and beaten with more 'democracy', because they've watched you coming, and they have a plan. One further question - why do you as an individual need Governing? Isn't it always someone else who needs governing? Aren't we always complaining about the Government? Just why would that be? Is it not because to be governed by another is a gross imposition of the sovereign person that is one's self? Not to take the responsibility of one's own personal actions, and rely upon others to control you is the most Ludicrous Diversion. Government will prevent you from becoming a free person at any cost because they lose control. Some might accuse me of spreading dissent. I'd rather call it common sense. But that's just my opinion. Derek

Some of these last few posts show that such is the successfulness of an indoctrination of fear, that some have grown up with, or accepted through it constantly being reiterated, that all are guilty of something and need to prove their innocence. This is Orwell's 1984, you are welcome to it, I want none of it. This attitude also shows a reliance upon being told by the government through the mainstream media that all is as they say it is. It is frequently not. Public inquiries are seldom that, and why has there been none over 7/7 - is there something to hide? During WWII the true events that were unfolding were often kept from the British public back home simply because it would have destroyed moral. There was some good reasoning behind that, but it nonetheless was a bitter blow to some reporters who could see their task, and their reason for being there, was being stymied. If you cannot accept that questions should be asked, and that official statements may be wrong, or that you are being told the unequivocal truth through the media, then you must be leading the life your leaders require you to - total belief and obedience to the state. Believe everything they tell you unquestioningly - will you be safe? Unlikely, you are in grave danger of being misled - "This way to the showers". You have given over whatever freedoms you have as a sovereign person and handed it to Big Brother on a plate - "thank you Sir", says Big Brother - "Now here's the next hoop". You have allowed fear to make you crave for protection. The world is driven by fear, governments control by fear, by telling us they are watching over us to reduce the fear of attack by terrorists, the ultimate reason is control, not of any terrorists, but of you and I. How easy is it to create a surveillance society? Insert entertainment value into it - put it on Television, millions watch to see who will be evicted next. The participants for the next series queue up to be 'watched' - they want their piece of fame on camera. Indoctrination - acceptance - belief that it is needed - support the surveillance - feel fear without it. You have sleep walked into mind control. You have lost your mind. A watched society will distrust the watchers, as no camera respects the watched. You do not know who is watching you - can you see the face watching the screen? There is no face, no recognisable organic being, it's a machine thirty feet up on a pole, and more circling the Earth - why do you think hoods are so popular - and resented by authority? Nothing to hide? Yes you have - it's called privacy. Remember chanting in the street by kids: "No one likes a 'Peeping Tom'". There are pictures of Downing Street sometime in the fifties as a new Prime Minister arrives at No.10. The street is thronged with people, a dozen or so Police line the street, not one person has their feet off the kerb and in the road. Why? Respect. Reciprocated by the presence and actions of the Police - before the days of uncovered fraud, lies, deceit and distrust. Now they need to watch us. The so called terrorists will do whatever they want, and they probably would if it were not for the fact that real intelligence - not CCTV - was uncovering genuine plots unseen by anyone or 'anything' on the street. When governments lie to the people, the people become resentful or rebellious. That is the simple truth about why there are so many CCTV cameras on the streets - we are being watched for signs of rebellion. The reactions of those officers and security men are, as has been said before, over-reactions to the paranoia inbred to 'perform' in their individual duties. And if government can disregard the rules and invade countries 'illegally' - why shouldn't they bend them for effect? The ones who need watching more than ever before, are the government. For they, and their agents have lost the plot. Or to put it another way - have been exposed for what their true agenda is. Derek

I believe Salty would like to say more, but he's concerned the bulb might go out. Some old boys would run their Bolinders continuously in cold weather to keep 'em going. What price free speech. Derek

Yes, I'd support Mike if we weren't so far South. Our last visit to the L & L was 21 years ago, and what a difference to the South and Midland canals. Plenty of water, and some stunningly beautiful countryside around and about, along with some impressive Mill buildings. Hope not too many have disappeared. We got to stay in Skipton for two weeks and got quite friendly with the late Joe Bridge - what a smashing bloke he was. Got invited up for tea with his Mrs., and me made us a super Turks head bow fender. He reckoned fenders should be painted with enamel paint - white preferably - made them tough and looked bright. We never did that, but could see some merit in it. Derek

They are perfectly capable of keeping things quiet, as they are also capable of messing up, just like anyone else. Derek

Theories are unsupported by facts. The 07.40 from Luton was cancelled. The next at 07.56 would have got passengers into King's Cross after the events on the tubes. Derek

