Jump to content

Mick and Maggie

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mick and Maggie last won the day on June 22 2013

Mick and Maggie had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Mick and Maggie

  • Birthday 06/03/1947

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Amateur Radio (licenced), Motorcycling, Photography, Computing, Music, Conservation, Astronomy, Genealogy, Reading, Blogging.

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Retired from Higher Education
  • Boat Name
    Rose of Arden
  • Boat Location
    Birmingham Canal Navigation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

6126 profile views

Mick and Maggie's Achievements



  1. That would be the 'Memorandum of Understanding' drawn up between CaRT and the IWA.
  2. Are you sure it's the OP? It seems to me that CaRT are trying to encourage a climate of fear. The scenario being the cheapest and easiest form of enforcement is fear. If the local scrote thinks he will get a good beating he is unlikly to pay your property a visit. Enforcement by the fear that - My boat might not have been logged - how after the event can I prove my innocence, is not a nice way to conduct business. Generating the fear of an uncertanty in the minds of the law abiding as well as the miscreants.
  3. Thanks for that Nigel. My lay understanding is that 'Acts of Parliament' are binding on all parties. Guidance is given by CaRT to boaters as an aid for boaters to understand CaRT's interpretation of the acts. As a boater your interpretation of the acts may be different to that held by CaRT. Generally CaRT is saying follow our guidelines and we will not prosecute you win or lose! In such a situation where conflict exists the courts can be asked under certain circumstances to adjudicate upon the disputed interpretation. Generally limited to some small section within the guidelines. Depending upon the type and nature of judgement handed down. This interpretation can be binding upon the individual or upon everyone especially if it is enacted later. One problem is that 'interpretative guidance' if not drafted without bias and is also proportionate and fair, can of itself create an even more confused understanding. Leading to further rounds of the courts to get interpretative guidance upon the interpretation of the guidance. There is also nothing to stop a current set of guidance being superseded at any time by a new set of guidance issued under another name. This is the 'get out of jail card' for whoever issues the interpretive guidance. What worries some people is as you say 'mission creep' where guidance is given, clarity is handed down by the courts and is generally accepted. Only to be later used in a different context to that which it was intended. Mission creep might be illustrated by looking at the recent changes proposed to the use of visitor moorings. The changes within a local area, which under the circumstances could/would seem to be proportionate and fair. Boaters were consulted for a view and a new improved all singing and dancing guidance document issued. Later CaRT may come along and say. The new set of guidance issued for xxx has worked so well over the last couple of years that we now wish to apply this nationally here is a set of new guidelines. The changes that applied to a local area, which under the circumstances seemed to be proportionate and fair. Is now felt to be the opposite when applied nationally. There is also a question of the 'equality of arms' where CaRT with access to a huge amount of money. Which can be spent creating a formidable legal challenge, which can out gun and dwarf the individual boater who may only be able to afford to represent themselves. Who might well submit because he/she is at greater risk of being bankrupted through high costs of relatively minor issues being taken through the higher courts. This is a ploy that only the very wealthy or those entrusted to manage our collective finances without redress to their own personal finances can deploy. The courts are aware of such issues taking place. There is also vexatious litigation where the use of taking a defendant to the high court is intended to be a punishment in itself. Now, if someone feels up to it – maybe they could lead on a set of interpretative guidance to the acts on behalf of boaters. I know for instance that NABO had taken legal advice upon some issues which it has shared with CaRT. Guidance is just informed opinion and any groups could give their interpretation issued as guidance to boaters. Maybe CWF could come up with a set of guidelines. The above is only my opinion, it has no legal basis, it may or may not agree with your interpretation and I would be surprised if you held the same view. Much of the pontification given in this thread is the individuals interpretation of some minor point of the interpretation of CaRT's interpretation of the actual Acts. Which in turn CaRT may or may not agree with. However rather than debate ad infinitum and arrive at no generally accepted consensus. Why not debate what would constitute a reasonable, proportionate and fair set of guidelines for boaters drawn up by boaters. As a starting point you could use a version of CaRT's own guidance. I'm sure that a boaters guidance document would give so much more clarity to interpretation of the acts than the opaque guidance as issued by CaRT. Maybe someone could start a whole new thread with the name 'A boaters guide to CaRT's guidance, to the Waterways acts'
