Boating petition

[Chris Pink]

But only if the craft has sunk or is causing an obstruction AFAIK.Don't know if it can be applied to a licenced boat that is hogging a visitor mooring but I do believe that BW have a right to move any boat if they wish.

 

'sunk, stranded or abandoned' is the wording in the original section 8, to which causing an obstruction was added later. I think BW are stretching the law to apply Section 8 to unlicenced boats (as the frequently do) but that's a fireside discussion for another day.

[Nige G]

That means they are not displaying licences, not that they haven't got one. If you live miles away you may not get to the boat very often.

Sue who was in this position when daughter broke her leg.

 

 

Nope... they had expired licences on them and the sales information also showed that they were expired/unlicenced not just "not displaying".

[Nige G]

I have a cunning plan....

 

Why don't we just untie and move the "abandoned" boats that are left on visitor moorings?

[cotswoldsman]

Well the poll has run for a while now maybe long enough to look at the results!! I should say that I am a CC so maybe a little bias!!

 

So 20% think that CC should pay for winter moorings even though we dont want or need winter mooring, if you group this with the 18% that think CC should pay more no matter what that makes 38% of boaters think that CC should pay more!! I cant help wondering why?? I have read all the different reasons

1. We use the canal system more

2. We wear out the towpath.

3. We are not all CC

 

Is the real reason that we are grouped together as cheap scapes who are just trying to get out of paying for moorings?? Or is the attitude from some boaters "I am unable to boat 52 weeks a year and therefor have to pay either a marina for moorings or BW for moorings so if I have to pay extra for my boating so should everyone else!!"

[Chris Pink]

Well the poll has run for a while now maybe long enough to look at the results!!

 

I think it is interesting that there are only 110 votes yet the topic has been viewed 2,400 times.

 

So most people don't give a toss?

 

"I am unable to boat 52 weeks a year and therefor have to pay either a marina for moorings or BW for moorings so if I have to pay extra for my boating so should everyone else!!"

 

And your last point has applied to all walks of life for all time so no surprise there.

[cotswoldsman]

I think it is interesting that there are only 110 votes yet the topic has been viewed 2,400 times.

 

So most people don't give a toss?

 

 

very good point I guess the only people who really care are the CC who would be asked to pay more for using the system 52 weeks a year and the boaters who pay moorings and don't like the idea that there are boaters on the system who are able to use the £1000 - £2000 they save on moorings for the extra diesel and running costs. Though by the time I spend my money in the pubs and chandlers 52 weeks a year paying moorings would be a big saving!!

[BlueStringPudding]

Though by the time I spend my money in the pubs and chandlers 52 weeks a year paying moorings would be a big saving!!

 

[GUMPY]

Well the poll has run for a while now maybe long enough to look at the results!! I should say that I am a CC so maybe a little bias!!

 

So 20% think that CC should pay for winter moorings even though we dont want or need winter mooring, if you group this with the 18% that think CC should pay more no matter what that makes 38% of boaters think that CC should pay more!! I cant help wondering why?? I have read all the different reasons

1. We use the canal system more

2. We wear out the towpath.

3. We are not all CC

 

Is the real reason that we are grouped together as cheap scapes who are just trying to get out of paying for moorings?? Or is the attitude from some boaters "I am unable to boat 52 weeks a year and therefor have to pay either a marina for moorings or BW for moorings so if I have to pay extra for my boating so should everyone else!!"

 

I think that those that do CC according to the rules are brought down by those that are not really CC and are just trying to either get out of paying for moorings or cannot find one in the area that they want.

 

As I said elsewhere:

 

What we should be doing is pushing BW towards full enforcement of licence

and the CC rules (with "fines" for overstaying), which after all we all, no

matter what class of boater we are should comply with.

 

Julian

[Sir Nibble]

I think it is interesting that there are only 110 votes yet the topic has been viewed 2,400 times.

 

So most people don't give a toss?

And your last point has applied to all walks of life for all time so no surprise there.

I think it is interesting that there are only 110 votes yet the topic has been viewed 2,400 times.