Salty may not be able or willing (possibly the former) to fulfil a studied response due to posting at work. But without prior knowledge to this fact, brief comments will be taken as all that was intended. Tricky, and: - "on dangerous ground" - sounds like Salty may be employed by some public service body, but that's an issue he will have to overcome. What follows is not a personal attack of any kind, I will not engage in such, but general observations of what might seem the obvious, and perhaps some which may not. Not Russell Sq, but Tavistock Square. Few people would need photographic evidence - especially British born - of what a London Underground train looks like. The stations are well signposted complete with directions for travel. If you want to get on a number 31 bus, you look for a bus with 31 on it. Maybe these simple points have been missed by the powers that be, and maybe this is why some train and bus spotters have been approached and asked why they are taking pictures of trains etc. But in truth, I believe that is not the basis for their approaching members of the public for taking photographs of public buildings or other icons that represent London, or any other place. The implication is that, that 'Whitehall' has issues about actions we do not condone. Many would agree with Salty's comment I feel sure. As someone who worked on the streets of London collecting and delivering for over three decades from '68 until '04, I can state categorically that the introduction of Congestion Charging was not welcomed nor wanted by the great majority of Londoners who worked on the streets, or lived in or around the periphery of the Zone. Only those who perceived that their bus journey times might be reduced thought it a good idea, and probably those who worked for local government. When Ken Livingstone went on camera and stated: - "If Londoner's don't want it, we won't impliment it". The question that was never asked, and therefore never answered, was 'Which Londoner's did he ask?' Inevitably such statements as Ken's originated from surveys, and survey questions can be easily loaded to supply the answers required. It was also Ken Livingstone who said only a brain dead moron would remove the iconic London Routemaster bus from our streets. He did. So maybe it was over disabled access, but however did we manage before? - People helped one another. Can we therefore trust Government? Was the mother's son below the age of consent? Would you not speak up for your child? As a parent or guardian that is the responsible way. An attitude test? What is this? An attitude to what? They have been introduced, and they have been used to stop people taking photographs, In some cases tourists have been made to delete their photographs. 'Welcome to London'. In such cases it may have been illegal to do so, only a quick look through the images is allowed, so can we trust our Police to act within the law? Precisely. Cameras are there to make money. If you manoeuvre you vehicle into a bus lane by as much as a tyres width to allow an emergency vehicle on a call to pass and continue, and you are seen by a camera doing so - you will be fined. This is a known, proven fact. I have been told by a Police Officer that in such circumstances that might force you to pass through a red light, even by a vehicles length, or into a bus lane - do not do it. Such are the workings of the law, and the officers upholding those laws. Ludicrous. Not all the actions get reported, a great many do not - but they get talked about! Further, No one believes any Police Officer goes out on his days duty with an intent to kill anyone. But their training, and the pressures that they are under in such circumstance that followed the 7/7 incidents, puts Officers under a 'them or me' situation when allegedly they face possibly hostile action preventing questioning or rational thought. The events surrounding Stockwell Station were clouded in contradiction and confusion. For those who believe that 7/7 was an act of terrorism by four bombers, and that the official line is what actually happened and are perfectly happy that the long awaited public enquiry did not show anything different to the events as reported at the time of the event, then you will not be open to the suggestion that all is not as it was stated, and will declare that such claims that contradict the official line as conspiracy theorists propaganda. Yet there are glaring inaccuracies in the information given that to this day have not been answered. There has to be a reason for that. The link takes you to a 30 minute documentary that points out some anomalies, and asks questions that at the time of filming in 2006 had not been addressed or answered. They still have not. We are surrounded by CCTV, watched everywhere we go, Stations are riddled with them, staircases and tunnels, platforms and trains - yet no footage survives of any of the alleged bombers in London save a few stills. Ludicrous Diversion. There are other programs that delve into such incidences, and some have dubious claims amidst some solid ones. One item that is not covered in the above link, is the events that occurred at Westferry Circus shortly after the bombings. There were witnesses to a shooting by Police Officers of at least two 'suspected' armed men. There is some evidence that the alleged four who boarded a train from Luton did not arrive at Kings Cross in time for their 'planned attack' and were suddenly confronted with a scenario of disaster and panic. Realising that they themselves had been set up as stool pigeons, they fled and got as far as Westferry where they were eliminated. Barely a word of that got out, and what was known was quickly overshadowed by other events. Disappeared - like CCTV footage. Here is another puzzle - Photoshopped? Our Police force used to be the envy of the world, Constables on the beat were respected and welcomed wherever they went. But the politicians began to react to certain forms of violence with legislation that required the Police to change, adapt to new threats, and we have gradually been exposed to a society of control by a show of force and surveillance that is alien to all attitudes of respect. This is why people no longer trust government, and the Police have been dragged down into the same gutter as greedy politicians. And in being so, the criminal element is up for giving as good as they think they might get, while the public are picked on and treated as suspects with nothing more than a "reason to believe" - and the evidence for that reason? They need none. Or maybe they have a beard, or a different religion, or they live in a house in a way that we would not. Appearance can mean nothing. Intelligence is everything. Derek

