Sue Burchett | 1 Jun 09:02 2007
Picon
Picon

RE: Off the grid

>
>Hi Folks,
>
>The London regional news program on BBC1 just had a feature about
>living "off the grid". Of course, one such group are boaters.
>
>This bloke, in his own words, "Im a constant cruiser, so I can only
>park on the towpath side, stay for 14 days in one place".
>
>However, with both him and his daughter (going to school) living on
>board I suspect he travels very little on the canal. It was another
>anonymous gray boat, on honey pot (visiter?) moorings next to the
>Islington tunnel.
>
>This is yet another poor excuse for continuous cruising, and I really
>wish BW could do more to control these boaters. People are using this
>loop hole to live where they like without paying for moorings, and not
>even really interested in the canals on which they live.
>
>I think it will be repeated on the 6:30 bulletin, so keep a watch out.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

You are swift to condem someone who says he is complying. Some of us believe boats are made to move and don't
want to be in a 'prison', sorry marina.
Sue nb Nackered Navvy 

 
(Continue reading)

Anne Coleman | 1 Jun 09:55 2007
Picon

Re: Off the grid


>
>This is yet another poor excuse for continuous cruising, and I really
>wish BW could do more to control these boaters. People are using this
>loop hole to live where they like without paying for moorings, and not
>even really interested in the canals on which they live.

I agree there are some people who live on boats, who are only there 
because they are cheap housing, but not all continuous cruisers are 
like that. Just because someone doesn't have a nice shiny boat which 
they keep in a marina, doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the canals.
To infer someone has no interest in canals from a short TV interview 
is appalling hubris! This is just like middle-class caravanners 
looking down on gypsies and wanting them moved on, because they live 
in vans all year round and can't afford extortionate campsite charges 
(even if they are allowed to use them!)

Why should continuous cruisers have to excuse themselves for what 
they do? Surely they are the ones who are using the canals as they 
should be used- not those who emerge from their marinas once or twice 
a year and moan because they can't tie up where they would like?
Again, to deduce that someone doesn't move much from their appearance 
and the position of their boat is just plain WRONG! It's perfectly 
possible the TV program arranged to meet them somewhere convenient 
for the interviewer.

Anne C
NB Movealong getalong go move shift 

 
(Continue reading)

BARRY HOLLAND | 1 Jun 11:28 2007
Picon

Re: Slow Internet (was 'long lining")


Phil & Anne Irons <ve1bvd@...> wrote:    On 5/31/07, BARRY HOLLAND wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Well done Marie--I don't feel *quite* so deprived now! Is it hard getting
> the boat up a mountain??:--))
> Barry
> Nb ocanada

No, you twit!! That's what LOCKS are for!!! :-)

Phil
nb truenorthstrong&free

--

-- 
Phil & Anne Irons
Sydney, Nova Scotia

Sigh....just can't get the Canadians! :-))
  Barry
  Nb whythelongfaceceline?

       
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your freeaccount today.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
(Continue reading)

Michael Askin | 1 Jun 11:29 2007
Picon

Re: Off the grid

On 6/1/07, Anne Coleman <wiseowl@...> wrote:
>
> >This is yet another poor excuse for continuous cruising, and I really
> >wish BW could do more to control these boaters. People are using this
> >loop hole to live where they like without paying for moorings, and not
> >even really interested in the canals on which they live.
>
> I agree there are some people who live on boats, who are only there
> because they are cheap housing, but not all continuous cruisers are
> like that.

I agree, just look at the continuous cruisers on this list - they go
all over the country.

> Just because someone doesn't have a nice shiny boat which
> they keep in a marina, doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the canals.

I also agree - Shoestring is in a right state at the moment! :-)
Kismet is currently an anonymous green boat, but we are busy using it
while we are fitting it out. We moor on our own paid for mooring, and
when cruising canals stay not more than 2 weeks in any one place
(without permission of the local BW). The only reason we do this is
because we have to work, and so occasionally weekend the boat.

> To infer someone has no interest in canals from a short TV interview
> is appalling hubris! This is just like middle-class caravanners
> looking down on gypsies and wanting them moved on, because they live
> in vans all year round and can't afford extortionate campsite charges
> (even if they are allowed to use them!)

(Continue reading)

davidmackuk | 1 Jun 12:14 2007
Picon

Re: Off the grid

--- In canals-list@..., "Sue Burchett" <sue <at> ...> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi Folks,
> >
> >The London regional news program on BBC1 just had a feature about
> >living "off the grid". Of course, one such group are boaters.
> >
> >This bloke, in his own words, "Im a constant cruiser, so I can 
only
> >park on the towpath side, stay for 14 days in one place".
> >
> >However, with both him and his daughter (going to school) living 
on
> >board I suspect he travels very little on the canal. It was 
another
> >anonymous gray boat, on honey pot (visiter?) moorings next to the
> >Islington tunnel.
> >
> >This is yet another poor excuse for continuous cruising, and I 
really
> >wish BW could do more to control these boaters. People are using 
this
> >loop hole to live where they like without paying for moorings, 
and not
> >even really interested in the canals on which they live.
> >
> >I think it will be repeated on the 6:30 bulletin, so keep a watch 
out.
> >
(Continue reading)

Bruce Napier | 1 Jun 13:05 2007
Picon

Re: Re: Off the grid


On 1 Jun 2007, at 11:14, davidmackuk wrote:

> The issue is surely not whether this particular chap is or is not
> complying with the continuous cruiser rules. My concern is that the
> BBC has just sent a message out to the wider world that its OK to
> live on a boat, pitch up on the towpath anywhere and hold down
> conventional job and school arrangements - just the sort of thing
> that leads to honeypot mooring sites being occupied for extended
> periods by people who are not genuine continuous cruisers, and quite
> different from Sue and other CCs on this list.
>
Thanks for that!

