Jump to content

London boaters fight for moorings


Boaty Jo

Featured Posts

54 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

My experience of boating to London - admittedly down the GU to Brentford and back rather than across London - was that despite places with moored boats on both sides and plenty of double moored boats the visitor moorings were largely empty. Hence I had no conflict with thousands of boats that didn’t really want to move.

 

It didn’t slow me up too much either because on a deep and wide canal such as those round London it’s possible to move at the same speed you can cruise many Midlands canals without any appreciable bow wave.
 

The only time I was in inconvenienced was when large under-crewed vessels needed to move for services, including when two wide beams conspired to block the navigation below Batchworth lock.

 

So I say there is no real conflict between those who want to move and those who don’t providing there are moorings available for visitors.

 

Canals don’t belong to any group of boater but the ability to cruise takes precedence over the ability to moor for more than one night in the same place.

 

On that subject mooring for one night is deemed to be an integral part of navigation (I know this from my own bespoke licensing conditions).

 

Oh, and I’m also a non-liveaboard without a home mooring, so a nonsense boater according to @Arthur Marshall.

 

 

 

Down to Brentford there's no real problem, neither is there going in towards Paddington until you get past maybe Kensal Green. Beyond that there are few free towpath moorings, and any short-term/visitor moorings are often occupied by the same boats for long periods. Once you get to the real honeypot central area towards Little Venice and beyond there often aren't even any free moorings for breasting up.

 

So if you're cruising around and want to visit and stay there for a night or two, what do you do? This is where the conflict of interests lies -- quite apart from the fact that the rules on CCing are being pretty much ignored by many boats, if they move at all. If anything, they're the ones being "entitled", thinking that they don't need to follow the rules because how they want to live is more important.

 

This isn't fact-free prejudice against CMers, it's based on cycling the same stretch of towpath several times a week for more than a year and seeing which boats move and which don't.

 

And anyone who says there isn't a conflict of interests going on here only needs to read the posts in regular threads on CWDF on the subject, including this one...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paul C said:

Here is the byelaw wording (I've C&Pd 28 and 29):

 

Mooring of Vessels

Vessels to be properly moored

28. Any vessel (other than a dredger or other vessel engaged in works of maintenance of the canal) moored at any wharf or elsewhere in any canal shall be securely moored head and stern with good and sufficient ropes or other efficient apparatus and shall be laid as close to and along the side or front of such wharf or other mooring place as conveniently may be and shall be moored in such a manner and in such a position as not to cause any obstruction to the navigation of other vessels.

Mooring to lockgates etc.

29. No mooring rope shall be affixed to any sluice lockgate, bridge or other work of the Board not provided for the purpose of mooring.

 

================================================

 

Let's discuss "obstruction". I believe there's 2 things you might label 'obstruction', the second of which could be further split into 2 categories.

 

a) Obstructing the navigation. Ie, you moor a boat in a silly place, and nobody can get past. This is (I believe) what's meant by the byelaw 28 ("obstruction to the navigation of other vessels")

b) Obstructing a service/feature. The closest analogy might be where there's 1 water tap and a 72ft gap for a boat to moor alongside. Often on canals you will see "mooring for 30 mins" signs or similar here. Now clearly, when a boat is moored on it, another boat can't use that water facility - there's one tap, and the other boat would have to breast up (there might not be the canal width to allow this....) BUT the signage ALLOWS you to 'obstruct' it for 30 mins...to take on water. 

 

Now, you could extend this to other services/features, for example the limited-time visitor moorings and even the generally-understood 14 days mooring on the towpath. But the notion of obstruction becomes more diluted. If there's (let's not get too complicated with varying boat lengths etc) 4x mooring spaces and 1 boat on it, in theory yes the boat is obstructing that particular 1/4 provision, but in practice another boat could simply use mooring positions 2, 3 or 4 with no ill effect. Yes, in theory you're obstructing, but in a similar way to the water point, you are ALLOWED to obstruct it for a time limited period. That might be as-signed, it might be normal towpath and 14 days.

