Wanderer Vagabond
Patron
-
Posts
3,698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
231
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Wanderer Vagabond
-
-
I just know that I must be missing something here but can anyone explain how K & A lock 15 (Semington) and Lock 21 (Seend) have different results? Semington has 3761 lockages and Seend has only3468,does that mean that 293 boats have gone missing between the two? (there are no winding holes). Is there a boatyard between them that turns out nearly 300 boats a year? Have they found the 'Bermuda Triangle' of the canal system
. Is anyone out looking for these 'lost boats'? We need to know!!On a slightly less frivolous note, when passing along that way (several times) last year one of the volunteer lockies pointed out to me the telemetry at Bradford on Avon lock that he was proudly saying had one of the highest usages on the system but it doesn't appear on the data. Has it gone or was he giving me duff info?
-
Predictive txt (rolls eyes) Eton, are you dccruiser then or have you decided to join in again? :-)
Er, public discussion board means I think we can all play, if you want private discussions then there are other options!
-
Slight problem. Even though you have left your boat in the marina for a few days, your still declared as a ccer, unless of course you register as a boat with a home mooring each time you decide to moor in there.
Why is that a problem?? If I had bought a boat (under the previous system) from someone who continuously cruised (007 number) but then decided I wanted to take a home mooring are you saying that the boat should have been re-licenced? Even more bizarrely what enforcement would CRT be doing on a wrongly declared boat? "You've registered your boat as having no home mooring but now we hear that you have got one so we wont renew your licence for next year unless you agree to continuously cruise??"
In addition you have done exactly what I said confuses the situation, you have conflated Continuous Cruising (which is what I do) with having a boat without a home mooring (which is what it is). I have officially declared to no-one that I'm a continuous cruiser but I have officially declared to CRT that I do not have a home mooring, see the difference????
-
**mod cap off**
A CC'r with a winter mooring is still CC'r because they don't have to stay in one place for the duration of the permit, unlike a home moorer who has a permanent mooring place, so no you are wrong, so CC'rs are NOT classed as having a home mooring.
They are not classed as having a home mooring (they'd need to change their licence to do that, 007 number and all that) but they are treated as having a home mooring by CRT since they do not have to move (I'm oddly in agreement with Mr Dunkley on this one, no-one has to stay in one place for the duration of either a permit or a mooring agreement).
Continuous Cruising is what you do, a boat without a home mooring is what your are, to conflate the two creates confusion. Generally I continuous cruise but if I want to leave the boat for a few weeks to do other stuff I'll stick it in a marina, that would mean that I am no longer Continuous Cruising (how can I continuously cruise when I'm not even on the boat?). When I come back to the boat and sail off towards the horizon I'm once again continuously cruising. It is not something like being English that you are born with and have to stick to, you can easily flip between continuous cruising and mooring.
-
Strange posts, and very judgemental from someone with such a wealth of experience.
How many of these CMers have you ever met, and how many have you taken the time to talk to.
If you had the choice of living under a bridge, or the chance of a cheap roof over your head, let's say a boat, which would you take?
With such right wing views, I thought maybe you were from Eaton.
Would that be Eaton, Herefordshire; Eaton, Cheshire; Eaton, Leicestershire or did you perhaps mean Eton??
-
2
-
-
Unless of course the CCer pays CRT for a winter mooring, which I suspect will be more than the NAA contribution from a home moorer?
But surely if a CCer has taken a winter mooring they are no longer CCing (otherwise they'd have to shift every 14 days). So, for the winter period they have become someone with a home mooring!
-
Is it an argument?
You made a statement, I questioned you on it, and it turns out you don't know if what you said is correct.
I don't see the argument.....
I just see you telling me a load of carp, and expecting me to believe it.
Never mind.
Hopefully someone else can answer.
Just to clarify, the original statement was made by another poster and I simply agreed with his assertion. How important is it to get an answer to this 'question'? I didn't take the original comment (by Hawthorn)as any sort of criticism of me, simply as an observation. Another observation would be that I, as a CCer, put more wear and tear on the system than someone who buys a boat and leaves it in the marina all year, so in value for money I'm getting more out of it than he is. It's just the way it is.
