Leaderboard

In defence of boaters who live in one area without a home mooring. If you're young, it's likely you can't afford a home mooring in a city (where the jobs are), or afford not to work and cruise around the whole network. I'm sure it doesn't work out any less expensive to live on a boat than renting small flat out of town and a bus ticket. And its not a point that needs labouring, but on the UK average salary of 26.5k, 91% of properties in the UK are unaffordable. (Source: http://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/sep/02/unaffordable-country-where-can-you-afford-to-buy-a-house).Is it a wonder people seek out alternative lifestyles away from the shared, laminated box-rooms of the suburbs? But in reality, not many people choose living on a boat just as a cheap option somewhere close to the best bars. It's about the love of the boating lifestyle (wood fires, ducks, locks, engines, floating..) and many would be cruising off all over the place if they could. CCers are under a constant and ever-increasing threat of being kicked off the waterways, their home and biggest asset confiscated. To say that those who are tied to one place but can't afford a home mooring (yet) should simply just not live on a boat, feels quite unfair, and to those who do already, life afloat feels quite precarious, if not persecuted. Perhaps this is why topics like this pop up all the time - people are grasping at straws for some semblance of stability in the life they've chosen. One could argue: 'the canals were simply not intended for that purpose'. However, the fact is that today, quite a large community of people are using it for that purpose, and there's a humane and an inhumane route to dealing with that. The canal needs young/new enthusiasts to secure it's future for all of us. It's a dilemma for sure... We all need to be kinder to each other, understand and help each other out more. The best solutions come via empathy and considerate debate. Love to all boaters, we share the same dream!

This personal abuse does not help the debate one iota. You may well disagree with the views expressed by Alan and others but it odes no good to denigrate their intentions as less than honourable, unless you have clear evidence otherwise. Just disagreeing is not enough. FWIW, as someone that passes this route a couple of times a year, it seems (with the exception of a comment I submitted regarding Marsworth) to be a fair attempt at reconciling almost impossible competing claims. Anything that seeks to establish a balance is going to be restrictive to most users - otherwise there would not have been an issue in the first place. Apart from locations with extensive long term (essentially residential) moorings on both banks, the present experience is reasonable but the pressures are clearly there and where regulation (via VMs) and enforcement do not keep on top of it, those pressures can easily get out of hand. Over the past 5 or 6 years things do seem to have improved marginally but it is difficult to be sure whether it is down to CaRT action or socio economic changes.

there is a 3:1 box in there somewhere, just electric start to worry about then. there is no such thing as a nice air cooled diesel.

I may be a little naive here, but the fact that CRT even bothered to discuss this with some people who own boats, and in fact accepted some of the criticisms they got, surely is a good thing? The alternative would be CRT just going ahead with their own concept with no consultation. It's still out for consultation (which i accept will probably be about as much use as these things usually are, but that's not the point), so it's not as if one self-selected group signed up with CRT and bullied it all through. I think you have to live in the real world here, and accept that CRT will discuss things with "representatives", however they may be chosen. And sometimes the best you can do is ameliorate - total rejection is a daft negotiating position. CRT can't be expected to go out and talk to every boater on the towpath... although in effect that's what the current consultation is doing if anyone can be bothered to take part in it. Which, in view of past comments, most can't. More fun to whinge on here about the people who do try and talk with CRT.

Exactly so , but more that this approach needed to be evidence based was the key message that led to the guidelines No need to press , this is already on the agenda of the next NABO meeting and I have no doubt NABO will be responding to the consultation with their views. I would urge boaters to do the same.. I can't comment on NAG but from a personal perspective I would hope that they would want to be satisfied that the process was robust and followed correctly. I would like to see evidence that there was a lack of mooring space throughout the period not just the odd bank holiday weekend. If you have seen any detailed evidence I would be happy to see it.

If the sink is ceramic and has an overflow, it will usually be made in two halves, so even if the top (the bit the water sits in) is cracked, as long as the underside isn't, and it isn't leaking, I wouldn't worry about it. Water may get between the two halves, but unless is can escape past the waste ('plug hole') underneath, it won't do any harm.

Hmmmm, "a man with a suspicious package" always sounds a bit dodgy to me, but perhaps he was just pleased to see them?

