phill
-
Posts
264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by phill
-
-
If people claiming to CC and just shuffling a few miles up and down a short distance truly are the major problem they appear to be (certainly by posts they seem to be in certain areas) some sort of system of monitoring/enforcing is needed for the benefit of boaters as a whole.
That's much like quoting the Daily Mail except that the Daily Mail probably makes some attempt to verify its sources.
-
1
-
-
A typo I hope.
yes, I think that is a boater's worst nightmare, no amount of vigilance or action will prevent something like that once it happens. If CRT aren't going to fix the gates then what they have done, with depth markers is the best solution.
-
I noticed that you ignored the reply to your progression request......run out of argument and retreating into your normal bluster?
No, not really Johnny, I thought your reply beneath comment. I know how to use a dictionary thanks, I asked you to point me to the place in the law or even in the guidelines that requires a progressive journey.
But you knew that. I expect you and your little friend one-L had a childish little giggle over that.
CRT is a charity; it's a young charity; it has a whole lot of external pressures; and it has bugger all money.
Saying "why have they not got a system in place" is the wrong attitude. There are lots of things that CRT should be doing and isn't. But it doesn't have the staff, or the money, to do everything all at once.
It is much more cost-effective for you to document where you are than for CRT to send a warden up and down every bit of towpath every four days. For you to do it takes 30 seconds each time you moor up (if you have a smartphone, just take a geotagged photo - you could post it on Twitter if you like, for a public record). For CRT to do it, they have to employ a warden, or at the very least cover all the external costs associated with volunteers.
That money has to come from somewhere and, ultimately, it comes from maintenance. Yes, CRT isn't a 100% efficient organisation - you'll always be able to point to examples of "why are they spending money on this or that thing I don't like" - but that's true of any organisation and my experience is that CRT is only averagely inefficient.
If you do your bit, I do my bit, and we all help a little, the waterways will be better. If you and I and 25,000 other licence payers all stamp our little feet and say "I demand CRT does everything by itself and I won't help", then they have less to spend on keeping the water in the canals and the gates on the locks. Your call.
Missing the point. If they weren't making themselves obnoxious for no reason it wouldn't cost them anything. I see no reason to support these absurdities that waste their and everyone else's time. Look at Cotswoldman's experience. That doesn't fit your model.
Where the OP was (within 18 miles or 100 miles) they are still somewhere.
To turn it around are you happy to stamp your feet and demand CRT chases him up and down the Oxford canal to absolutely no effect?
If it's a charity with bugger-all money, why is it spending so much on these ineffectual and derisory processes?
-
1
-
-
about what might have been expected from you
oooh, my stalker's back. Hello stalker.
Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion or is that your wad shot for the afternoon?
-
Isn't that all that any of us want?
you would have thought so, yes, but it seems there is a sizeable minority that would rather tell everyone else how they should boat
I do like the idea of taking photos of my boat next to nondescript hedging at each stop, maybe I could claim I moved as far as Scotland
I actually had a phone call from Lisa Jarvis who stated I had to move a distance of 18 miles, this is what I am doing. If they insist on this requirement for CC then why have they not got a system in place to make sure we are monitored, putting patrol notices on boats and expecting boaters to submit prove the notices are innapropriate is just harassement
I'll email you some pictures of 100 miles away.
In fact I think I'll start a Picasa album of well known canal landmarks with instructions as to how to manipulate the EXIF data.
-
I asked about checking when working and just before leaving a lock . . . not "before locking".
Checking that the boat is clear of the cill when going downhill is the last thing to do before drawing the bottom paddles, and the person best placed to do that is whoever happens to be at the bottom gates to draw up.
My boat will always be clear of the cill because the bow will be on the bottom gate and it's easy to check this before opening the paddles.
And if you are saying a boater will check the leakage in the bottom gate before proceeding out of the lock uphill, you are, in my experience, wrong. I have never seen a professional boatman go to the other side of the bottom gate and look down before leaving the lock and don't believe this happens.
A person at the bottom holding on to a windlass "ready to go" will not have a clue where the arse-end of the boat is in relation to the cill.
depends where the bow is.
