C&RT say don't empty your compost toilet in our bins.

[Dr Bob]

29 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Thanks Bob.  It's nice to hear from a more reputable source than the tsunami of idle speculation dressed up as fact that we've had so far.

...and thank you Dora. Yes, the 'tsumami of idle speculation' is detracting from the real story. The practice of dumping it in bins is highly likely to be curtailed for whatever reason (but not what most on here have latched onto) and the CRT has an obligation (or lets be more accurate and say moral obligation ) to sort out something they have been telling peeps to do for 3 years as you have been saying for the last 10 pages.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

...and thank you Dora. Yes, the 'tsumami of idle speculation' is detracting from the real story. The practice of dumping it in bins is highly likely to be curtailed for whatever reason (but not what most on here have latched onto) and the CRT has an obligation (or lets be more accurate and say moral obligation ) to sort out something they have been telling peeps to do for 3 years as you have been saying for the last 10 pages.

Now we're getting to the real crux of the argument -- you and Dora think CaRT have a "moral obligation" to do something to "sort out the problem" for the bag'n'binners i.e. it's down to CaRT to "fix it" because they're the ones who've changed their advice to boaters.

 

But most people think that the bag'n'binners have a much stronger "moral obligation" not to throw their barely-processed poo into CaRT waste bins, and that it's their problem to "fix it" by either using the loo as intended or replacing it.

 

Regardless of why the rules have been changed, that's what it comes down to in the end -- whose responsibility is it to "fix it"?

Edited February 24, 2021 by IanD

[tree monkey]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Ooh, nice bit of gaslighting there -- and you get to pay a compliment to someone who agrees with you!

That harsh, I see no problem with someone thanking another contributor for what seems to be reasonable and what appears to be factual information, to look at it another way you seem to suggest that unless they agree with you no one should agree or like someone elses post.

I largely agree with your general points on compost bogs but Bob's post has supplied some useful and factual information to the thread and as he works in an aspect of the industry it's difficult to see how you can disagree with what he says 

Edited February 24, 2021 by tree monkey

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, Chagall said:

No, it wasn't a misspelling. 

In that case you are are presumably brain dead for using such language, though I am not at all surprised. At the enormous risk of being sanctioned, the only possible response is to tell you to go away, as I am sadly unable to kick you in the balls. Grow up.

Don't bother to reply, i won't see or respond to any more of your posts.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Athy
Removing biological swearing

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

That harsh, I see no problem with someone thanking another contributor for what seems to be reasonable and what appears to be factual information, to look at it another way you seem to suggest that unless they agree with you no one should agree or like someone elses post.

I largely agree with your general points on compost bogs but Bob's post has supplied some useful and factual information to the thread and as he works in an aspect of the industry it's difficult to see how you can disagree with what he says 

 

"tsunami of idle speculation dressed up as fact" = "everyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what they're talking about". Who's the guilty one here?

 

I'm not saying Bob's wrong, I'm saying he's not unbiased since he owns a composting toilet and has skin in the game. If he was a judge, he'd have to recuse himself ?

 

And I'm not disputing his facts, though he does seem to be strongly against any company making money. However I'd be more convinced if somebody else with similar knowledge who doesn't have a compost loo agreed with him.

 

But it's coming down to a more basic question about "the problem" -- who should "fix it", CaRT (Bob's view) or the composting poo-dumpers (most people's view)?

Edited February 24, 2021 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

I don't think CaRT were acting illegally when the first few boaters asked the question and the policy was introduced -- with so few of them the odds are that there would never be more than one poo bag in a bin, so the waste was legal.

 

The problem is that this is no longer the case because more and more people are bag'n'binning; it would be accurate to say that they're the ones that have actually caused the illegal situation to happen, after all it's their poo. Unfortunately for CaRT they're the ones on the legal hook, not the offending boaters, so they have been forced to stop this carrying on by changing the rules.

 

This is no different to other cases where people bought something based on advice/opinion at the time, and then later on circumstances changed and their choice was now seen to be wrong -- diesel cars is a perfect example.

 

I'd have more sympathy if not for the fact that even though CaRT Advice to Boaters said "you can double bag it and put it in our bins" the sentence immediately before said "...should be composted".

 

Together with the generally accepted term for the product ("composting toilet") nobody can seriously claim that they didn't know what they should have been doing with their waste right from day one, even if they were allowed to get away with pretending this wasn't the case because CaRT said they could.

 

As far as I could make out, the Ranter always knew that use of the bins was associated with proper composting but, nudge, nudge - wink, wink, it cannot be done properly on a boat so you can get away with putting the output in a bin. Sounds to me like an example of the old Punch cartoon "Argument weak, shout here". 

