Continuous Cruisers

[David Schweizer]

I would hazard a guess that the one on the BW site is probably the most up to date, which is why I have it.

23278[/snapback]

I can't find the document you are referring to Maffi - I find the BW site very difficult to navigate. However, in the literature which was recently circulated to licence holders there was a detailed deliberation upon the latest interpretation of the mooring and cruising "regulations" including rather lengthy definitions of what the BW lawyers believe particular words and phrases to mean. At the end of this rather overworked document was a short sentence stating that the interpretations were for guidance only and were not legally enforceable. That was what I was saying - that BW can introduce whatever regulations/codes/conditions they like, but if they are not supoported by legislation, they cannot be enforced through legal action.

 

To their credit, what BW are trying to do is harness the goodwill of boaters to comply with what is effectively a Voluntary Code of Practice, and I am certain that most boaters will go along with that. But BW also have to demonstate goodwill by starting to take a much firmer approach with persistant breaches of the Waterways Act. They have the legislation, but for some inexplicable reason seem unwilling to use it. If they continue with this aproach BW run the risk of completely loosing the already diminishing support of the general boating community.

[fender]

BW can introduce whatever regulations/codes/conditions they like, but if they are not supoported by legislation, they cannot be enforced through legal action.

23308[/snapback]

 

If BW cant enforce legally no wonder bridge hoppers get away with it. Its like that particular boat that stays in Paddington Basin for weeks on end and its been on the same spot by Delamere Terrace for about two months now. A lot of people are getting rather fed-up with it.

[David Schweizer]

If BW cant enforce legally no wonder bridge hoppers get away with it. Its like that particular boat that stays in Paddington Basin for weeks on end and its been on the same spot by Delamere Terrace for about two months now. A lot of people are getting rather fed-up with it.

23316[/snapback]

My point was that rather than mess about trying to invent rules that just annoy most boaters, BW should use their existing powers to resolve some of the issues regarding overstaying and licence evasion. BW can take legal action against the owner of any boat which is not moved within 28 days of receiving a notice to remove the boat to another place. Similarily BW can take action against anyone who keeps a boat on their water without complying with the licencing conditions laid down in the Waterways Act.

 

If BW Officers appear to be doing nothing about the situation (and they may be doing something without you knowing it) you can report the matter to the Local BW Office, (in writing so that you have evidence of submitting a report). If BW fail to act after this, you can report the matter to the Waterways Ombudsman who will investigate your complaint.

 

It is just a thought, but if more people who are being inconvenienced by severe cases of inconsiderate and illegal activity, reported the matter to BW, maybe they would garner more enthusiasm to do something about the situation. Or am I just being over optimistic?

Edited June 16, 2005 by David Schweizer

[maffi mushkila]

You dont need BW codes or licence documents to find these. You'll find the rules on moorings information boards at many locations on the waterways. There are specific rules that exist in addition to the 4hr, 24hr, 48hr, 7 day and 14 day limits. These include the stipulate not to retun within a certain number of hours, or not to moor more than a given number of days in a calendar year. In addition to that BW are tightening up on certain sites. For example, some that were 14 days are now being changed to 24 or 48 hours. These changes I attribute to the problems caused by bridge hopping. Whether you are a moorer or a CC, one will have to move on more relentlessly, thanks to the overstayers who have abused the system for so long.

 

You will find it HERE. I suspect it is the one you mention.

 

The nearest Canal to me has none of these so I have't seen them, but then BW doesn't have control over Suez.

 

Changing the timings at these places will not effect those who choose to stay weeks, months. So I would put that down to wasted money on BW's part. Unless they back it up with action.

 

But you are right and I have been saying this all along, these itinerants will and do spoil it for everyone.

Edited June 16, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[fender]

If they tried to move on a bit more it might be much better but they have grown roots, got motobikes on the towpath, and rubbish dumped - that simply blows away in the wind (usually ends up on the canal!) All this in the centre of London! Locals have shown disgust about it, local boaters, visiting boats and CC's, are all fed up with it.

 

We can be tolerant of those who might need some time or space for particular reasons, but not in this way I am sorry. Its just round the corner from BW's Ivory Towers so how such flagrant ignorance of mooring rules can be conducted under their noses I dont know. All I can say is that BW must be so comfy - and having the time of its life in such luxurious accomodation. Yes the Patrol Officer has been through on the BW Patrol boat 'Verraluam' a few times but still no change. I suggested (on the previous CC thread) that the canal may as well be a thousand light years away as far as BW is concerned cos it seems they dont care.

