Maffi

So my 7 windows and 2 portholes and a side hatch might be OTT in a 58 footer?

From Tom Crossley of NBW Hello Maffi I published the piece as BW sent it, but I have now confirmed that continuous cruisers are not to be licenced at a higher rate, as the statement you referred to was a bit vague. Tom So although this was published on NBW it was a press release. I think BW will want this disseminated to as many people as possible. ( I refered to sub-para 1.7)

If it was I wouldn't be here would I.

Well no they couldn't, but then they are dead.

Dummy!

Dog walkers can change but you and I know that ain't gonna happen. Walkers do get out of the way, but don't like to be 'buzzed' by some joker who cant stop because he is probably bolted on to his contraption. Have you noticed that riders tend to take the inside of the path and not the waterside? I have walked down many tow paths where you don't see a cyclist, probably because some are very narrow and full of muddy puddles. You can ride a bike anywhere, but you can not take a canal walk anywhere but beside a canal. Boats travel at 4 mph people walk at 4 mph so if cyclist must use the tow path (which they are quite entitled to do providing they have a permit and cycling is allowed) why can't they ride at 4 mph? If a rider is firmly attached to his bike using clip less pedals, then might I suggest his 'mission' is not compatible with others users or the 'leisurely' pursuits that are taking place and presents a clear danger. Many tow paths are 'rebuilt' wide and paved for everyone to use, not for speed trials.

John took me to see a couple of builders while I was on vacation. Round of aplause for John.

Not the point. I have seen people allowing their dogs to dump right under a poop scoop sign, so that aint gonna change. The paths are as wide as they are. If BW could make them wider whose licence would they add that cost to. If the paths are too narrow then take ya bike else where.

It will also be cheaper if included in the build. I am also told it prevents 'druming' of the side panels.

I have been reading 4 publications a month for some time now. Sad thing is its the same issues every month, there being a lack of interest in British Canals here in Saudi.

I seem to think we have been here before

And so it maybe, but not so good in an earthquake.

Andy enter continuous cruiser in the search box There is a lot of reading there.

Some years ago I was a member of the Peoples Voice in Chippenham. I was asked to volunteer to sit on a committee to determine the levels of payments for local councillors, given that the system was changing to mirror the central government model. We were given a budget of £93,000 with an extra amount of about £15,000 in case it was needed. The committee eventually put a package together, I think, for about £87,000. Many of the tasks that councillors did were no longer in the equation and many of the tasks were in our view to be paid for at a higher rate than previously. It all balanced out with the council overall having a lighter work load (fewer committees), but still receiving about the same 'expense/remuneration sheet'. This of course had to be ratified at a local council meeting. Needless to say the council re-did the figures and used all the budget plus the extra £15,000. What one should make of this I would not be prepared to suggest, but when 'the People' speak their voice falls on the ears of those who are voted into office to run our affairs in a fair, proper and unbiased manner, but seemingly fail to do so. I am not suggesting for one minute, David, that you were involved, nor do I intend for anyone to feel that I am pointing a finger at you. I have no idea which council you were serving on. All I know of you is what I read on this forum. What I do know is, that those councillors were neither fair, proper or unbiased. On the basis of my experience I would never trust a councillor in my district to have even a passing acquaintance with the truth.

Not the most illuminating site I have seen.

Obviously you have never lived in an arab country. The simple low tech life is how the Saudis live. If having a low tech life helps you live longer then the world would be over run by ageing Saudi's. Having said that there are three things the Saudis will never give up. Their car, their mobile phone and their AK47.

Its down to definition. There will always be poor people, not so poor people, managing people, comfortable people, well off people, rich people, filthy rich people and 'what can they possibly do with all that money' people. If the worlds wealth was shared out among everyone we would each have about £50. Tomorrow there would be people who had nothing and people who had it all, so we start again. What's the point? This has always been the case. 'We' don't, it's just easier to let the box keep you occupied. What a good idea! Just as long as some light fingered Larry doesn't help himself to that which you didn't chuck away while you are talking. Don't forget that it also keeps people in work. Chuck away as much as you like, your choice, but others like their chattels. Without the trappings of a consumer society we could all (if we could find a job) work for minimum wage. Now that really would make big business happy, but then who will they sell to? A good idea Carrie but it's a no win situation.

If that's a qualification for longer life the Saudis will live for ever. God help us.