I wouldn't read too much into this, for instance I have posted umpteen times on this thread and every one goes down as a view, plus when I have seen anyone else has posted that's another view when I go to see what they have to say. Plus members who have watched but not participated, plus guests, plus 'bots. I don't think that any conclusions can be drawn from this.

Similarly, I don't believe it is wise to attribute any motive to peoples votes, I would suggest that those who want to put charges on CCers wish

to disincentivise the pretend CCer

but I have been shot down for assuming too much. Having said that, it would seem, reviewing the thread that those who argue against the

pretend CCer

have been painted as,

1/Marina dwellers, (despicable!

2/ Too wealthy, (disgraceful)

3/Owners of shiny boats (disgusting).

I would have said something here about those who support the right of boaters who have fraudulently declared themselves CC to live permanently anywhere they choose, but I can't find any, all I can find is condemnation of overly wealthy marina dwellers with shiny boats and irrelevant comparisons with police brutality.

[grahoom]

I think it is interesting that there are only 110 votes yet the topic has been viewed 2,400 times.

 

So most people don't give a toss?

 

i presume that everytime anyone views the topic it clocks up on the number of times it has been viewed - so i think that it's not really a good indicator of the number of unique people viewing the topic.

 

i think, considering the number of "active" users on this board, 110 votes is not a bad result for participation.

[Sylver Lining]

Just got back from mid morning coffee (ish) with a fellow CCer in the same district as me and thought you might be interested to hear what happened to them.

They were due to move on Sat. However last Thurs a BW person who was not the areas warden knocked on friends boat and said he was just recording everybodys number, just as presedure not because we had been naughty or anything. and that if my friend let the mooring warden know it would probably be ok for them to stay on a bit longer. Im guessing the reason was the weather.

So this morning, my friend stopped the area warden whilst on his rounds and just confirmed that the over stay was ok and not going to cause problems. The warden seemed to not care who stayed where as long as they were not causing any obvious problems and as long as there were no complaints. He would let them know, (unofficially) if there were any complaints. Im guessing before issuing any notices or fines.

Not going to give my full opinion on the issue coz it'll get me into trouble.

Can't resist a tiny opinion though.

Cool!!!

[Chris Pink]

The warden seemed to not care who stayed where as long as they were not causing any obvious problems and as long as there were no complaints. He would let them know, (unofficially) if there were any complaints. Im guessing before issuing any notices or fines.

 

The random nature of responses on the ground from BW staff, the 'wardens' who have no real official standing and the 'enforcement officers', the only BW employees on the up, only feeds into the problem, whereas I am happy that you have a reasonable human being, there was one down this way a couple of years ago who had a penchant for harassing young women. Not good. Glad to say he quickly became history!

I think rumours must abound because the replacements, who don't seem to last long (wonder why) slink along with their dictaphones hidden by their coats like some Inspector Clouseau-ish buffoon.

 

It does illustrate how little care BW took to vet the person they took on. I think the casual nature of the relationship is such that it's more 'paid informer' than employee.

[Maffi]

With no legal requirement to display that receipt.

 

 

No there isnt, but it would at least show monies have been paid.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Maffi

[cotswoldsman]

No there isnt, but it would at least show monies have been paid.

 

 

i presume this is to show "busy body boaters" that monies have been paid, the people that matter BW will know that monies have been paid. I for one have no intention of covering my windows with receipts just to satisfy other boaters.

[carlt]

i presume this is to show "busy body boaters" that monies have been paid, the people that matter BW will know that monies have been paid. I for one have no intention of covering my windows with receipts just to satisfy other boaters.

Hear hear!!

[Tomska]

Hear hear!!

 

Thirded.

[denboy]

I think this thread started because of the APCO moaning i think something like this may have happened

 

hire boater returns after there week or 2 week holiday and the hire company ask them how theyve got on hirer replies we`ve had a lovely time but we were unable to moor at some places because of a lot of other boats being their .

hire company then invent the conception that it must be ccers or cmoorers and dont take into consideration that its the hight of the season and popular spots will get used to the max by pleasure boaters and hire boats

or something along those lines??(could we soon be seing new signs at popular spots saying mooring for hire boats only)

[Tomska]

Not really a serious suggestion - just thinking aloud - what about a petition insisting that anyone taking a boat out on the system must have passed a simple boat-handling test? For the long-term boater this wouldn't be an issue - you'd only have to do it once. It would certainly mean that some of the apalling (and sometimes extremely dangerous) boat-handling I've seen from hire-boaters in the past would be reduced. It could raise a bit more revenue for the BW coffers too, but I doubt APCO's members would be happy about having to pay every time someone new hired a boat...

