Jump to content

Jerra

Member
  • Posts

    7,636
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    96

Posts posted by Jerra

  1. Biggest problem is personal stereos. You ring a bell, call politely, then shout and they still don't respond. I then usually pass slowly and gently touch them on the shoulder to let them know I'm passing. The invariably response is "I didn't hear you". Not surprised. If it had been on a road and I'd been a car the result would have been a fatality.

    To me the important part is you are sufficient of a gentleman to pass them slowly and carefully - not at breakneck speed as some do.

  2. The other point one percemt we expect the public to accept our hound as part of the surrounding fauna, where normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

     

    Is this not acceptable?

    Sorry and I know I am in a very tiny minority but it isn't acceptable to me for the reason I gave earlier.

     

    With regard to surrounding fauna I have lived in the country all my life and worked with animals wild and tame, large and small (from bulls downwards) I have only ever been attacked and injured by a dog.

    • Greenie 2
  3. I say this as the owner of two dogs and I would not allow the border collie to be off its lead when other people/children are around, where as the labrador will just want food/fuss so I'd be less worried, but I some people just don't like/feel comfortable with dogs and any responsible owner should recognise that.

    Speaking as one of those people who doesn't like dogs I don't know, due to severe bites when I was 4, I thank you. However the lab would still cause me concern if I met it not on a lead.

     

    The Greenway Code which CRT expect cyclists to abide by when on a towpath says:

     

     

    2. Drop your pace considerate sharing of the limited towpath space is the key. Jogging and cycling are welcome, but drop your pace in good time and let people know you are approaching by ringing a bell or politely calling out before waiting to pass slowly.

    3. Pedestrians have priority towpaths are ‘Greenways’ or shared use routes where pedestrians have priority and vehicles, except bicycles and mobility aids, are generally excluded.

  4. Is it perhaps a case of bad wording. The phrase transported back rather than transported to suggests to me that it may be more a case of taking the gates away to replace/repair part. Don't know enough about lock gates but paddles perhaps?

  5. It will be offered to other areas where there is a problem it is then up to those involved to to decided if they want it

    Could you explain how a moratorium would work? If nothing else this thread now has people getting involved in trying to find a solution.

    Ah! This is the first suggestion I have seen that it is anything other than a local answer to a local problem.

     

    Basically the scheme seems to me to be a sort of open ended moratorium. In that people know they are going to have to change their lifestyle eventually but there is no time scale. Allowing for differing roll outs in different areas it may take decades to "solve" the problem.

     

    To me it just seemed simpler and faster (assuming CRT records are as good as I hope they are) to say to everyone in the country (probably contacted individually) right we want to sort this problem but we realise your position so you have X years. After that full normal enforcement will be in place nation wide. X can depend on what those who know more about the required time scales than me. However I would have thought 10 or 15 years fair and shorter than the 30+ in my previous example.

     

    The advantages (to me) would be:

     

    1. Everyone would know exactly how long they had rather than thinking well it will take 5 years before the scheme reaches this region and then I am OK until I need to leave the area.

     

    2. It would prevent more people (in other areas) having been in place long enough to qualify for the list.

     

    3. There would be an end point in the not too distant future - rather than 30 or 40 years.

     

    4. It would be fair to all in all areas.

     

    N.B I am still only suggesting it for people in the situation that has been outlined not for all NCCCers (e.g. those who have recently begun CCing)

  6. The facts are you are never going to be able to please everyone and I accept that. The simple fact is there is a problem that needs to be sorted or at least a process needs to be started to sort it. We are talking here about actual people and in many cases children the simple fact is that the courts will not allow them to become homeless. What we have hopefully done is negotiated a part solution with CRT that allows these people and children to stay in an area at a cost and allow them to get on with there lives without the hassle of going to court to plead there Human Rights.

    I can see that it is a pragmatic approach to a problem and rightly so. However I feel there will be people in the same boat (pun intended) up and down the country who will expect/need/deserve (delete which ever does not apply) the same treatment and may not get it.

     

    Wouldn't a countrywide moratorium of X years giving all people in this situation time to sort out their position not work and be fair to all whatever part of the country.

  7. Yet again I can't get below the quote to post.

     

    The problem I foresee Dean is that there appears to be no intention that these permits will be anything other than a measure used in this one area and aimed at having a definite end point.

     

    I have thought all along that it will raise false hopes and expectations in others around the country.

     

    what's going on in Uxbridge does have a lot of interest for many boaters across the country who would see "roving licences" as a 3rd way in the future.

  8. My understanding is that this isn't a long term permanent solution,

    If I understand the suggestion correctly it could be very long term!

     

    Please tell me which parts of this I have got wrong.

