Cavalcade and the NBTA

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

Yes there is an exemption in (ii) for boats being "used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid", but boats CMing do not pass this test. 

 

Which made the previous part of your post irrelevant. 

 

But the current charging system hits CCers. No distinction is made between CCers and CMers. And some home moorers are trying to claim privileges attached to the licence. I think they should check their mooring contracts.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19 by Higgs

[Machpoint005]

9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

No distinction is made between CCers and CMers.

 

There is no distinction to be made, except that one group follows the rules and the other group doesn't. 

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

There is no distinction to be made, except that one group follows the rules and the other group doesn't. 

 

As I said, the chargers make no distinction. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

11 hours ago, dmr said:

Nah, Ive just paid £4.80 for another one of the Cloudwater beers and it was very good, but still lots of stuff at £3.80.

I was right then 😃

2x £3.80

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

No, you'll just want someone else's kids to look after you in your dotage.

 Is it a duty to produce off spring? Am I now  a freeloader for not having them?

Cor blimey can’t do anything right these’d days

[IanD]

11 hours ago, dmr said:

Nah, Ive just paid £4.80 for another one of the Cloudwater beers and it was very good, but still lots of stuff at £3.80.

Price list from the Holy Inadequate last week... 😉

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

no continous moorers preventing you mooring at Etruria?

 

[Machpoint005]

52 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

>> Is it a duty to produce off spring? Am I now  a freeloader for not having them?

Cor blimey can’t do anything right these’d days

 

No, I was merely pointing out basic truth. 

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

Price list from the Holy Inadequate last week... 😉

 

 

 

Not only good prices, but good beer too.

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

No, I was merely pointing out basic truth. 

 

Not only good prices, but good beer too.

 

 

Delicious beer, we tried quite a few of them (with pork pies for lunch, obviously) -- and a lovely pub for getting wedged in too... 🙂 

[Captain Pegg]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I have loads of tolerance for people with different lifestyles to me, regardless of their appearance or wealth or canal usage or anything else, so long as they follow the rules/laws and have consideration for others -- this applies on the canals as much as anywhere else.

 

I don't have much tolerance for piss-takers who ignore rules/laws when it's convenient for them, and act selfishly to the detriment of other people or users of a shared resource like the canals. "CMers" is the label that has been generally used for one group of boaters who do this, with the vociferous support of the NBTA -- and like many others I don't see why I should be nice to them, any more than I should be nice to any other group who flout/break the laws, which after all are one thing that keeps society functioning.

 

There are poor people in all walks of life both on land and the canals who deserve sympathy and support, but the way to do this should be to provide them with a liveable income and perhaps try and make life cheaper for them, for example with a reduced license fee for older boats -- which for some reason many people seem to be dead against, possibly because they might end up paying more as a result -- or in some cases, just because I suggested it... 😉 

 

Though going by the ages of many of the people and boats on CWDF, I suspect they would end mostly up paying less, not more...

 

The term "CMers" is applied to rather more than the relatively small band of boaters who have no intention of moving in accordance with their licence. I've also never known anybody on CWDF - even in the days when it had a far larger and more diverse representation of boaters than it now does - support blatant overstaying.

 

The vast majority of liveaboard boaters without a home mooring operate in a manner that CRT deem sufficient to fulfil licensing requirements. If you are spotted in the same location on two consecutive occasions more than 14 days apart you will receive a reminder of your obligation to keep moving. The entry level of the enforcement regime does work and it serves to keep boaters moving, because ultimately the majority want to renew their licence.

 

A lot of folk would do well to leave CRT to go about their business and work on the assumption that if boats are on the water they are licensed and compliant. The lack of an up to date licence displayed on a boat is not an indicator that a boat isn't licensed. Nor does a boat that gives the the appearance of looking well settled in, or with a rear deck from which it might look impossible to steer - mean the boat never moves.

 

As someone that cruises long distances on a near weekly basis and uses visitor moorings as my preferred option for mooring I can say I rarely find it difficult to moor and if I do it will be because boats have occupied the site, not any particular sort of boat or boater. In any case how do you know which boats on a visitor mooring have a home mooring and which ones don't? My experience of boating in the Home Counties is that liveaboard boaters tend to avoid visitor moorings. Something I see another boater has also mentioned. 

