Leaderboard

What is actually wrong with your boat? Where abouts are you and do you need any help to get the boat moving?

I do get fed up with your endless repetition of this idea that people with moorings whinge about CCers because we pay for moorings and they don't. We pay for a mooring because it suits us - it's actually got very little to do with CRT's rules. I've never met a single boater who moans about CCers - sure, we envy the ones who can do it because most of us would like to do more travelling than we can - there's bits of the system I know I'll never get to. It's a choice you make - trouble is, some people make the choice to claim to be continuous cruisers not because they want to cruise, but simply because it's cheaper. Them we don't envy at all, we just think they're stupid because it's asking for trouble.

what an absolute load of horseshit!

You have been socially engineered and revealed your qualities, well done!! Any moorings there you think?

"extreme bridge hopping" - in one fell swoop the Daily Mail aka CWDF has another pejoration. Pray tell me, where exactly is your extreme bridge hopping proscribed by law? And what's to stop me jumping on my bike with my license and taking it for a stroll? What amuses me about these discussions is how quickly they descend to the ridiculous, without any awareness of what they are trying to achieve or what crimes (I shall have another little chuckle over 'extreme bridge hopping") they are designed to prevent. The reason there is an enforcement department is to ensure, rightly, that licenses are paid. End of. The rest is just stuff they made up to inflate their sense of slef-importance. Otherwise why not tackle the thing that really affects the quality of boating - generator use at night? I'm running with this; "Extreme bridge hopping" has the image of a pimped pogo stick in the same way "continuous cruising" brings to mind the Flying Dutchman. Or to return to the real world, empty phrases conceived from people who have all intelligence sucked by a diet of TV and tabloids to the point at which they can't look outside their tunnel vision to see reality.

I think that in some respects the comparison is relevant and worthwhile. I can't help wondering how the enthusiastic supporters of C&RT's illegal and draconian antics would feel, and react, if their Local Authority enforced roadside parking restrictions by, in the event of an alleged infringement, arranging with DVLA to revoke their Road Tax, then prosecute them for using an untaxed vehicle on public roads, and finally capping all that off by seizing their car, transporting it to a storage facility at least 100 miles away and refusing to return it until all the costs incurred in the seizure, removal, storage and return of the vehicle were paid in full. Of course, there would be the additional 'penalty' of the DVLA refusing to re-license the vehicle due the owner now having a previous record of offending.

I am always grateful to see a blue jumper in the distance as I'm approaching a lock. Some people seem to have a real issue with them which is strange. Some of the stories i hear about the stick they get makes me embarrassed to be a boater sometimes. They are people, mostly non-boaters, who give up their free time unpaid to come and do their best to help folk like you and me. Yes i appreciate there might be the odd bad apple around the system, but personally I've never found them to be anything other than keen and helpful.

We have 3 DAB radios which work inside our steel boat wthout using external aerials.

As another member of the NE Partnership I can support and attest what Peter says. I was a little sceptical at first, both prior to joining and in its early days but have found the experience of working with the other members to be enjoyable, enriching and often educational! The strength of the Partnership lies in the diverse interests and skills represented and the amazing range of contacts and influence that people have so that we can call on others to assist - as has been the case with the visitor moorings sub group. We have an excellent Chairman to lead and guide and enthuse us which helps of course, and the CRT staff who attend the meetings are al;ways very positive and supportive. The work of the Partnerships is available for all to read in the annual reports. Kind regards David L

Indeed you are human and I hope you find an answer to your issues but I don't really understand why you would post a question I suspect you already know the answer to but become defensive about what would seem obvious replies. There are many that will be sympathetic to what you are trying to do with your old boat and hope you succeed (as do I) and also willing to help you either move the boat or fix your engine/drive train. You also need to help yourself too ( I know you are working on your boat) by making sure sure you comply as soon as possible with CRTs requirements in order to keep your licence and the way of life you wish to lead. So with respect I suggest you don't post OPs like this one where it just creates an argument and solves nothing but put your energy into a solution to what can only be a worsening situation if you leave it be without taking any action.

