Rusty Shackleford

Please feel free to point me in a direction where my perceptions can be changed.

My perception, and it may be wrong, is that they are pro- do as you like anti enforcement members group. See lots of complaining, nothing proactive. It's like the equivalent of the piston heads type motoring forum, won't be happy unless you can do as you want and not face consequences for your actions. Again, a perception, even if wrong.

Seeing that many people were in favour of more enforcement, for those against a £25 charge, what would they propose instead? I see the need for instances when people need to overstay, why can't there be a text/phone number ( with identifying codes on the towpath sign) where you could inform CRT your intentions? Any chancer would run out of excuses pretty quickly.

What a horrible experience to go through. I always worry about events like that, fishermen, kids on bridges etc. Now, for special occasions I mount a cheap video cam on a suction pad. Its amazing how differently they react. Most of the time its switched off and only really used for some nice pictures. Of course, nobody else knows that so they usually think before they do something stupid. Have had a lot less anglers dangling a hook inches from my head for one.

Freedom is a good thing, until it's abused. I get the sense that even if CRT did enforce the rules they had already, the complaints would be the same.

Quite a sensible reply. However, concerning the legality of the £25 'fine', if it's like private car parking fines which you are not legally required to pay (at the moment anyway), what's stopping CRT just refusing you your next licence? Can they do that?

Nobody actually been up to them and said that they're famous? I'm sure you won't get grief for letting them know. If we don't know that they know, we also don't know if they have been in touch with CRT. If they have and it's fine (for some reason), then there should be some official sign you have to place on the window, with relevant reference number for enquiries.

Thieves usually want to get in and out quick. If they have to spend time trying to find a camera it is at the very least a distraction. Once it's common knowledge that many boaters have cameras, even hidden ones (the tec is getting better and smaller all the time) then maybe thieves are less likely to play Russian roulette. It's not a cure all, just a tool that can be effective in the future.

I'm quite surprised none of the canal mags have done any articles (from what I've seen) about boat security. You can get a range of PIR sensing cameras, infa red etc, for quite reasonable prices. Chances are, many potential thieves would less likely gamble on breaking into boats knowing that camera capture devices where common.

A bit of naming and shaming could be just as effective (possibly even more so) than a fine. The problem is, we don't know the reasons why this boat is there. Personally, I would not want my boat to be identified as a major problem and i'm sure most other people wouldn't either. Boats are very individual and easy to identify and it only takes one person to get angry and do something stupid. However, 'embarrassing' people to stick to rules and etiquette is something we all may have to live with, it's not going away and it will get easier to do so. I hope the owner comes forward and gives an explanation. Will it justify the naming and shaming? Only time will tell.

Surely CaRT can't lose. If they did a U turn and enforced the hell out of the current restrictions/ rules, promoted easy ways to officially complain/report of overstayers and rule dodgers, gathered information of boats using visitor moorings...how long they stay, monitoring repeat visitors, then most of the problems would be solved. Solid information would be there to adjust VM restrictions and easily identify those who are camping there most of the year.....if at all if the enforcement works. A few people will probably still winge of snooping and stuff but tough, can't have it both ways.

Na, it's all pay by text these days.

So, some people wanted the enforcement and the statistic gathering so it should be welcomed yes?

No, i even quoted your last post where you directly said I did lack debating skills. Please post the quote where I said I lacked debating skills and choose to criticise instead. While your searching through my old posts, find out where you also insinuated I lost an argument and started attacking people. Check out my post 133. I clearly made an effort to get the thread back on topic. You are unaware that your posts seem rude, even if not intended. You are more guilty of steering than me. I tell you what, forget all this off topic tennis between us and actually discuss something.

So, your saying I lack debating skills? Another insult rather than actual.....debating. What have you "got the better of me"? You have failed to give any good reason why polls should not be used and failed to even debate about how to debate without being what most normal would consider as rude as well as directly insulting. How about trying to be a little nicer rather than resorting to personal attacks? Again, another 100% reason why people would rather not discuss stuff on here and would prefer the option to 'vote' an opinion if available with a sensible poll. I thought the OPs original post was more of a statement rather than a topic. But if you want the thread put back on track, I believe the OP, if not on a wind up mission, should be forced not to behave how he wants. I doubt anybody agrees with him anyway.

If your debating skills go to the point of basically calling someone 'dumb' then clearly, they're not as good as you believe. Personally, if someone said what you said to their face you would probably expect a sudden pain in the facial area. Opinion or not. As for the polls, it was only a question not really for the benefit of me, but for others who want to form an opinion or their voice to be heard without the hassle (which you have proved ironically). How about a poll to see if people would like a poll?

Well, you could of phrased your wording better, it looked like an insult, hence my reply. I mostly agree with you. Some polls on forums are pointless, it really depends on the question. If think the SE mooring discussion, or similar, would benefit from a poll as I said earlier, just because of the way it's presented here. Would it make a difference? Well, the thrust of the argument against the proposals would be stifled if the majority....or large amount were for them.

Obviously, forum polls are just a snap shot of what people think, irrelevent if they are well informed or not. The SE thread is a good example of my previous point, the forum party line is that you had to disagree with them....I personally thought they were a good idea, generally (if they incorporated other schemes as well) and felt many other people would actually agree with them (the proposals) , at least other boaters who are not that vocal here. Yet the flip side is that the numbers that have signed a petition ( only a few hundred) are wheeled out as 'proof' that boaters are against the proposals. Maybe CRT should have their own polls instead, least they could use them as justification for some decisions which some people have problems with.

Well, that's the good thing about polls, those who don't want to debate (or are 'too stupid' as you described me in your comment) can make an opinion....as a statistic, what they feel.

Talking of democracy, does this forum ever have polls? There seems to be a select few who steer 'opinions' in a certain direction (mainly anything anti CRT) whilst at the same time opposing..strongly....any alternative view, which could be the majority of boaters. Just a thought,

I have an Orange Dongle and had really poor speeds on it. The 2G signal was stronger so always chose that over a faster 3G (or 3G+) signal. Since I've changed the settings to 3G only, it's been so much faster.

Now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the chaps featured in the programme....from the way it was reported....basically play 'Space Invaders' and move a few yards back and forth after 14 days. Without pointing out the obvious, most people on here seem to support better enforcement first rather than changing the VM time limits. If there was better enforcement, surely those who are NCCC would be easily caught out. It would be interesting to know how many of the 52 weeks in the year the chaps in the programme are mooring there. If you had a 24 hour mooring, 356 boats will have the chance of mooring, at 14 days....and if the same boats play Space invaders...well, you do the maths.