 

Of course it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the rules - or the enforcement - should require more movement than they do, but that does not make it OK to apply a derogatory term to those who would be impacted by such.

 

It's a complex subject that involves outside influence and agencies and any serious debate should treat the affected persons with respect - a mark of tolerance in itself - and that means using the correct terminology. I don't like the term "CCers", it has no legal basis and misleads folk as to what they think is required of others. Unfortunately CRT use it themsleves. The use of the term "CMer" belies prejudice and undermines the point of view of the person using it.

    

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

The term "CMers" is applied to rather more than the relatively small band of boaters who have no intention of moving in accordance with their licence. I've also never known anybody on CWDF - even in the days when it had a far larger and more diverse representation of boaters than it now does - support blatant overstaying.

 

The vast majority of liveaboard boaters without a home mooring operate in a manner that CRT deem sufficient to fulfil licensing requirements. If you are spotted in the same location on two consecutive occasions more than 14 days apart you will receive a reminder of your obligation to keep moving. The entry level of the enforcement regime does work and it serves to keep boaters moving, because ultimately the majority want to renew their licence.

 

A lot of folk would do well to leave CRT to go about their business and work on the assumption that if boats are on the water they are licensed and compliant. The lack of an up to date licence displayed on a boat is not an indicator that a boat isn't licensed. Nor does a boat that gives the the appearance of looking well settled in, or with a rear deck from which it might look impossible to steer - mean the boat never moves.

 

As someone that cruises long distances on a near weekly basis and uses visitor moorings as my preferred option for mooring I can say I rarely find it difficult to moor and if I do it will be because boats have occupied the site, not any particular sort of boat or boater. In any case how do you know which boats on a visitor mooring have a home mooring and which ones don't? My experience of boating in the Home Counties is that liveaboard boaters tend to avoid visitor moorings. Something I see another boater has also mentioned. 

 

Of course it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the rules - or the enforcement - should require more movement than they do, but that does not make it OK to apply a derogatory term to those who would be impacted by such.

 

It's a complex subject that involves outside influence and agencies and any serious debate should treat the affected persons with respect - a mark of tolerance in itself - and that means using the correct terminology. I don't like the term "CCers", it has no legal basis and misleads folk as to what they think is required of others. Unfortunately CRT use it themsleves. The use of the term "CMer" belies prejudice and undermines the point of view of the person using it.

    

 

So how do you distinguish (and what do you call) boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-follow-the-rules-and-keep-moving and boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-flout-the-rules-and-move-as-little-as-possible?

 

Because the first ones are the boaters for who the no-home-mooring (now often called Continuous Cruising -- don't blame me...) exception was devised in the first place, and the second are clearly not. I agree that many of the second class are not on CWDF, but that rather misses the point -- there certainly seem to be plenty of them on the canals.

 

Whether you find overstayers/CMers/whatever a problem is very dependent on where you want to moor; I haven't had problems in London because my boat isn't here, but I see lots of boats doing this on a daily basis. But I have had difficulties finding visitor moorings in recent years in plenty of "honeypot" places like Braunston, Whaley Bridge, Skipton, Sowerby Bridge, Castlefield, Worcester, Stourport (how long a list would you like?) in a way that I never used to have (say) ten years ago -- and many of the boats on such short-term (e.g. 48h) moorings certainly don't look like short-term visitors, they're often still there if I pass by again a week or so later -- and according to @MtB some are still there months later.

 

Of course there are no problems if you want to moor out in the middle of nowhere where other boats are few and far between, but funnily enough some people -- including me -- want to moor in popular towns and villages because of the facilities.

 

If you can devise less divisive/pejorative (and short!) names than "CCers" and "CMers" and get these widely adopted so everyone knows what is being talked about then please feel free.

Edited April 19 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, IanD said:

If you can devise less divisive/pejorative (and short!) names than "CCers" and "CMers" and get these widely adopted so everyone knows what is being talked about then please feel free.