 

I'm not sure that the use of the term 'policy' is helpful if it is a matter of (CaRT) complying with the law. That is usually a given assumption in corporate governance. It hardly needs a consultation although having a discussion about what to do as a consequence might be commended. But no amount of consultation can remove the basic requirement of compliance. We don't need a T & C entry to tell us to empty elsans where they should.

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

As far as I could make out, the Ranter always knew that use of the bins was associated with proper composting but, nudge, nudge - wink, wink, it cannot be done properly on a boat so you can get away with putting the output in a bin. Sounds to me like an example of the old Punch cartoon "Argument weak, shout here". 

 

I'm not sure that the use of the term 'policy' is helpful if it is a matter of (CaRT) complying with the law. That is usually a given assumption in corporate governance. It hardly needs a consultation although having a discussion about what to do as a consequence might be commended. But no amount of consultation can remove the basic requirement of compliance. We don't need a T & C entry to tell us to empty elsans where they should.

 

There does seem to be some dispute about whether the reason for CaRT changing their advice is legal (waste regulations, from Alan) or financial (cost to Biffa, from Bob).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

"tsunami of idle speculation dressed up as fact" = "everyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what they're talking about". Who's the guilty one here?

 

I'm not saying Bob's wrong, I'm saying he's not unbiased since he owns a composting toilet and has skin in the game. If he was a judge, he'd have to recuse himself ?

 

And I'm not disputing his facts, though he does seem to be strongly against any company making money. However I'd be more convinced if somebody else with similar knowledge who doesn't have a compost loo agreed with him.

 

But it's coming down to a more basic question about "the problem" -- who should "fix it", CaRT (Bob's view) or the composting poo-dumpers (most people's view)?

 

In the absence of a poll you are not really in a position to talk about 'most' people at all. I suspect lots think much the same as Dr. Bob but don't speak up because they know they will get shouted down by you  in your usual oppressive boorish manner.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

In the absence of a poll you are not really in a position to talk about 'most' people at all. I suspect lots think much the same as Dr. Bob but don't speak up because they know they will get shouted down by you  in your usual oppressive boorish manner.

At least I try and use facts to make my arguments, not personal insults ?

 

I suspect it's the facts they don't like...

Edited February 24, 2021 by IanD

[tree monkey]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

At least I try and use facts to make my arguments, not personal insults ?

 

I suspect it's the facts they don't like...

But Bob has presented some facts about how the industry handles the waste and you jumped on Dora for offering her thanks

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

At least I try and use facts to make my arguments, not personal insults ?

 

I suspect it's the facts they don't like...

 

Well what is your real interest in all of this? You are a hire boater like me, it will barely affect our lives. Apart from the occasional holiday, and even then it probably won't in any meaningful way.

 

I wouldn't want a composting loo if it was gifted to me gold plated but I can certainly  see where those who have invested in one are coming from. 

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

 to sort out something they have been telling peeps to do for 3 years as you have been saying for the last 10 pages.

None of what I have read suggests CRT have been telling people to dump their waste in bins, they have told them it should be composted and hinted at what to do if desperate and needed to do other than compost.

 

Nothing I have read suggested "hey don't bother composting it is OK just dump it in a bin".     What have I missed?

[Cheshire cat]

If the change of policy is an economic one based on the effect on their incinerators perhaps the current policy of rejecting waste oil needs to be revisited. There must be a fair few joules of energy in a gallon of 20-50.

[IanD]

45 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

But Bob has presented some facts about how the industry handles the waste and you jumped on Dora for offering her thanks

That wasn't intended, it was the "It's nice to hear from a more reputable source than the tsunami of idle speculation dressed up as fact" comment that I was shooting at -- not the first bit but the second bit, clearly implying that everyone else (who didn't agree with Dora and Bob) was talking drivel.

 

I've got no argument with Bob's facts, just a concern that having a composting toilet himself he might not be exactly impartial.

[Dr Bob]

36 minutes ago, Jerra said:

None of what I have read suggests CRT have been telling people to dump their waste in bins, they have told them it should be composted and hinted at what to do if desperate and needed to do other than compost.

 

Nothing I have read suggested "hey don't bother composting it is OK just dump it in a bin".     What have I missed?

erm no.

Lets deal in facts. From the biscuits on page one. The wording clearly spells out what to do.

 

As the waste from a composting toilet may not have enough time to decompose sufficiently on board the boat before it needs emptying, this waste will still need to be disposed at an Elsan/sanitary station. With the increasing popularity of composting toilets, we are hoping to pilot a facility for solid waste from composting loos as part of the London Mooring Strategy but in the meantime liquids go into the Elsan unit and solids should be bagged in a nappy bag and placed in the domestic waste bins. Please don’t dump liquid and solid waste on the towpath or into the water, knowing that it hasn’t composted properly. 

