Forum Topics

Brentford Waterways

Though I am not at all a supporter of the developer, particularly the half century desolation of the area, the misinformed stance of the Brentford community council demands correction.To state my credentials, I knew the cut, as this part of the canal is known, when it was still working and I live aboard a barge in Brentford, When the cut was in use, no tugs navigated it, the lighters and barges were left, unmanned , to drift, either up or down with the appropriate tidal flow, to be collected at each end by either river or canal tugs, two very different machines, making the cut too dangerous for the narrow boats to 'overnight' in the cut. The lighters would crash and clatter up and down it.This is why all of the cut was a clear navigation, though there is more than adequate room for moorings and passage of the largest barges that can navigate the Grand Union canal.The way to 'develop' the Brentford waterways is to inhabit them but the constant resistance and enmity of the local authority, to residential boats, prevents and inhibits this. To cite 'future commercial use' of the canals, is wrong headed. to repeat my self, there is more than adequate room for both. I have talked to the British waterways Board (B.W.B) official in charge of commercial development of the canals; a very nice and well informed man and he confirmed that the only commercial activity these last few years, barring BWB maintenance, was the one passage a year of the narrow boat that supplies coal and heating fuel to the residential boats.The only income sources on the canals and the river is tourism or habitation.If the desire to reinstall commercial use of the canals is genuine, then there would have to be enormous investment in the infrastructure, the canals would have to be widened and there is no foreseeable future where that sort of investment would be viable.Were the navigation restricted, to a dangerous degree, by any development, the Port of London Authority (P.L.A.) and the BWB both have statutory authority to remove the obstruction and would do so, with costs being born by the 'obstructor'.Finally the thought of any skipper towing lighters, two abreast, up the cut, as pictured on the map is risible and pointless, the locks are not wide enough and he'd not get round the corner. What he would do, as his predecessors did,  is to leave the lighters on the roads in the river and transfer the  cargo to canal barges before entering the canal system.So many developments by the water have empty moorings that stay empty. This may be what the Brentford Community are really trying to achieve. If so they should come clean.

J. kenton ● 6133d43 Comments ● 5766d

Cannabis Embarrassment At The Home Office

Those interested in reality and what happened to £10m of tax payers money, invested in a drug of 'no medicinal value' according to the law might be interested in this! Peter ReynoldsThe life and times of Peter ReynoldsCannabis Embarrassment At The Home OfficeThe re-scheduling of Sativex, the cannabis tincture marketed by GW Pharmaceuticals is causing huge embarrassment at the Home  Office.Everybody’s been able to go along with the white lie up to now that Sativex is some sort of highly complex, super scientific, super medicine containing cannabinoids. True enough, GW Pharma has put millions into development and testing in order to jump through the hoops the government has demanded.  At the end of the day though, all Sativex consists of is a tincture, an alcohol extract of herbal cannabis.  It’s made simply by gently heating a blend of herbal cannabis in ethanol and then adding a little peppermint oil to taste.An Honourable Man?The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved Sativex for the treatment of muscle spasticity in MS.  I understand that an approval for the treatment of cancer pain is expected shortly.  The problem for the Home Office is that Sativex now has to be re-scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.   Cannabis is presently in schedule one as having no medicinal value.  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of  Drugs (ACMD) has recommended this week that Sativex be in schedule four, alongside  a variety of minor tranquilisers.  However, as the ACMD says, “it will not be appropriate to refer to “Sativex”, which is a proprietary name, in any amendment to the misuse of drugs regulations, and that a suitable description of the relevant component(s) of “Sativex” will have to be scheduled.”This is going to be tough for James Brokenshire to face up to.  GW specifies that Sativex contains approximately equal proportions of THC and CBD but that’s not the whole truth.  It also contains as many as  400 other cannabinoids which occur naturally in the plant (nobody is exactly sure how many cannabinoids there are and what their effects are).  You see there’s not really any other accurate way of describing Sativex except to call it cannabis.  So how can Mr Brokenshire possibly move it to schedule four?  He endlessly repeats the propaganda that “there are no medicinal benefits in cannabis”.Either Mr Brokenshire has to come clean and accept that his past position was incorrect or he has to promote some further deception.I trust he will prove to be an honourable man.

Philip Walsh ● 5769d1 Comments ● 5768d