 

There should be a new terms for these people. Eg Towpath Clinger as they're not the ususal bridge hopper. Any suggestions? And a new thread please - or else I will start one as its not CC's that are the problem.

[Alan Saunders]

If they tried to move on a bit more it might be much better but they have grown roots, got motobikes on the towpath, and rubbish dumped - that simply blows away in the wind (usually ends up on the canal!) All this in the centre of London! Locals have shown disgust about it, local boaters, visiting boats and CC's, are all fed up with it. . . . .

 

There should be a new terms for these people. Eg Towpath Clinger as they're not the ususal bridge hopper. Any suggestions? And a new thread please - or else I will start one as its not CC's that are the problem.

23343[/snapback]

I think David has covered this with his previous posts. BW have limited powers. Eventually BW may issue a notice but they can then stay a further 27 days before moving to, say, Maida Vale or Marylebone to await another notice. As I have said before, BW claim they can charge (not fine) for overstaying on any mooring (£25 per day for the first seven days £50 thereafter), I doubt they have ever made such a charge.

 

I am sure there are laws that could be applied to the motorbikes and rubbish on the towpath. 'Untidy Premises', Litter Act, Road Traffic Act? If everyone is so incensed they should get together and do something about it.

 

It would be better to rename this topic (Mooring Abuse?) than start another.

 

Alan

[gaggle]

yes alan could be right here,otherwise we become part of anti cc brigade

i second the motion

[maffi mushkila]

yes alan could be right here,otherwise we become part of anti cc brigade

i second the motion

 

As long as it stops people calling these itinerants CCer's I'm all for it.

[Alan Saunders]

As long as it stops people calling these itinerants CCer's I'm all for it.

23407[/snapback]

It matters not what we/they are called, the question is 'are we/they inconveniencing others' and is there a process to deal with the situation and is that process being judiciously applied? Your 'itinerants' are likely to have a 'CC' licence or none at all. Either way they are 'Continuous Cruisers'. To comply with the law they can move between Paddington, Maida Vale and Marylebone every 14 days. Even if they had a permanent mooring (say March @ £10/ft) the same rules would apply.

 

I would like to see a lot more constructive ideas and understanding of the real situation in this topic. David Schweizer has lead the way, my contributions may be less lucid. Name-calling can be a convenient shorthand but so often is used to identify a minority group to be bullied by a greedy, vindictive majority.

 

'fender' has pointed out a situation that requires action but it seems that those affected prefer to complain to each other rather than take positive action, perhaps the miscreants threaten physical violence? My neighbour contaminated his clothes with glass fibres so he washed them & hung them to dry on his mooring ropes. Local towpath walkers were heard to comment loudly "It's getting like a Gypsy camp around here!" Is that acceptable or not? He has a 'Gold' licence and his mooring (300yds away) fees are paid up for the year.

 

Alan

[maffi mushkila]

It matters not what we/they are called,.......................

 

It matters a great deal.

 

Those that are playing the game by the rules should not be lumped in with those who don't.

 

It is unfair to to assume that a genuine CCer is the same animal as a Towpath Leech.

 

In situations like this in order to deal with the problem it is important to determine who is the problem and who is not. If that means giving the problem a name so be it.

 

Genuine CCer's are clearly not the problem, so why call the problem CCer's

 

I know people called Alan who are out and out criminals, should I assume that you are one too?

Edited June 17, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[dor]

I have to agree with Maffi here; there should be no stigma attached to genuine CCs. But please try and understand what a genuine CC is, and understand the difference between those who are an asset to the system and those who abuse it.

 

Wish I didn't have to pay my mooring fee.

[maffi mushkila]

I have to agree with Maffi here; there should be no stigma attached to genuine CCs. But please try and understand what a genuine CC is, and understand the difference between those who are an asset to the system and those who abuse it.

 

Wish I didn't have to pay my mooring fee.

 

Thank you DOR. The only way that can be achieved is to stop calling the problem CCer's

 

And on the subject of 'labeling' these itinerants I think Victor Swift may have a few words in that direction next week.