  4. Hi Martin. You have done the right thing and taken your time over choosing the best option for your retirement. We have sold our old family home but are retaining our retirement home in the uk. We are about to do something similar to yourselves, but our constraint is the old dog (16 and still going strong) who is giving us time to make the right choice. The other much younger dog is now a pet passport holder and so she can travel with us. Our plans go something like this... Late spring to early autumn we will be boating in the UK. (for three more years) Then we will drive/tour our motor home down to Spain for the winter each year. Rent accomodation from friends we used to work with, to over winter. Returning like the swallows in early spring - we will make our way back for another boating season. It will seem strange passing through Pollington and not giving you a toot...
  5. I am out with friends who moor at Strawberry Island, so I asked them. There are apparently two sets of moorings. One set managed by the boat club and one set which are managed privately. I don't think it matters why, but I understand that it involved differences between individuals. They say that there is less formality and restrictions placed upon the private managed moorings. Therefore greater freedom to do your own thing with and on your boats. Otherwise its a pretty homogeneous arrangement where everyone it seems, rubs along together. You would be very hard pressed to find any demarcation lines between the two because the bounderies are quite blurred.
  6. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  7. Hi Pete.. long time no see.... Hope everyone is well.. Looks like the developer may have changed from Richard Budge - But I can also understand the developers not wanting to stump up a million pounds plus to the council. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.... As I said it was some time back that I saw a plan it was on-line and in the form of a coloured brochure. There were moorings for about 80 boats and some commercial properties. I don't remember any housing but its quite a while ago now. The main item was the provision of a set of lock/flood gates giving access directly onto the river. I wondered at the time why they would want to go that route rather than from the canal! I hope is comes into being as it would provide some much needed moorings around the Doncaster Selby area. As for the existing Selby moorings - I would imagine that CaRT would have to give up some of its linear moorings, but who knows in this current climate.
  8. I get ever more intrigued by the whole BW/CaRT/BWML story. So I started to do some background reading. I started by reading some of the older press articles. I came across one article which highlighted a side of BW and cataloguing its headlong rush into acquiring marinas. It actually provides some interesting insight from around the time that the new marinas were being touted. The article of interest is entitled 'Nationalisation by Stealth: British Waterways acquisition of canal marinas, by Tim Coghlan managing director of Braunston Marina. The article was published in Boating Business on the 1st of May 2003. The main thrust of Tim's article was: It is a simple fact that for at least the last five years every single canal marina that has been sold - of any modest size or more - has been mysteriously been acquired by British Waterways (BW), and without those marinas first being offered on the open market. It is because of their deep pocket from inner city waterside property developments on land acquired on nationalisation in 1948, that BW has been able buy up everything that has - dare I say - come on the market. Robin Evans, [who was at the time] BW's new chief executive, recently admitted in a press interview that BW had now acquired 17 marinas, only building two of that total. Thus in a few years, from a standing start in the mid 1990s, BW has become by far and away the largest marina operator on the canals. Taking on board the possibly thousands of canal linear moorings which it already operates, BW is now effectively in a monopoly position on several canals. BW also now controls most of London's Docklands and, having acquired Cumberland Basin, it now has a complete monopoly of moorings - basin and linear - in central London, as boaters are already discovering, with moorings prices going through the