 

An interesting thing occurs when the mooring spaces become full. Say there's 4 spaces and all 4 are occupied. ALL 4 boats are "obstructing" it, BUT those which have been there less than the time limit are PERMITTED to, those overstaying are not. You rock up for a mooring and you don't know which is which, though. Its obstruction, but its a different definition to that in the byelaw.

 

Now the final point - does "navigation" include a God-given entitlement to tootle along the canal then moor up anywhere at the end of the day (for maybe 2 weeks...) ie is the right to moor in a particular spot included in the navigating of a boat. I'd say, sensibly, NO.

I would think legally definining the word " navigation" in this context would rely on certain legal principles, it's use In other parts of the legislation, the purpose and intent of the legislation and what is reasonable ?

 

The bylaws only mention mooring that might damage infrastructure or block the navigation of other vessels from passing that point,  I dont see any suggestion that mooring to the bank (correctly "fore and aft" ) could be construed as an obstruction to navigating from A to B. 

 

Obstruction of MOORINGS by overstaying would be a different thing entirely, but that doesn't exist in the legislation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it say "passing that point"? 

 

I thought it just mentioned navigation. 

 

Given that one can not reasonably navigate a canal without stopping to moor the boat from time to time it seems to me that places where mooring can reasonably take place are part of the navigation. Mooring a canal boat is a fundamental part of navigation. It's not like you are on a container ship from Harwich to the Panama canal. 

 

If the demand for these places where one can reasonably moor means that people who are moving along the waterway can not moor there then it could be argued that it is obstruction. 

 

Of course we all know that this does not exist in the legislation. This is useful. 

 

Some people seem to want it to be included somehow. Not sure how that can be done but a way will be found me thinks if enough people pull and push in different directions. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

As usual, you using derogatory terms like "entitled" for people you don't agree with doesn't help

Yup, but applying it quite fairly to both "sides", if you took it to mean just the holiday bod's that's your point scoring deliberate misinterpretation at work.

And, well, you try to hide it by quoting that it's other people using these terms, but you do that so often I can only assume you're keen to inflame and promote your "conflict"? I guess you would have no problem if I wrote "often referred to as entitled".  If you expect others not to bite back, stop doing it yourself, you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

3 hours ago, IanD said:

often referred to as "continuous moorers" or "towpath squatters" or other derogatory terms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Does it say "passing that point"? 

 

I thought it just mentioned navigation. 

 

Given that one can not reasonably navigate a canal without stopping to moor the boat from time to time it seems to me that places where mooring can reasonably take place are part of the navigation. Mooring a canal boat is a fundamental part of navigation. It's not like you are on a container ship from Harwich to the Panama canal. 

 

If the demand for these places where one can reasonably moor means that people who are moving along the waterway can not moor there then it could be argued that it is obstruction. 

 

Of course we all know that this does not exist in the legislation. This is useful. 

 

Some people seem to want it to be included somehow. Not sure how that can be done but a way will be found me thinks if enough people pull and push in different directions. 

 

 

 

 

Reasonably speaking and in practice this hypothetical boater can find another place to moor nearby,  this was part of my life when i was CC' ing, you had to take the mooring that was available,  even if you planned to arrive at Banbury, Berkhamstead or Little Venice you often had to pass on through and moor somewhere else, that never stopped anyone from "navigating". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

My experience of boating to London - admittedly down the GU to Brentford and back rather than across London - was that despite places with moored boats on both sides and plenty of double moored boats the visitor moorings were largely empty. Hence I had no conflict with thousands of boats that didn’t really want to move.

 

 

 

 

That's because you didn't actually go into London.  In the central areas there are no visitor moorings in any meaningful sense, other than paid for moorings at Little Venice, Paddington and the Museum.  There are a couple of so-called visitor moorings but these allow for 14 day stays anyway.  Heading east from Alperton there's a fair chance of finding absolutely nowhere to moor until you get to Limehouse, which is pretty much a day's cruise. 