-
So having stated that home moorers pay more to CRT than CCer's, you now don't really know if that's correct?
I'm not really sure where this arguement is going. I, as someone who doesn't pay any mooring fees would accept that those that do, probably pay more to CRT than I do. Even if less than 1% of what they pay in mooring fees goes to CRT it will still be more than I pay. I suppose that if we work to the assumption that none of the money paid in winter mooring fees, CRT on-line moorings or anything paid to any marina owner goes to CRT then perhaps you may be right (if you are trying to say that CCer's and HMer's both pay exactly the same) somehow I don't think so and I really can't be arsed to research something that doesn't bother me anyway!
-
Hmmm, so who gets all the winter moorings money from CCer's then, (they didnt get any from me because I haven't taken a winter mooring but I would assume so, unless you know different?) and is it in line or more than the NAA? (don't understand the question)
Do all marinas pay NAA? (if the example if Pilings is anything to go by, clearly not!)
-
So the Trust gets all the money from anyone paying for a home mooring?
...er if it is CRT mooring then, yes!If you are in a marina (unless you are moored in Pilings
) then you contribute towards the NAA and elsewhere you pay for an EOG mooring, so as one who doesn't pay any of these, I would have to accept that those with moorings do pay more to CRT -
Here are some of the comments from the petition:
The CRT bowing to the demands of the middle class/marina moored types that are boat owners these days. Where were they when the canals faced closure and the liveaboards fought tooth and nail to keep them open?
I know people who live on the river, and they have no other place to go. The kids need to go to school, and can't if they have to move as far as CART would like them to.
Without all the people that live onboard along the Canal system, there would be no canal system. Been living aboard for 10+ years
I am sick of our freedom's being eroded all the time, if someone chooses to live on the water they should be allowed to without interference from an "authority".
There is no reason on earth why some people should be made to 'move on'.
Those who live on boats need to be able to stay in one place for access to schools, doctors, work etc. Those who live on their boats are the lifeblood of the canal system
I would have to say that the highlighted comments really makes me sick. This bunch of 'johnny come lately's' seem to have some mistaken belief that they have been the 'saviour' of the canals. Perhaps they should be asked where they were when the likes of Tom Rolt, Robert Aickman, Charles Hadfield and Frank Eyre (amongst other 'middle class types) were REALLY saving the canal system? I don't suppose they were even a glint in their parent's eyes. If they think that they are going to impress anyone by trying to rewrite history with themselves as the 'knights in shining armour' then, quite honestly, they deserve all the abuse that they get!
-
1
-
-
Naming a business as a means of giving credibility to ones boating knowledge is not advertising in my opinion.
Isn't that similar to those who spout rubbish but then put BSc or BA after their name? If you have credibility surely you don't need nonsense such as that.
-
Better than being sat behind a keyboard and just sounding off on here.
Maybe it will be ignored, someone is still at least doing something.
Perhaps you could and should produce a better one.
I don't think that there is any 'maybe' as to whether it will be ignored, it is pretty much a certainty. In your view,"...someone is still at least doing something...." but for what purpose? Assume that everything that they hope for came to fruition with this petition, paint me a picture of what that would entail?
-
Some have such a perverse view, so much so that they don't actually see what's in front of them.
The petition in my view is actually helping Crt, by making government aware of the issues that CRT often point out to them.
I don't think that it will help CRT at all. Do you really think that the government don't know that as a result of a number of their policies homelessness is increasing? do you really think that they give a toss? The line of the petition I strongly disagree with is "...CART needs to accept it's responsibilities as a landlord......", no it doesn't. Accept it's responsibilities as a navigation authority, yes, but it is not a landlord. During my working life I had minor dealings with a number of people who lived in their vehicles on the road, does that make the Highways Authority a 'landlord'?