-
Much as I hesitate to castigate individuals, as Cotswoldsman has explained, Parveen seems to be in need of some advanced training in reading data! Either that or those in charge of the logging system need to go back to basics and ensure, before any action is taken, that the system is in fact sound and fit for purpose! When I renewed my licence this year online, CRT response showed me as a continuous cruiser when I have only ever had a permanent mooring. Easily resolved by return email, but it shows yet again that the system is not accurate. From reading so many posts where the system is being called into question - where is the evidence that CRT are double-checking the process in detail?
In a previous life as an investigator (to a pretty high level) I always double-checked any data sets for accuracy before action - seems that CRT enforcement should be spending more time checking their own systems for accuracy! If they don't, the farce that will ensue when any Court asks to see verification of the evidence when all the 'mistakes' are highlighted by any defendant will be monumental!
Please, CRT, for your, and our sakes, show that you do listen.
You are, unfortunately, missing the point completely. This data set is only used to bully boaters. in the ultimate to take away their licenses and start a process that is intended to end in taking away their home. It's a draconian (see Nigel Moore for reasons how and why there are better sanctions they could use) and unnecessary process but it's not really intended to stand up in court.
If, at the end of this process, the boater stands their ground and challenges the data and reports, they will withdraw. If the boater finds some other way to placate the beast - and money is its favourite smell - it will also withdraw.
Then they start over again with the next person who finds themselves at the bottom of this food chain.
Unfortunately (again) this has the support of a vociferous and malicious minority of boaters and a couple of very powerful lobbyists.
CRT are completely unaccountable and, as this year's events have shown, totally out of control.
On the plus side it appears than the staff on the ground are humans and will when approached manipulate this system to the benefit of the boater. Provided the forelocks are tugged hard enough and the obsiquiesence is complete. Also, if you know the right person to speak to your can cut through the crap.
In the meantime, many of the less articulate are feeling threatened and bullied in the worst possible way - with threats over their homes.
-
Those who would neuter the powers to regulate anything feel that they can introduce anything that was ever discussed that is to their advantage, and claim it as sacrosanct, but their opponents are to have nothing but the bare minimum of powers that it can be reduced to.
Interesting. It seems to me it's exactly the opposite. It seems to me to be CRT and its apologists that are continually rewriting the 1995 Act to gain what they believe to be their advantage. Even though experience is beginning to show it's anything but - it's your favourites, the marina moorers who are falling foul of a lot of the recent tinkering.
Aside: funny that your favoured pattern should be exactly the same as your pattern. Why do you think that might be?
The opponents of this, who in the main are just wanting to get on with their boating lives, find that all they have to fall back on is the bare minimum of the laws.
Now why do you think that two people who hold such opposing views should argue the same position?
To deal with your assertions about the debate behind the 1995 Act, all I can say is that your analysis is deeply flawed by its attempt at twisting the debate to fit your chosen stance. There have been many expositions as to exactly why you are wrong not least by Nigel Moore on this forum.
-
1
-
-
nope, not seeing the word "progress", can you highlight it for me please
So it takes 16 weeks to go the 18 miles from Oxford to Anyho then turn round and spend 16 weeks going back to Oxford, then turn round and do it again so about 60 miles a year all on the same bit of canal you can see why they might think you're overstaying. Personally I don't have a problem with that but I can see why CRT might, to the tune of a £1,500 mooring they could be charging you for.
K
Many moorings available around Oxford for £1,500?
-
it is very hard to describe that as progressing round the system
Please supply a reference to a requirement to progress around the system.
Your friend with one L has gone quiet since I asked him this.
-
It's normal practice for a(ny) boater to check all gates and paddles before locking - that would be especially those behind the boat.
Just to put an oar in the debate about cill notices. I think they are in the right place, on the top balance beams. This means that as you go into the lock and look to the side to judge your speed you not only see the notice but it is, at that moment, more or less over the cill marker.
On a 70' boat I am unlikely to pay much regard to a notice 70' in front of me.
-
John, you should know who to call on this, if you don't PM me.