 

 

There is a single word that has the definition "depending on another or others for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return"

 

And there is another single word that has the definition "denoting a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups"

 

I'm sure that they would be found to be pejorative by some.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

So how do you distinguish (and what do you call) boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-follow-the-rules-and-keep-moving and boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-flout-the-rules-and-move-as-little-as-possible?

personally and honestly, whilst I might take a cursory look at another boat and perhaps wonder about them, generally I shrug my shoulders and move on. I really do. It’s not my call. I’ve other stuff to fill my head space with. 
 

I believe CRT are more aware than we might give them credit for.
I’m now meeting boaters who are being told they’ll only be getting a 6 month license unless they move and cover more mileage. And these boaters take it seriously and are moving. Sometimes moving excessively to prove a point. 

I’ve said it earlier in the thread I’m looking forward to going back through London to test how easy or difficult it is to moor and find out how  boaters manage or not to follow the 14 day rule in such a congested area. 
 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

The term "CMers" is applied to rather more than the relatively small band of boaters who have no intention of moving in accordance with their licence. I've also never known anybody on CWDF - even in the days when it had a far larger and more diverse representation of boaters than it now does - support blatant overstaying.

 

The vast majority of liveaboard boaters without a home mooring operate in a manner that CRT deem sufficient to fulfil licensing requirements. If you are spotted in the same location on two consecutive occasions more than 14 days apart you will receive a reminder of your obligation to keep moving. The entry level of the enforcement regime does work and it serves to keep boaters moving, because ultimately the majority want to renew their licence.

 

A lot of folk would do well to leave CRT to go about their business and work on the assumption that if boats are on the water they are licensed and compliant. The lack of an up to date licence displayed on a boat is not an indicator that a boat isn't licensed. Nor does a boat that gives the the appearance of looking well settled in, or with a rear deck from which it might look impossible to steer - mean the boat never moves.

 

As someone that cruises long distances on a near weekly basis and uses visitor moorings as my preferred option for mooring I can say I rarely find it difficult to moor and if I do it will be because boats have occupied the site, not any particular sort of boat or boater. In any case how do you know which boats on a visitor mooring have a home mooring and which ones don't? My experience of boating in the Home Counties is that liveaboard boaters tend to avoid visitor moorings. Something I see another boater has also mentioned. 

 

Of course it's perfectly acceptable to argue that the rules - or the enforcement - should require more movement than they do, but that does not make it OK to apply a derogatory term to those who would be impacted by such.

 

It's a complex subject that involves outside influence and agencies and any serious debate should treat the affected persons with respect - a mark of tolerance in itself - and that means using the correct terminology. I don't like the term "CCers", it has no legal basis and misleads folk as to what they think is required of others. Unfortunately CRT use it themsleves. The use of the term "CMer" belies prejudice and undermines the point of view of the person using it.

    

I think that’s a very good post and needs to be read again. 
It may not change the minds of the die hard bring back hanging brigade on here but for folk out there reading and not posting it might offer them a well

written view on things to mull over. 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

So how do you distinguish (and what do you call) boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-follow-the-rules-and-keep-moving and boaters-without-a-home-mooring-who-flout-the-rules-and-move-as-little-as-possible?

 

Because the first ones are the boaters for who the no-home-mooring (now often called Continuous Cruising -- don't blame me...) exception was devised in the first place, and the second are clearly not. I agree that many of the second class are not on CWDF, but that rather misses the point -- there certainly seem to be plenty of them on the canals.

 

Whether you find overstayers/CMers/whatever a problem is very dependent on where you want to moor; I haven't had problems in London because my boat isn't here, but I see lots of boats doing this on a daily basis. But I have had difficulties finding visitor moorings in recent years in plenty of "honeypot" places like Braunston, Whaley Bridge, Skipton, Sowerby Bridge, Castlefield, Worcester, Stourport (how long a list would you like?) in a way that I never used to have (say) ten years ago -- and many of the boats on such short-term (e.g. 48h) moorings certainly don't look like short-term visitors, they're often still there if I pass by again a week or so later -- and according to @MtB some are still there months later.