Let's look at the other side. If we are to be prevented - and there is every indication that preventing pictures being taken has rightly or wrongly been the issue - just how much are we being watched and filmed as we go about our daily business? The UK has 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras deployed, watching 1% of the worlds population. Surprising figures perhaps, but they are the figures. Do they make our public places more secure? We are led to believe they do, but by whom? No prizes for guessing. This link will take you to a BBC5 website If you have the inclination, watch the video that shows a presentation by Charles Ferrier entitled 'Surveillance State' and see just who is watching who and the results. Derek There are doubts about who carried out those attacks for one thing, and secondly, what are the Police when they shoot innocent people and find nothing more in an alleged 'bomb factory' than Nivea cream? Derek

Thanks for this thread Fender. I had begun a similar one on another, non-boating forum, which had a mixed response, eventually ending up with arguments about who supported the Royal family and why, and whether Council Tax was good value for money. Which makes me wonder if some should not have been drowned at birth. Derek

Yes indeed, 15yrs was too short a time. Derek

Well, not so much insurance as such, more the 'compensation culture'. The purpose of Byelaws was to ensure no-one misbehaved in any way to cause harm or injury to any part of the works or their appointees. Forfeiture of money through fines was the result of minor misdemeanours, and transportation the most severe. Little or nothing to do with insurance. Any employee failing to abide by the byelaws might well find themselves out of work, or in the Workhouse - family and all. With regard to accidents, and I've mentioned this somewhere else (forgotten which thread), but the blowing up of the barge in 1874 on the Regent's beneath Macclesfield Bridge as a result of a spark from the steam tug igniting gunpowder in the barge, cost the G.J.C.C. somewhere in the region of £84,000 in compensation for damages resulting. The widow of the barge Captain, one Charles Baxton of Loughborough, after eleven months following the accident was eventually awarded £5 from the company, in full discharge of any further claims against the company. A similar situation existed when a company steam tug boiler blew up at Yardley Wharf. Two enginemen were killed, and after approaches to the company they gave £5 to one of the families to compensate for funeral expenses as the family were in 'a very poor situation'. Insurance has always been a fiddle, as deftly worked by Mr. Montague Tigg and co-directors of the Anglo-Bengalee Disinterested Loan Company in Dickens's 'Martin Chuzzlewitt'. A loan company, but lizards both, and closely related. Hard times. Derek

The Byelaws as apply to British Waterways currently, and dated 1954 with amendments to 1976 do not in any part mention Lock Distance Posts. The only mention with regard to vessels approaching locks is much the same as those in the L & LC byelaws: (e) Fill or empty any lock of water for the admission of any vessel to the lock when there is another vessel approaching the lock from the opposite direction and within two hundred yards thereof and the level of the water in the lock is suitable for such approaching vessel to enter the lock. There must be byelaws that appertain to earlier times, so I'll keep looking. Derek

Yes indeed, I did take a look at the 1786 and the others, I think the 1932 was just a two page addendum but all worth looking at. Particularly of note was the law stating all gates and paddles to be closed on leaving a lock. Derek

As Tam says: Nothing like a bit of fact . . etc. Thanks Mike, the bye laws make interesting reading. This is the kind of thing I call definitive knowledge. 100yds is mentioned as being the point at which a vessel had precedent over a lock, but with due regard to the lock being ready for said vessel, and if the said vessel for whom the lock was ready was 200yds from the lock, then that vessel should be given precedence [water saving], also on the L & L that loaded vessels had precedence over empty, and loaded over loaded when descending from the summit. Also no mooring within 20yds of a bridge or works (basically the length of a boat). The L & L bye-laws make no mention of 'posts' as defining points, but 100yds I feel must be about the right distance for those on the Southern G.U. and were possibly erected in the light of conflict that ensued in their absence - though they would not eliminate conflict, much like 'Give Way' signs at road junctions do not eliminate collisions, but indicate what should be complied with. I wonder if the incident Tam quoted as 10yds, was in fact the distance from the lock that the accident/collision occurred, rather than the actual distance the post was from the lock. Though in truth it is of little consequence in the discussion. Interesting stuff. I have BW passing the enquiry from one person to another just now, think I'll take another look at their Bye-laws. Insurances and compensation culture is a very modern device instilled in our younger generations to the extent that such things are a necessary fact of life. Insurance is only 'necessary' (disregarding compulsory legal requirements for the moment) when the person responsible for artefacts possessions or goods cannot find within their wherewithal sufficient funds to replace said items artefacts etc. that they are responsible for in the event of them being damaged, destroyed or otherwise lost. Basically - if you need to insure it - you cannot afford it. Otherwise, insurance (your radio breaking down, against going bald, cat being cooked in the microwave etc.) merely breeds carelessness and contempt but makes insurance companies exceedingly wealthy. But that's another bucket of worms. PS I was refused insurance against baldness. Derek

