Steilsteven

Thanks Jim Have you seen this?

All I get is URL signature expired

Very interesting, thanks. Keith

I've done a great deal of boating in the dark over the years and have found that a headlamp, no matter how bright, is of very little use. A clear sky is much more use than any lamp. On wide waterways there is nothing for the light to reflect from because it is usually too far away, on narrow waterways trees reflected on the water give the impression that you are about to crash through them. Lights are only any use when negotiating locks, mooring up or when travelling through tunnels. One lamp is sufficient for tunnels and should be pointed upwards towards the right. Oh and it doesn't need to be ultra powerful. On narrow boats I always have the back cabin light on so that the light through the porthole shines on the tunnel wall, there is no need to see well ahead because all you need to do is avoid hitting the side where you are already. Keith

Bear in mind that whoever you insure with will require the boat to be surveyed every few years if it's over 25 years old. Keith

No that was further upstream at Tyle Mill. Keith

Update on 26/10/2021: Further to the notice below, please be advised that our contractors attended site over the weekend to assess the extent of the damage and to attempt to stem the flow of water through the breach. Our engineers are currently assessing the viability of all options and designing a repair in order to get the navigation open as soon as possible, but at this moment we do not have a firm timescale for this.

I'll second that, having been with them since 2005. Keith

Shows how long it is since I stopped by there. Still, some of us like to eat out at restaurants so no reason not to mention it that I can see. Keith

The licence allows a person to place a vessel on the water, the person pays a fee for this privilege, the fee isn't rent for space it is merely permission for the person to place a vessel on the water and is to provide funds for the navigation authority. In the, admittedly unlikely, event that every boat measured 18 feet in length then every boat owner would pay the same amount and everyone would say that was fair. If someone decided to have their 18 foot boat stretched to 19 feet would it be fair to charge them more and if so why? Location is irrelevant as I have already pointed out. If an obese person joins a golf club should their membership fee be greater than an under weight person? You're mistaken if you think I ever go away ''with a flea in my ear'' over this subject btw. Keith

I wasn't even aware that it was open when I passed through there yesterday so I can't imagine how it would catch anyone out. Keith

The 25% discount for boats on disconnected waterways makes a mockery of the size based licensing system. On the one hand a discount is given due to not being able to access the main network, on the other hand a boat that is unable to access a vast chunk of the main network due to it's size is charged more. We are also told that the fee is charged merely for keeping the boat on the water and doesn't guarantee the ability to travel. Keith

ooooOOOooo Keith

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned The Great Western Arms at Aynho. I used to always make a point of adding it into the schedule when boating the Oxford. Keith

There are enough ''undesirables'' in Reading already and some of them are known to us boaters who have had items stolen in the past. Keith

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/arsonists-destroy-houseboat-attack-man-21422991

Yes that's because they plan to widen all those little canals so that proper boats can use them. 😉 Keith

On the Thames I've seen large cruisers taking up all the moorings leaving spaces that were just less than enough to fit another one between each of them. Had they moored closer I could have got Petra in with no bother. Luckily a friend was moored against the opposite bank and invited us to moor against him. Soon after we were safely moored another large cruiser turned up with the skipper talking on his phone and magically the other cruisers all moved up and let him in. Keith

All I know is, if I installed a long water tank in someone's loft to replace a shorter one, even though the volume of water had been increased due to the extra length there would be no increase in pressure. But if I raised the existing tank there would be. Keith

So have I and I'll fight anyone who says different! Keith

Obviously no-one on here has encountered a boat on the K&A called Sulis whose owner runs his engine from about 10 pm until well into the early hours every night. He has been doing this for years since he was told to leave Thames and Kennet Marina and set up home at Tesco moorings. Keith