 

Of course there are no problems if you want to moor out in the middle of nowhere where other boats are few and far between, but funnily enough some people -- including me -- want to moor in popular towns and villages because of the facilities.

 

If you can devise less divisive/pejorative (and short!) names than "CCers" and "CMers" and get these widely adopted so everyone knows what is being talked about then please feel free.

 

They are boaters Ian. If you want a short name use that. Then describe the action in question rather than label the person.

 

Why does anyone other than CRT need to distinguish their status? Nobody else has any reliable means to do so anyway. My experience is that trying to do so is fraught with danger because people simply do not fall into neat little categories. That's precisely why I post stuff to illustrate that point with my own movements as a boater without a home mooring.

 

Beyond being simply boaters there are liveboard boaters and non-liveaboard boaters, boaters with a home mooring and boaters without a home mooring. Boaters with home moorings may pay a direct mooring fee to CRT, an indirect levy to CRT, or no contribution from their mooring fee whatsoever. Boaters without a home mooring may pay a direct fee to CRT for winter moorings, no contribution at all or maybe (I'm unsure if it applies) an indirect fee for short term moorings in NCAA marinas.

 

This is where your parity of fee per boater argument falls down a little because to even know the relevant contributions simply between boaters with a home mooring and those without as a whole you'd need to establish the numbers that fall into each category and the fees they pay. For instance I contribute more direct fee to CRT through winter mooring fees than you do from your 9% NCAA contribution in your marina mooring fee. But it's me that pays the licence surcharge not you. There wasn't parity before, there still isn't and there never will be, although it is possibly more equitable now. There's also no absolute reason why there should be, it just seems to appeal to your sense of logic.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Captain Pegg

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

a deliberately argumentative question : why can’t the 9% NCAA contribution be doubled ? or even tripled?

 

if 4 in 5 boaters have a home mooring then wouldn’t it make sense to increase their contribution  to raise CRT funds?

 

[Captain Pegg]

10 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

a deliberately argumentative question : why can’t the 9% NCAA contribution be doubled ? or even tripled?

 

if 4 in 5 boaters have a home mooring then wouldn’t it make sense to increase their contribution  to raise CRT funds?

 

Nothing like 4 out of 5 boaters pay the 9% levy. That’s only those in NCAA marinas.

 

Even if it were contractually possibly I don’t think it would be wise.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

Nothing like 4 out of 5 boaters pay the 9% levy. That’s only those in NCAA marinas.

 

Even if it were contractually possibly I don’t think it would be wise.

Was just a thought,

why not extract more money from the majority rather than the minority. 
it’s be more fruitful. 
 

🤷‍♀️

[dmr]

Since we have relocated our "winter canal" from the K&A to the Rochdale I have very much changed my thinking about "short distance CC'ing. Canals need boats, amd especially they need good boaters. A good boater is anyone that adds a bit of life to te canals and does not antagonise the locals. The only real issue is massive overcrowding that prevent other boates from visiting the area, and even this is a relative sort of thing. Trying to encourage or even force boats to move a longer distance is not a good way to tackle congestion. CRT are a bit limited by the waterway act but with a bit of thought and luck there are probably better approaches.

Some places are popular and will always be busy even without over stayers. Stone springs to mind. I am with Goliath on this, its ok if its difficult to find a mooring, or a long walk to the pub, its only a real problem if you go somewhere and there is just nowhere to moor. Visiting places that are popular and rammed, and then moving to the lonely widerness, is all part of the fun.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

13 minutes ago, dmr said:

Since we have relocated our "winter canal" from the K&A to the Rochdale I have very much changed my thinking about "short distance CC'ing. Canals need boats, amd especially they need good boaters. A good boater is anyone that adds a bit of life to te canals and does not antagonise the locals. The only real issue is massive overcrowding that prevent other boates from visiting the area, and even this is a relative sort of thing. Trying to encourage or even force boats to move a longer distance is not a good way to tackle congestion. CRT are a bit limited by the waterway act but with a bit of thought and luck there are probably better approaches.

