Continous cruising in London area

[Black Ibis]

is that separate from the Council managed residential moorings?

 

Yes, the people who moor on the Council managed moorings are actually paying a mooring fee!

 

 

Why is this different from what you were/are doing?

 

Well, in essence, its not. But it IS allowed under EA rules. And it was only during the winter when there were very few other boats moving, so that we didn't take up space that would otherwise have been used by visitors. But, I wouldn't do it again, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone and it was foolish of us to think that it was sustainable! Moving th boat for 2+ hours every other night in the dark and cold? Yuk! We are SO glad to have a permanent residential mooring now.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Black Ibis

[spacecactus]

ter, leeds, coventry et al) is to encourage a new vibrancy (Vibrancy is one of BW's favourite buzzwords so i thought i'd slot it in even though it's a bit....)

 

So come on Dave, find us a solution that fits the needs of all boaters.

 

 

 

drill, chemical anchor, expanding ring bolt (in the side, assuming cables to be more that 100mm away from the edge).

 

voila, new mooring.

 

 

Hello, I couldnt agree more, there is loads of space going up and down the cannals... why start making the moorings 7 days... Leave them 14 and put more visitor moorings in... As a camden resident I would fully support that idea if they need some sort of planning permittion to carry it out.

 

Or simply put more rings in and stick two fingers up to british waterways...

[Chris Pink]

.

 

Or simply put more rings in and stick two fingers up to british waterways...

 

it is not 'sticking two fingers up', simply using the necessary technology to moor where you are allowed to moor. Unless of course you mean that banging a mooring pin into a grass bank is likewise a subversive gesture.

 

How about magnetic mooring clamps? - if there are high voltage cables just underneath the towpath then it should be possible to devise a device to connect magnetically to these - maybe even get free power as well (now that is subversive).

[tomsk]

Hello, I couldnt agree more, there is loads of space going up and down the cannals... why start making the moorings 7 days... Leave them 14 and put more visitor moorings in... As a camden resident I would fully support that idea if they need some sort of planning permittion to carry it out.

 

Or simply put more rings in and stick two fingers up to british waterways...

 

 

Yeah Dave, sort it out fella. All this nay-saying is all very well but surely it would be a far more positive step to use your massive intellect to solve the Worlds problems (canal based as well as socio-economic and otherwise) than (rather sourly in my veiw), persistantly pointing out where we are all going wrong? I'm sure the ongoing unpleasantness in Palestine could be resolved in a trice following a tri-partite pow-wow between the Palastinians, Jews and chaired by yourself with your undoubted flair for diplomacy. How about it Dave, got to be better than advising the disinterested when the 2nd post was discontinued?

[Naughty Cal]

Yeah Dave, sort it out fella. All this nay-saying is all very well but surely it would be a far more positive step to use your massive intellect to solve the Worlds problems (canal based as well as socio-economic and otherwise) than (rather sourly in my veiw), persistantly pointing out where we are all going wrong? I'm sure the ongoing unpleasantness in Palestine could be resolved in a trice following a tri-partite pow-wow between the Palastinians, Jews and chaired by yourself with your undoubted flair for diplomacy. How about it Dave, got to be better than advising the disinterested when the 2nd post was discontinued?

 

I think you need help

[County4x4]

Hello, I couldnt agree more, there is loads of space going up and down the cannals... why start making the moorings 7 days... Leave them 14 and put more visitor moorings in... As a camden resident I would fully support that idea if they need some sort of planning permittion to carry it out.

 

Because then BW would be in the wrong with another set of boaters just for a change! Up here in the north, the seven day moorings were partly introduced due to complaints from visiting boaters that the visitor moorings were often full of often overstaying boats and that as a result they couldn't moor anywhere"desirable" for a few days. So they were reduced to seven from fourteen and so the 14 day contingent said BW were in the wrong. The 4 week contingent were even less happy!

 

If more visitor moorings were introduced, then the "I don't want long lines of moored boats" gang would be up in arms.

 

This post is intended to be fairly light hearted, but also to illustrate that BW, no matter what they do to try and help, will ALWAYS be in the wrong as far as at least one bunch of boaters or other canal users is concerned!

 

Andy

[tomsk]

I think you need help

 

 

I take a po-faced and humourless view of your unqualified diagnosis.

[Chris Pink]

This post is intended to be fairly light hearted, but also to illustrate that BW, no matter what they do to try and help, will ALWAYS be in the wrong as far as at least one bunch of boaters or other canal users is concerned!