I am going to try and make this a short post. I have been trying to sort out my Winter Mooring for some reason the CRT system shows that I have a home mooring though I have been CCing for 8 years. During that time I have cruised about 4,000 miles. Anyway was told yesterday that they would sort out the problem so have just been on the phone again to be told that I have been referred to enforcement someone called Pardeen in licencing says the enforcement logging system shows me as just moving between 2 places and I guess that is correct as this year I have moved from Gloucester to west of Wigan and yes have to admit that is 2 places but quite a long way apart and I did go via Birmingham.
Seems like things are going from bad to worse still seems like I am to be investigated and someone from licencing will call me back.
The ghost of Sally Ash lives on.
Never mind though, you'll be OK, you know Laurence Hogg.
-
"Has CRT actually TOLD you that you MUST take photos, or are you applying this gloss to their pre-CC1 letter"
Yes, I agree with this modification of your original statement.
-
The key element in the Davies judgment [an interpretation on which the High Court judge in Brown v CaRT had a differing perspective] was –
“The phrase ‘used bona fide for navigation’ involves consideration of the purpose of the use, rather than the extent of the movement.” [my emphasis]
Exactly so.
Ignoring the usual arguments on here from the usual vocal "people" we still do not know what pattern the OP is making, and until that is known you can shout and scream as much as you like.
So to Boston, are you just going A - 18 miles - B - 18 miles - A every 14 days?
Ignoring the usual arguments on here from the usual vocal "people" we do not need to know what pattern the OP is making, and they will probably, as usual, shout and scream as much as they usually do.
So to Boston, ignore the crap, this really isn't the place to get a sensible answer. My suggestion would be to raise a complaint with CRT.
-
I'm guessing you've not seen things go wrong and how quickly it goes wrong...I hope it never happens to you...
Your guess is wrong.
But by locking safely and efficiently (many 1,000s of times) I have avoided any major incidents without losing any time whatsoever.
And yes, I hope something like the Huddersfield Narrow situation happens to me (or you) because I don't believe there's any infallible method of avoiding disaster in this situation - other than avoiding it in the first place.
-
Well,
I would need;
1) Evidence that this is ACTUALLY what was said, as opposed to it being suggested that this would make it easier to demonstrate compliance.
2) An account of what pattern of movement is taking place. If the OP is annoyed about needing photos because they aren't actually complying then this isn't harrasment, it is legitimate enforcement action.
1 ) As someone with an amateur interest in the law you will realise that evidence of hearsay is impossible to obtain. We either believe the OP or we do not.
2 ) You are simply answering the question 'no' (in your opinion)
You see, no pattern of movement required. Unless, of course, you suggest that if the movement have been far and wide and suiting your concept of compliance, you think that the OP should not have to take photos to prove it.
-
whilst in one case a judge has said 10 miles is not enough
Please don't you start perpetuating this myth. Judge O'Malley did not say "10 miles is not enough" - or imply it.
The quote is a 'cut & paste' from C&RTs "Guidance to Boats without a Home Mooring" which all "CCers" sign up to say they agree to when applying for the boat licence.
Your use of the quote implies a causal relationship where none exists - I accept this is CRT's intention.
I suggest you read the original (if you truly want to be educated) rather than rely of CRT's 2nd hand version
-
1
-
-
The OP came on here seeking to criticise CRT, and sought affirmation from people that what CRT was doing "isn't right"
Why would anybody here affirm that it isn't right without sufficient facts.
I suggest you read the OP before making a statement on it that is factually incorrect.
" in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance. Surely this isn't right?"
What facts do you need to make a judgement on this question?
But a judge has decided that 'shuttling up and down' is UN-acceptable
British Waterways v Davies in the Bristol County Court. The
Judge expressly found that Mr Davies’ movement
of his vessel every 14 days (whilst remaining on the same approximate 10 mile stretch of canal between Bath
and Bradford on Avon) was not bona fide use of the vessel for navigation
That's a misquoting of the judgement (a kind of Daily Mail synopsis - that's what you would like it to say). The distance was in no way salient to the judgement.
it is as a result of this judgement that BW removed the statement "progressive journey' from their guidance
Also, I'm always actually relieved that the vast majority of boat owners on the canals don't want to put in large numbers of miles traversed each year. I am very happy that many don't go far at all, whether marina based, with permanent on-line moorings, or with no home mooring.