roof. It is only in west London that the private sector still has a significant presence. And this will soon be challenged by the new large BW Marina at Cowley. However, there was one phrase used in the article that sticks out more than any other. As part of the interview with Evans, he said 'The issue is competing with the private sector on a level playing field.' That was just over eleven years ago. BW/CaRT now hold as close to a monopoly position over the inland waterways today as its possible to get. But I wonder if the Evans statement still holds good today. Is the playing field level? Tim went on: For BW, marinas are about as good a way of trading as any. This is now more so, following its recent successful challenge to paying rates on its canals, including astonishingly, its marinas - on the basis that the canals as a whole are loss makers. It is incredible that a private sector operator has to pay substantial rates on its premises, even if it leases them from BW, but if BW operates that same marina, no rates are payable! And, of course BW, does not pay itself a connection charge. You can read the whole article Here
  9. There was a story doing the rounds of the towpath that Richard Budge was going to build a marina at Selby on the cleared land by the side of Selby Lock. Not heard anything for a long time. Apparently as it would have its own access directly into the River Ouse it would not need an access agreement to Selby canal.
  10. The government is now firmly in keeping Scotland using the pound and GMT and always was. This is not another Cameron U-turn but a misunderstanding. The U-Turn misunderstanding has nothing to do with all the borrowings used for propping up Sterling. Which would become a debt belonging to what is left of the UK to service if the Scots choose to walk away. A debt that's nothing to do with Scotland who would be excluded from Sterling and using whatever flavour of monopoly money it chooses. Whoops...
  11. Not if he wants someone else to pick up the tab for the diesel. ;-)
  12. The Australians in the 1800's were mad keen on making some of their rivers navigable. The problem was the weather because many rivers actually dry up in the summer months. Most plans consisted of using weirs and dams to back up water. With locks constructed to bypass the weirs and dams. There were very few actual canals constructed. There are quite a few small scale canals between lakes and cutting through coastal spits of land to reduce voyage times. Berry’s Canal - Australia’s first transport canalIn June 1822, Alexander Berry sailed his 15 ton cutter Blanche from Sydney down the south coast loaded with tools and provisions. On board was Hamilton Hume, a well known explorer. In late June, they arrived at the entrance to Shoalhaven Heads which appeared dangerous and four men volunteered to test it in the cutter’s boat. The boat capsized drowning two of the men. Berry then sailed up the Crookhaven River but was stopped by a sand spit. Undaunted, the crew hauled the Blanche across the spit. Four days later Hamilton Hume was left with three men at the isthmus to cut a passage using only hand tools. The canal, which was 191 m long, was completed in 12 days. This was the first transport canal to be cut in Australia. The river has since cut the passage wider and deeper, making it now the real entrance to the Shoalhaven River. Australia’s longest transport canalThe longest true canal in Australia is the Sale Canal in Victoria which is about 5 km long. It was dug in the period 1886-1890 to connect the town of Sale with Gippsland Lakes and thence to Bass Strait. Sale is a couple of hundred miles east of Melbourne.
  13. Patrick, I am doing some research of Australian newspapers. I remembered something about Chard and a canal coming up. A quick look back has thrown up these two items with Chard mentioned. They may be of some interest. The scan to text conversion may not be 100% but I am sure you will get the gist. Mick Illawarra Mercury (Australia) Thursday 4 April 1889 NEW CANAL SCHEME. According to a leading English journal, a scheme has been proposed for connecting the English and Bristol channels by means of a canal. The route fixed upon by the engineers is from Stolford, in Bridgewater Bay, passing through the towns of Bridgewater, Langport, Ilminster, and Chard, to Seaton, on the English Channel. The total length of the canal will be about 45 miles. The canal it- intended fo ho of admitting the largest mercantile steamers afloat, as well as ships of-war. Commenting on the above, our contemporary remarks : — ' From a national point of view this new canal will be of immense importance, as our ironclads would be able to steam across from channel to channel in a couple of hours, j instead of having, as at present, to go round | the Land's End. The greatest benefit would i also accrue to the trade of South Wales.' Tuesday 31 January 1871 The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River