kfurbank

I wouldn't bank on it changing the attitude of RBKC council to much. Before the recent improvement works the whole of Grenfell Tower and a number of the low rise blocks around it were provided by communal hot water and heating by a series of gas fired boilers in the basement of Grenfell Tower. After the work Grenfell Tower's apartments each had their own boiler, but the low rise blocks were still provided by the boilers in Grenfell's basement, which is no more. At present their are two smaller and three larger low rise blocks housing hundreds of families that still have no hot water, or gas for cooking. They are being told they do not qualify for re-housing or hotel accommodation. Part of the London Underground track is still closed because of the risk of debris falling from Grenfell. The track is further away than a lot of the low rise blocks!!! There was asbestos in Grenfell Tower that was known about and deemed safe as long as it wasn't disturbed!!! Like 9/11 there will have been all sorts of chemicals and carcinogens released into the air around Grenfell Tower. Are they testing the local area yet? It is a national disgrace.

On the basis that I saw those boats somewhere near Herringfleet with 2 people on board 2 of the boats and 3 people on the final one, I would assume that the rest of the party were picked up after that point and that cars had already been moved to where the rest were picked up from. If the rest were picked up from Reedham, then maybe the plan was to leave the cars there and get the train back first thing Sunday. All of which means there was a fair degree of pre meditation to picking up other people and planning on leaving the boats in Norwich?

Did the three boats concerned have bunting on them? I ask because we were passed by three day boats from WRC around 11am Saturday morning near Herringfleet and there were two people on two of the boats with three on the last. If these are the same boats then it would seem that they picked up a lot of passengers somewhere after Herringfleet, possibly at Reedham? If so it must be very hard for the yards to regulate this from happening.

Who hasn't taken the issue to court and been proven right or wrong. I grant you, a learned man who also knows how to play the planning system to his advantage and has the odd axe to grind. I feel sure if you or James had purchased properties opposite Jenners, with full knowledge of the covenant, and that had been part of the basis for your decision to purchase, you would both have a different view on the matter.

It is, and they did or so I thought? high court judgement and all that.

But the ones that have been approved didn't have an existing covenant on the land, whereas Jenners does. Never let the facts get in the way of a good BA bashing

Is that entirely fair Peter? I agree with the first part of that sentence, but the second part? AYB was expanded significantly to provide extra moorings, Sutton boatyard have also expanded recently, as has the mooring near Thurne Mouth which has just dug out another basin. I don't think there is a reticence to authorise additional moorings if private finance wants to dig them / build them. Jenners was the subject of a covenant which rightly the local planning authority had to enforce for the benefit of people who purchased properties in good faith expecting the covenant to be complied with. Conveniently forgetting that fact doesn't equal a reticence to authorising additional moorings par se. You can keep on bashing the BA, but Carningle sold the land and entered willingly into the covenant, why not bash them?

Surprisingly, I haven't received one yet!! The Authority do have the power to make such a request, they just prefer not to use it in favour of the dubious self declaration. About 2 years ago they sent out 100 requests to test compliance and this was due to be repeated. You could be one of the lucky 100 this time, or it could be the start of something different. Steve Birtles has always maintained that it is for the owner to satisfy themselves that their insurance meets the requirements of the act, and not The BA. If they are asking to see a copy of your insurance, then I'm assuming they must be doing the checking properly, which is at odds to Steve's stance??

Like Vanessan I also contacted the BA about this, without of course knowing at the time that Vanessan had made contact. Anyway the answer from the BA is not good in the short term. Half the mooring is closed because the sheet steel piling has deteriorated and there are holes and sharp edges. The BA are finding it hard to maintain secure and safe fixings for the timber fendering and safety chains. The open section is in slightly better condition and being monitored and kept open for now. The BA manages the moorings and maintains everything apart from the steel piling which is owned by the EA and it requires major investment for them to replace it. The BA are in discussion with the EA to find out their plans, but don't expect anything to happen this year. The ranger did also mention that boats have been mooring up stream of the BA mooring, and makes the valid point that this is private land and they do no guarantee the depth of or the ground conditions. There have been ongoing reptile surveys along there and Adders have been seen along that section of piling. So it looks like we are in the hands of the EA, and don't expect any quick action, and the remaining section is only open subject to regular inspections.

I think there have been shallow water at low tide signs there for a while. Perhaps that is the issue?

I've seen plenty of boats have a problem departing with the tide under them and giving the boat in front of them a hefty clump. They would have little chance if faced with a double moored boat in front of them. The tide is your friend if you know how to use it properly. In the wrong hands it's a recipe for disaster. It might be a double mooring site, but I wouldn't fancy arriving, or leaving in all but the slackest tides if double mooring, whereas single mooring I'm happy arriving single handed in any state of the tide there. For any boat double mooring there they would need some long lines given the rise and fall and the fact that the outside boat should be tied to the bank, not the boat it's alongside. Given some of the bits of string I've seen on many hire boats, that probably rules them out from being the boat on the outside.

Closed for good? or repair?

I cannot find the article now, but I think they had multiple immigration offences at The Kings Arms and another restaurant they owned. Some more info on this thread.

If you mean the Chinese, aren't the owners doing time at her majesty's pleasure?

