BW Mooring consultation

[tomsk]

Pot, Kettle, Black

 

 

Thanks Phil, for your wise, if predictible input xx

[Naughty Cal]

Thanks Phil, for your wise, if predictible input xx

 

It was only what everybody else was thinking

[tomsk]

It was only what everybody else was thinking

 

 

Thanks for voicing the collective thoughts of everyone. I'm sure they thank you for speaking for them all.

[cotswoldsman]

I fail to understand your problem with me. Your labeling of me as an uninformed person and continual sniping marks you out as a silly person, you have no idea whether I am an active member of a 'Heritage Mob' or not.... You now share a special place in my heart with that other pompous and poorly informed oik Lord Mayall.

 

I notice you did not answer the question where are the healthy areas?

I can tell by your posts that you are uninformed person.

And I am quite pleased to be labelled by you with David like him I think you are uninformed and think you will find that quite a lot of people agree with me.

 

 

 

Thanks for voicing the collective thoughts of everyone. I'm sure they thank you for speaking for them all.

Thank you for speaking for me and a lot of other members.

[KenK]

With regard to disturbing stories of BW's mismanagement, I understand that BW was already in the process of implementing the policy as outlined in its consultation document before the document was issued! It has been having zoning discussions and enforcement discussions with parish councilors on the K&A without boaters being included! Its simply mooring auctions again - start implementing the policy as a pilot, hold a consultation, ignore any input that does not uphold the policy and carry on regardless.

 

Do boaters really want parish councilors and anglers to have a say in where we can moor and for how long? Do we really want to pay (again) for mooring? Do we really want BW to have conditions of licencing that may not be backed by force of law?

 

This policy was discussed some time ago at a meeting in the K&A Trust building in Devises, Sally Ash, Simon Salem and Nick Worthington from BW and a considerable number of K&A Trust members it was also open to any interested party. The policy was discussed in detail, many of the people present including myself are boaters. It is an attempt to resolve the mooring issues at the western end of the K&A. It is no good pretending that this is just a boaters issue, the parish councils receive numerous complaints about illeagally parked cars in the area many, although not all, belonging to boaters. In one case a car belonging to a boater had to be removed to allow access for a fire engine. Some people don't care about anyone except themselves certainly the so called boaters in this area have little regard for their neighbours or indeed other boaters.

The licence condition relating to this has been debated many times, if you do not have a permanent mooring then you CC, its your choice but don't complain when BW try to enforce the conditions you agreed to when you applied for your licence.

 

In a similar vein on our local news last night we had people who own holiday homes on the south coast complaining because the local planning authority were insisting that they abide by the terms of their planning consent i.e. vacate the home for at least three months every year. It's what they agreed when they bought them but now the nasty planners want them to keep their word, bit like CM'ers.

 

Ken

[tomsk]

I notice you did not answer the question where are the healthy areas?

I can tell by your posts that you are uninformed person.

And I am quite pleased to be labelled by you with David like him I think you are uninformed and think you will find that quite a lot of people agree with me.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for speaking for me and a lot of other members.

 

 

I thought we were having quite an interesting debate prior to your derailing of same and Filisis daily parroting of her 'Pot, Kettle' comment.

 

I really dont want to indulge you with an answer as you are clearly spoiling for a fight and I shy'd away from specifics for the obvious reason that whatever view I form and my criteria for apportioning 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' labels to various parts of the system will doubtless be challenged by others with differing criteria. The last time I indulged the Forums with my views on this type of thing several years ago the discussion devolved into a hellish slanging match, but seeing as you asked;

 

I do not want, nor do I think it is economically viable for the system to become a 'linear museum', I applaud the works of the 'Heritage Mobs', but cannot see how such laudable works can be sustained going forward given the relatively 'minority interest' and funding issues.

 

Please respond if you have anything interesting or constructive to say Cotswoldman, if not feel free to say nothing.

[Chris Pink]

This policy was discussed some time ago at a meeting in the K&A Trust building in Devises, Sally Ash, Simon Salem and Nick Worthington from BW and a considerable number of K&A Trust members it was also open to any interested party. The policy was discussed in detail, many of the people present including myself are boaters. It is an attempt to resolve the mooring issues at the western end of the K&A. It is no good pretending that this is just a boaters issue, the parish councils receive numerous complaints about illeagally parked cars in the area many, although not all, belonging to boaters. In one case a car belonging to a boater had to be removed to allow access for a fire engine. Some people don't care about anyone except themselves certainly the so called boaters in this area have little regard for their neighbours or indeed other boaters.

The licence condition relating to this has been debated many times, if you do not have a permanent mooring then you CC, its your choice but don't complain when BW try to enforce the conditions you agreed to when you applied for your licence.

 

In a similar vein on our local news last night we had people who own holiday homes on the south coast complaining because the local planning authority were insisting that they abide by the terms of their planning consent i.e. vacate the home for at least three months every year. It's what they agreed when they bought them but now the nasty planners want them to keep their word, bit like CM'ers.

 

Ken

 

your vague but poisonous vitriol does you no credit.

 

"Illegally parked" well excuse me but there are well trodden methods for dealing with illegally parked cars. Or is it your contention that a boater shouldn't be allowed to park a taxed and insured car on a public road.