 

This was on the CRT site. "may not decompose sufficiently......so it should be bagged....and placed in domestic waste bins". Nothing about 'hinting' on 'desperate'. That to most peeps who understand English is clear what to do if a person cannot fully compost it. Yes it is a temporary measure while they do their London trial but very clear to me.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

erm no.

Lets deal in facts. From the biscuits on page one. The wording clearly spells out what to do.

 

As the waste from a composting toilet may not have enough time to decompose sufficiently on board the boat before it needs emptying, this waste will still need to be disposed at an Elsan/sanitary station. With the increasing popularity of composting toilets, we are hoping to pilot a facility for solid waste from composting loos as part of the London Mooring Strategy but in the meantime liquids go into the Elsan unit and solids should be bagged in a nappy bag and placed in the domestic waste bins. Please don’t dump liquid and solid waste on the towpath or into the water, knowing that it hasn’t composted properly. 

 

This was on the CRT site. "may not decompose sufficiently......so it should be bagged....and placed in domestic waste bins". Nothing about 'hinting' on 'desperate'. That to most peeps who understand English is clear what to do if a person cannot fully compost it. Yes it is a temporary measure while they do their London trial but very clear to me.

So that's your interpretation from one particular section of text chosen to support your position. It's clear from the heated comments on this thread that other people interpret the text in the CaRT advice to boaters very differently, especially the bit that has always said "should be composted".

 

That's the problem with unclear or contradictory advice (which is what CaRT issued, which was a cock-up), it's open to different interpretations depending how you read it (or want it to read).

 

Which is why we are in this mess today. Some people interpreted it as a free license to bin their poo which would last forever. CaRT almost certainly didn't intend that, but didn't make it clear, and are now getting flak because they've changed their mind about what is and isn't permissible.

Edited February 24, 2021 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

Yes they were. Doesn't change the fact that it was advice not any guarantee that this would be allowed forever -- and don't forget "should be composted", maybe poo-baggers can't read?

So say you want to park your car somewhere near where you moor, There is a nice pub carpark but it has a clamping sign but you get chatting to the landlord and he says , yes you can park on my carpark, so you park you car there every night for 3 years and everyone is happy. However you come home one day to find your car clamped and the landlord just says, well I changed my mine, you shouldn't really have been parking there at all.

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

erm no.

Lets deal in facts. From the biscuits on page one. The wording clearly spells out what to do.

......

This was on the CRT site. "may not decompose sufficiently......so it should be bagged....and placed in domestic waste bins". Nothing about 'hinting' on 'desperate'. That to most peeps who understand English is clear what to do if a person cannot fully compost it. Yes it is a temporary measure while they do their London trial but very clear to me.

 

The facts are that the guidance has changed!

[IanD]

36 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

So say you want to park your car somewhere near where you moor, There is a nice pub carpark but it has a clamping sign but you get chatting to the landlord and he says , yes you can park on my carpark, so you park you car there every night for 3 years and everyone is happy. However you come home one day to find your car clamped and the landlord just says, well I changed my mine, you shouldn't really have been parking there at all.

If only CaRTs advice had been that clear...

 

The problem is that in one sentence they said "your waste should be composted", which should come as no surprise to anyone who installs a composting toilet. Then in the next sentence they said "but if you can't do this, we'll let you put it into our waste bins". That was just plain stupid -- which sentence do you take notice of? Many people think the first one, because composting toilets, duh. People who installed them as a better cheaper alternative to pumpouts took the second one, especially if they checked with CaRT who confirmed it. Even stupider on CaRTs part. Now the chickens have come home to roost, or at least their sh*t has.

 

And in answer to your question -- you had a verbal contract with the landlord, if you can prove this you'd win. But even then it doesn't allow you to carry on doing it after he's told you not to, it's his car park and what he says goes.

 

Which is the case here. CaRT aren't saying that the rule change is retrospective, they're saying you can't continue doing it in future. They've removed the option to carry on putting poo in their bins, which was never a right in the first place, they allowed people (wrongly?) to do it, but from now on they won't allow it. They don't legally have to provide rubbish removal at all, they'd be crazy not to because they'd end up with a 2000 mile long flytip, but there's absolutely no obligation on them -- moral, legal or otherwise -- to allow people to dump their poo in them if it causes problems disposing of the waste for legal or financial reasons.

 

Or indeed for any other reason (canal hygeine, moral outrage, sponsorship from a sewer company...), they own the bins and they can say what you're allowed to put into them -- or take them away if you refuse to do what they say.