If he misses having a walk carrying something with a handle, you can have him do it the locks at Tardebigge til he stops missing it. On the other hand, a set of clubs will be useful as moveable ballast to keep your boat in trim. Just don't let him steer whilst dressed as Ronnie Corbett in Rupert trousers. There's enough dodgy dressers on the cut already!

There are people who go to great lengths to try to break the record for doing the whole London Underground in record time, planning every detail of the itinerary, but that has carefully defined rules and is more predictable; they don't need to operate the trains, they just get on them and the trains are run for them to a timetable. This project would, for the reasons given by Captain Pegg, be difficult to predict and plans would need to be adapted for unplanned closures, but I feel that a skilled and dedicated team could easily do it within a year based upon that figure of 1650 hours, without needing to carry on in darkness. I reckon the optimum crew would be three people: a skipper with the boating experience to do the tidal and other difficult waters safely, a lock operator with good fitness, and a cook/housekeeper who can pitch in with some help at locks. One of them has to know how to look after the engine. Any more people and cabin fever could set in! The key would be to use the long daylight of the spring and summer months, and to plan ahead well to work around winter stoppages. In this new sport, is any amount of help from a support team not on the boat permitted, e.g. route planning, shopping for supplies and delivering them to the boat, assistance on lock flights etc.? I suspect there should be two separate categories, one where unlimited support is allowed, and one where the crew have to do everything for themselves that typical CC'ers would.

The need for the framework agreement largely came out of the last SE consultation and workshops , the main message from these that CRT took on board (apparently) was that future changes should be evidenced based. I understand the previous NAG did a lot of work on this to help produce this document (which was also discussed at the old meetings of the associations) which goes to great lengths to ensure that the changes to visitor moorings should be evidenced based. It talks for example about total length of boats v available space as one of the many metrics.

Erm, I was one of those people, and no we didn't, unfortunately. Although collectively we were able to get some concession on what was proposed at the three pilot sites they all went ahead complete with overstay charges, so lets' be honest about it and say that all our combined efforts, including going as high as we were able, were not enough to stop those three. In fact by gentle pressure since some of have undoubtedly influenced CRT to relax the stays at those pilot sites, and in fact Stoke Bruerne now has considerably less restrictions than it had before SEVM, (apart of course from the overstay charges). I believe that probably applies at Foxton to. I think the departure of Jeff Whyatt, (and to some extent Sally Ash), was a major contributor in slowing things down, but clearly the idea is lodged within some in CRT that this represents an important forward. It is not hard to see why, I suppose - if you look at many of the comments now being posted on various Facebook groups there is plenty of support for these idea along with all the opposition. If I try to ignore my own personal views and wishes, I think the correct thing is that they do what any clear majority can be demonstrated to believe is best. If 80% of people think these are great proposals, (and more important than other things they might spend money on), then they should probably go ahead. If 80% of people think they are a bad idea, then I would argue that clearly they should not. I suspect none of us can actually predict what the actual percentage of potentially affected boaters are actually in favour, against, or simply ambivalent. (If I had to guess, though, there are probably more than 50% of boat owners don't actually care one way or the other about these kind of things, and can't see why any of us get worked up about it.) I think that a well thought through well publicised survey should have been the fairest way forwards, and I hoped that was what would happen - even if it produced a result different to my own wishes it would be fair to follow a majority view. What is actually worrying me more at the moment than the proposals themselves are the doubts people have expressed to me about the Survey Monkey based questionnaire. It certainly does not identify respondents, and it is perfectly possible for any one with access to the internet to complete it. Checking the box marked "boat owner" doesn't actually mean you are one of course, and I think that may well be abused.

For me the real issue on this thread is that CaRT are repeatedly asked for guidance on a minimum distance and when they try to provide it as best they can they are castigated for their interpretation having no force of law. I would suggest that you will find the pisstakers at around 21 miles a year. I have stated the opinion before that seeking a minimum compliant distance is itself indicative of a lack of bona fide.

Me too, but if this were "just a minute" I'd pull you up on deviation. I also need to be realistic about how long I'll live, I reckon to do everything I want I need to make it to 150 at least... I hadn't thought of dimensions - Lutine is 45 foot and Juno 23, both are narrow beam. I don't mind using a dinghy but I'm not adding all the waterways a dinghy can navigate, there are far too many of them! In fact, even identifying them all would be a challenge. I've seen the Dorset and Somerset Canal at Coleford with enough water in to float a canoe...