Peter's Waterways Blog Discussions Across the Towingpath From my blog a few years ago, but still relevant today. Trying to take differences of view with good humour, and avoiding escalation: sometimes it works and sometimes not.

We moored on the Bridgewater Canal for some shopping one lunchtime a few years ago. After tying up properly a head appeared to enquire how long we were staying, to which I gave a non-commital reply. This produced a tale about a member of the head's household allergic to smoke from chimneys, and the outpourings of our stove chimney was sure to cause discomfort, if not terminal decline and that I needed to move elsewhere. The stove wasn't lit, it wasn't a cold day, and if we needed heating we would probably have relied on the central heating radiators. I smiled sweetly and replied with a story about a friend who was allergic to vinegar but had a flat over a fish and chip shop; I also suggested that a local builder would be the best person to sort out the location of the fan in the head's kitchen that seemed to be defective.

Abuse then followed. The husband of the head was a firefighter and when told of what a rude person I was, would be sure to turn a hose on me. In the meantime complaints were to be made to the 'The Waterways', their MP, the Minister, the Queen, etc. I suggested the best authority was the Mancheater Ship Canal Co, in the guise of their owners Peel Holdings. I suggested they mention my name. It so happened that at the time the Managing Director of Peel Holdings was a namesake Peter Scott and a newspaper headline of the poor chap being drenched by a firehose would be entertaining. (He retired from the job, as far as I know dryly, in 2009). We completed our shopping and left at exactly the time we had originally intended. Like the alsation in the offside factory barking at a passing boat, this no doubt counted as a victory for the residents.

My crew thought I was unhelpful, that however pointless the complaint, I could have improved someone's day by at least admitting that we weren't staying very long. I just prefer negotiation and polite requests rather than people telling me what to do, particularly if they didn't appreciate that tying up takes five minutes or so - more in the wind - and untying and re-mooring somewhere else is not necessarily a trivial exercise. And the story about my allergic friend was relayed with a smile with the genuinely helpful suggestion of the defective fan. These minor inconveniences can too easily escalate; there isn't a ideal solution, but putting up 'no mooring' signs just because someone who has bought a house by the canal decides that boats are a nuisance doesn't help, either.

In response to the blog, Alan wrote "I have often considered the attitudes of residents both overlooking the canal and being overlooked by passing or moored boaters. It is unreasonable for them to enjoy views of passing boats but then to object to moored boats unless their occupants are behaving badly. Etiquette would suggest no running of engines or generators, no depositing of litter or perhaps only burning of smokeless fuels in boat stoves. I always feel a bit miffed when cruising along the embankment at Ansty on the Oxford where there are 'strictly no mooring' signs. The canals were built well before the majority of canalside properties so it is unreasonable for householders to object to moored boats. " He may be right, and our neighbours may still feel put-upon by boats looking through their bedroom windows.