 

Andy

 

Whereas this statement might be true it is also true the BW seem to arbitrarily take one side which not only puts them in the wrong from the other side but adds a justified accusation of unfairness as well.

[spacecactus]

Because then BW would be in the wrong with another set of boaters just for a change! Up here in the north, the seven day moorings were partly introduced due to complaints from visiting boaters that the visitor moorings were often full of often overstaying boats and that as a result they couldn't moor anywhere"desirable" for a few days. So they were reduced to seven from fourteen and so the 14 day contingent said BW were in the wrong. The 4 week contingent were even less happy!

 

If more visitor moorings were introduced, then the "I don't want long lines of moored boats" gang would be up in arms.

 

This post is intended to be fairly light hearted, but also to illustrate that BW, no matter what they do to try and help, will ALWAYS be in the wrong as far as at least one bunch of boaters or other canal users is concerned!

 

Andy

 

 

I agree BW has to take into consideration the views of many diffrent players, not least local residents, CC's tourists and also protect the beauty of the water way.

 

However its a canal!!!!!! Canals are for boats, if your a local resident who dont like boats move way from the waterways.

It's like moving to central london and complaining about the noise.

 

At the end of the day it about balence, and at the moment in my view that the cannals are under used and lacking in facilities in London there is miles of space and some more space could be use to introduce further visitoring moorings with easy and would create little disharmony..

 

I think a good mixture of 24 hour, 7 daya and 14 is good.

 

but not starting to reduce all the moorings to 7 days that will just make things worst...

 

Everyone has a right to the cannal 'it is the peoples wealth for our common use. Dont care about legislation and stupid BW policies.

 

The population of london is increasing by 10,000's every year and subsequently more people will be on the cannals, therefore more moorings and further balence needs to be given...

 

If you feel that london is too full and all the rest of it.... Well take your boat and leave, go chill in the countryside where you can park your boat wherever you like and not see a person for days... While doing it start realising that international cities are tough places to get by in and that yes they are very very over crowded and finding accomidation, moorings, parking, a bentch to sit on is all very difficult.

 

However im happy to walk down the cannal and see the few boats that are there with my dogs... They bring an ambiance...

[Chertsey]

Guess eventually the 'market' will decide. Not the market of pricing moorings, but the fact that eventually a point will be reached where there are so many boats in a certain area it simply will be unattractive or impossible for any more to join them, and a boat-based lifestyle in that area will no longer be the most attractive option. It may well have to get pretty unattractive (in the eyes of some) though before that point is reached. It will become unattractive to visitors before it becomes unattractive to desperate people with no other concept of somewhere to live, which would be a problem for the tourism/leisure brigade. But assuming (for the sake of argument) that the unwashed tatty boat hippy brigade are paying their licence fees etc, why should 'visitors' and 'visitor moorings' be privileged over them? Or, put it another way, when I swan in for August from the Middle Levels, having bought a one month licence, why should there be moorings available for me, and not for those who are there all year round?

[Guest User]

... <snip> ... However its a canal!!!!!! Canals are for boats .... <snip>

 

Indeed it is, but it's not a natural feature of the landscape, nor is it something over which people have something akin to commoners rights ... it's effectively BW's canal; BW own and control it (albeit BW are a public body).

 

.... <snip> .... Or, put it another way, when I swan in for August from the Middle Levels, having bought a one month licence, why should there be moorings available for me, and not for those who are there all year round?

 

BW essentially operate the canals as a leisure industry, and a feature of that, as they see it, is to make provision for visitor moorings ... you would be a visitor, those that are there all year round aren't, but then it slides into the blurry area of what frequency of appearances constitutes visiting and what doesn't and then it's back to what is/isn't cc-ing ? and how far away do you have to go to have "left" London before returning ? I suppose the other way of looking at it is saying why aren't there more residential moorings in London ? But I guess even if there were, there would then be the debate about affordability .. I can't see an easy solution.

[Lady Muck]

What they need is a staircase lock onto the reservoir opposite my marina. Put everyone up there. If anyone is norty, they could be moved to another reservoir (aka the sin bin).

 

I think most of the suitable places in London are already moorings, TBH. Even if you did manage to drive rings into the concrete, you'd be in the way of canoe and kayak clubs, trip boats, bridge holes, locks and winding holes.

 

The other bits where you don't see boats, as I've said before, theres too much fluctuation in water level or it's so badly in need of dredging my neighbours Jack Russell could paddle there and not get his tummy wet.

