Roving mooring licence

[magpie patrick]

I don't believe that the roving MP will entitle people to stay more than 2 weeks on a single mooring.

 

Now, lets stop getting legal and start getting practical. The nuisnace value (if that's what it is) between long distance CCers and bridge hoppers is that they take up moorings that others would like to use. So long as they don't stay beyond the allotted time neither is breaking the mooring regulation, but they may be breaking their licence conditions.

 

However, they become a nuisnance not because of this, but on the 15th day they occupy a 14 day mooring (or the 3rd day on a 48 hour one), just as I would if I left my boat there.

 

BW have said that the problem with mooring enforcement is it doesn't produce a revenue stream, presumably because the penalties aren't enough to pay for the enforcement. Now, lets go back to Slimbridge and Gloucester, or Barnton and Middlewich...

 

boater A has a roving permit but is now on his 15th day at Slimbridge. The signs do not give a penalty for overstaying, so what is BW's revenue stream in enforcing the 14 day rule...?

 

Exactly the same as for the one with no roving permit. Zip, zilcho, nada, nuffink. So it won't be enforced, and worse, the one with the RMP probably feels (wrongly) that they are entitled to stay longer...

 

to make this scheme have any merit at all (and this is difficult) BW would need to define what consititued a continuous and progressive cruise, much more rigourously than they do now. They need some kind of zoning system with a condition that you must spend at least x amount of time in at least three zones. Otherwise they are ina huge legal grey area: the difference between having a mooring and not having a mooring is easy, but how far from Sharpness must you go: up the Avon? Beyond Worcester? Beyond York Street? Bract, Autherley? A zone is needed because the other nuisance value is that all the moorings are full of local bridge hoppers because there are too many of them, and at least this would allow BW to refuse to issue any more RMPs to say G&S based boats (just as they'll presumably only issue 284 licences to boats saying they are moored at Saul)

 

and even then, aside from the enforceability of such a system, where is the revenue stream for enforcement? We all know what happens if BW won't issue a licence, the boat stays on the canal anyway. As no one has invented an atomiser for boats this is hardly surprising, if BW wouldn't issue me with a licence I'd still own a boat, and presumably a near valueless one because it can't be licenced.

 

So will BW actually enforce this, or are they pandering to the gren-with-envy brigade?

 

BTW, continuous mooring isn't that much of a problem on the G&S, I use it as an example because it is where we are based.

[Chertsey]

The other thing that you pay for is the right to remain in a particular location.

 

Sadly, some continuous cruisers do the same thing, despite not having paid for it.

 

But this is already prohibited under existing rules. It seems that the proposal is like saying, 'if you're rich enough to stump up an extra 500 quid then you can ignore the rules. Otherwise we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks (even more than before to placate those who've paid the £500)'.

 

Enforce the existing regulations for all, don't create a new class of boater.

[OptedOut]

So will BW actually enforce this, or are they pandering to the gren-with-envy brigade?

 

I think BW just see a divided and easily manipulated boating community, they do not pander, they manipulate and divide with the apparent support of a large number of boaters.

[mayalld]

so once again these topics descend to the level of the politics of envy.

 

You start arguing from the position of not enough moorings on Bank Holiday Monday and end up with the same old position of 'they're getting something for nothing".

 

You are wrong; to achieve 3 positions the law would have to be changed.

 

No it wouldn't!

 

All that is required is that BW issue you with a permit that says that you now have a place that you can legally keep the boat. You are now on the same basis as somebody with a permanent mooring.

 

Just because it doesn't suit your argument it doesn't stop it being true.

 

Now, lets stop getting legal and start getting practical. The nuisnace value (if that's what it is) between long distance CCers and bridge hoppers is that they take up moorings that others would like to use. So long as they don't stay beyond the allotted time neither is breaking the mooring regulation, but they may be breaking their licence conditions.

 

However, they become a nuisnance not because of this, but on the 15th day they occupy a 14 day mooring (or the 3rd day on a 48 hour one), just as I would if I left my boat there.