Let me guess - nothing fell?

Can't believe this was 25yrs ago - Yarmouth's 'Firewood cratch'. 'Pagans Yule - OK'. JC wasn't born in December, but so strong was the celebration of the returning Sun around the 25th, that the upstart Christian religion used it to their benefit. Think it was Prince Albert the Prince Consort who introduced the Germanic custom of trees and decoration. We like trees too, cut split and stacked to dry, ready for the stove . . Bah - Humbug! This was a cold one - Cotton line like concrete, ice five inches thick. That fender did us well - made by Joe Bridge in Skipton.

Then let the VOA come and reside on your jetty for a night - Not on a boat moored against the jetty - but the jetty, without a bed, without a roof, without a table. Ask him how he liked the 'residence' the next morning. He's up to no good. Many years ago I lived on a mobile home site. We paid ground rent to the site owner and in that ground rent was a contribution to the rates the Council charged the site owner for the whole plot of land the site covered. Then one day we all had letters addressed to the individual mobile home owners from the Council that from such and such month and thereafter, rates would be charged to the individual owners on their plots, to the tune of around eight pounds a month (1970ish). Our former ground rent never itemised the rate contribution, but we discovered it was 20p a week, so we go from 86p a month to £8. We were not happy bunnies. So we apply to the site owner for a bit of slack in reducing our contribution to his rates now that we were paying direct. "Not on your life" says he, because in re-evaluating the site for individual rates, they also re-evaluated the remaining area of the site that made up the road into it, the few garages, the sewage plant, shop - at the same rateable figure as he had been charged before for the whole site! The only Council service we received directly, was the dustman. No street lighting, no sewage, no water, no road sweeping - all done 'in-house' for which we paid the site owner, and now (then) the Council as well. They're up to no good, and on a dodgy footing by the sound of it. Derek

Yes, they do look 1930's. Still out on that one and working on it. Horse drawn barges were used by holiday craft in the 1970's - see Antarmikes thread HERE. Before that, horses were still used to haul Esparto Grass up from Brentford in lighters to Dickinsons at Croxley, I think until the early sixties but would have to investigate. One who led such horses along with his Father still lives at Cassio. But long distance boating with horses would have slipped away long before that. Only the likes of Rose and Joe Skinner stayed true to their Animals on the Oxford, and they stopped when Dolly (I think their Mule was called Dolly) 'took a look' and caught pneumonia and died. They were never anything to do with tying up. People will argue more, when they know less. Finding out is what education is about. I'm going to find out what that magnet does to my pacemaker. Bet that's loosened your bladder . . . Derek

It has only been assumed there is a difference of ten times. Tam's quotation of an incident stating 10yds I believe has to be incorrect - it's 30ft for heavens sake, less than half a boats length! Surely a misprint in someone's reporting. 100yds is more the mark, as can be seen in the picture with the big 'S' on. With regard to age, it must also be noted that Tam's report of the Trent & Mersey incident was dated 1840, long before motors. Though the concrete Southern G.U. posts I have yet to obtain more information on. A whip crack, can be heard a remarkably long way away, as it can be likened to a pistol shot. Further, if such whips are shown in museums and in contemporary pictures (albeit one famous one - not everyone had their photo's taken back then), and bearing in mind the unwanted reactions from a whip being laid upon a horse whilst towing, then we must conclude their use was as an audible warning device; for distance; for blind bridgeholes; and for fog. The Railway horn, and possibly any other kind of horn was probably not practical for 'sounding', but a whip, far easier to carry by those leading a horse than any form of horn - and familiar throughout the land from the days of stage coaches - would have been a natural choice. It is easy to have a mindset of the twentieth century when you are born in it. Stretch the imagination - no trains, no horseless carriages, few tarmac'd roads. Dust or mud, slower pace of life, and comparatively quiet out amongst the fields. Derek

This may be a common occurrence. Ian, when living at Widewater, had the same problem - water through the walls - only there, the floor level with the lockside contained the bedrooms. His Kitchen and living room were below, and the ones that got the water feature. To sign leaving a lock empty may also mean the bottom gates leak worse than the top. I believe they are quite good at painting and strimming - the latter ending up on the sides of boats. Derek. Ooops - slipping away from the topic here!