Some places are popular and will always be busy even without over stayers. Stone springs to mind. I am with Goliath on this, its ok if its difficult to find a mooring, or a long walk to the pub, its only a real problem if you go somewhere and there is just nowhere to moor. Visiting places that are popular and rammed, and then moving to the lonely widerness, is all part of the fun.

 

we’ve travelled together many times and with a 70+ footer like yours you’ve always managed somewhere.

sometimes I get the small space and you moor to the outside 😃

get yourself south and test moorings to the limits !

 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

27 minutes ago, dmr said:

Since we have relocated our "winter canal" from the K&A to the Rochdale I have very much changed my thinking about "short distance CC'ing. Canals need boats, amd especially they need good boaters. A good boater is anyone that adds a bit of life to te canals and does not antagonise the locals. The only real issue is massive overcrowding that prevent other boates from visiting the area, and even this is a relative sort of thing. Trying to encourage or even force boats to move a longer distance is not a good way to tackle congestion. CRT are a bit limited by the waterway act but with a bit of thought and luck there are probably better approaches.

Some places are popular and will always be busy even without over stayers. Stone springs to mind. I am with Goliath on this, its ok if its difficult to find a mooring, or a long walk to the pub, its only a real problem if you go somewhere and there is just nowhere to moor. Visiting places that are popular and rammed, and then moving to the lonely widerness, is all part of the fun.

 

Absolutely spot on.
 

My attitude to towpath moored liveaboards has changed over the decade I’ve owned a boat. People are as much a part of canals as the boats and the infrastructure.

 

The one thing I really don’t like though is those that colonise the towpath. You can have your space on the water for 14 days but the towpath isn’t an extension of your home anymore than the street outside my house is mine.

 

On the subject of mooring anyone with a licence is permitted to use a visitor mooring. The status of the boater is irrelevant if they were there first and are not overstaying. If they are routinely full the solution is to extend the VMs. 

 

One thing that is perhaps worthy of change is the default to 14 days for visitor moorings between October and March. You will be familiar with live aboard communities that pitch up in one place for a couple of weeks then move on to the next. In summer VMs are generally not of interest to these folks but I have noticed that once October comes around they may occupy VMs for 14 days. I wonder if perhaps it should be take a winter mooring - which usually are on VMs - or make do with the general towpath all year.

Edited April 19 by Captain Pegg

[agg221]

My perspective, and that's all it is.

 

We are leisure boaters with a home mooring. We boat within the rules, so that defines a range, particularly since a lot of our boating is limited to a weekend at a time.We have had our mooring for nearly three years. In that time, I have become aware of three boats operating outside the rules. I have spoken to the owners of two of them (not about the rules, just a general conversation).

 

One has not moved in the time we have had our mooring. It has holes in the hull and is on the edge of complete collapse. I do not know specifically whether it is licenced or insured, but it looks likely that it is not. The owner has no particular means of financial support, and upgraded to this from living under a tarpaulin in the woods. If you were to pass the boat, you would identify its condition, but there are no other signs of how long it may have been there. The boat is in an isolated spot, well away from amenities and is in no way causing an obstruction or adversely affecting other users. There is nothing on the towpath and the area is neat and tidy. The owner is likely to be seen outside the boat and give you a cheerful wave. In a purely commercial sense there is non-payment of a fee due but practically speaking the fee would be derived from the government (ie taxpayer) and there is no use of resources or observable negative impact on either other users or the surrounding environment, so I feel that pragmatically there is no advantage to be gained in changing the status quo.

 

The second is a grp cabin cruiser. It would not particularly catch anyone's attention on passing - a bit patched up on the plastic windows and it must be very cold. It moves (the outboard is fitted) but definitely not far enough to 'satisfy the board' although it does not overstay at any particular location. Again, the choice of moorings is rural locations, mainly near bridges, because the owner has a child at primary school (who does not live with them) and stays close enough to regularly see them. They are not compliant, but they are doing the best they can and again are not having a negative impact on other users or the surrounding environment, and I cannot see another reasonable option so again, pragmatically I see no advantage in changing the status quo.