General Advertiser (Australia) A SHIP CANAL ACROSS ENGLAND. A scheme for shortening the sea passage between the Bristol and English Channels by the construction of a great western maritime ship canal across the counties of Somerset and Devon, has, it appears, been so far approved by practical men that it is expected to be almost immediately brought before the public in a matured state. Mr. Owen, the projector, proposes to commence at Combivitoh, near the mouth of the river Parrot, on the Bristol Channel, and proceed past Bridgewater, Taunton, and Exeter to Langstono Point At Exmouth Bight a capacious harbour is to be formed, which would be available as a harbour of refuge. The length of this canal is to be 50 miles, its width at surface 124ft. and at bottom 31ft., and the depth 21ft. This would enable all vessels of moderate draught to pass through from sea to sea. The canal, it is considered, would be of immense advantage for coal traffic from Wales ; and, basing his figures on the present consumption, the projector estimates that 4,261,334 tons per annum would pass through the canal, which at 1d per ton per mile would yield £261,894 ; and allowing 35 per cent, for working expenses, the net profit would amount to £170,236, or very nearly five per cent, per annum on the proposed capital of £3,500,000. A question has been raised as to whether coals will bear the charge of 1d. per ton per mile, but it is answered that whereas the distance from Cardiff to Exmouth is 370 miles round the Land's End, by the canal it would be only eighty miles. The saving would therefore be in the carriage 290 miles, or in transit forty-eight hours, the laden screw colliers not averaging more than six knots per hour. The shipowner, it is contended, would consequently, owing to the saving in wear, tear, and fuel, be well able to pay this charge, which on a cargo of 600 tons would only amount to £36 17s. 6d. Once clear of the port at the mouth of the English Channel, a vessel would have a free course for France and all the continental ports, to the eastward, as also to the North Sea and Baltic; whilst it is believed that by shortening the voyage from the Welsh coal ports to the Thames, the anthracite coal of Glamorgan would come in demand in the metropolis for mixture with the bituminous coal of the northern and midland counties. At the same time it is believed that coal from Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport would be brought to the London market as quickly and cheaper than by the present route by railway. Mr. Owen appears to base his calculation for a return on the capital to be expended solely on the coal traffic, but the Shipping Gazette, is discussing the subject, So short a cut into the Bristol Channel would secure a goodly revenue from Baltic timber and grain-laden ships for the Welsh ports, and likewise on those bound to Bristol and Gloucester. "Vessels in ballast from ports to the eastward of Plymouth, chartered to convey steam coal, would also pass through the canal if the tonnage and towage rates were reasonable. Once make a canal of proper construction, opening up a shorter cut to the coal and iron districts of South Wales, and for shipping trading to and from the Avjn and Severn, and the uses to which it may be applied' are almost incalculable." Farther, it states that two bulky productions, coal and iron, would be sufficient to support a channel leading direct to France and Northern Europe from the mining localities bordering, the Welsh coast. As regards engineering difficulties they would appear to be comparatively slight the country through which the canal is to be excavated offering no obstacle for a water level. In providing for railway trains and public roads at points of intersection, drawbridges would have to span the water-way, but such contrivances are easy of accomplishment, as every practical engineer can testify. Of course, before the work can be entered upon, Parliamentary powers must be secured, and these cannot be obtained unless Mr. Owen and his friends are in a position to show that the construction is not only feasible, but that there is a fair prospect of its being financially successful, of which the projectors have no doubt. It is but fair to state that this is not the first time that such a project has been broached; the late Mr. Telford, CE., having proposed to make a water communication from Bridgewater Bay, on the north, to Seaton Bay, via Bridgewater, Chard, and Colyton. Indeed, an Act of Parliament for carrying out the scheme was obtained in 1825, but it fell through for want of capital. In these days of engineering skill and enterprise, however, there would appear to be little fear upon that head should Mr. Owen, as we have stated, succeed in proving to the Legislature the practicability of bia scheme. Of the advantages to the district it is meant to serve, there can be no question.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.