Good to hear. They did mine too, I ordered the Daimler, and they turned up with a Morris Oxford complete with brown trim around the wheel arches. Didn't like to make a fuss, and Dad didn't say anything. Service is only as good as the people who arrange and deliver it. But general policies can affect that greatly. Derek

Those Police were overstepping the mark, they were out of order. City of London Police are renown for it. In addition to the above evidence of Police State: Minding his own business 1 Minding his own business 2 (After the memo from Trotter, and he's British Transport Police, not the City or the Met.) Old Holborn (Contains some offensive language) It was in April of this year that I became more inquisitive about Police and political activities against the population at large after witnessing on TV the beating of protesters outside the Bank of England, and later bumping into one locally who gave me a run down on her experience at the scene. She gave me some links, and a door opened. What I discovered in the ensuing two weeks of internet indulgence woke me up. It took that long, and is ongoing. Not many have the time. The number of websites that are available showing news contrary to that of the mainstream media is astonishing. Are they all conspiring to bring government down - or are they showing what is really happening? The more recent reporting of such bully boy tactics by officers on the ground in the mainstream media as shown with the Guardian incident outside the Gherkin, clearly brings to light that things are not as they should be. We have chosen boats as a common denominator and a love of canals, their history, the wildlife upon and around them to focus on in an ever increasing world of insanity - it's an antidote to life in a modern world. But there comes a time when even our cherished lifestyles come under attack, there are times when we have to step away from the cut, and perforce are engaged in that other place. The natural reaction of many when faced with encumbering regulations, is to protest. And if writing to our MP brings little success, we write to a paper or forum such as this and thousands like it. This then gives us a valve with which to release pent up frustration at what might appear impotent actions, but all too often there begins petty infighting and argument which divert, dilute, and destroy. However, if a cause is one with a common heart, a protest on the streets will be mooted. Such are the powers of government now, that such protests are severely limited in location, and heavily countered with baton wielding officers. Peaceful demonstrators are goaded into reactions - and there are many who will react after all other avenues have been exhausted and they are herded like cattle. This gives exactly the reason for severe treatment as dished out nearby the Bank. If the only way in which the population at large can have their attention drawn to such injustices is through the internet - then prepare for curtailment and limitation of the internet. Cue – Darling's tax on broadband. The internet for many has become Prince Charming's kiss. Watch him be charged for his awakenings as new taxes are introduced for 'freedom of speech' - WANTED - Prince Charming - an ENEMY of THE STATE. I'm probably breaching some Act as I write. A 62yr old wanting to mind his own business and mess about on his boat. No matter what you engage in, you will be affected. If you fear these people, they will have total control over you. What can you do? Spread the word, make more people aware, but make them smile too. Here's a heart warming story, contrived and acted of course, but the message is powerful 'Validation' It's a little corny, but it's a love story, and we need more love in the world. It might just take 16 minutes of you life, but it might make a difference: Derek

Ah! Right, IMG code - image code. Assuming you have opened an account with photobucket or one of the other free picture hosting sites, and you have 'uploaded' your photos from your file bank, each picture in the PB account will have beneath it four lines of coding; Email & IM; Direct link; HTML; and IMG. (Generally speaking, forums that allow image posting like images at or around 100kb. Some images can go to 2MB, and they really ought to be reduced - many ways of achieving that, some complicated, some easy - usually with free downloadable software.) By right clicking on the line of code in the IMG box, it will either copy the code automatically onto your clipboard, or you will get a drop down menu in which you need so select 'copy'. Then in your reply window in CWDF, right click, and select 'paste'. You will not see your picture in the CWDF window atthat point, instead you will see the long line of file code. Add whatever text you want above or below, then click 'Preview' NOW you will see your text AND picture as you have selected. It must be remembered that any image you place in CWDF will remain there ONLY if you leave the image on the web hosts page. If you delete an image from your web host account, all images posted in such a forum as this will no longer be visible. Hope that helps. Give a shout if stuck. Derek PS To give an idea of image size, the black and white I posted of Bert is 21kb 649px by 440px Jpeg image (most are, TIFF are huge)

It's the IMG code you need to copy, paste in the reply window, and click preview to check it's as you want it. Derek

Bert and Elsa. Early eighties to mid nineties. This in '87. Bert 1981 Bert came first, he was from Battersea, and Elsa a couple of years later from RSPCA.