 

BW have said that the problem with mooring enforcement is it doesn't produce a revenue stream, presumably because the penalties aren't enough to pay for the enforcement. Now, lets go back to Slimbridge and Gloucester, or Barnton and Middlewich...

 

boater A has a roving permit but is now on his 15th day at Slimbridge. The signs do not give a penalty for overstaying, so what is BW's revenue stream in enforcing the 14 day rule...?

 

Exactly the same as for the one with no roving permit. Zip, zilcho, nada, nuffink. So it won't be enforced, and worse, the one with the RMP probably feels (wrongly) that they are entitled to stay longer...

 

So, the RMP must come with a built-in penalty system, and those who choose not to have a RMP must expect stringent enforcement.

[carlt]

No it wouldn't!

 

All that is required is that BW issue you with a permit that says that you now have a place that you can legally keep the boat. You are now on the same basis as somebody with a permanent mooring.

 

Just because it doesn't suit your argument it doesn't stop it being true.

So BW's interpretation of the law is changing?

 

I don't understand how a Bridgehopper, with a bridgehopping licence, suddenly becomes, in your and BW's eyes, no longer the spawn of Satan.

 

 

 

 

"What are you going to do about these nasty, evil Continuous Moorers?"

 

"We're going to charge them £500 a year and legitimise their practice."

 

"OK then."

[mayalld]

So BW's interpretation of the law is changing?

 

I don't understand how a Bridgehopper, with a bridgehopping licence, suddenly becomes, in your and BW's eyes, no longer the spawn of Satan.

 

 

 

 

"What are you going to do about these nasty, evil Continuous Moorers?"

 

"We're going to charge them £500 a year and legitimise their practice."

 

"OK then."

 

Is that what will happen?

 

It is equally possible that many of the "pretend ccers", when faced with the fact that they will no longer be allowed to get away with their antics FOC will decide that if they are having to pay for a MP, they might as well have a permit that gives them a bit of security.

[carlt]

Is that what will happen?

 

It is equally possible that many of the "pretend ccers", when faced with the fact that they will no longer be allowed to get away with their antics FOC will decide that if they are having to pay for a MP, they might as well have a permit that gives them a bit of security.

I had, probably, one of the cheaper moorings on the cut. It was about £900pa for a full length boat.

 

There were several people moored under Ivy Bridge (about 100 yards away) who had been there several months, none of whom, I suspect, would pay the extra £400 to move across to the off-side.

 

A LT towpath mooring, in Braunston would be £1800 pa.

[GUMPY]

One thing that is being missed in all of this, correct me if I am wrong, the present "rules" about 14 days etc apply if you have a permanent mooring or are a CCer you still have to move and keep on a journey.

 

 

Julian

[Chris Pink]

to make this scheme have any merit at all (and this is difficult) BW would need to define what consititued a continuous and progressive cruise, much more rigourously than they do now. They need some kind of zoning system with a condition that you must spend at least x amount of time in at least three zones. Otherwise they are ina huge legal grey area: the difference between having a mooring and not having a mooring is easy, but how far from Sharpness must you go: up the Avon? Beyond Worcester? Beyond York Street? Bract, Autherley? A zone is needed because the other nuisance value is that all the moorings are full of local bridge hoppers because there are too many of them, and at least this would allow BW to refuse to issue any more RMPs to say G&S based boats (just as they'll presumably only issue 284 licences to boats saying they are moored at Saul)

 

But is it really British Waterways place to design such a punitive system?

 

Or a punitive system of charging such as they propose?

 

There is no justification for a roving mooring licence on grounds of cost - how can someone who cruises 1,000 miles of system require more access to resource than someone who cruises 20?

 

It is not British Waterways place to stand in judgement on that behaviour.

 

It seems to me they should rather be asking "how do you, the boater, want the canals used?" and accommodating that rather than coming up with more and more outré schemes to respond to the complaints of a few vociferous private boaters and the powerful lobby groups of the 'leisure industry'

 

It does seem in some Orwellian (or is it Mayallian) vision that there is a group of people who use the canals, in a way that can certainly be argued to be inside the law, who must be expunged.

