blodger

I am in the camp that thinks that is good and means that Bona Fide Navigation does not mean what it is portayed as in the arguments regarding CCing

It was worth repeating though Allan as it was queried earlier on and answered with the usual false gusto and the view that the term Bona Fide Navigation was clearer than it is and a law itself

Having first seen some logic in Roving Permit introduction I am coming round to having difficulty in seeing what they resolve. I think I have picked up that having a Roving Permit means that you cannot use short term visitor moorings which is why you say it might free up some VMs. Is that what all this is supposed to be about?

Methinks those that move at least fortnightly will not expect to have to purchase a Roving Permit to continue to do what they have lawfully done hitherto. Those that have failed to move at least fornghtly are hardly likely to move more having lashed out on a Roving Permit. Or am I missing something?

I understand but stand to be corrected that the Roving Permit will not overide mooring restrictions or the 14 day rule but allow for the fact that a continuous journey is not being pursued and adjacent localities/places are favoured for mooring in

BoneFide, rumbled or not

That's why I am having some difficulty comprehending that there are folk queueing up to purchase these Roving Permits after years of roving without

Thank you. Your final sentence is what I have also concluded but got there for slightly different reasoning to do with the end point that Roving Permits are to die out or else there introduction was possibly fraudulent.

If you can assimilate his posts you will have learnt something. Biased blinkered opinions are what blurs my vision and has had me sticking some alternative views on here Without being informed by fact it is a futile discussion

Currently

Just as prison is full of innocent people I am fully aware that the forum is just what it is and is not even representative, in what it projects, of its members I welcome the information that it appears to be welcome by those directly affected but it is those directly affected that I would prefer to hear it from

I hear what you are saying and your 'mechanical' contribution is good but I have no problem with Nigel's posts

Unfortunately, by not presenting thus one stands accused of mirepresenting or using ones own interpretation so keep it up Nigel. I spend a fair bit of time trying as it were to wear other peoples shoes and see things from others perspective and also endeavour to counter one sidedness. I do not necessarily disagree with you but do not yet see any posts from someone humping at the chance of purchasing a Roving Permit.

I am requoting it as it is applicable to nearly everybody including myself and you

As has been said:- 1. Some people only wish to see what suits them. 2. Some people only wish to hear what suits them. 'Bona fida navigation' is a concise term to cover many eventualities not neccesarily as you have interpreted. The exchange of opinions with you has enabled me to get in:- Also. it seems to me that if the intention is to die out a breed of boaters then the Roving Permits should be issued free with the knowledge that each which is not re-issued means rising CaRT income and a diminishing 'problem', and it demonstrates it is not about penalties and income streams! I am interested in further discussion on introducing rectitude without penalty, etc

So basically you are saying that when the CRT say "The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]” there is no such law? The Bona Fide Navigation bit has been done to death in other threads and is a bit of a catch all to permit lots of different ways of using boats on the canal. In the context of discussing Roving Permits then mostly those for whom they are intended are not bona fide navigators.

The law has not interpreted the guidance nor is the guidance law. The guidance is BWs idea of what constitutes it finds acceptable which has changed over time. There is one licence and when it is issued people either have a home mooring or do not. Those who do not are meant to be moving about the network so as to render a home mooring of no use. Those who do not move around the network to some extent and/or stay moored in the same locality and/or are always exceeding 14 days mooring in one spot probably should have a home mooring and not claim to be CCers is my simple interpretation. As far as I can make out, the Roving Permit will for a fee legitamise some of the people who currently probably should have a home mooring but do not. New Boaters will have to have a home mooring or be genuinely using the network (CCing) not saving mooring costs or using any (including Human Rights) excuses for staying in the same locality. Firstly but not primarily, CaRT raises more revenue and there is secondly, a hope that the category of no home mooring boaters who do not move/bridge hop will die out. I can see the first happening to some extent for the peace of mind being legal brings for those who can afford it. Whilst the intention may be to allow no more new boater CMers so that the Roving Permit numbers gradually decline I can see such intention not being fulfilled and also policy changes meaning Roving Permits are extended in some ways. Since the majority of boaters are not affected support for the introduction and roll out of Roving Permits will be there on the basis it seems fairer and might work. Also. it seems to me that if the intention is to die out a breed of boaters then the Roving Permits should be issued free with the knowledge that each which is not re-issued means rising CaRT income and a diminishing 'problem', and it demonstrates it is not about penalties and income streams!

I am waiting to hear from some of them as is going to be buying these roving tickets

You said it yourself, guidance. Guidance is just that not law or a requirement

He did qualify it with adherence to local mooring restrictions and I am sure he would include the 14 day rule. The point is that new stricter mooring restrictions will apply to all, as do current ones, I think is your point?

"I dont know they are charged, I just go by what the controller tells me. Measuring the batteries indicated they are not fully charged, but I think I meant 'as charged as I can get them' rather than them being perfect. If that makes sense." If you are talking about LED indicators on the controller they are only slightly indicative. However, you have an MPPT and some of them are more sophisticated but I guess are still likely to tell you porkies so you feel nice and warm about what the solar has done. Even most of the MPPTs I have read the spec on do not hold a high enough voltage for long enough to fully charge the batts by penetrating a bit of any sulphation unless really expensive. Anyway it seems you are getting there and perhaps things will improve once you swop out that tired isolator

Topping up the water willhave had some effect. It has to be done to keep the plates covered but if overdone dilutes the electolyte below what the batt expects. If the plates have been exposed there is always some battery damage that seems irreversible. I definately think that desulphators help; I keep one on the starter battery. Their effectiveness diminishes the larger th battery bank they are helping. I use them when recovering batteries individually. I think that when you acquire your new batts it may be a useful excercise to fit in place of your current batts to "feel" the difference between new & old. Meanwhile get the old batts on a long slow continuous charge for a few days and then an equalising charge for a few hours before refitting.

I am sure you realise that your 220ah even when brand new should not have been used for much more than 30% of their capacity 66ah before fully recharging to prolong their life. Each day of use and cycling reduces their capacity and sadly even if they are not used they slowly loose charge, etc.. If drawing 21ah out of them in three hours from fully charged has them discharged sufficient for the inverter to go on holiday then, either they are goosed or, they were not fully charged in the first place. A charging regime which continually short changes them in fully charging them soon depletes batteries and has them sulphating up. It is not clear whether your solar has been able to overcharge them, meaning a knackered controller, or more likely been overwhelmed in trying to keep up with your usage, etc

And, as it's a discussion forum your observation and the rational of it is being discussed/questioned; Nothing personal

So you are neither agreeing or disagreeing with Mr Smelly or Alan Fincher but deferring to CaRT?