How do you remove someone from this country, that was born in this country? Where would you send them?

I have now progressed the complaint to a level three complaint, which means it now has to go to John Packman for his review. In the light of his comments made during a recent debate on another forum, and copied in my last post on this thread, I have quoted his words and included the relevant links to the FCA and Spanish DGS websites which contain reference to insurance companies that are NOT authorised to broker or underwrite insurance in the UK. Time to tell whether the man is true to his word or not? but he can no longer deny being made aware. Stage 2 of the complaint was slightly protracted due to me receiving a 5 page response from the BA's solicitor (level 2 complaint response) which took a little while to digest, receive advice on, and respond to. As expected the solicitor rejected the complaint on various very weak grounds, however the most pertinent point was where he said "I would agree that there is no reference in the Act or Byelaws to self declaration" then goes on to try and justify it anyway. He then goes on to point out "section 21(1) of the 2009 act sets out a procedure whereby an authorised officer of the Broads Authority may require such information or document as is available regarding any policy of insurance" etc. This is not disputed, however there is a big difference between "declaration" and "information" Information: Facts provided or learned about something or someone Declaration: A formal or explicit statement or announcement Source Oxforddictionaries.com The powers under the act give them the right to seek information, as in request to see a copy of an insurance document, but don't extend to seeking a declaration from the vessel owner. Seeking information puts the onus where it should be, on the BA to check that your insurance complies. Making a declaration has legal implications should it then turn out that you do not have the correct insurance. As David Harris has said there is no reference in the Act or Byelaws to self declaration, I remain wary of making any such legal declaration and will continue to progress the complaint. The Authority is assuming powers it does not have, whilst neglecting to use the powers it does have, as it then shifts the onus of responsibility from the Authority to the vessel owner. The cheque for payment remains uncashed and with the toll office. I have passed the rangers six times on the river during this toll year, none have taken the opportunity to stop me and make a request to see insurance documents. Likewise there has been no formal request from Yare House, under the powers that the Authority unquestionably have, to see a copy of any insurance documents. Instead they are still insisting I make the declaration, which in all reality since the phone calls are not recorded and the paper and online declarations are so poorly worded are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, but at least it means they can continue to pay lip service to enforcing the third party insurance requirements, for now!

So I was with you to a point. I single handed moor frequently and the ropes do go on before I turn the engine off, when solo cruising it is hard to be in two places at once, however I tend to go for the secure a line front and back and turn the engine off, then worry about securing the lines at the right length for the evening including springs if needed. However you lost me with your second from last paragraph which is defensive beyond belief. If someone came to have a moan about you running your engine to warm it before leaving the mooring, wouldn't attempt to educate them about why before giving them your two word answer?

I believe the BA 24hr rule enforced by the BA byelaws only apply to BA moorings, or those managed by the BA. The parish council would need it's own byelaws and means of enforcing them. Recently NNDC has signed a short term agreement with the BA for Pyes Mill and BA signage has appeared there which lets the BA enforce the 24hr rule there which was probably far cheaper than NNDC taking its own action against overstayers.

Was he awaiting a prop repair? Still at least there was one extra space at Sutton Staithe for a change.

Off course pro rata a 3 or 4 day break is more expensive per day than a week long break. Therefore logic would suggest booking two full weeks as it works out cheaper.

Speedtriple, please do not mis quote, or put your own interpretation on my posts. The following is taken from the Food Standards Agency Website. I have highlighted a section for your benefit. The rating given shows how well the business is doing overall but also takes account of the element or elements most in need of improving (see ‘How is a hygiene rating worked out?’ above) and also the level of risk to people’s health that these issues pose. This is because some businesses will do well in some areas and less well in others but each of the three elements checked is essential for making sure that food hygiene standards meet requirements and the food served or sold to you is safe to eat. To get the top rating of ‘5’, businesses must do well in all three elements. Those with ratings of ‘0’ are very likely to be performing poorly in all three elements and are likely to have a history of serious problems. There may, for example, be a lack of sufficient cleaning and disinfection, and there may not be a good enough system of management in place to check and record what the business does to make sure the food is safe.

I wonder how long before the usual apologists come along and defend eating in a 1 or 2 hygiene rating establishment. It has been said on previous threads if things are that bad, why isn't action taken. Well it looks like it finally is, and not before time.

Robin has done a good job of pointing out some of the risks. We all know that boats run aground for all kinds of reasons, or a lack of concentration and they are up the bank. If such a thing happened on this boat and it came to a shuddering stop, the cook would probably fall over backwards, quickly followed by the BBQ, pan etc. on top of him!!!

It's probably worth mentioning that there was no sneaky filming. The video was shot and uploaded by the hirers. The gas bottle is placed outside the boat, but the BBQ is located in the boat just in side the back door. The boat is also moving. So as well as fumes possibly blowing inside the boat, one of the means of escape is blocked by a gas BBQ. Insanity is the only way I can describe it.

I saw one of Richo's 44ft finest turn about halfway down the dyke two weeks ago. The method seemed to involve reversing till the fenders made the boat bounce of the quayheading and forward until the bow rode up the profiled bank and dropped back down again. 20 attempts later they made it round and promptly departed.