 

Mooring on the GU from Uxbridge to Brentford is a doddle by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Down to Brentford there's no real problem, neither is there going in towards Paddington until you get past maybe Kensal Green. Beyond that there are few free towpath moorings, and any short-term/visitor moorings are often occupied by the same boats for long periods. Once you get to the real honeypot central area towards Little Venice and beyond there often aren't even any free moorings for breasting up.

 

So if you're cruising around and want to visit and stay there for a night or two, what do you do? This is where the conflict of interests lies -- quite apart from the fact that the rules on CCing are being pretty much ignored by many boats, if they move at all. If anything, they're the ones being "entitled", thinking that they don't need to follow the rules because how they want to live is more important.

 

This isn't fact-free prejudice against CMers, it's based on cycling the same stretch of towpath several times a week for more than a year and seeing which boats move and which don't.

 

And anyone who says there isn't a conflict of interests going on here only needs to read the posts in regular threads on CWDF on the subject, including this one...

 

Kensal Green to the bookable moorings at Paddington Basin is 2.5 miles. OK so there is a valid argument that you shouldn't need to pre-book or pay to feel confident you are able to navigate a canal but it doesn't render cruising into London impractical for the visitor. There are also long lines of boats on the GU main line that make casual mooring difficult.

 

What happens on the other side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

That's because you didn't actually go into London.  In the central areas there are no visitor moorings in any meaningful sense, other than paid for moorings at Little Venice, Paddington and the Museum.  There are a couple of so-called visitor moorings but these allow for 14 day stays anyway.  Heading east from Alperton there's a fair chance of finding absolutely nowhere to moor until you get to Limehouse, which is pretty much a day's cruise. 

 

Mooring on the GU from Uxbridge to Brentford is a doddle by comparison.

 

Alperton is four miles from Kensal Green so that's a big difference.

 

So only cruisable by the visitor if pre-planned and booked? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Reasonably speaking and in practice this hypothetical boater can find another place to moor nearby,  this was part of my life when i was CC' ing, you had to take the mooring that was available,  even if you planned to arrive at Banbury, Berkhamstead or Little Venice you often had to pass on through and moor somewhere else, that never stopped anyone from "navigating". 

Yes me too. I was cc ing from 1994 until 2007 and no I didn't have anywhere else to live than the boat. Did cover most of the system as had no encumbrances at the time. 

These days with children I have a mooring. 

 

I still think that places recognised as suitable for mooring should have more turnover and give visitors a fighting chance. 

 

If the bookable moorings were extended to other areas it seems this would help in this regard and bring in some cash to the CRT so the management can buy bigger cars and/or fix locks. 

 

Who knows? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slow and Steady said:

Yup, but applying it quite fairly to both "sides", if you took it to mean just the holiday bod's that's your point scoring deliberate misinterpretation at work.

And, well, you try to hide it by quoting that it's other people using these terms, but you do that so often I can only assume you're keen to inflame and promote your "conflict"? I guess you would have no problem if I wrote "often referred to as entitled".  If you expect others not to bite back, stop doing it yourself, you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

Yes it does apply to both sides -- and I said "commonly referred to" because those are aggressive terms often used by those on one side of the argument, just like you use "entitled" as an insult to people you don't agree with 😉

 

(and bear in mind that if the term applies to anyone, it's those who feel "entitled" to ignore the CCing rules for their own benefit...)

 

I'm not "promoting" any conflict (of interests), I very much wish there wasn't one -- but there clearly is, as your posts keep demonstrating on one side of the argument and posts from others (me included) demonstrate on the other.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Alperton is four miles from Kensal Green so that's a big difference.

 

So only cruisable by the visitor if pre-planned and booked? 

 

Yes, and that is the problem -- assuming that there are any free bookable spaces where and when you want to moor.

 

I'm sure there are some cases where a space can be found, but this seems to be an area where the "movers" are nowadays pretty much locked out by the "stayers".