 

I have not met the owner of the third boat. This is moored much closer to amenities and is occupying a location where visiting boats moor adjacent to it or a regular basis, although the area is not so heavily occupied that a visiting boat could not find a mooring. The boat is newer and in better condition. The owner has begun to fill the towpath adjacent to their boat with sacks of coal, a large cargo bike etc. This boat is just beginning to annoy me because its owner appears to have a sense of entitlement to behave in this way. Another boat in the area creates a similar general impression but is on a residential mooring on the offside bank where they have permission from the owner to store coal etc. and I compare what these two boats are contributing/taking. The first two boats do not create the same impression as the third. I don't think this is because I have had conversations with their owners, I think it is because the first two owners have taken a conscious choice to minimise the impact on others of the situation which has been imposed on them and the latter has not. I have had no personal dealings with NBTA, but the press content they issue has this similar sense of entitlement which is what grates with me.

 

Alec

Edited April 19 by agg221

[magnetman]

21 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

The one thing I really don’t like though is those that colonise the towpath. You can have your space on the water for 14 days but the towpath isn’t an extension of your home anymore than the street outside my house is mine.

 

Yes. Using the land is a problem. It always has been and always will be a problem. Territorial disputes are the basis of major international wars. If you live on Boats (I do) then be careful with your use of shared land resources.  There is an instinctive driver to take control of land but where this is publicly owned then it is important to avoid using it for anything other than tying the Boat up. 

 

The CRT need to have a zero tolerance policy about this and enforce it rigorously. Nothing on the land or conflict will come. 

 

 

Edited April 19 by magnetman

[dmr]

50 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Absolutely spot on.
 

My attitude to towpath moored liveaboards has changed over the decade I’ve owned a boat. People are as much a part of canals as the boats and the infrastructure.

 

The one thing I really don’t like though is those that colonise the towpath. You can have your space on the water for 14 days but the towpath isn’t an extension of your home anymore than the street outside my house is mine.

 

 

 

Colonising the pavement and sometimes blocking the road is still quite common in the backstreets of Hebden Bridge, and a couple of spots in Todmorden. 😀  and the most common colonisers of the towpath are a certain type of leisure boater who set up picnic tables and foding chairs outside their boat sometimes totally blocking the towpath.

I am not too bothered about really bad stuff like mooring on a lock landing (which I have done many times), its fine if you arrive late and leave early and its not a busy canal. I think its the attitude that matters and quite often it does feel llike some boat dwellers are just putting two fingers up to other canal users.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

11 minutes ago, dmr said:

  and the most common colonisers of the towpath are a certain type of leisure boater who set up picnic tables and foding chairs outside their boat sometimes totally blocking the towpath.

😂🤣😂 yes, 

 

..and it can be just as intimidating as drunks on a lock landing

Edited April 19 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[dmr]

43 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

😂🤣😂 yes, 

 

..and it can be just as intimidating as drunks on a lock landing

 

The really bad things are fishermen on any lock landing, and unattended boats on a lock landing on a river. Mooring on water taps is also pretty antisocial.

Actually we did this at Todmorden last week as there was no other space. Fenders down in case anybody wanted to get water, and a hire boat did turn up. We helped them get alongside, lent them our hose, had a good chat, and they gave us a bar of vegan chocolate in return 😀

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

27 minutes ago, dmr said:

 

The really bad things are fishermen on any lock landing, and unattended boats on a lock landing on a river. Mooring on water taps is also pretty antisocial.

Actually we did this at Todmorden last week as there was no other space. Fenders down in case anybody wanted to get water, and a hire boat did turn up. We helped them get alongside, lent them our hose, had a good chat, and they gave us a bar of vegan chocolate in return 😀

now I don’t mind fisherists so much on a lock landing IF they know what’s what, 

the odd few I’ve encountered have accepted they’re in the wrong place and lift their rods and shuffle back,

I’d rather fisherists on a lock landing to other boats, tourists dangling their feet or the deckchair folk

…the thought of a vegan chocolate bar is quite a shocking,

how’s that work?

the Flapper had a beer on the other week advertised as vegan,

no fish bladders in the making I guess, which isn’t that unusual, 🤷‍♀️

 

Edited April 19 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer
And you need to listen to that there Slade song at full belt!