[Chris Pink]

BW essentially operate the canals as a leisure industry.

 

That is certainly true but not exclusively so. It is not for BW to decide how the canals are used. As you say it is a publicly owned heritage resource and, in my opinion, anyone who has a lawful use for the canal should be actively facilitated by BW.

 

The reality is that the strongest lobbyists of BW are the leisure industry so it is not surprising that things are skewed towards this use.

 

It is corrupt to exclude other uses for this reason.

[mayalld]

That is certainly true but not exclusively so. It is not for BW to decide how the canals are used.

 

I fully agree.

 

BW should stick to their legal remit, as laid down in the Transport Act 1968

[spacecactus]

Indeed it is, but it's not a natural feature of the landscape, nor is it something over which people have something akin to commoners rights ... it's effectively BW's canal; BW own and control it (albeit BW are a public body).

 

YEs BW are a public body, its run for 'the public' just like the government is voted in by the people to run the country for us. I dont care about their laws its on the peoples land and therefore the people have a right to it... Its a manner of principle not laws or rules and regulations.

[mayalld]

YEs BW are a public body, its run for 'the public' just like the government is voted in by the people to run the country for us. I dont care about their laws its on the peoples land and therefore the people have a right to it... Its a manner of principle not laws or rules and regulations.

 

OH lordy, another one of the "its ours, so we can do what we want" crowd.

 

Yes, its ours, and if we are all to get fair use of it, that use needs to be regulated.

[sueb]

I don't want boats mooring on my 'bit' of canal, so you can all leave now.

Sue

[alan_fincher]

I don't want boats mooring on my 'bit' of canal, so you can all leave now.

Sue

I'd prefer not to be taunted by boaters as I attempt to zip along the tow cycle path on my bike, looking rather smart in overstretched Lycra.

 

So yes, please, keep of "my" bits of canal too!

[Hairy-Neil]

Alan, your bits in overstretched lycra is just too much information.....

[Chris Pink]

I don't want boats mooring on my 'bit' of canal, so you can all leave now.

Sue

 

there's an idea - divide the 2000 miles up into 70' stretches, give one to every adult in the country then set up a swap system so people can change moorings.

 

sorry, forgot, we've got that, it's called British Waterways.

[Guest User]

there's an idea - divide the 2000 miles up into 70' stretches, give one to every adult in the country then set up a swap system so people can change moorings.

 

sorry, forgot, we've got that, it's called British Waterways.

 

2000 miles divided into amongst an adult population of 50 million (give or take)

 

.... unfortunately we only get about 2 and half inches each

 

edited to add .. if every adult wanted to keep a 60ft boat on the waterways, there'd need to be 568,182 miles of moorings (I'm having a numbers day today !)

Edited October 8, 2009 by Graham!

[mayalld]

2000 miles divided into amongst an adult population of 50 million (give or take)

 

.... unfortunately we only get about 2 and half inches each

 

OK, that's fine.

 

So, all those who want to bleat on about how the waterways belong to us all should line up to be allocated their 2.5" of water to do with as they will.

 

Those who want to use more than that will have to accept that BW will regulate their usage of it.

[tomsk]

2000 miles divided into amongst an adult population of 50 million (give or take)

 

.... unfortunately we only get about 2 and half inches each

 

edited to add .. if every adult wanted to keep a 60ft boat on the waterways, there'd need to be 568,182 miles of moorings (I'm having a numbers day today !)

 

 

I hereby declare my 2.5 inches a Freeport also a By-law/Regulation/Tax and Bore-free zone. I await the forthcoming huge economic growth associated with such a Tax efficient structure and all the fun I'm gonna have with the boodle.

[mayalld]

I hereby declare my 2.5 inches a Freeport also a By-law/Regulation/Tax and Bore-free zone. I await the forthcoming huge economic growth associated with such a Tax efficient structure and all the fun I'm gonna have with the boodle.

 

OK, no problem.

 

Of course we will need to know which 2.5" is yours, and naturally, in the spirit of fairness, you will when statin which 2.5" is yours ensure that we have adequate proof that nobody else has laid claim to that particular 2.5"

[tomsk]

OK, no problem.

 

Of course we will need to know which 2.5" is yours, and naturally, in the spirit of fairness, you will when statin which 2.5" is yours ensure that we have adequate proof that nobody else has laid claim to that particular 2.5"

 

 

Go away Dave. As I stated yesterday, I wish to have nothing to do with you or your tedious world view.