 

And it certainly didn't use to be like that when I used to go in along the towpath years ago, the big explosion in "continuous moorers" (can't think what else to call them) has happened quite recently -- does anyone have a better idea when this started to become a real issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes it does apply to both sides -- and I said "commonly referred to" because those are aggressive terms often used by those on one side of the argument, just like you use "entitled" as an insult to people you don't agree with 😉

 

I'm not "promoting" any conflict (of interests), I very much wish there wasn't one -- but there clearly is, as your posts keep demonstrating on one side of the argument and posts from others (me included) demonstrate on the other.

I'm promoting nothing other than giving some thought to the "other" side as it were, whichever side you take. By that, I don't mean stating their case then arguing against it. Both sides are displaying entitlement IMO which in both cases is unreasonable. I don't have a side so I disagree/agree with both. What I disagree with is taking intransigent positions and repeating them ad nauseum.

 

Seems like the main problem is lack of short term moorings for those passing through. I have to admit I did a double take reading about the existence of 14 day visitors moorings! What the heck is the point of that? Does it just mean a stretch with bollards or rings? Hardly surprising that with the same time restrictions as any old part of the towpath + plus the irresistible bollards/rings that they are constantly full up! Is it possible that merely designating chunks of these as 48 hour would be helpful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first turned up in London in 2009 initially as a cc er but we took a mooring in 3012.

There was always some space to be had initially even at the popular sites like Camden and Islington tunnel. It got very busy shortly after that. Maybe it was the Olympic Boost effect or house prices doing it. 

 

Or just my magnetic personality encouraging Les Autres. 

 

I do blame myself and regularly hit myself over my shoulder with handfuls of flageolet beans. There is a word for it.

 

I do think Les has a lot to do with it. 

 

Overpopulation is a terrible thing and it's getting worse fast. 

 

And...relax. 

 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

I'm promoting nothing other than giving some thought to the "other" side as it were, whichever side you take. By that, I don't mean stating their case then arguing against it. Both sides are displaying entitlement IMO which in both cases is unreasonable. I don't have a side so I disagree/agree with both. What I disagree with is taking intransigent positions and repeating them ad nauseum.

 

Seems like the main problem is lack of short term moorings for those passing through. I have to admit I did a double take reading about the existence of 14 day visitors moorings! What the heck is the point of that? Does it just mean a stretch with bollards or rings? Hardly surprising that with the same time restrictions as any old part of the towpath + plus the irresistible bollards/rings that they are constantly full up! Is it possible that merely designating chunks of these as 48 hour would be helpful?

 

The CCing and mooring rules say that boats should move on every 14 days and not remain in the same small area, and that 48-hour moorings and VMs are exactly that. Visiting boaters are therefore entitled (go and look up the definition) to expect that these moorings are used by short-term visitors, not long-term moorers ignoring the rules -- who if they think they should be allowed to do this because it's convenient for their lifestyle, are being "entitled" in the pejorative sense that you seem to use it.

 

It's not the same on both sides, any more than MPs expense-fiddling or partying during lockdown were. And if you don't like me repeating that ad nauseam in response to you denying it, I suggest you make your argument using facts instead of insults -- "shut up, it's all over, nothing to see here, move on" is a familiar argument nowadays, but not one that is the least bit convincing.

 

There are long stretches of moorings -- towpath and 48 hour -- which are permanently full of moored boats which hardly move, if ever, so I fail to see how designating more moorings as 48 hour would help -- in fact even the stretches near Paddington with "no mooring" signs are full of similar boats. It doesn't matter how many short-term/48-hour/VMs there are if they are just blocked by habitual overstayers.

 

The problem is that the mooring rules are not enforced by CART and are largely ignored by those who find it convenient to do so -- which is pretty much your definition of "entitled", isn't it? 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

I suggest you make your argument using facts instead of insults

Point me to these insults. You're building a straw man here Ian. In fact 

 

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

entitled (go and look up the definition)

is patronising and insulting.

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

The problem is that the mooring rules are not enforced by CART and are largely ignored by those who find it convenient to do so -- which is pretty much your definition of "entitled", isn't it? 😉

Yes it is, where have I remotely suggested otherwise? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Point me to these insults. You're building a straw man here Ian. In fact 

 

is patronising and insulting.

