chieftiff

In fairness on reflection I'm sure you're right, but this guy (I'm assuming it is a guy) is thinking about it.

A project I worked on a while ago had to have a hardwearing, longlasting, 100% waterproof, high grip, stain resistant (I could go on as the requirement was incredibly tight it was for a carbon fibre layup & prep room) We searched the market and used this stuff: http://www.gripclad.co.uk/flooring.htm?gcl...CFVtn4wodhHPT0w Client was very happy and I've got to say it was absolutely brilliant right down to the installation. Not sure how practical it would be in a boat because lifting it would be impossible, it's a resin application, not particularly cheap but wouldn't be prohibitive in a small area, it would be my preferred flooring in the right circumstances purely because of its durability.

Uh, I read your post impartially and dismissed it as patronising twaddle, the inferrence that anyone who watches a TV programme only to come away with a life changing eureka moment and pursue that without thought is plainly ridiculous, would you, obviously not so why assume anyone else would? The guy has come on here to ask for advice and put out some feelers after stating that he has some experience of the canals, that in itself is evidence that he's giving it some thought! But still as he's a newbie to the forum he must be an idiot with an idylic view of the world formed from watching too much telly, goes without saying

Completely agree, my first apprenticeship was as a vehicle refinisher (panel beater and sprayer to most), a quality job would involve removing all rust and loose finish, possibly neutralising any deep corrosion with phosphoric acid and then filling and feathering back before priming and painting, why would you expose well protected steel to atmospheric oxygen by removing the protective finish unnecessarily, madness! Having seen a few seagoing ships through refit I only ever witnessed the exact same process but on a much larger scale.

"Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater. Examples are temporary mechanical breakdown preventing cruising, emergency navigation stoppage, serious illness (for which medical evidence may be required) etc. Such reasons should be made known immediately to local BW people with a request to authorise a longer stay at the mooring site or nearby. The circumstances will be reviewed regularly and reasonable steps (where possible) must be taken to remedy the cause of the longer stay – eg repairs put in hand where breakdown is the cause. Where difficulties persist and the boater is unable to continue the journey, BW reserves the right to charge mooring fees and to require the boat to be moved away from popular temporary or visitor moorings. Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study (e.g. a school or college). " And then: "Enforcement of the legal requirements will be based on observations by BW. If initial observations indicate insufficient movement to meet the legal requirements, the boater(s) will be advised why the observed movement is considered insufficient and be asked thereafter to keep adequate evidence of future movements." I think phone them, speak to them, ask them exactly what they want you to do given the circumstances that presumably your stuck and would rather not freeze to death leaving them with something a little embarrassing to explain to the press. Might be worth asking if they are aware the canal is frozen solid, assuming it is, just to add some irony to the tirade.(which it would be if it were me) Whole event stinks of bureaucracy and the perceived obeyance of "rules" which we all know are for the guidance of wisemen and the obeyance of fools. Edited: As an afterthought it might be worth every CCer stuck in the frozen canal system giving BW a ring and informing them that they can't move and what should they do about it, can they have mooring extension, the bureaucracy might just grind to a halt! In answer to the thread title though, laugh!

BBC are showing this at Oxford, ice looks plenty thick enough for a teenager to get to school on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8451922.stm

It's the fact I have mates then isn't it? Who says's I've run off and taken my bat? I'm just ignoring the dross. The thread deviated and it was probably my fault, I offered to take it to pm but the guy thought it better to stick with it on here; it's a narcissistic trait which much to my embarressment (because I understand the P -> A dynamic of it and should know better as I'm dragging it into a "game" by purposely not moving up an ego state) I'm also now demonstrating. The only reason I thought to bring up the fact I'd served at sea is that I thought it might demonstrate that I have some experience of the reality of how a vessels master acts out the powers he has - in the real world where consequences can actually bite you in the arse - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with taking responsibility for your wife/ partner/ friends* (delete as appropriate) mistakes when operating a lock paddle. Which is the point of the thread is it not? You don't seem to have expressed an opinion, who do you think is responsible for the paddle operation, or more precisely who do you think would be held responsible by the establishment should they kill someone in its operation. It's all well and good yapping around the edges but either express an opinion or start another thread about the superpowers awarded to you on purchase of your boat - I promoise not to get involved. And incidentally, I'm more than aware that there are plenty of canal users who have experience of serving at sea; a few on here but plenty who aren't, I know a fair few of them. I'd be amazed if more than a few of the 100,000 or so people who would have served in my time weren't out there worrying about more relevant crap than whether some guy can actually order his family around on his narrowboat because he is recognised as a master and I'll be honest I'm growing weary of it myself. I'll be genuinely interested in your reply but might take a couple of days to get back, I'm off to a Summer Ball this evening and planning on having a two day hangover, I've started on the rum already in fine naval tradition.