I haven't (and wont) signed either.
-
3
-
-
Are you saying that CRT should react to problems based on boat movements? I thought they were supposed to look after the complete system. Using your thinking less used canals might as well be closed.
Yes, I suppose that I am really. Should they suspend the repairs to the Gas Street leak to rush out to remove a boat from a little used section (at this time of year) of canal? Not really sensible I would suggest. If CRT had an infinite budget so that as soon as a problem came in they could immediately dispatch a full team of workmen/contractors to resolve it then I would agree with your point, on a limited budget they have to prioritise what they do. Whether they set the right priorities can be argued over endlessly but I still fail to see why a lot of people were getting excited about a sunken boat that was not blocking the canal on a lightly used section of canal. It has now gone, job done.
-
Today (19-02-15) the boat has gone, presumably taken away by road as it is not in the CRT depot in Wolverhampton or at other logical places in the area. That makes 4 weeks on to do a job the old BW would have done the next day.
I have lost all faith in CRT being able to run our waterways in any proper way, yesterday Granville st aqueduct was a major problem in Birmingham through leakage, W&B closed UFN. Err maintenance? what maintenance? It was leaking in 1969!
Glad to hear that the boat has been shifted although I would still guess that the number of people who have been inconvenienced by it will be pretty small judging by how few boats seem to be on the move around the BCN.
There is a small inconsistency in your post however if, in the good old days of BW the boat would have been moved next day, why did they ignore the leaking aqueduct? (they were running the system in 1969 weren't they?)
-
The difficulty with this is that CRT has no real competitors.
For the purpose of controlling mergers, the UK regulators consider that if two firms combine to create a market share of 25% or more of a specific market, the merger may be ‘referred’ to the Competition Commission.
CRT control *considerably* more than 25% of the UK waterways (75%?), and so can be considered a monopoly for practical purposes.
So the option of not taking up a licence really does not exist.
I could put my boat on The Nene or The Thames under the Environment Agency, I could put it on the Norfolk Broads under the Broads Authority, I could put it in Bristol Docks, there are a variety of places to go without being on CRT waters so there are alternatives.
-
The following is copied directly from the ICO website and refers to an organisations responsibilities under the DPA Is it ever acceptable to disclose personal data to other organisations for them to use for their own purposes? Raises the question of how Google, Facebook,et al get around it.
It depends. You may be approached by a third party seeking personal data about one of your employees or customers. For example, the police may want information in connection with an investigation, or an individual may want information to pursue legal action. In such cases, you may choose to disclose the information if the conditions of a relevant exemption are satisfied. For more information on exemptions, please see that section of this guide.
Unless one of these specific exemptions applies, individuals should generally be able to choose whether or not their personal data is disclosed to another organisation. If your intention to disclose information in this way was not made absolutely clear at the outset, at a time when the individual had the option not to proceed in their business relationship with you, then you will usually have to get the individual’s consent before making such disclosures.
A decision to share personal data with another organisation does not take away your duty to treat individuals fairly. So before sharing personal data, you should consider carefully what the recipient will do with it, and what the effect on individuals is likely to be. It is good practice to obtain an assurance about this, for example in the form of a written contract.
I'm no lawyer but just that part I would think makes C&RT's T/C's in respect of sharing your personal information with others on shaky ground. If they insist that you have to agree to the T/C's prior to issuing a license then they are not giving you the option not to proceed.(The option not to proceed would surely be to decline to purchase a licence and to take your boat to waters not covered by CRT) Of course they can't actually refuse a license as long as you fulfil the criteria but that is another argument.
Ken
-
Are they? Even if the case does not go the full distance?
Unless the case was heard in camera then whatever a Judge says in Court is, by definition, in the public domain if you are interested enough to want to sit through the case (if it's County Court). If it was Crown Court then a stenographer should have recorded what was said which can be retrieved by interested parties.
-
So far it would seem that the answer is 'no, they can't come up with an explanation' . . . . . just some pointless questions based on fanciful and incorrect assumptions instead.