 

At the very least it may muddy the waters.

 

So to speak.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Tomska

[GUMPY]

Not really a serious suggestion - just thinking aloud - what about a petition insisting that anyone taking a boat out on the system must have passed a simple boat-handling test? For the long-term boater this wouldn't be an issue - you'd only have to do it once. It would certainly mean that some of the apalling (and sometimes extremely dangerous) boat-handling I've seen from hire-boaters in the past would be reduced. It could raise a bit more revenue for the BW coffers too, but I doubt APCO's members would be happy about having to pay every time someone new hired a boat...

 

When the ICC became mandatory in France they made hire boaters exempt!

 

Me I think a licence is a good idea you would be amazed at the number of people I see entering my local lock that cant get a narrowboat into a broad lock without hitting the sides!

[Tomska]

When the ICC became mandatory in France they made hire boaters exempt!

 

That's ridiculous. They are, by definition, the most inexperienced group of boaters on the system.

 

Me I think a licence is a good idea you would be amazed at the number of people I see entering my local lock that cant get a narrowboat into a broad lock without hitting the sides!

 

One of the most popular activities near where I live is sitting in the beer garden outside the Rowbarge in Woolhampton watching the hireboaters wipe out (and helping them out if they get in too much of a mess). They pick up their massive steel boats a couple of miles down the cut and are shown how to use the controls for about five minutes before being let loose on the rest of us. Between Woolhampton swing bridge and the lock, there is a (sometimes very strong) stream coming in from the left. If you're not prepared for it you can get in a right pickle, especially if there's been a bit of rain lately. If you've never steered a boat before and are slowly navigating a 70-foot Reading Marine behemoth through, you're fecked.

[fender]

I think this thread started because of the APCO moaning i think something like this may have happened

 

hire boater returns after there week or 2 week holiday and the hire company ask them how theyve got on hirer replies we`ve had a lovely time but we were unable to moor at some places because of a lot of other boats being their .

hire company then invent the conception that it must be ccers or cmoorers and dont take into consideration that its the hight of the season and popular spots will get used to the max by pleasure boaters and hire boats

or something along those lines??(could we soon be seing new signs at popular spots saying mooring for hire boats only)

 

does this refer to those traffic jams on the T&M? If so then its BW's fault for allowing so many new marinas to be built - and why have so many hire companines decided to concentrate on this particular area?

[Kraken]

But you will be issued with a receipt, or should be!

 

 

i presume this is to show "busy body boaters" that monies have been paid, the people that matter BW will know that monies have been paid. I for one have no intention of covering my windows with receipts just to satisfy other boaters.

 

 

Similarly then, why is there a legal requirement to display a license? Surely "the people that matter BW will know that monies have been paid", so perhaps you shouldn't be required to cover your windows with a license either, just to satisfy other boaters?

[carlt]

Hear Hear!!!

[cotswoldsman]

Similarly then, why is there a legal requirement to display a license? Surely "the people that matter BW will know that monies have been paid", so perhaps you shouldn't be required to cover your windows with a license either, just to satisfy other boaters?

 

There is a legal requirment to show licence so that any BW employee such as Lock Keepers can ensure that the boat has a licence, there is no legal requirment to show a receipt. I was talking about 1 month mooring PERMIT that I had paid for but would not be sent by BW as it was only for 1 month, it was suggest that I display the receipt instead (That has also been received as I am a CC) maybe I shoulld display a print out of my on line bank statement to show that monies have been paid. The Mooring Warden at Norbury was aware that I had paid 1 months mooring so for who's benefit would I be displaying the receipt?? Can only imagine it would be for winging nosey parker boaters!!