Declaring a home mooring

[Arthur Marshall]

19 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Saves the CRT sending people out every week to police the back end of beyond.

Part of the job I should think is checking that the canal, or at least it's water and infrastructure,is still there.  I doubt it's just limited to policing, though with the inefficiency of CRT generally, it may well be.  But more likely a replacement for the old lengthsmen.

[ditchcrawler]

34 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Part of the job I should think is checking that the canal, or at least it's water and infrastructure,is still there.  I doubt it's just limited to policing, though with the inefficiency of CRT generally, it may well be.  But more likely a replacement for the old lengthsmen.

Sorry Arthur I think you are wrong on that one, the licence checkers are just that, they do nothing but check the boats, I suppose some of them would mention if they saw something, but they dont go looking for things.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 hours ago, PhilR said:

Goliath

 

I am wondering if your comment was tongue in cheek or whether you are just being a bit selfish.

Are you suggesting that boaters mooring for 14 days in one place contribute more to

the local economy than overnight visitors?

I would have thought overnight/48 hour visitors would be bigger spenders.

 

Tongue in cheek

 

26 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Well, that’s not entirely true. If you’re moored up in the middle of nowhere, you still have to move at some point to fill up with water and to get rid of your rubbish. The location I pointed out on the map, there isn’t a water tap or elsan point for miles in either direction. I don’t think I’m suggesting that there be no need to move at all, I’m talking about rural places where you go for miles without seeing another person or boat. If you let someone set up there for longer than the 14 days - and would anyone realistically do this? Maybe some but probably few - you’re not really going to inconvenience anyone. Moving them on just “because” seems to me like policing for no good reason. They’re not harming anyone, they’re not inconveniencing anyone and they’d have to move anyway to get rid of waste and top up with water. I’m not saying let people stay there permanently but 4 weeks? 6 weeks maybe? Saves the CRT sending people out every week to police the back end of beyond.

personally it wouldn’t bother me, live and let live

 

but there’s really no such thing as middle of nowhere 

license checkers/enforcers do do a fortnightly check everywhere

and you’ve got the nosey/concerned boater who for a number of reasons will report the  boat 
 

My understanding is before CRT, boats did do the very thing you’re talking about. BW were lenient and clusters of boats would gather and small communities would take root. 
I personally quite like the idea. 
But many don’t, especially if they’re paying a small fortune to keep their boat in a marina and they don’t like seeing folk get summat for nowt. And that’s a valid point. Especially if they can’t get onto a VM.  
So with CRT and a fresh outlook came the pressure to get back to the basic rule of bona fide navigation and the communities were forced to move on or take a mooring. Some were given local roaming permits. 
That’s my understanding in a nutshell. 
 

Nowadays you’ll get a reminder to move almost immediately. 
 

 

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Saves the CRT sending people out every week to police the back end of beyond.

They have to.

 

To enforce against a non-moving boat without a home mooring at a busy location like Hackney, they have to show that they are enforcing against the whole population of boats without a home mooring across the network.

To not check the above pictured location at least once every 14 days would mean they could be seen as targeting specific boats or people.....something the NBTA is very good at using against CRT in court.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, matty40s said:

They have to.

 

To enforce against a non-moving boat without a home mooring at a busy location like Hackney, they have to show that they are enforcing against the whole population of boats without a home mooring across the network.

To not check the above pictured location at least once every 14 days would mean they could be seen as targeting specific boats or people.....something the NBTA is very good at using against CRT in court.

I suppose that’s my point, policing mooring in a rural location in the middle of nowhere with somewhere like Hackney or King’s Cross - I certainly understand enforcing in those popular, busy spots but to me it feels redundant to apply the same rules to rural, much less popular spots. But I do get that it’s probably easier for everyone’s sanity to apply the rules across the board. Just seems a bit ridiculous though.