Don't! I'm off to the Middle East at the end of next week and the spider nightmares are starting already, that image isn't going to help

I think you are right but my neighbours son (not a child but like me he shares a childs mind) has been experimenting with this today and he can't get a house spider to cross the line of oils it immediately turns around and faces the stick he is poking it with rather than walk over it, so it seems to work. I've been watching from a distance! No spiders were harmed in this experiment

I fail to see how your perceptions of me are relevant, are you upset that I have mates or that I've been to sea (rhetorical don't bother answering) You've just reached stardom as the first person on my ignore list.

Ok, we are getting nowhere here. You can extract as many "laws" as you like and quote them, I have no intention of trying to put them all in context. What I'm saying is that despite these "laws" your powers as the master of a narrowboat are ostensibly the same as anybody else, your responsibilities for your vessel are explicit. The laws you have quoted are duplicated in other legislation applicable whether or not you are the master of a vessel and therefore there are no particular additional powers afforded to you which would encompass your wife, friend, child operating a paddle as previously discussed. Cutting and quoting only half my post won't change that and stating that you believe something to be without doubt does not make it so or lawyers would be out of a job. I'm happy to leave it at that because arguing on the internet is just pointless; I believe that the person operating a lock paddle should take responsibility for what they are doing as they are in a position of control, you believe that as the narrowboat's steerer that responsibility falls to you.... we differ, nothing new.

It's not the key point at all, regardless of the acts which place the title of master upon the "person for the time being having or taking command, charge, possession or management of a vessel whether lawfully or unlawfully", done so to ensure that a person can be held responsible for the safety and licensing of the vessel - and I'm not arguing that the title is wrong or the responsibility of the individual is in any way diminished. That act does not in any way remove the responsibility of operating a lock paddle from the person doing so and somehow transfer his/her responsibility to the skipper in some sort of Master & Commander scenario. The Law will hold individuals responsible for their actions when they aren't on the boat, not their skipper, they are therefore responsible for what they do. Our entire legal system is based on the premise that individuals can be held responsible for their actions, there are occasions when liability can be shifted but these are almost always related to employment and prosecuted under H&S or Employment legislation, not the argument that "my husband will take responsibility because he was the vessels master in accordance with such and such a legislation" Your authority to tell your crew what to do on or off your narrowboat is limited to what they are prepared to do for you, unlike a real captain they don't work for you, you can't fire them (divorce is always an option of course but a bit extreme for opening a paddle too quickly) Myalld is the one who started to bang on about how he had the power of a bloody captain and as much as I hate to burst his narcissistic bubble he doesn't; even if he chooses to believe that registering his boat on the small ships register endows him with such powers, the context of the law misleads people all the time, that's why we employ lawyers who specialise in The Law, just what training do most narrowboat owners have which offers them the expertise to decide that they can restrain a person to protect the safety of their vessel (you would get ripped to shreds in court and it could cost you your freedom trying to enact those "powers"), it was humorous but it's stepped over the line to become ridiculous. All your likely to get is a broken nose and a day in court if you start acting like Jack Aubrey on the inland waterways. The statement that best sums up what "powers" a narrowboat steerers has were in Myalld's last post I think and I apologise for paraphrasing as I really can't be arsed to go back and read the drivel but something along the lines of 'I have all the powers of a captain except the powers of a captain that I don't have' The reality is you have all the "powers" that any other citizen has and are answerable to the law in exactly the same way as any other citizen, full stop.

Boots apparently, the label say's "Bach Original Flower remedies, White Chestnut" and it's the extract of Horse Chestnut flowers at 5x dilution in grape alcohol solution - according to the back label!

