jenlyn
-
Posts
7,630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by jenlyn
-
-
But that's not what ccing is about. Some of you find it difficult to grasp what ccing is to most people. Hence the rather wayward thoughts.Its not difficult to do 100 miles in a week - if you really want to.
-
Every time they try and state where the goalposts are (places map?) they get massively shot down with cries of, "that's not in the 95 Act!"
Although there were some shouting that "fact". It was not the sole reason for rejecting the maps at the time, ( I know because I attended the meetings). Much of the fear at the time, was on how it would affect home moorers.
-
No matter how many times you explain, there are a few on here who will not "get it". The simple fact is, they don't want to. (Mtb is just attempting to rattle you, I would suggest hitting the ignore button).Whatever is the case, IN THIS CASE the trust has now come clean about what they think prior consent means, which is what I think it means as well, so this is no longer an issue.
The only outstanding issue is that they have claimed TW is not "fit to navigate" but not given any reason why, or followed the procedure laid down in the relevant bylaw, or in fact ever inspected, had any access to, or can possibly have any knowledge of TW's condition. Which is obviously insane.
Pathetic isn't it.I am at a loss to understand why the pointless 'prior consent' - 'relevant consent' debate continues, because, as I have already pointed out twice, in Posts #290 and #314, C&RT are NOT quibbling about it.
They agree, and have confirmed so an E-mailed letter, that buying a Licence before bringing a boat on to their waters is obtaining 'prior consent'.
There may have been a hidden clue in the similarity in meaning of the words prior and before.
* prior
adjective
1.
existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.
-
So it seems their "finest hour" has passed. They retreat to the depths of the interweb, having fought bravely over profile names, interpretations of interpretations, and the relevance of consent.
They stand alone, spent, exhausted of reason.
Finally a lone voice shouts from the depths "help us CRT", but nobody comes.
-
3
-
-
Can I suggest discussion of moderation is done elsewhere, to keep this thread on track?
Of course Mike. Hopefully this will work both ways.
-
You are both aggressively debating this thread and moderating it too.
Yes, I noticed that as well, and almost sent a report in having seen the thread locked.
It did at the time look a little suspicious.
There is a lack of consistency with recent moderating in my view.
-
2
-
-
Of course you dare, though I do not get the reference.
Blocking boats..
-
That conjures up a vivid mental image of CART employees, in their chain mail armour, loading big stones into their waterside ballistas as Tadworth approaches. Have they used this tactic before? It does sound rather excessive.
Dare I mention "Lillie"? (
-
Do you have a definitive source for that statement? And are we saying that a court order is identical to an injunction? And if not what exactly did Tad receive, a court order, or an injunction?
The ones I have been shown are court orders.
-
I call you out on your 'straw man' logical fallacy.
Make a monumental assumption about what someone thinks, then criticise them for thinking it...
Your posts (and content within them) are often very predictable. Such is life.
-
Wowsers! ..... there's a point to this thread?
A very worrying one, with possible damage for either side. Some of you may well choose to miss the point, and even scoff at it, but this is getting silly.
Recent events have seen some pretty rubbish decisions from CRT, and doing an impression of an ostrich ain't gonna fix anything.
-
CRT have screwed up on this, and I suspect owing to the issue becoming public, there will be repercussions that will not do CRT any favours.
It's a complete and utter shambles.
-
You have obviously never been to any of their meetings. They in fact encourage people to move, and yes, I do expect you to state you would never attend one, which makes your statement even more comical.Well not NBTA members I imagine, given the effort NBTA appears to put into supporting and encouraging members to remain stationary instead of traveling.
(Your imagination often let's you down).
-
2
-
-
It says or means little in reality.So in law you say CaRt are wrong, but morally you think they are right not to give you a licence.
This says it all
However, I do see how it would fit your personal agenda, which is of course miles away from the actual point of this thread.
-
So have you, and you've also had a few goes at putting up alternative accounts.canon7578, and his previous account onionbargee, has been a member here for a very long time.
Richard
-
Excellent post.The problem with the idea of setting up semi-permanent moorings is that it's been tried before with a length of cut near the curve by The George at Bathampton. They were designated as permitted mornings for 'problem' cruisers. That didn't make past Bathampton Parish Council.
Years of entrenched arguments have ensured that the Western end has become a rallying point for so many campaigners on both sides, when in truth, the situation is no better in other places. Houses along this stretch of water cost a lot and everyone guards their small amount of land as though it were territory threatened by the unwashed hordes, meanwhile a group of people who are either by choice or through necessity live on boats in the area, regard the others as the enemy incarnate.
Inbetween the two, BW/CRT stagger from good idea to bad idea entirely stymied by practically total intransigence on all sides. Funny thing is, a lot of the boaters used to go onto the Avon and down to Bristol and back which would entirely satisfy the CRT requirement for distance as transport back to Bath is good and cheap; transport from east of BoA, being entirely non-existent, or prohibitively expensive. (To get Ellen to her school in Bath from BoA Marina took a bus and a train at a cost of £6.90 a day on two child season tickets.) Unfortunately, moving down and back to Bristol didn't count on BW reckoning for cruising beyond Bath, because it's off the cut an d on the river and moorings aren't easy in any case. It's clear that things haven't improved since then. Moreover, the boater who claimed he'd never done a lock is exaggerating, I've seen him on the cut above Bradford Town Lock quite a few times; he might not have a windlass, but he's certainly had someone open a paddle for him.