As I said, I'm not trying to make more of it, as I don't have a preference one way or another. I just don't think it's as clear or simple as you claim. The letter of the law, I believe, says: "the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances." This in no way seems to define "bona fide navigation" as simply not remaing in one place for more than 14 days, and instead treats them as two separate things. ie one must bona fide navigate and, in the course of doing so, one cannot remain in the same place for more than a fortnight. Therefore it's not just about not staying anywhere for more than two weeks, but is also about one's purpose with regards to what the boat is intended for, and whether that fits the definition of "bona fide navigation". In other words, does bona fide navigation solely mean that the intention is to genuinely navigate the canals, which thus requires a vessel to live on whilst doing so; or does it allow for one's intention to mean living almost statically on a specific part of the canal, with any navigation not being the intended purpose, but merely a necessary means to comply with the other part of the law? In the case of the latter, then it certainly does appear that the letter and spirit can be taken in different ways; as to most people "bona fide navigation" would imply that the primary goal was a genuine intention to navigate, and not simply enforced navigation because one has to every now and then, in order to effectively stay put. That's why I feel that it's less about distance moved, or amount of time in any one place, and more to do with what defines bona fide navigation.

I see it as a very reasonable letter and it gives more than fair opportunities for the future. This whole thread is a waste of effort over nothing .........do what it damn well suggests!

just get a move on and stop prevaricating. if you can't afford a motorised boat plus the cost of a mooring then bowhaul your boat 400m every day. if you just want to stay put then expect to be evicted by section 8.

Maybe this is the answer http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=77045&hl=

Nothing like bullying, Kriss has had ample opportunity to fix his fairly bog standard engine, CRT have bent over backwards to be obliging and Kriss has had shed loads of offers of help. He chose to stay put and now seems surprised when the situation rears up to bite him on the bum.Kriss knew this letter was coming. Phil

I 100% agree he has to move. (I suppose there had to be a time we both agreed on something!) I was just pointing out that there is little point applauding someone for offering help when there have been previous offers made and as far as anyone can tell ignored, otherwise Kris wouldn't be in this situation he is in now.

No he hasn't been moving. He said so in his other post on this topic. Probably not what you want to hear Kris, but take the 3 month licence and start moving the boat or get a home mooring. The letter makes it pretty clear what they expect of you.

You seem to be suggesting some of us are not capable of managing our own money? You're making a bit of an assumption which is a little patronising...

My friends all discuss what they are going to wear prior to any social event. I don't bother because I always wear jeans and converse or a skater dress, not much discussion is needed! Plus I'm married so I don't really care about attracting the opposite/or same sex. But these friends all go to the toilet together on nights out which baffles me completely! (Husband says the reason I haven't been fully integrated into this set of female friends is because I'm not following their social norms..) We also went shopping together on the weekend (making steps! This was a first for me) and they all stick together in the shop and look at the same things at the same time, I wandered off and bought some clothes (without getting prior approval from the other ladies - another thing I have learnt...they have to tell you that, yes, you should buy that top) Long story short. Women are very confusing creatures, I'd rather have a pint and read my book.

Don't you think the whole issue of enforcement is based on little fact in the first place? If it's really about CM'ers then what's the problem? If they aren't moving they are not wearing out the infrastructure or adding to lock queues. If they are paying for boat licences, they are contributing financially like the rest of us. They usually moor out of the way of VM's (well they used to until they were forced to move!). Those backing enforcement are just adding to every boaters misery by wasting money better spent on maintenance and stupid mooring restrictions. And what for? To satisfy the jealousy of a few control freaks. Let's just go out and enjoy boating rather than sit around judging others.

I would generally agree with that, and that is exactly what the volockie at Lapworth did when we came up a month ago. There was 2 of us but having the lock ahead set and opened for you saves a lot of walking back and forwards. If the OP was actually asked to wait below lock 6 and not lock 7 (Kings Norton is lock 1 on the Stratford, not Lapworth top lock which is lock 2) to cross in that pound rather than below lock 7 then the volockie was making a sensible suggestion in my opinion.

Not sure if the scrap yard at new bradwell takes then? They are just over bridge 74. I am in the area with a car so give us a shout if you need a lift.

She turned up half an hour ago. All joy and happiness she was. I bit my tongue, just told her she'd caused me some inconvenience. She apologised then moved her boat. I'd help someone again but really, her new house is less than 5 minutes walk from here, she could have popped down, or asked someone to come down with a short message or something. I've done 3 lots of boat moving and felt a bit hassled earlier, she could have been a bit more thoughtful to a stranger who did her a favour. Anyway, done with now.

Surely if you have to ask the question then you know that you are stretching what is credible?

good time to start using paypal then. unless you have had a bad experience you want to tell us about, I believe it is safe, reliable and damned convenient. done it. well done, MtB. (is this penance on your part for breaking the old site?)