fender.

I agree with you daniel!

First point; Anyone who has stayed on a mooring more than the limit without any good reason is without a doubt a bridge hopper. Isnt that clear enough guidance????? Second point; There arent enough moorings, linear or otherwise, to go round. Some of you play this game to BW's advantage in its desire for property development....

I dont know the Rochdale very well - but its probably the Deepdale swing bridge (which I became aware of whilst looking up some Rochdale canal information earlier for that 'tunnel!') But then again it probably isnt because this one has some narrows (an old lock) and I cant find any narrows on the pictures I have seen. Must be on the Forth and Clyde canal somewhere...

in my view LesD's question was a valid one - its plain common sense if someone practises boating in the way he describes. After all it is impossible not to return to a mooring every now and again (unless one decides to sail across the channel) Apart from that there is nothing more to discuss, those who hog moorings for months dont have a clue about the rules (or KNOW that BW is totally crap at this kinda game) and BW dont even have a clue about how to approach these people about their rule-breaking (because BW know its crap and it knows boaters know BW is crap so it dont bother) Discussing this any further is a mugs game. Anyone who has stayed on a mooring more than the limit without any good reason is without a doubt a bridge hopper. Isnt that clear enough guidance????? yes? no?

hear! hear! creating non existent rules again are we??? I think this topic will always go round and round until BW can actually pass legislation on what constitutes a mooring. So far its all cards up in the air and no-one ever has any sensible answer to any of this stuff. Here we go again on this rats race of an arguement on what a paid moorer/bridge hopper/cc'er, etc is or is not or is supposed to be or not supposed to be or whatever - yes people who do stay on moorings for months on end are the BIG PROBLEM; apart from that I dont care if someone stays 5 seconds or 5 minutes longer than 14 days, or has to stay on a 24 hour mooring for a week because of illness or a breakdown - as long as people reasonbly try to move on and dont hog the same spot for yonks, and have a valid reason for any overstaying, then there isnt a problem ok - for christssake everyone please get a life and enjoy the canals instead of faffing around on this shite subject!

I take if that you mean if I went up the Llangollen, or the Ashby, or Kennet & Avon etc I must not return to the same mooring within a year? Its a bit silly isnt it? It means that if I decide to moor to take on water or pump out I am technically returning to the same mooring for the facility (eg at Ellesmere or at Hurleston) or if it happens to be the top of Grindley Brook where one will often find themselves at the end of a day having queued up for the locks (and getting in the queue early to get down them on the return) I hope you are not proposing/discussing stuff etc that is so circular and impossible to give a valid answer to. Because no doubt as I am so certain, when you are out boating you will be entrapped by the very insanity of your own logic and you will defintely have to moor at places you only passed a couple of weeks or so ago!

what about towpath mowing operative? (bw cutting grass) and towpath moaning operative (thats a bw guy with nothing better to do!) heh heh

The Rochdale you mean? I had a look at the Google map but its not Tuel Lane. There are several others along the canal but none of them seem to be the one shown.

Just read on NBW about the new title for lock keepers. They are to be described as 'Operations Operatives.' What a mouthful of a title. How about some more silly titles, to complement it, like 'winding windlass;' 'rack toothed paddle gear;' 'top gate supporting foundation block' (thats a gate cill for most of us!) 'customer facility operative key;' (bw key) 'quoisley quoins' (them things that hold the gates in place) 'customer clambering facility' (thats a lock ladder!) what else can we think of to help BW complile its stupid 'PC' re-labelling task??

Could be on the Rochdale?? I cant think of any other broad canal where such construction has taken place to build a new tunnel or covered way. Initially I thought it might be Roughcastle tunnel, but a check reveals the locks down to the wheel arent close to the tunnel.

Les, remember that there are many 'dead ends' on the system (eg Llangollen, Asbhy, etc) where one has to turn round and retrace their steps in lieu of the rules, it dont matter what sort of boater it is. Also stoppages can prevent boaters moving for a good length of time. I expect fuzzyduck would have to apply a different logic on these 'turn round' canals or in situations such as stoppages.

I havent got any objections its a nice idea, if BW cant do it then let someone else take over. you seem confident why not work out a bid to tend to BW, they might be bloody glad to get licences off their backs and at least it'll be better run by people who really have the canals at heart. And the jobs for real canal people too - rather than it being tendered out to Crapita!

your way seems to me to require a bit of intensive use of manpower, which is something many firms are trying to avoid, but its interesting nevertheless. what if someone were to come up with a 'boat registration camera' (bit like a speed camera or those cameras used in the congestion charging) that could see a boat registration a mile off.... if the computers could see the registration and it was logged as a licensed boat etc, then there's no problem. If the camera couldnt see the registration, staff would be called out to investigate, and ascertain if the boat did have a licence or not (and find why it didnt have a registration plate, maybe lost, painting the boat, repairs, etc) this might be seen as a more competitive way of monitoring and apprehending defaulters. i expect there may be other ways of utilising technology to monitor the situation, it probably just takes a little bit of imagination. how would a private company be better than BW? that is something I am interested in. would it be run by canal enthusiasts, would it be run by people who had an intimate knowledge of the canal system - say there's an unlicenced boat at bellanoch bay - would the people know immediately where that was [as opposed to that silly emergency canalphone on which the operators dont have an arse's knowlegde where most things are on the system!] there are a lot of questions but if all is well i am sure BW can be put in the pale inthe knowlegde that there are people who can do the job better.

hmmmm good idea fuzzyduck but how will the regional companies deal with boats from a different region? Wont it be better to have a nationwide coverage? i dont think BW is good enough at their job anyway, the question is who can do it better? can you do better can you devise a business plan that will show a better approach than BW's, at least on licensing? and how would you deal with defaulters?

yeah of course, but what else have we as an alternative? Capita is so good it'll make sure the pizza slices are shared so 'evenly' (so thinly in other words) that most of it is left for the greedy bosses!