     

    1. The permit will be available to people who have been "under the radar" for a number of years due particularly to BW staff telling them it was OK.

    2. The permit will last as long as that individual chooses to keep that life style in that area.

     

    So suppose we have a 40 year old who has been there for 10 years. He gets his permit and stays living that life style until he is too old for the life or shuffles off this mortal coil. If they stay on the cut until 70 and perhaps beyond that is at least 30 years perhaps longer. Not really what I would call short term.

  9. Don't hold your breath Dean. Can you show which BW officer advised you that your cruising pattern complies with your license conditions?

     

    The solution in Uxbridge is highly specific and applies to a well defined group of people with an historic issue. New arrivals don't fit the group, nor do other areas

     

    Richard

    Dean's post makes the point which has concerned me. While I can see it is a sensible and probably acceptable answer to a local problem, others in other areas will expect the same treatment, and in fairness should probably get it.

  10. Sorry for top posting but for some reason I can't click below the quote.

     

    I wonder how viable marinas would be (financially) if a large proportion of the moorings were only let for 4 months of the year.

    Should I be forced to pay for 8 months of marina, that I actually dont want to use?

  11. Thank you for that Alan I understand the situation much more clearly now.

     

    One observation which I would make is CRT is not BW and just because BW accepted something it is unreasonable IMO for people to expect a new organisation to accept the same (or for that matter interpret things the same).

  12. True of course, but I'm assuming (perhaps mistakenly, if not then I'm sure I'll be made aware of it) that if said people *had* abided by the guidelines, there'd be no need for a roaming license in the first place smile.png

    I was wondering about that when I read Cotswoldman imply they weren't NCCC. If they aren't NCCC why is there a need for new form of license/permit?

  13. Could I ask for some more information so that I can understand this discussion more clearly.

     

    Have I picked things up correctly is this negotiation about "roaming" permits/licenses purely with one club? That's what my reading of this leads me to believe.

  14. Of course it will.

     

    Any NCCC'er caught by CRT will now demand to be issued their 'roving permit'. If boaters in Uxebridge can have one, why can't every other NCCC'er?

    Well that was rather what was worrying me. I still don't understand quite what the problem is. A multitude of threads show that to CC within the rules you only need to move what IMO are farcically short distances for a Bona fide Navigation.

     

    I haven't worked out why the people who would be eligible for a "roaming" permit/license don't just CC. After all distances as short a 10K (6 and a bit miles) are quoted at times.

  15. It can be if you go for the simple life, but the relevant point is that living on a boat is cheaper than living on land - in or near London!

    Thanks for that. I assume then this is a local problem and is unlikely to have a knock on effect all round the country.

  16. It wasn't intended to be an exact allusion. But in your ending, he moves out and then what? Sleeps in a cardboard box on the street?

    I am puzzled! Many threads on the forum warn people thinking of living on a boat that it isn't cheaper than living on shore.

     

    However as soon as there is a suggestion that CCers (or who ever) should abide by the rules or leave they suddenly become unable to afford to live on land and will be come homeless or live in a cardboard box.

     

    Can somebody clarify is living on a boat so much cheaper than living on land or not?

  17. They will still have to move so nothing like a mooring.

     

    Where does all this free come from? What have I missed?

    So out of interest what is the difference between CCing as many seem to carry it out and what is being suggested?

  18. To return to the OP the things which come across clearly to me are:

     

    1. The owner admitted he had overstayed by 2 days and had a reason - the problem could perhaps have been avoided had he contacted CRT.

     

    2. There are a number of things quoted other than over staying that an independent observer (who implies he has passed the boat a number of times) hasn't seen.

     

    By all means people who overstay (and haven't informed CRT of a good reason) should be approached, but from this post and ones in other of threads there seems to be a tendency to make "mistakes" e.g. the dog, generator and mess seem in this case to be a "mistake". Others have complained about being ticketed before they have overstayed.

     

    This to me if left unchallenged will lead to a situation where tickets are issued regardless of any evidence. With the potential introduction of overstaying charges (no I don't want to reopen a debate about whether these charges are legal) I feel CRT need to understand it is noticed and objected to.

  19. I'm with Arphamoe on this one. The facts need drawn to the attention of CRT. There have been a number of cases in various threads were CRT appear to have "jumped the gun" tickets for overstaying before the boat has actually overstayed etc.

     

    Each and every "mistake" needs drawn to their attention before it becomes entrenched practice.

  20. As for the timing, thre big boys say they have done this trip in the alloted time before so I am taking their word for it x

    I have no doubt they have done the trip in the allotted time before but have they done it in the allotted time and allowed time for the young ones to visit/take part in activities off the boat to prevent boredom?

     

    A number of posters have pointed out the need for visiting parks baths etc.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.