Good grief Tony, surely you aren't talking to yourself here, are you? (as one who was criticised for allegedly doing the same)
-
Having a few moments to spare today I decided to try to remove the light, and those of you who went for the 'unscrew the brass ring' approach (Meggers & Lampyrichard) were correct! I had tried unscrewing it before but it seemed to have siezed on probably from not have been removed for about 14 years, but with a little more effort, away it came. Thanks again for your suggestions.
-
Perhaps those amongst us who spend their entire time slagging off BW/CRT/EA could advise us what is the acceptable 'window of opportunity' when enforcement CAN be carried out? If they act early they are jumping in too soon and if they leave it for a period they have left it too late. 4 years suggests to me that a lot has gone on before it has reached the current position and for those who claim to have 'inside contacts' with CRT, perhaps they could fill us in with the details.
-
Interesting , thanks for the replies. I wouldn't want to linger on the river as the K & A is the intended objective. I used to live in Bristol but I think it's probably too expensive to spend much time in the Floating Harbour . It's a long term plan prompted by idly lurking on here and reading all the threads .
A couple of boaters from our place went that way a few years back but sadly one has passed away and the other has sold up,and gone for adventuring round Europe instead.
We should of spoke of this last time I saw you at Hawne. We had a cracking trip from Oxford down to Reading then up the K & A to Bristol and back. We budgeted to do the Thames bit in a week since the licences are either daily or weekly and they have an odd way of calculating on square footage rather than just boat length. So for example a 36 square metre boat would cost £86 for two day licences or £70.50 for a week (no brainer really!). We didn't find anything particularly scary on the Thames but when you come back down the K & A (with the current behind you) Newbury, Woolhampton and Reading can be quite 'exciting'. When we went through Newbury it was a bit like riding a flume, once you enter the river below lock (by the Lock Stock and Barrel pub so you have plenty of spectators) you basically have to 'go with the flow' until you reach Victoria Park (and hope no-one is coming the other way!!). We probably didn't pick a good moment in fairness since the river was closed due to high water levels the following day and we had to stay in newbury for a week.
You are right about the Bristol floating harbour, it is quite expensive, I seem to remember that it cost us almost the same as the week on the Thames.
-
Slight thread hijack -
Funnily enough last night my friend and I were talking about going up the Thames from the Grand Union to get to the Kennet & Avon. The EA website is not very infprmative as in it just has RED (Moor up) YELLOW (Better get ready to moor up), and WHITE ( Everything is OK) symbols.
Nothing like current speeds or timings. My boat only does about 4.5 - 5 mph so a current of 5 knots would have me going backwards.
Any good sites for river Thames information for boaters that people recommend?
If it is any help, we only run our boat at about that speed and, obviously complying with the boards, we didn't have any trouble. Your first section from Brentford to Teddington you should be travelling on the last of the incoming tide so the current will be carrying you along and for the rest of it, provided that the boards say it's OK then you shouldn't have any great problem. To save fuel it is worth trying to stay where the current is least (inside edge on corners where you can etc.). Once you get on the Kennet and Avon however things can get quite exciting in places Reading, Newbury and Woolhampton to name three
. All of them, particularly coming back downstream, were more challenging than anything we met on the Thames. The Thames in flood however is another matter entirely and should be avoided at all costs!
. Is anyone out looking for these 'lost boats'? We need to know!!
CANAL & RIVER TRUST OUTLINES POLICY FOR BOATERS WITHOUT A HOME MOORING
in General Boating
Posted
The question is what is this 'it' that it has all come down to? This all started from a fairly innocuous observation by a poster that those with home moorings pay more than CCer's. As a CC'er I agreed with him and it now seems to be self evidently true from the evidence presented.
Also fairly self evident is that those with longer boats pay more compared to shorter boats (or broadbeams) as well, shall we start a long debate about whether or not that is really the case or if you take the square footage of a longer boat whether they pay more or less per square foot that those with shorter boats (J for joke)