Dont think its called that at all. It might be called Brownings Island as its in Brownings Pool (although the island, pool and the entire Little venice area used to be known amongst the more struggling locals as Rats Island. The rich and upper classes who live there, and BW, wouldnt like it though, cos it'd put a dent in those overtly gross profits they get for property there!)

It simply means BW aint up to the job and arent the ones for the job of licensing. Perhaps Capita can help? They have great expertise in congestion charging and chasing up council taxes.

You people need to be careful with your analogies. There are so many pros and cons to your arguements. If things were free I'm sure you'd be grabbing them like there was no tomorrow! Dont play the dissonance game please! I think if you read through the posts nearly everyone agrees in principle that non-licence payers should be chased. No one has been told they can have a freebie cruise at the expense of others ok, lets be clear on that, its BW's lack of stewardship that has given this impression ok - it is up to us who do pay our licences to put BW right. As I said previously, if BW had been Railtrack or some other railway operator who had let the passengers down badly they'd be facing a fine of millions of pounds. It is time BW faced these sort of penaltys for its dire shortcomings, because it is letting us down so miserably with due respect to non-payers.

hear hear! you have it spot on! Andy may be collecting data about unlicensed boats and says its to help BW be aware of the problem. But its been done again and again to death, I've reported unlcensed boats, many others have, not with intent of malice but out of concern at what is a growing trend, yet BW dont do much. Their recent audit (last november) and their subsequent actions in removing/towing a number of boats away hasnt demonstrated that BW is dealing with the problem, its just got too big for them, there are easily a few thousand unlicensed boats on the system.

Supposed to, but even overstayers and unlicensed boats on BW local offices' home grounds get ignored. Clearly BW dont understand, or dont want to, enforce rules. Their ignorance of the problem has made it so much worse.

I didnt know this. Thanks Liam. It'll be interesting to see how they can balance two publications especially when one could argue that real good quality waterway articles are hard to come by.

It has been mentioned before in NBW etc. Its just a small bit up to Brimscombe Port however. They ought to try getting the rest reopened by May 2011, 100 years since the last boat travelled the full length of the T&S. Just imagine, there'll be pints all around at Daneway!

Agreed! Yes unlicenced boats make me annoyed. But its not them. Its BW. Why dont you get ANGRY with BW instead?? They are the problem, they let us down. They cant be bothered, havent been bothered up to now. I am really f..... angry with BW for a lot of things including this licence fisasco. I tried complaining on the phone a while back about unlicenced boats and bridge hoppers who had stayed on a bit of towpath for well over 6 months, preventing some of us legitmate boaters being able to moor even just for a day. These unlicensed boaters have stayed on and on - and are STILL THERE nearly 8 months after I first complianed. I cant be bothered anymore its BW who are the problem, its a waste of effort trying to get through a bunch of thickos. And what actually happened when I called BW? They asked me to take photographs and write down the numbers and location, and email it to them. Whats more, the person on the other end of the phone said he was not aware of the boats (CHRIST!! NOT AWARE?? Its just a short distance from BW's local offices!!! Do they sit in their office all day and play Foxton Locks then??? Or drool over a girlie mag, and worse still, surf net porn all day? How can they NOT KNOW??) Am i supposed to do BW's work for them then? They CANT BE BOTHERED! They must be made to be bothered. As always lots of yous people direct their anger at the wrong target. Yes people like Carrie and me are skeptical because we know BW is the pits when it comes to regulating anything, or dealing with problems. Yes unlicensed boaters are a big problem but the even bigger problem lies with BW.

Some might be upset at you doing it. Its not that I dont condone it, it is a idea that has its merits, but the issue is that we should NOT being doing BW's jobs. Its a bit like vigilantism. As we all know, BW has a terrible record of enforcing or chasing up defaulters, and it is BW who should be putting it right, not us. They are so lackisidal with licences, yet they prattle to the ends of the Earth about new developments, selling off the land and canal property etc, they bang the drum of the mega bucks property dealer so loudly they can't hear the other concerns that emerge from the forest, and yet they seem to play something akin to a xylophone or something of that sort when it comes to licence defaulters, its all sweet tunes, in other words BW is the sad, sordid case of a dog chasing its own tail. Yes they are getting to grips with it slowly, VERY slowly. If it was another private compnay that let so many down and dealt such a miserable diservice, they would be fined millions by the courts. But BW has got away with such an appaling diservice and I dont see how it can be justified, and I dont see how our reporting licences can justify BW's failures. One thing I would expect is that if BW does successfully chase all the defaulters, I would expect BW to not increase licences for a good while in lieu of the extra revenue they are getting from those who are forced to get licences. The loss that it made through so many not paying licences is its fault entirely - and one that BW should not ever use as an excuse to penalise other waterway users.

yeah defintely working today! The lack of water over the weir, its so typical of many of our canals at the moment. Hardly any water about, this must be the most weir-less winter I've known.