It seems to me that the crucial issue is not about the minutiae of BW's 
imposed interpretation of CCing, but whether people who do have local 
commitments are spoiling it for the rest of us. That mainly comes down 
to blocking VMs and creating extra lengths of on-line mooring.

There's a trickier bit about the loss of amenity for the rest of us if 
mooring sites become cluttered with junk, like the section beyond the 
puddle banks at Braunston, because that's an aesthetic judgement about 
which Sue and I disagree.

It seems that from BW's point of view, there's a de jure situation 
which would make compliance with the CC rules *almost* impossible for 
those with local commitments (being engaged in a genuine journey round 
the system or a substantial part of it, for example) though again some 
members of this list manage to achieve that. And there's a de facto 
situation where local BW staff use their judgement about the blocking 
(Continue reading)

Mike Stevens | 1 Jun 16:18 2007
Picon

Re: Re: Off the grid

On Friday, June 01, 2007 11:14 AM [GMT+1=CET],
davidmackuk <david.mack@...> wrote:

> The issue is surely not whether this particular chap is or is not
> complying with the continuous cruiser rules. My concern is that the
> BBC has just sent a message out to the wider world that its OK to
> live on a boat, pitch up on the towpath anywhere and hold down
> conventional job and school arrangements - just the sort of thing
> that leads to honeypot mooring sites being occupied for extended
> periods by people who are not genuine continuous cruisers, and quite
> different from Sue and other CCs on this list.

How much of this did the programme actually say?   How much did they imply 
in a way that would be understood only by people already incolved in canals? 
And how much is you reading between the lines of what they said from a 
position of significant knowledge of the cut?

Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk 

 
marie heaster | 1 Jun 16:58 2007
Picon

Re: Canadian Locks (was Slow Internet)

--- BARRY HOLLAND <barryhollanduk@...> wrote:

 
> Phil & Anne Irons <ve1bvd@...> wrote:    On
> 5/31/07, BARRY HOLLAND wrote:

> > Well done Marie--I don't feel *quite* so deprived
> now! Is it hard getting
> > the boat up a mountain??:--))
> > Barry
> > Nb ocanada
>  
> No, you twit!! That's what LOCKS are for!!! :-)
> 
> Phil
> nb truenorthstrong&free

> Phil & Anne Irons
> Sydney, Nova Scotia
>  
> Sigh....just can't get the Canadians! :-))
>   Barry
>   Nb whythelongfaceceline?
> 
Hi Barry & Phil - have patience we're engineering the
lock system. 
Now let's see..... 7 land miles between us and the
Thompson River..... 2300 feet elevation change between
the river and the pond at the bottom of the
garden..... with an average lock depth of 8 feet the
(Continue reading)

Mack, David | 1 Jun 17:16 2007
Picon

RE: Canadian Locks (was Slow Internet)


Marie Heaster wrote:

> Hi Barry & Phil - have patience we're engineering the lock system. 
> Now let's see..... 7 land miles between us and the Thompson 
> River..... 2300 feet elevation change between the river and 
> the pond at the bottom of the garden..... with an average 
> lock depth of 8 feet the number of locks we'll need........
> 
> Oh, well, back to the drawing board.

With that much difference in level you need an inclined plane.  Or
perhaps one of these:

http://www.homebuiltfunicular.com/v/DSC00047.JPG.html
http://www.homebuiltfunicular.com/v/DSC00047.JPG.html

And this is what travels up and down it:

http://www.homebuiltfunicular.com/v/DSC00015.JPG.html

David Mack

 
J.R.Alsop | 1 Jun 20:05 2007
Picon
Picon

Re: Off the grid

I don't know about people using canals as they should be used, I make a living moving freight on the canals,
that was what they were built for.
I see boats tied up in the southeast that have not moved for years, some have a licence displayed, some not.
In days way back no one would dream of mooring in some of the places that they do now.
We have to slow down continually to boat past boats where they should not be!.
I get all the time "slow down" you are going to fast ( usually about 2mph) when passing these boats that are not
tied up in a proper manner.
If any one wants a trip on a real working boat/barge to see how it should be done on the canals just let me know.
I know canals are for all but after 50 years boating I am getting a little disillusioned about it all.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anne Coleman 
  To: canals-list@... 
  Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [canals-list] Off the grid

  >
  >This is yet another poor excuse for continuous cruising, and I really
  >wish BW could do more to control these boaters. People are using this
  >loop hole to live where they like without paying for moorings, and not
  >even really interested in the canals on which they live.

  I agree there are some people who live on boats, who are only there 
  because they are cheap housing, but not all continuous cruisers are 
  like that. Just because someone doesn't have a nice shiny boat which 
  they keep in a marina, doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the canals.
  To infer someone has no interest in canals from a short TV interview 
  is appalling hubris! This is just like middle-class caravanners 
  looking down on gypsies and wanting them moved on, because they live 
  in vans all year round and can't afford extortionate campsite charges 
(Continue reading)


Gmane