 

I'm sure CaRT would prefer this to be resolved amicably and that the rule change will persuade all the poo-binners to be good composters in future. Sadly I think that some people won't play nicely and will continue doing it, then CaRT will have to find a way of making them either stop (by banning them somehow) or pay for it (via the license fee or a surcharge on it). If they can't do either because of legal restrictions, the nuclear option is to remove all the bins -- lets face it, it's what a lot of councils did, which is why so many places are covered in litter.

 

The people I feel sorriest for are the ones who've been using composting loos properly, because they really are an excellent and green choice. They'll get caught up in the backlash from all this, and either end up paying for other people's poo removal via a surcharge or will be forced to remove their wonderful toilets because said other people refuse to stop poo-binning.

Edited February 24, 2021 by IanD

[LadyG]

29 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

The facts are that the guidance has changed!

That indeed is the fact.

Ii is up to the boaters with composting toilets to dispose in another, legal way. 

I have quite a lot of scientific, environmental, agricultural and horticultural experience, and I can't think of any practical solution for individual boaters who don't have a compost heap at home, or on their mooring. 

The CRT have suggested 'nappy sacks', these are designed for nappies, the ones I have seen are light plastic affairs, worse than useless for Poop as they will tear but not compost. Local authorities have these separated at source by householders and sent to landfill. 

CRT, and  many of the people who buy these compisstaking loos, expect to come up with a neat, clean, reliable, cheap solution, presumably to be sited at existing sites. There is no such solution. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by LadyG

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, LadyG said:

That indeed is the fact.

Ii is up to the boaters with composting toilets to dispose in another, legal way. 

I have quite a lot of scientific, environmental, agricultural and horticultural experience, and I can't think of any practical solution for individual boaters who don't have a compost heap at home, or on their mooring. 

The CRT have suggested 'nappy sacks', these are designed for nappies, the ones I have seen are light plastic affairs, worse than useless for Poop as they will tear but not compost. Local authorities have these separated at source by householders and sent to landfill. 

CRT, and  many of the people who buy these compisstaking loos, expect to come up with a neat, clean, reliable, cheap solution, presumably to be sited at existing sites. There is no such solution. 

I don't think CaRT believe it's going to happen either:

 

Enquiry

Having read the recent release regarding composting waste disposal I was wondering whether the CRT have any likely timescale for the introduction of suitable disposal points for composted waste? I’m considering a composting toilet as an option but want to be sure I have somewhere to get rid of the waste.

Response

Hello Rick, thank you so much for bearing with us. I am so sorry for our delay in updating you. My colleague had passed on your suggestion but I'm afraid no timeframes can be provided at this time. The team will continue their considerations on the subject but, as there is no statutory duty on the Trust to provide customer service facilities and we are working with extremely reduced resources, this is not likely to be a quick fix.

As soon as there are news on the matter, these are likely to be transmitted through our Boater's Update but, in the meantime, if you are looking at a composting toilet, you would have to also look into how you could keep the waste on the boat for 12 months while it decomposes or, for alternative waste facilities away from the waterways.

[Dyertribe]

2 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Well what is your real interest in all of this? You are a hire boater like me, it will barely affect our lives. Apart from the occasional holiday, and even then it probably won't in any meaningful way.

 

I wouldn't want a composting loo if it was gifted to me gold plated but I can certainly  see where those who have invested in one are coming from. 

Just because it “barely affects” my life I cannot have an opinion? As a Caucasian Welsh person racism barely affects my life. Does that mean I cannot be concerned about issues that affects others?

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

There does seem to be some dispute about whether the reason for CaRT changing their advice is legal (waste regulations, from Alan) or financial (cost to Biffa, from Bob).

Surely it is both? The regulations set the framework of what Biffa can do and, to some extent, what users of the bins can do - CaRT's role vis a vis the Regulation needs clarification - are they just Biffa customers rather than waste disposers - or does that role come into play as soon as they ask Biffa to empty them? All waste can be disposed of - there is no problem with allowing boaters to continue disposing of loo waste in the bins if Biffa offer such a service. No doubt they would (certainly could but as a commercial operation may decide not to do so) but at a prohibitive price. so also commercial. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dyertribe said:

Just because it “barely affects” my life I cannot have an opinion? As a Caucasian Welsh person racism barely affects my life. Does that mean I cannot be concerned about issues that affects others?

 

 

Ridiculous comparison.

[Dyertribe]

Just now, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Ridiculous comparison.

In your opinion,

As a hire boater will the advent of human faecal matter appearing on or near the towpath not impact on my holiday?