[fender]

Regarding the issues discussed on this page - Extracts from First Mate on NBW today:

 

1) "I FIND it really surprising that those who continuously cruise get such a bad press, when the ultimate dream of so many of those I speak to, boaters or otherwise, is to do just this?

 

Reading comments with regard to those who continuously cruise overstaying on moorings or evading licence payment, whilst this may apply to the few, rather than to the many, all it seems are beginning to be tarred with the same brush.

 

If we’re speaking of breaking the rules and overstaying on popular moorings, in my experience it isn’t only the minority of those who continuously cruise who’re guilty. There are some out there who may do well to examine their own conscience, and to check the date on their licence, before casting the first stone."

 

 

2) "In continuously calling for tighter mooring restrictions for those seemingly perceived as ‘jammy dodgers’ (not the biscuits) we may end up wrapping ourselves up in red tape and exchanging any goodwill on the part of British Waterways for rules set in stone."

 

I noticed two posts today on linking to the CC notes at Waterscape. Its is on BW's site here:

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/M..._tcm6-75268.pdf

 

I dont use waterscape its too confusing. All BW PDF documents can be got from the downloads section.

Edited June 17, 2005 by fender

[fender]

Thank you DOR. The only way that can be achieved is to stop calling the problem CCer's

 

And on the subject of 'labeling' these itinerants I think Victor Swift may have a few words in that direction next week.

23461[/snapback]

 

 

NBW has already said something as my recent post shows extracts. Its not Victor though.

[maffi mushkila]

NBW has already said something as my recent post shows extracts. Its not Victor though.

 

But it will be.

[Richard Fairhurst]

I dont use waterscape its too confusing.

23462[/snapback]

...at present!

 

Richard

[gaggle]

But it will be.

23464[/snapback]

i have got him going,victor baby has resorted to personal attacks on me. i know i have done something right.he is now doing exactly what he was complaining about last week.shows what a loser the guy is. a bad loser at that. its a laugh though,teehee,guffaw and a load of chuckles at victor baby,s expense.gaggle

[Big COL]

i have got him going,victor baby has resorted to personal attacks on me. i know i have done something right.he is now doing exactly what he was complaining about last week.shows what a loser the guy is. a bad loser at that. its a laugh though,teehee,guffaw and a load of chuckles at victor baby,s expense.gaggle

23538[/snapback]

 

Gaggle

 

In my opinion once the level of debate degenerates into personal attacks, then everybody loses. NarrowBoatWorld is a boating news web site controlled by an editor of many years experience, the content of which is controlled by said editor and is published very professionally. Victor to many is not a real person merely a pseudonym, used to generate light controversy. If postings are not kept to a sensible level of argument then they will do more harm than good, they will be indicative of the level of intelligence of the poster. If this subject is going to degenerate down to a personal level then I for one do not wish to read about them, as this is not as I understand it, what this forum is for.

Victor has caused many a ruffled feather in the past on various subjects, to the amusement of the readers, his comments cause controversy just as they have done on the subject of CC, but this then kicks off and the subject in question is suddenly top of the talk list. Don't be drawn in to Victor's web, stay calm and argue precisely. Maffi has enough passion on CC's for all of us, and he is determined to see it through as far as he can, support for him will not come by denigrating the opposition. This is a subject that will never be completely understood by everybody, don't ask me why that's just the way it is, it will keep on regenerating itself until the rules are changed. We can only hope to explain the rules to this present audience, a few months on and new members will be asking what's all this about continuous cruising.

[Richard Bustens]

Fender, posted a link to CC requirements , does anyone know if there is one for moorers?

[maffi mushkila]

I can't find the document you are referring to Maffi ..................

 

 

This should get it.

Mooring Guidance

[maffi mushkila]

Fender, posted a link to CC requirements , does anyone know if there is one for moorers?

 

This might be what you are looking for, Richard.

 

MOORING

[Richard Bustens]

No Maffi the first one is the same as Fenders and the second one is about the same it tells a CC what he can and can not do, but is there one that tells a person wth a mooring what they can and can not do ?

[Bernie]

Since this now appears to be degenerating into personal attacks I am locking this topic. It would be appreciated if personal arguments were kept to a private level and not aired in public.

Edited June 19, 2005 by Bernie