Fair enough. When this topic first came up I e-mailed a good friend of mine who I spent 25 years in the Royal Navy with, he is now a globally licensed Captain of a VERY large Merchant vessel currently off the gulf, he also has a narrowboat that he uses occasionally as do I. Here is most of his reply..... Hi Chris, Why do you get embroiled in these arguments you haven't bloody changed I thought you left to sloooooow down :-) I looked at the link to the canal site you sent and it's a typical answer, I meet "Captains" on the canals all the time who claim to understand their rights and responsibilities, some of them should know better but few do, the training many of the inland waterways croud get is p!ss poor. I spent 5 years gaining my tickets and I still spend much of my time referring to the library of books on international and regional maritime law, nobody knows it all and a little knowledge is dangerous. Many laws are contradictory especially within sovereign or privately owned waterways (The Thames for example has its own rules), my rights and responsibilities to the company are clearly defined but my powers are not so clear which is why they are re-defined in the crews terms and conditions of service (yes it's just like the mob) There are real problems around retaining people in custody and many skippers have come a cropper under human rights and local laws of unlawful detention, it's a minefield. All captains are legally responsible for their craft with respect to the damage it can cause and that's fairly clear cut, it's why we are insured! The question of authority over the crew on the other hand is questionable and you can only hand out punishment if the crew will accept it - terms of contract or if it's absolutely clear cut - physical assault and the like, but I still have a 24 hour legal hotline I can consult if it's not so clear cut! I'm basically limited to restrictions on pay and firing people on the spot from which point I have to treat them as a passenger believe it or not. Their responsibility to me and my responsibility for their actions are pretty much the same as for any employer, if they are passengers I am solely responsible for their safety but if they are hurt by a crew member's stupidity then the level of responsibility will be apportioned and it's all about what I do to prevent stupidity - look to incidents like Zebrugge if you want examples. If I get a chance I'll pop in and put them straight but to be honest it would be a complete waste of my time, their responsibilities are nearer to that of a car driver than a master but I doubt many of the weekend warriors would understand or accept it. The rest of the e-mail is personal so I haven't written it up. I don't think Ian will be popping in as that was sent a couple of days ago, he's a busy guy but I'm meeting him in Bahrain next week so am more than willing to pass on your questions. No offense intended by the way I just felt it was important that narrowboat steerers don't go around believing they are in some way legally responsible for the actions of their crew except in the same way they are responsible for the actions of others under UK law.

You might want to try and act out that power at some point on your narrowboat and see just how deep a hole you can dig yourself with the Law This really is getting silly and probably deviating from the thread topic, I'll send you a pm to explain why I probably understand this a little better than you appear to!

I think you may have a lot to learn about what defines the master of a vessel in law, what it takes to become one ( a licensed Captain with the powers and authorisations that come with that and where and when those powers are restricted) where International Maritime Law applies in context and what registering your vessel actually means.... you are sadly deluded if you believe that owning a narrowboat and registering it under the small ships register offers you any powers at all let alone those which are substantially the same as a merchant vessels's Master. Have you actually ever been to sea? The Law will hold you responsible for all the children in your car who do not wear their seatbelts and will fine you for allowing it, which Law will fine you for not keeping your narrowboat clean and free from disease amongst many other mundane and routine responsibilities? Again, a licensed Captain just might have a few things to say on that point and explain how he can be legally held responsible for the latter, he would of course have spent about 5 years studying the Law that holds him to his responsibilities in the area(s) within which he is licensed to operate a merchant vessel. Do you have a little captains hat and like to be addressed as skipper?

Daily spanking comes under terms of employment, my skipper (SWMBO) hands them out for the smallest of errors

You've missed my point, being in charge of a vessel does carry with it responsibility, you are responsible for any damage that the vessel causes to others for example in exactly the same way as the law will hold you responsible when driving a car. However, it does not invest in you any legal authority or responsibility for the actions of members of your crew when they are operating a lock, strolling along the footpath or wearing a ridiculous hat. The Law will hold that person responsible for their actions, there may be some secondary liability of course if you trained your crew to operate locks incorrectly! The whole thing raises a few points, the master of a sea going vessel subject to international maritime law is invested with certain legal powers over his crew which a canalboat skipper certainly isn't, authority without power is absolutely worthless which is why the previous inference that a narrowboat crew are responsible to the steerer is humorous, just exactly what punishment are you going to dole out should they fail to respond to your command... the brig until you hand them over to the authorities, or I suppose you could just put them ashore at the next port and make them fund their own way home. The whole comparison of a narrowboat steerer to a sea going vessel's skipper is humorous, a better comparison is to a car's driver - you're still responsible for ensuring the crew of your car wear seatbelts - legally.