Yes it is, where have I remotely suggested otherwise? ;)

 

You're the one who started using "entitled" -- knowing exactly what it means (an insult), or you think it does -- not me.

 

Pointing out that "movers" are entitled to use the short-term spaces according to the original dictionary definition is simply countering your (modern) pejorative use of it.

 

We've had exactly this discussion before and it's very clear which side of the argument -- essentially, the NBTA one -- you believe in. It's equally clear which side I stand -- that boaters should obey the CCing/mooring rules, not do what suits them regardless.

 

I suspect we're never going to agree or change our minds on this, and everyone else is getting bored with seeing the same arguments again and again... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

There are long stretches of 48 hour moorings which are permanently full of moored boats which hardly move, if ever, so I fail to see how designating more moorings as 48 hour would help -- in fact even the stretches near Paddington with "no mooring" signs are full of similar boats. It doesn't matter how many short-term/48-hour/VMs there are if they are just blocked by habitual overstayers.

Do you know that these people haven't got CRTs blessing to do exactly that? Do you know that CRT don't point disabled people to these moorings as accessible for them? I don't, but I also don't know otherwise. Genuine question - why do you think they are able to do this? Why do you think CRT don't section 8 the lot of them? 

 

31 minutes ago, IanD said:

You're the one who started using "entitled" -- knowing exactly what it means (an insult), or you think it does -- not me.

So why are you so reactionary towards it and why are you so sure I'm only referring to those on one side of this despite me saying otherwise? If you think it's so bad to use this term for both sides I think you should have a good look at the veiled insults you merrily throw around this forum towards anyone that doesn't agree with you and even those like myself that you imagine (yes I know what that means ;) ). don't agree with you.

 

31 minutes ago, IanD said:

We've had exactly this discussion before and it's very clear which side of the argument -- essentially, the NBTA one -- you believe in. It's equally clear which side I stand -- that boaters should obey the CCing/mooring rules, not do what suits them regardless

Don't tell me what I think, that's purely your prejudices showing. ;) And that's the point...

My main argument with you revolves around you making assumptions about what I think, then arguing with them. It's insulting and I will not stop correcting your false assumptions.

I have sympathy for anyone unable to find a mooring be they liveaboard CCers that don't move enough to satisfy you but apparently do move enough to satisfy the board, or those on holiday. I'm pretty sure the London mooring situation is a PITA for both.

Edited by Slow and Steady
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Slow and Steady said:

Do you know that these people haven't got CRTs blessing to do exactly that? Do you know that CRT might point disabled people to these moorings as accessible for them? I don't, but I also don't know otherwise. Genuine question - why do you think they are able to do this? Why do you think CRT don't section 8 the lot of them? 

 

So why are you so reactionary towards it and why are you so sure I'm only referring to those on one side of this despite me saying otherwise? If you think it's so bad to use this term for both sides I think you should have a good look at the veiled insults you merrily throw around this forum towards anyone that doesn't agree with you and even those like myself that you imagine (yes I know what that means ;) ). don't agree with you.

 

Don't tell me what I think, that's purely your prejudices showing. ;) And that's the point...

My main argument with you revolves around you making assumptions about what I think, then arguing with them. It's insulting and I will not stop correcting your false assumptions.

I have sympathy for anyone unable to find a mooring be they liveaboard CCers that don't move enough to satisfy you but apparently do move enough to satisfy the board, or those on holiday. I'm pretty sure the London mooring situation is a PITA for both.

 

I can see perfectly well how many boats there are that don't move, and I'm pretty sure that CART do give out a small number of exceptions where justified, and I simply don't believe that so many boats over such a distance fall into this category -- you're putting up a straw man argument again.

 

I'm pretty sure that last time this subject came up you had all the same pro-moorer arguments and it took a lot of prodding to get you to admit that you were either a member of the NBTA or at least agreed with their principles -- if that wasn't you then I apologise right now. Was it you?