Here it is: From Moore vs British Waterways 63. The second point I wish to make is that in considering whether Mr Moore's vessel is moored "without lawful authority" it is important to be clear about the perspective from which the question is asked. In some of the cases to which we were referred the question arose as between neighbouring riparian owners. In Original Hartlepool Collieries Company v Gibb (1877) 5 Ch D 713 a colliery company owned a wharf abutting the River Thames. It was 125 feet long. One of their vessels was 175 feet long, with the consequence that when it was brought alongside the wharf to unload its cargo it overlapped Mr Gibb's adjoining wharf. In order to prevent the overlapping Mr Gibb moored large wooden obstructions to his own wharf which prevented the colliery company's vessel from coming alongside their wharf. Sir George Jessel MR granted an injunction to prevent that obstruction. He held that as a riparian owner the colliery company had a right to access their wharf from the river. That right had to be exercised reasonably, but it was not necessarily unreasonable to access the wharf with a vessel that was longer than the wharf itself. He continued: "In ascertaining, however, the reasonableness of the acts of the Plaintiffs, one consideration must not be overlooked. Besides a reasonable right of access, they have a reasonable right of stopping, as well as of going and returning in the use of the highway. But what is a reasonable right of stopping? That must depend upon circumstances. You cannot lay down à priori what is reasonable. You must know all the circumstances. It would be clearly reasonable, for instance, if a wheel came off an omnibus in the middle of a highway, for a blacksmith to be sent for to put the wheel on the omnibus if that were the easiest mode of moving it out of the way, and the omnibus might lawfully stop there until the wheel was put on in order to take it out of the way, if that were the best mode of taking it out of the way and a reasonable and usual mode. Nobody would deny that if the blacksmith chose to carry on his trade of repairing omnibuses immediately opposite his own house, and for that purpose, not keeping any one omnibus more than a reasonable time for his work, he kept omnibuses opposite his house or shop, or smithy-door for that purpose, that would be an obstruction of the highway, and would be a nuisance. You must look at the circumstances. So, again, it is perfectly reasonable that A. shall put his carriage before his house door, even although it may overlap his neighbour's door. For instance, take the houses which have been divided—houses in Portland Place —that is a familiar instance to me, and I dare say to most of us—where two doors immediately adjoin. It is impossible to draw up a carriage to the one without overlapping the other. There is no doubt that it is quite a reasonable thing to stop a carriage there for the purpose of taking up and setting down, or even for the purpose of waiting there a reasonable time." Keith

I bought a pair for this very purpose and things were fine until one day I called my wife ( who was inside alone ) and a stranger's voice said ''hello who is that?'' I found out later that it was Bonny, the lady who operates African Queen on the Thames with her husband Andy. That was years ago and the walkie-talkies have remained in the draw ever since. 😁 Keith

We were stuck at Wallingford for a couple of months when the river came up during the Winter a couple of years ago and nobody challenged us. There is a court case ( that I can't find right now but I will ) where the judge gave his interpretation of what a ''reasonable time '' would be, a reasonable time would be that which was reasonable in the circumstances. If the river is in flood it would not be unreasonable to expect to be able to stay moored until the danger had passed, anyone demanding payment in these circumstances would be taking advantage. Keith

Halsburys Laws of England 5th Edition MOORING 691. Incidental Rights. The public right of navigation [1] includes the rights, in the ordinary course of navigation, anchor [2], to remain convenient time [3], to load and unload [4], to moor and fix temporary moorings in the waterway or on the foreshore [5], and to ground [6]. Such rights may be exercised without liability for payment of tolls or other acknowledgement to the owner of the soil, except in a port or harbour [7] or where such an owner otherwise has the right to demand some acknowledgement for the use of the soil in return for some benefit conferred [8]. A vessel is also entitled to remain temporarily in one place until the wind or weather permits it to leave or until it has obtained a cargo or completed repairs but not remain permanently moored since this would violate the rights of the public to free passage [9]. The rights of all vessels on a navigable river are not co-extensive since while a small boat may be entitled to to the furthest point it can reach, so as to give the public the benefit of the public way [10], the same right does not exist for a large vessel which is not entitled to proceed to a place where large vessels are not accustomed to go and where there is no accommodation to unload them [11]. Since the public right of navigation is simply a right of way limited ot the waterway it does not, in general, include the right to land persons or goods on the foreshore or banks [12], unless the person purporting to do so is the owner of the foreshore or banks, or has the owners permission [13]. Such a right, however, may exist at places where necessity or usage [14] has appropriated to that purpose, or in cases of peril or necessity [15], or in ports at places where landing is permitted without payment or on payment of the lawful dues [16]. The public right of navigation similarly does not include the right of towing along the banks of the waterway [17] except where that right exists by custom [18] or statute [19] or by grant from the owner of the bank [20]. 1 As to the public right of navigation see para 689. As to the nature and extent of the right see para 690. The right has been said to be analogous to the public rights on the highway: see eg Earl of Iveagh v. Martin [1961] 1 QB 232 at 272, [1960] 1 ALL ER 688 at 683, per Paull J. As to the public right of passage over a highway: see HIGHWAYS STREETS AND BRIDGES vol 21 (2004 Reissue) PARA 197. 2 Gann v Whitstable Free Finishers (1865) 11 HL Cas 192 3 See Earl of Iveagh v Martin [1961] 1 QB 232. [1960] 2 ALL ER 668; and para 689. 4 Earl of Iveagh v Martin [1961] 1 QB 232, [1960] 2 ALL ER 668; Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council [1983] 2 AC 509, [1983] 1 ALL ER 1159, HL. 5 There is no right in general to lay or maintain permanent moorings in another person’s land without his permission (Fowley Marine (Emsworth) Ltd v Gafford [1967] 2 QB 808, [1967] 2 ALL ER 472, resvd on another point [1968] 2 QB 618, [1968] 1 LL ER 979, CA) …..