wrigglefingers

Not a sock puppet but the moderating team. Therefore not forbidden.

Is that a question or statement, Wolfie? Either way, it's a blinkin' good one to which I don't know the answer. Will find out tomorrow for you. Probably too tired now ...

Okay, at the risk of stirring the hornets' nest, I'll do something rare and explain my thinking about the Brexit thread. I started the Brexit thread after consulting with my fellow mods because I woke up (the morning after the Referendum) to look at the forum, as usual, and found I had so many Brexit related comments in various threads to deal with (I think counted well over 80 by 6am) I was struggling to keep up. So, the decision was taken to open a discrete (as opposed to discreet) thread wherein those comments could be contained, rather like a safety valve. Because we work as a team, but post as individuals, it has my name on it and I argued at the time, that provided debate was well-mannered and courteous, then that was what we wished to see, moreover, I believed that you, as a set of intelligent people, could stay on-topic. There was some misbehaviour which was stamped on for good moderating reasons, but by and large, you have self-moderated and the thread has been at times interesting and at others, frankly boring; just like any other long-running thread really. However, I agree with some of you that the drift has meant that it is no longer on topic and much of it is currently quite dull, with an occasional insight of interest. It was never intended to be a political thread, but it has become so at various times. However, it is, as Richard pointed out, a grey area, and sometimes grey areas are good places where people can let off steam (and some people needed to after the result, which of them, I think, transcended politics and changed how they thought about their lives) and discuss what still might be a seismic change in our public and private lives. I am happy to close the thread, but that would lose the one area we have to discuss public issues that are non-boating related - economic issues for instance or the iniquities of the tax system. I will be clear and state that there will not be an explicit 'political' thread in its place. I'm happy to bow to whatever the consensus is. There is no right or wrong here, we just need to find a balance and express it with grace and consideration.

Nope, not mine, I found mine and glued it back on It's the cover for the recharging socket on an appliance that could applied to unmentionable parts?

It could the end of a return tab from a Knitmaster 360 knitting machine. I had one break off that looked exactly like that.

You can reach us by opening the message widget, pressing 'compose new' and then adding our names. Or, you can press on the avatar and 'send me a message' or you can press 'report' and write a report to us. I hope this helps.

Okay, mod's hat on ... Brutal assessment ... there's some excellent stuff in this thread but some of you are making reading it tedious. I will hide posts and warn members if they continue to post tit for tat, because I don't want to moderate the thread out of existence. All complaints to the management as ever. Wriggly Mod's hat off ... going back to debating a D-lock fitting.

There you go, title edited ...

Yes, Dave, I agree with that and that is why you simply cannot try to make wide-ranging laws that are absolute. Law-makers and codifies may seek to find binary conditions, but in truth, good law allows for flex in the system. That's why fuzzy or grey codes and laws are wise, but it takes judgment and good sense to apply that. Wisdom accepts that there will be exceptions, stupidity tries to force people to comply with impossible rules. The outcome is often not what was desired ... For example, The Black Act of 1723 introduced more than 50 'crimes' for which the death sentence was the official response. It was a response to a small-scale localised problem of poachers going in disguise (in women's clothing and with blackened faces - if you couldn't be identified as male, it was believed that you could claim a defence of 'femme couvert' in law). It was the singularly most repressive and violent class-hating and fearful piece of legislation introduced in English law. It was initially very successful, but gradually, even the gentry worked out it was unworkable because rather than discourage the behaviour, there was an upsurge in defiance. History shows, again and again, that if you try to take away the grey areas, people will attempt to redress that loss, often through less than societally-acceptable ways. 'You promise me death for trapping a rabbit? I'm going to fire your barns'. The application of a blanket rule led directly to escalating violence which came close to fomenting revolution; one of the reasons given for what was a very close scrape with revolution in the form of the Jacobite Insurrection of 1745, was the promise given that the Black Act would be repealed. I'm not suggesting that the current dispute is in any way analogous, other than to point out the consequences when the punishment doesn't fit the originating act. Obviously, to liken breaking a mooring code isn't the same as behaving in a truly reprehensible way, but why do people who sometimes fail to comply with mooring codes run the risk of losing their homes with depressing regularity? And, as Lady Muck says, we know CRT's record-keeping is not a thing of accuracy either. Why is it not acceptable for authorities to say, we treat these issues on a case by case basis and we simply accept that? I keep coming back to the fact that it's a vanishingly small proportion of the population involved, so why not live and let live? There's no real precedent set, the law, in the main, doesn't work like that.

Yes, this for me, is it. It's exciting and it's a new way (although in fact, a very old way) of using a river or canal. In many ways, leisure boating is the upstart cuckoo, not the way that waterways are beginning to be used. I think the development of waterways communities is a vital part of re-organising our lives in changing times. We just have to change our thinking, that's the hard part.

Yes, people choose to have children, sometimes, not always. Second, not all children start life with irresponsible parents; sometimes parents end up in situations that are not of their own making. I'll give you a personal example. I lived with my long-term partner who I now know, was seriously mentally ill. His behaviour changed and he became very abusive, and so, one day we were forced to leave in minutes. Everything was left behind because I needed to keep Ellen safe. With help from my family and advice from the Women's Refuge and the police, I found a boat and we moved aboard because I didn't want Ellen to leave her school. It was hard work, but with some help from BW (I was allowed not to show my boat name or licence) and the boating community at BoA, we survived and Ellen went on to be Head Girl at school in Bath and thence to university and adulthood. For a while, we had to move every day, then when M was sectioned and went into long-term psychiatric care, we were able to move into BoA Marina and live there. I had help from everyone, some even broke the rules for me, they just helped and it meant the world to me. I get very angry when people sit on the sidelines with no idea how being in those circumstances feels. Yes, we make poor choices but sometimes it simply lies beyond your control. I left a house worth an absolute fortune with the clothes on our backs because I couldn't stay any longer and ensure Ellen's safety. Living on a boat, no matter what the problems were, was a lifeline and people helped, not judged. It's easy to make generalised assumptions about people's lives, but truthfully you don't know what lies behind the decisions they make.

I wrote a long post about this, but lost it when I went to find some case history but this ... Children who are not in school regularly are at risk and are considered vulnerable by school authorities. That is it. That trumps everything. If you want to read about what happens when children fall through the safety net that is school, where, in addition to educating the young, we try to make a safe environment, watch for the well-being of children (and despite what you read in the press, largely succeed) and find help for their occasionally bewildered parents, read this ... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/22/concerns-raised-about-boy-who-died-of-scurvy-a-year-before-his-death-leaked-report Any measure that encourages parents to keep their children in the same school is to be applauded. The number of boats involved is vanishingly small compared to those the whole system and it is right that there is scope for those who need help, to be offered it. That is a hallmark of a civilised society. Forcing ill-equipped parents to home-educate because they cannot keep them in the same school consistently, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Well, that's this evening sorted, then ... Good find, Tim!

Hmmm... I've merged the two threads that were started, so, as a consequence, the thread is a bit jumbled. If any of your posts fail to make sense, please edit them to reflect the new reality. Many thanks. Luke, as OP, it's better to open one thread, not two or more, because people trying to help you end up confused.

Good outcome in all senses, I think, once the issues had become clearer. Once you fall out of love with something, it's better to move on and not regret it too much. I speak from painful experience here.