 

How much boats move isn't a question of whether they satisfy *me* or not, it's whether they "satisfy the board" -- and as I keep saying, having seen the boats on the stretch going into London many times over more than a year, I find it impossible to believe that they are all "following the rules" -- and several have admitted that when I've talked to them, including "waiting for engine repairs" for more than a year (though of course the parts were available), and the "encourage coots to nest in tyre fenders" trick, or just plain "even if CART check it takes so long to take action I just ignore it". There is what could well be an apocryphal tale of a couple who every time CART brings action against one of them they sell the boat to the other for £1 and CART have to start proceedings all over again, and have been doing this without moving for years -- which could be true or could just be made up by people who hate CMers...

 

I too have sympathy for people who can't find somewhere to moor for whatever reason -- but much less sympathy for those who can't because they want to ignore the rules (and stay in one place just because it's convenient for them) than those who want to visit a place but can't because the moorings are blocked by overstayers. It's *not* a level playing field, and the fault/blame is *not* equal on both sides...

 

In my opinion. You disagree, and you're entitled to your opinion -- but I don't have to agree with you, and vice versa.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer most definitely does not lie in making boats move more often. That will make no difference to the demand for towpath mooring but it will make cruising to the few available places harder for the visitor.

 

You only pass a moored boat once when transiting a canal and from a purely boating perspective it matters not a jot where you pass it on the canal. Preservation of visitor moorings is an issue and it really ought to be possible on 48 hour moorings. No real point with 14 day moorings because they are just like a towpath moorings but with rings or bollards provided. They'll just get re-occupied as soon as they are vacated. I took the view that on the GU main line the VMs were largely clear because it was a way for the wise liveaboards to keep below the radar.

 

So London is out of bounds if you cruise a certain way and aren't willing to change your style but to those who really want to visit it's possible but advisable to pre-book. This isn't news as I've long known people who've done it that way and it's pretty much how I boat anyway, minus the paying bit. I did contemplate visiting Paddington last year and would have been able to book on my identified dates but ultimately my plans changed on the way to London so when it came to choose my destination Brentford won because Hanwell locks seemed a lot more interesting than the Paddington Arm and it had an available short term mooring where I left the boat. Through London to the Lee and Stort will wait for another time.

 

It isn't ideal but it is London and it's like no other city (in pretty much the entire World) so it's tolerable.

 

I'm just not into talk of conflict between groups of boaters, particularly when one of them is on a bike.

 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The answer most definitely does not lie in making boats move more often. That will make no difference to the demand for towpath mooring but it will make cruising to the few available places harder for the visitor.

 

You only pass a moored boat once when transiting a canal and from a purely boating perspective it matters not a jot where you pass it on the canal. Preservation of visitor moorings is an issue and it really ought to be possible on 48 hour moorings. No real point with 14 day moorings because they are just like a towpath moorings but with rings or bollards provided. They'll just get re-occupied as soon as they are vacated. I took the view that on the GU main line the VMs were largely clear because it was a way for the wise liveaboards to keep below the radar.

 

So London is out of bounds if you cruise a certain way and aren't willing to change your style but to those who really want to visit it's possible but advisable to pre-book. This isn't news as I've long known people who've done it that way and it's pretty much how I boat anyway, minus the paying bit. I did contemplate visiting Paddington last year and would have been able to book on my identified dates but ultimately my plans changed on the way to London so when it came to choose my destination Brentford won because Hanwell locks seemed a lot more interesting than the Paddington Arm and it had an available short term mooring where I left the boat. Through London to the Lee and Stort will wait for another time.

 

It isn't ideal but it is London and it's like no other city (in pretty much the entire World) so it's tolerable.

 

I'm just not into talk of conflict between groups of boaters, particularly when one of them is on a bike.

 

I think we all agree that just moving for the sake of it -- especially in the middle of nowhere -- makes no sense, there's no need for it or benefit to everyone.

 

In crowded areas together with the CCing rules it should mean that popular in-demand moorings can't be permanently hogged by a few boats sitting on them all the time, but then this would mean people following the rules and moving away from the honeypot areas regularly -- and this is what people using the boats as cheap flats don't want to do.

