sebrof

I didn't suggest your opinion wasn't honestly held. And you may recall that I also said: "timeshare is often a bad idea". But try to address yourself to the actual criticism, which is that you thoughtlessly spouted a generalisation without considering the facts of the particular case. And for that reason, your contribution was valueless.

Did you read the article (which I think was linked-to here in an earlier thread) about the Aussie who converted a chest freezer to a fridge? Having the door on top means little loss of cold air when it is opened, and this reduces power consumption enormously. Of course, it's not so convenient. The other tip is to cram every inch of space in the fridge with good British ale. That keeps the cold air losses down, though you might find yourself drinking more beer. So it's a win-win situation!

On sea-going boats I have found the Whale range of pumps to be reliable. Perhaps a call to their technical people would be worthwhile.

Lots of sense there. Not a good idea to do the tidal Thames on your own, and a very bad idea to anchor from the stern if the current is strong. Or even from the bow if you have low freeboard. People need to recognise that narrowboats aren't designed for fast-flowing rivers. That's not to say the Thames should be avoided. But it's very different from the cut.

As usual, a dogmatic statement, unsupported by evidence of any kind. Whilst I would agree that timeshare is often a bad idea, it is not invariably so, and a great deal depends on the integrity and comptetence of the management. The OP says that the purchase price is only £500. He'll be quids in after the first year, and if it all goes bad he won't have lost much. So, it's not a "really bad idea" at all, is it?

"Pendant" has been mentioned a couple of times. As for the lower-case "English", well, there's no room for argument with that, so hardly worth mentioning. The main title, however, caught out a number of people.

Good. But we're wasting time here - we could be "cheerfully" discussing continuous cruisers.

We should perhaps put this to bed. I was a little surprised by your suggestion that we should change the subject because you had run out of arguments, and it was that that prompted my "ignorance is bliss" comment. I hope it won't sour relations for ever more. And thank you for resisting the urge to omit the S from backwards.

Even teachers are never too old to learn.

Very droll.

A few years ago I essayed the Four Counties Ring in a week, along with two females. My plan was that they would steer the boat, I would do the locks and get some healthy exercise, and everybody would be happy. In the event, one was called back to work and the other refused point-blank to steer the boat. She got a lot more exercise than she had bargained for, I got none, and there was no time for shopping at all. We made it back with seconds to spare. Moral: Don't be too ambitious, and allow for changes of plan

Advanced? This is elementary. You may differ if you wish, but to do so would be ill-advised if you aspire to write English correctly. Thanks for the good wishes. They say ignorance is bliss, so I don't suppose you'll be needing mine!

The only correct answer here is the one by Natalie Graham. The idea is not to show that the society is owned by young working boaters (2nd alternative), but that it is a society composed of YWBs, which is a very different thing. So, sorry, pedants, but you'll have all have to go back to school. Although, upon reflection, if you want to learn to write English correctly, that's probably the last place you should go!

I caught seven mice in a week in December. Cheese, sultanas, and toffee make good bait. Wedge it hard onto the trap. S

Some laws appear to have been drafted with ambiguity as the main aim. It's perhaps what comes of having so many lawyers in Parliament. But the main thing is that CCers don't clog up popular mooring spaces, and BW deals with that by classifying some moorings as 24 or 48 hour. Contrary to what some posters have claimed, I personally haven't seen any evidence that CCers are regularly abusing short-stay moorings. G

That isn't correct either. Under the law, the vessel has to be engaged in "bona fide" navigation. It is hardly conceivable that shuttling to and from the same spot once a fortnight would satisfy the law. However, I am quibbling. The points you raise in your latest post are well made. Currently I am a continuous cruiser looking for a mooring, and without any ties to a particular location. I should be happy to pay a bit more than I presently do for a CC licence in recognition of the fact that I am a continuous user of waterside facilities. It's my belief, reading the posts here, that the main reason some people whinge about CCers is the perception that they are getting something for nothing. Paying more for a CC licence would deal with that, and would in my view be fair. However, I'm not too happy at having to pay extra for my Gold licence, because I have yet to find a way to be in two places at once. The fact remains, though, that there are too few moorings at reasonable prices, and too few residential moorings in particular. Perhaps Mr Mayall could usefully devote his energies to persuading canalside local councillors to agitate for more residential moorings. That way, they might earn a few votes, and at the same time widen the council tax net. A win-win situation. S

Nowhere does it say anything about three months. Stop making things up. S

It's perfectly feasible, but you need a huge number of panels, and a huge number of batteries to store the energy. It is MUCH cheaper to use a diesel engine. S

Moorings generally, residential moorings, and short-term visitor moorings. They are all in short supply, depending on where you happen to be. Marina berths are often silly money, and the reason is not because of the wonderful facilities, but because of the imbalance between supply and demand. S

The fact that one person found one mooring within 24 hours has no statistical significance whatsoever. As usual, you are making wild claims based on very little objective evidence. Face it, you have a bee in your bonnet about this. I recall reading an interview with a jazz singer. He said: "You know what? I never bore a grudge. Why? Because while you're nursing your grudge, the other fellow is out dancing." I suggest you learn from that sage advice. Now run along and do something constructive, and stop bleating endlessly like a lost sheep. It's very wearing. Cue predictable cries of: "You don't have to read it." from the curtain twitchers. S

You appear to think that all moorings are equal. Moorings close to parking and public transport and other facilities (pubs?) are much more desirable than moorings without these advantages. So the former will always command a premium. Marinas will continue to attract custom because they offer additional facilities like electricity and running water. The simple fact is that there are not enough moorings to go round, which is why they are so expensive. In an earlier thread you mentioned that BW takes a cut of all nearly all mooring fees. This is another factor that pushes up mooring costs, for no good reason. And you must know that it would be wholly impracticable to remove boats to land-based traveller sites. Do you really think that the councils that own them would permit that? Now, if you want to be useful, start lobbying BW to make more moorings available, and also to increase the number of short-stay moorings at Whaley Bridge, or wherever it is that you wish to visit. S

You have obviously never tried to get a large group of people to stump up the cash to fund a legal action. It is MUCH more difficult to do than you glibly imply. S

Try to be less dogmatic. A BW licence is a legally-binding CONTRACT, and one of the terms (number 2.1) states that it is not permissible to moor in one place for more than 14 days. The fact that this term derives from the 1995 Act doesn't mean that the "mooring/CC thing" isn't a contract term. It is. Then BW should allocate more 24/48 hour visitor moorings. Agreed.

What exactly would that achieve? The CCer would not be paying any more than he does at present (which is what seems to be your main objection to CCers), and BW/the local Council would have to spend a lot of money setting up these official traveller mooring sites. I think you are going to have to muster rather more cogent arguments than you have put forward so far if you hope to persuade others to adopt your way of thinking. In my view, the main reason for the "CC problem" (as you see it) is that BW does not offer enough moorings at a reasonable price. A reasonable price being say £500 - £1,000 per annum. I bet if they did, there would be far fewer bogus CCers.

The former is exactly what I am considering. John