CRT are entirely within the law to insist that that boat comply but that's never been consistently applied, and folks have become used to living in the cracks. Incidentally, a few of the boaters there pre-exist the reopening of the K & A, because some areas were in water and boats had been there for a long time. Jock's wooden boat had been in one place so long, the tree that he had in bucket had broken free and rooted itself in the boat itself. No-one was overly bothered, living in the way you chose was less of an issue and very few people even thought about it.
The problem became more pressing when the cut was opened and especially hire boat companies wanted to promote the area. This occurred hand in hand as a phenomenal rise in house prices in Bath as Bath was promoted as a heritage city complete with Roman remains, Georgian Terraces, working canal, delightful river, gracious living and all within a survivable train journey to London, which incidentally overlooked a very shabby-looking boating community on the way.
It's been forgotten in the mêleé of shouting, that has gone on about the K&A over the last 15 years, that lot of the original community worked very hard to keep the cut open when BW simply didn't want to know. The composition of this 'community' has changed; it's in the nature of such a group to change, people move in, people move out. The area has changed and BW has become CRT. Like everything else, more is demanded of folks, there's less room to live in the cracks, but somewhere in there are people who have needs and aspirations. Perhaps not the same as yours and mine, but no less valuable. This post is an attempt to explain the historical background that informs some of the imperative that fuels the particular issues at the western end.
-
3
-
-
Yes and unfortunately, as the clamour to increase the 'public awareness' of the canals grows, so local authorities will come under pressure to cease turning a blind eye and put a stop to boaters living on their boats informally on leisure moorings.
This will come to pass in the next decade I reckon, an unintended by-product of all the publicity about canal boat living we keep seeing on the telly.
Not quite true. (a bit of scaremongering on your part I think).
The council's have been aware of, and looking into the liveaboard leisure moorings since 2011. That's when I first came across the issue.
Some council's have looked a little harder than others of course, but the general opinion is the cost structure would far outweigh the amount collected
Most of the council's I have spoken to, are only interested if the boat owner "hands it to them on a plate", offers up. For instance, through a benefit claim etc.
They don't seem overly keen to get too entrenched with the mechanics of it all.
-
It is a long article but the relevant piece is:
Bully boys
Then is was the turn of the bully boys at Cart, who had taken offence at Richard Churchill, and had decided that he was not bringing his boat Tadworth back on to their waters, so refused him a licence. The fact that this was contrary to its own rules did not of course enter the equation. But once again they had picked a wrong one, who with the help of Nigel Moore, and Tony Dunkley, who had also faced the might of British Waterways and Cart, he fought back.
The outcome was that the bully boys had again met their match, who clearly showed they were acting beyond their authority, with the outcome of a court order requiring that Cart had to issue his boat with a licence, having misused its powers.
By the way how does it reduce traffic to the site if somebody goes and copies for you rather than you go and read it?
Greenie for your last sentence in the post.
-
Not so interested that I fancy spending the next few hours trawling through the forum search results for a needle in a haystack. Which will probably just turn up someone reporting a conversation they had.
Likewise.
As for the "conversation they had" remark, I have learned to expect that sort of reply from some on here.
Makes no difference to me anymore, but I suggest you get some facts in future before posting your assumptions that in the main are just that, assumption.
-
Is that overstaying, ie. in one spot for more than 14 days, or not moving far enough over the time they are in the area?
Ask CRT. I'm only repeating what Crt said after the silent film on the K&A.
Comments were made about boats seen moored in the film, and CRT sought to clarify.
-
Exactly! This is 12 years ago. People back then knew what the score was. The problem was never that people didn't know what they were legally required to do, it was that BW lacked the balls to back up their threats properly, leading to a lot of uncertainty. This is, I think, what Jenlyn is getting at. The enforcement officers were saying one thing when Robin Evans and the published guidance was saying something else. That seems to be still true to some extent, with an inconsistent enforcement approach around the country.
It's a bit rich for boaters to suggest that they're more uncertain now, when the opposite is true. It's just that now, they aren't getting it their way.
Some of CRT's eo's are still suggesting cruising "areas", and I predict next year will see another statement along the lines of "we have problems in the area of xxxxxxxx, and are therefore implementing some new guidelines".
Another year, same old tactics.
I am totally amazed that people don't see it, or don't wish too.
-
Do you have any evidence? The 'Guidance' was there in black and white and was stricter than it is now.
Been waiting for that :-D. Yeh, everything I have stated can be found in the search function of this forum. Go seek.
-
(WW, May 2004.)
A pity his enforcement team had their own ideas.
-
Just one other little fact. CRT last year (after a certain tv programme) stated publicly that they had no issues on the K&A that were causing problems with overstaying etc.
I would suggest that most of the waterway issues relating to overstaying, discussed on this forum, are in fact developed by certain members of this forum, then exagerated profusely to extend the discussion (waffle).
Even some at CRT now recognise that.
-
1
-
Off The Cut - CRT and evictions
in General Boating
Posted
Denise Yelland (head of enforcement) made a public statement in 2014. She suggested they had no problems with people overstaying on visitor moorings.
The last waterways minister made it clear to CRT that a change in legislation was not an option.