 

Even so, if the short-term/48-hour/VMs were used as intended there wouldn't be a problem for visitors, but that's not what is happening either. It's not just a problem in London, the K&A is the same, and there are other popular places like Braunston and Whaley Bridge and many others where mooring is difficult for visitors, and for sure part of the problem is boats overstaying on VMs because I've seen them. The system relies on people behaving nicely and following the rules, but nowadays a lot of people take the "I'm all right Jack" attitude and ignore them, the problem is basically selfishness.

 

So right now nobody is happy -- people living on boats don't see why they should move in the sticks, and don't want to move in the honeypots, and visitors have trouble finding moorings there, and everyone is blaming everyone else (including CART) because that's what people do when they're unhappy... 😞

 

And please leave the snide digs out, the only reason I haven't got a boat is that it's not ready yet 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm pretty sure that last time this subject came up you had all the same pro-moorer arguments and it took a lot of prodding to get you to admit that you were either a member of the NBTA or at least agreed with their principles -- if that wasn't you then I apologise right now. Was it you?

I'm not a member and know nothing about their principles EXCEPT that apparently they get the blame for anything connected with CCers that isn't approved of. IF they are a group that try and bend the rules into "rights" then in principle I'm not in favour - as explained earlier this historically always ends up with rules being tightened unnecessarily to everyone's detriment. In general I believe people should follow the rules and be nice, but then I don't live in London and recognise that with the overcrowding there, those that do end up with nowhere to moor, just like the holiday people so what can they do?  Yep, I know, move out of London and that would be what I'd do. No need to apologise, it's probably just another case of you deciding what I think so that you can argue with me to make your point.

 

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

How much boats move isn't a question of whether they satisfy *me* or not, it's whether they "satisfy the board"

Exactly, I'm glad we agree on that. If those boats are licenced, the board must be satisfied?

 

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

I find it impossible to believe that they are all "following the rules" -- and several have admitted that when I've talked to them, including "waiting for engine repairs" for more than a year (though of course the parts were available), and the "encourage coots to nest in tyre fenders" trick, or just plain "even if CART check it takes so long to take action I just ignore it".

I refer you to the first part of this post. If they play by the rules - nowhere to moor. I'm afraid it's likely to be a case of if you can't beat them join them anarchy on the London canals. Before you incorrectly opine that I approve of all that and start arguing with me - NO I DON'T. Good, that's clear. What I do is recognise reality. That's the reality isn't it? You don't like it, 2,000 London CCers disagree and the board are satisfied with their behaviour. But you say - it's against the spirit of the rules. They say - sod the spirit, we're trying to have a life here and if we have to duck, dive and circumvent unenforceable rules to do it, them that's the rule's fault. 

 

A friend of mine used to employ the locals who were bought up in a different culture, a non-UK culture with a different religion, but they were the majority of the population, just the locals. So, one day he finds he had a £2,000 telephone bill (this is the early eighties). It turned out one of his apprentice employees had been phoning his relatives abroad. Just a young guy so my friend went to have it out with his father. The father could not understand his point of view. It was all my friend's fault for putting temptation in his way. He should have banned overseas calls/locked the telephone. What did he expect! To him, it was like leaving the keys in your Jag and expecting nobody to steal it. Maybe he had a point, sort of. Never trust anyone?

 

And, there we have what the UK has become or is fast moving towards. It's acceptable for people and companies to cheat basically, unless they get caught or someone does something about it. Eon have a department set up absolutely to avoid repaying money they've managed to cheat their customers out of. I know this. It took me 3 months and threats to inform the fraud squad to move them from "we owe you nothing" to a £3,500 rebate. That was hard, hard work. I feel sorry for anyone who can't defend themselves against that lot and their ilk. Insurance companies do the same. Banks attract investment then immediately cut the rates. Cheating has been normalised.

 

What's the point of all the above? I'm trying to say that you should not be surprised, in the UK today, that a large section of society do not give a sh!t about rules and life has taught them to be like this. It's a sorry state that we find ourselves in. Our politicians are not blameless in this drift away from the British notion of fair play, but it is what it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.