 

And, naively, it is seen that a £500 will get rid of them, or as Dave Mayall suggests, get a mooring. when it will do no such thing it will simply make those people less sympathetic to BW and the canal infrastructure which, much as BW would like to obscure, still takes the active participation of people. who know it well to keep it viable.

[magpie patrick]

Chris, I don't want them to design such a system: I'm just explaining how punitive and elaboarate it would have to be to be meaningful

 

I'd rather they enforced the one they've got!

[Chris Pink]

Chris, I don't want them to design such a system: I'm just explaining how punitive and elaboarate it would have to be to be meaningful

 

I'd rather they enforced the one they've got!

 

No, I rather thought you didn't, it's no more far-fetched than some of the 'definitions' floating about, if you'll excuse the pun.

[cotswoldsman]

As a single CCer I have noticed that that people that have there partner, wife etc on a boat use moore water, have to use elsan more than I do and even worse cause more wear and tear on towpath than I do, I think these people should pay a Non Single Persons licence and then if they have a dog they should also pay a premium there could be a licence for dog owners that clear up after there dog, and then lets say an extra £2,000 for those that don't. Ah no as every dog owner will claim that they clear up after there dog BW should just introduce a £1,000 licence for all dog owners and the owners that do clear up can help pay for the ones that don't just on the basis that it is easier to charge all dog owners.

[carlt]

Why not? There's a single person's Council Tax discount because less services are used.

[cotswoldsman]

Why not? There's a single person's Council Tax discount because less services are used.

 

Yes lets start a campaign for licence discount for single boaters.

 

Also I hardly use the rubish facilities.

[carlt]

Yes lets start a campaign for licence discount for single boaters.

 

Also I hardly use the rubish facilities.

I don't see how anyone who supports the ccer's or wide boats supplements can do anything but support the single person's discount campaign.

[Chris Pink]

Yes lets start a campaign for licence discount for single boaters.

 

Also I hardly use the rubish facilities.

 

But then you'd get BW outside with cameras trying to catch you with a woman (or man) aboard.

[carlt]

But then you'd get BW outside with cameras trying to catch you with a woman (or man) aboard.

No, they'd be far more likely to set up a snitch-site.

 

Curtain-twitchers would be encouraged to go and peer through bedroom windows, to report conjugal shenanigans.

[grahoom]

Curtain-twitchers would be encouraged to go and peer through bedroom windows, to report conjugal shenanigans.

 

this sounds like the narrowboat version of dogging...

[carlt]

this sounds like the narrowboat version of dogging...

Opening up the waterways to a whole new marketplace.

[cotswoldsman]

No, they'd be far more likely to set up a snitch-site.

 

Curtain-twitchers would be encouraged to go and peer through bedroom windows, to report conjugal shenanigans.

 

Ah but conjugal shenanigans only to be done on approved "conjugnal shenanigans moorings" and provided you have a shenanigans licence that can be checked on line if boat seen rocking about to much at night, and that is provided it is a night time licence you have as aposed to a day time only licence.

Edited November 5, 2008 by cotswoldsman

[carlt]

Ah but conjugal shenanigans only to be done on approved "conjugnal shenanigans moorings" and provided you have a shenanigans licence that can be checked on line if boat seen rocking about to much at night, and that is provided it is a night time licence you have as aposed to a day time only licence.

And where would this licence be displayed?

[Lady Muck]

Well, I'm just waiting for them to introduce a beard tax,or a crusty surcharge to appease the curtain twitchers.

 

Edited to say 'and then completely fail to police it properly'

Edited November 5, 2008 by Lady Muck

[sueb]

Now that is just about the best argument against it I can think of. I really, really really do not want someone to pay £500 so they can more with impunity on the best moorings (Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust, Gloucester Docks, to name but two round our mooring) while I pay £2,000 to be in Saul Marina (or even on the opposite side of the same canal at Slimbridge!)

 

They can have those moorings for free for two weeks, three weeks even, no problem with that, but not £500 for the whole year...

Please read the BW consultation because that it isn't what it says.

Sue