I already spend far too much time following people, or queuing at locks, and the worst possible result would be to have far larger numbers of boats permanently on the move.
When we had major, major water shortages down here a few years ago, with many of the lock flights still on very restricted opening times, we faced the bonkers situation that on the one hand BW were locking up the canal at key points to stop those of us who wanted to go somewhere actually being able to go very far at all, but in the meantime they were still moving on boaters with no home mooring, hence using the dwindling water supplies for people who would happily have moved less.
Exactly this. At the close of the day there's still exactly the same number of boats moored.
I blame the misnomer "continuous cruising" - where did it come from? it always makes me picture the Flying Dutchman
-
I need help here, I thought that if you CC you had to demonstrate a progress around the system and that bridge hopping, even if they are 18 miles apart, is not within the spirit of the rules.
Just to say I am genuinely curious.
Phil
A reference to the law that says that please
-
My understanding is if they only take a mooring for 5/6 months there is no need to tell CRT if they allready have a licence showing no home mooring.
An interesting point: CRT say that the winter mooring permit is a 'home mooring' for licensing purposes - does this mean that person does not qualify for the winter mooring permit the next year?
So only those who decide to cruise all summer and moor all winter and have license renewal time in the summer months escape this contradiction?
Perhaps CRT should increase the CC license fee by the annual equivalent of the winter mooring permit and make it available all year. Would solve all the complaints re enforcement, save a fortune in legal fees and earn CRT a fortune. Those that want a reserved mooring or security/facilities will continue to take marina moorings or CRT towpath moorings. Stop people moanng about getting something for nothing etc
Dons crash helmet and runs for cover
For some reason, those who this would benefit seem to be the people most opposed to the idea of a roving mooring permit.
Unfortunately (from the POV of your idea) the law doesn't allow this to be a licensing condition. There are those that believe the winter mooring permits are illegal but paying ,money with menaces is preferable to continual harassment.
There is also a vested interest at work here. There has been a recent spate of letters going out criticising the cruising patterns of boaters, many of which seem spurious, strangely con-incidental with the issue of winter mooring permits.
Is it a conspiracy theory to see a connection?
-
I didn't mention what the law says. I mentioned the concept of CCing. The idea of not needing a home mooring because you are engaged in continuously traveling around the system.
Not continually shuffling up and down an 18 mile stretch of the Southern Oxford.
MtB
The MTB 'concept of CCing' - why would that be the arbiter of legal behaviour.
It's not a particulary intelligent debating tactic though often used by those who can't put together a more cogent argument. Make a statement with a false premise.
When did you stop beating your wife?
-
You really should post on here your true cruising pattern if you think that it is within CRT guide lines. It will help those on here who believe you are trying to stay legal. Of course it may give ammunition to those on here who are less than supportive of the CC community.
Bob
"post on here your true cruising pattern" ? Are you having a laugh?
Why would anyone be interested in having "those on here" "believe you are trying to stay legal" ?
The OP was about the behaviour of CRT, nothing to do with the judge and jury of this forum.
-
Quite. The whole concept of a CCer having 'an area' contradicts the concept of CCing.
MtB
No, sorry, it might contradict your idea of 'CCing' but that's not what the law says.
-
A few years ago it would have been scousers and before that the Irish.
Continual cruising
in General Boating
Posted
If you had read my post instead of leaping on it you would realise I was drawing comparison at the similarity in the opposing points of view, but you, when you have no coherent argument would rather take exception at my style instead - with some kind of weasel "I didn't insult him Miss"
Now there's an unholy alliance. "that's when the arguments stop and the drivel begins" - indeed Johnny - like your post here - it comments on the discussion exactly how?
Like with your recent pathetic spat with Carlt you don't know how to keep your mouth shut when you've nothing to say.