Jump to content

CRT Licensing Review final report


TheBiscuits

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

The standard working boats up here on the L&L were a little wider than 7' 1/2", but I take your point.

Ribble was told a couple of years ago that the Leeds Liverpool was never designed for such a big boat, which raised the question of which canal the CRT twonk thought Leeds Liverpool short boats were supposed to be on!

I thought the new standard 6'10" was to allow room for those annoying pipe fenders - if we go to 6'8" they'll all start using balloon fenders instead! :)

 

Get that all the time with working boats on narrow canals.

If a new standard width of 6' 8" was ever declared you wouldn't be going anywhere with a modern 6' 10" boat as CRT wouldn't need to work on narrowing locks until they shrunk to 6' 8"ish  saving themselves a fortune.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relieved to see no CCing premium has been introduced - that would have put a bit of a damper on our plans to move on board in a few months' time! And I've always thought the most common argument made for charging CCers more in general - that they make heavier use of CRT facilities/infrastructure than boaters with home moorings - is pretty questionable, to say the least. Seems much more sensible to address the problem of overcrowding in areas like London as a distinct issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the success on the Lancaster canal and lots of visitor moorings around the country being now 48 hours .Will London canals go this way with a £25 a day charge for overstaying ?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Detling said:

Thought the EA merger sank last year, is someone going to salvage it?

Hopefully it will stay sunk cart haven't a clue when it comes to managing waterways at least the EA know how to manage waterways they just need more money 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, b0atman said:

After the success on the Lancaster canal and lots of visitor moorings around the country being now 48 hours .Will London canals go this way with a £25 a day charge for overstaying ?

£25 per day is not enough, London has two types of live aboard boaters, those with little or no money for whom £10 per day would be to much, and those who can afford big VAT free widebeams (12.5 x 65 foot) to whom £25 is still cheaper then a mooring, let alone a residential mooring (25 x 365 = 9125) can you find a London mooring for that price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

 

Does it annoy anyone else that the forum spall chucker can't spell "licence" in UK English? It gets "licensing" right though.

Yes, very much so, and it's not just the spelling of some words but all the  'Americanisms' that have crept in to our language generally. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Grassman said:

Yes, very much so, and it's not just the spelling of some words but all the  'Americanisms' that have crept in to our language generally. 

Sho' nuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Grassman said:

Yes, very much so, and it's not just the spelling of some words but all the  'Americanisms' that have crept in to our language generally. 

Go figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Machpoint005 said:

Does it annoy anyone else that the forum spall chucker can't spell "licence" in UK English? It gets "licensing" right though.

No, even though it jarrs, because it doesn't matter. What really annoys is that we are still using all these completely archaic spelling and grammar systems just because we inherited them.  It is time we revised written and spoken English to make it phonetic (ie if you can say it then you can spell it) and unambiguous and simple.  We have got some sense into measurement via metrication, we need to do the same for one of the most important tools in our lives, language.  We can preserve current English as "classical" English though that risks it becoming a marker of membership of an elite class who can afford to spend money on learning stuff that has no other value than to denote membership of that class.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, system 4-50 said:

It is time we revised written and spoken English to make it phonetic (ie if you can say it then you can spell it) and unambiguous and simple.  

I seem to remember the rebels across the Atlantic tried that -- and look at the wonderfully logical system they have now (/sarcasm off).

Written English was standardised, somewhat randomly, only a couple of centuries ago but the wide variation in spelling of a particular phoneme is a result of the rich cultural ancestry of our language (Latin, French, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Norse etc). I rather like it that way.

1 minute ago, Athy said:

You should catalog the offending words.

And use a computer program to help you?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

No, even though it jarrs, because it doesn't matter. What really annoys is that we are still using all these completely archaic spelling and grammar systems just because we inherited them.  It is time we revised written and spoken English to make it phonetic (ie if you can say it then you can spell it) and unambiguous and simple.  We have got some sense into measurement via metrication, we need to do the same for one of the most important tools in our lives, language.  We can preserve current English as "classical" English though that risks it becoming a marker of membership of an elite class who can afford to spend money on learning stuff that has no other value than to denote membership of that class.

The last time that was tried we ended up with Esperanto!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

We can preserve current English as "classical" English though that risks it becoming a marker of membership of an elite class who can afford to spend money on learning stuff that has no other value than to denote membership of that class.

But what then happens to Shakespeare.No one will understand it.....Oh hang on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

 It is time we revised written and spoken English to make it phonetic (ie if you can say it then you can spell it) and unambiguous and simple.

This was tried many years ago (I'm guessing late 60s) when my younger sister was in Junior school, they had two years of education teaching them to spell / write phonetically.

When she went up to Senior School the whole system was scrapped and reverted back to 'proper' spelling. It took her years to catch up and spell properly.

 

Found some details on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Teaching_Alphabet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

No, even though it jarrs, because it doesn't matter. What really annoys is that we are still using all these completely archaic spelling and grammar systems just because we inherited them.  It is time we revised written and spoken English to make it phonetic (ie if you can say it then you can spell it) and unambiguous and simple.  We have got some sense into measurement via metrication, we need to do the same for one of the most important tools in our lives, language.  We can preserve current English as "classical" English though that risks it becoming a marker of membership of an elite class who can afford to spend money on learning stuff that has no other value than to denote membership of that class.

+1 for that, but i would go a stage further and sort the alphabet out first.

 

17 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

 

 

Edited by rasputin
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

No, even though it jarrs, because it doesn't matter. What really annoys is that we are still using all these completely archaic spelling and grammar systems just because we inherited them.  It is time we revised written and spoken English to make it phonetic (ie if you can say it then you can spell it) and unambiguous and simple.  We have got some sense into measurement via metrication, we need to do the same for one of the most important tools in our lives, language.  We can preserve current English as "classical" English though that risks it becoming a marker of membership of an elite class who can afford to spend money on learning stuff that has no other value than to denote membership of that class.

No no no and again no. Tell me what is sensible about metrication?   Tell me a metric measurement that makes sense in the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

No, even though it jarrs, because it doesn't matter. What really annoys is that we are still using all these completely archaic spelling and grammar systems 

...of which "jarrs" is no doubt one - unless you can shew otherwise.

(I was surprised to find that the spelling "shew" was in common use later than I thought, certainly well into the 20th century).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.