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Well, that’s not entirely true. If you’re moored up in the middle of nowhere, you still have to move at some point to fill up with water and to get rid of your rubbish. The location I pointed out on the map, there isn’t a water tap or elsan point for miles in either direction. I don’t think I’m suggesting that there be no need to move at all, I’m talking about rural places where you go for miles without seeing another person or boat. If you let someone set up there for longer than the 14 days - and would anyone realistically do this? Maybe some but probably few - you’re not really going to inconvenience anyone. Moving them on just “because” seems to me like policing for no good reason. They’re not harming anyone, they’re not inconveniencing anyone and they’d have to move anyway to get rid of waste and top up with water. I’m not saying let people stay there permanently but 4 weeks? 6 weeks maybe? Saves the CRT sending people out every week to police the back end of beyond.

It is "entirely true", that people would be free to set up permanent home - whether people would do it, or not.

 

Following from what you say, if none/few would realistically do it, the 14 day rule doesn't really affect anyone in those locations, so why resist it?

 

If the rule didn't exist, people would be free to set up permanent home in a whole variety of places where "they would realistically do this", and I think we can agree that that would be wrong?

 

 

[Dave123]

On 06/06/2020 at 15:24, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The answer is really quite simple (but the Baton Twirlers would be up in arms)

Just make all moorings within (say) 1 mile each side of a 'popular area' limited to 24 or 48 hours and leave the remainder at 14 days. That would mean that nice spots (or in the centre of cities) could not be hogged and would become free for more users.

 

It would need enforcing and the enforcement penalties applied but It would only take a few cases (examples being made) before it was realised that C&RT were serious.

This is already the situation almost everywhere...and it works very well.

[Dave123]

On 06/06/2020 at 15:51, Mike Adams said:

You could make the default mooring period say 48  hours at any location but give everybody say 6 scratch off permits each year to allow them to stay for up to 14 days anywhere that was not 24 hours.

You've clearly never been out boating in the winter for extended periods?

[Dave123]

This idea that you can't remain "close" to a static work place and cover a decent distance needs cold water pouring on it. It all depends on how far you are happy to commute. When I worked in central London I basically did the Thames ring plus the rivers Wey, Stort and Lee, using trains to get to work with only Heyford being a tedious train journey of well over an hour. Now I've left London and drive but still manage a range of 144 miles each year and the drive is never more than an hour to work.

Like it or not, how boats and how inland waterways are used is changing. I've noticed it in just the 10 years I've been doing it. I think it is going to be less common to have a boat as a second home and more common for it to be the main home, even for part of the year, with less people retiring early  and having so much disposable income etc. This changes the mindset from doing as many miles as possible from dawn to dusk each day of a 2 week holiday to a slower pace of exploring and finding nice moorings to stay at for a few days. I also expect the shift to working from home will change where current hotspots of overcrowding are. I've been able to move several times a week since work got more flexible about home working for part days.

Edited June 8, 2020 by Dave123

[Mike Adams]

5 hours ago, Dave123 said:

You've clearly never been out boating in the winter for extended periods?

Maybe only the last fifty years

 

4 hours ago, Dave123 said:

Now I've left London and drive but still manage a range of 144 miles each year and the drive is never more than an hour to work.

Sounds like a typical weeks boating to me.

[Richard10002]

5 hours ago, Dave123 said:

This idea that you can't remain "close" to a static work place and cover a decent distance needs cold water pouring on it. It all depends on how far you are happy to commute.

No need to be "happy", you just need to be able to do it. Lots of people have an irritating/unlikeable commute, but they need to work, and they live where they live.

 

Walk/Pushbike to the station, or bus stop, and Bobs your Uncle.

[WotEver]

17 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

No need to be "happy", you just need to be able to do it. Lots of people have an irritating/unlikeable commute, but they need to work, and they live where they live.

 

Walk/Pushbike to the station, or bus stop, and Bobs your Uncle.

For about 18 months I commuted from Brum to London for work. You simply need to get into the mindset and accept that you won’t see much of your significant other during the week. 

[Dave123]

4 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

Maybe only the last fifty years

 

Sounds like a typical weeks boating to me.

I've struggled to see a part of the network where you could move every 2 days all winter without running into a winter stoppage, never mind bad weather. ?‍♂️