 

Nobody has any problem whatsoever with boating within the law. It is my, and a lot of other people's, contention that it is BW that are acting outside the law and your cosy coterie of semi-secret meetings reinforce this impression.

 

phrases like 'so-called boaters' are no use to anyone, they just reveal the fact that you have a prejudicial attitude to anyone who thinks different to you that verges on racism.

 

'in one case a car had to be towed away' - is that it? the sum total of your complaint?

 

The parish councils are backtracking very fast now that their unfounded and slanderous accusations (of human waste in the canal, of threatening behaviour) are out in the open.

[Naughty Cal]

"Illegally parked" well excuse me but there are well trodden methods for dealing with illegally parked cars. Or is it your contention that a boater shouldn't be allowed to park a taxed and insured car on a public road.

 

I think the issue with the car was that it was blocking access for emergency vehicles. A car can be taxed, MOTed and insured but still be illegally or parked in such a manner as to cause an obstruction.

 

Thank you for speaking for me and a lot of other members.

 

You are welcome

[tomsk]

I think the issue with the car was that it was blocking access for emergency vehicles. A car can be taxed, MOTed and insured but still be illegally or parked in such a manner as to cause an obstruction.

 

 

 

You are welcome

 

 

In which case there are legal mechanisms for it's removal. If these mechanisms have not been put in place it highlights the shortsightedness of the relevant LA. You cannot legislate for the occasional Idiot, you can however legally hit him/her in the pocket if he/she continues to behave like an Idiot (as you should know).

[Naughty Cal]

In which case there are legal mechanisms for it's removal. If these mechanisms have not been put in place it highlights the shortsightedness of the relevant LA. You cannot legislate for the occasional Idiot, you can however legally hit him/her in the pocket if he/she continues to behave like an Idiot (as you should know).

 

Please explain that logic

[Chris Pink]

I think the issue with the car was that it was blocking access for emergency vehicles. A car can be taxed, MOTed and insured but still be illegally or parked in such a manner as to cause an obstruction.

 

And it was removed.

 

We only have mr K's assertion that it belonged to a boater, liveaboard boaters don't have a monopoly on stupid parking.

 

My point is that it matters not whether it was a boater or not, if that is his only moan then a consultation costing many £1,000s plus draconian and illegal measures costing even more to implement are hardly a proportionate response.

[mayalld]

I fail to understand your problem with me. Your labeling of me as an uninformed person and continual sniping marks you out as a silly person, you have no idea whether I am an active member of a 'Heritage Mob' or not.... You now share a special place in my heart with that other pompous and poorly informed oik Lord Mayall.

 

And still the wanton abuse continues.

[tomsk]

Please explain that logic

 

 

If I must, but we are some way off topic;

 

If the owner/operator of a piece of machinery (car/bike/boat ect) cannot operate that machinery responsibly and within the existing legal framework e.g. dangerous driving/illegal parking/speeding or any other combination of the aformentioned or indeed any other transgressions of existing legislation, be that laws or by-laws, then fine 'em, clamp 'em, tow 'em, crush 'em or let them have their day in court. What you can't do is use one example of the behaviour of one Idiot in isolation as a reason to legislate against responsible owner/operators. I trust this is clear.

[Naughty Cal]

If I must, but we are some way off topic;

 

If the owner/operator of a piece of machinery (car/bike/boat ect) cannot operate that machinery responsibly and within the existing legal framework e.g. dangerous driving/illegal parking/speeding or any other combination of the aformentioned or indeed any other transgressions of existing legislation, be that laws or by-laws, then fine 'em, clamp 'em, tow 'em, crush 'em or let them have their day in court. What you can't do is use one example of the behaviour of one Idiot in isolation as a reason to legislate against responsible owner/operators. I trust this is clear.

 

So by that same logic to bring in a drink driving limit for boats is unnecessary.

[KenK]

your vague but poisonous vitriol does you no credit.

 

"Illegally parked" well excuse me but there are well trodden methods for dealing with illegally parked cars. Or is it your contention that a boater shouldn't be allowed to park a taxed and insured car on a public road.

 

Nobody has any problem whatsoever with boating within the law. It is my, and a lot of other people's, contention that it is BW that are acting outside the law and your cosy coterie of semi-secret meetings reinforce this impression.

 

phrases like 'so-called boaters' are no use to anyone, they just reveal the fact that you have a prejudicial attitude to anyone who thinks different to you that verges on racism.

 

'in one case a car had to be towed away' - is that it? the sum total of your complaint?

 

The parish councils are backtracking very fast now that their unfounded and slanderous accusations (of human waste in the canal, of threatening behaviour) are out in the open.

I don't do vitriol, I attended a meeting at which many perfectly reasonable people clearly had enough of what they saw as totaly unreasonable behaviour on the part of some people living on boats, BW presented the proposal as a response to their concerns.

 

The point was made that no boaters had been involved with this consultation that is not the case.

 

These were some of the complaints made at the meeting, by no means all, if you had taken the time and trouble to attend the meeting you might have more sympathy with the people who are fed up with the current situation. You are clearly on the side of the boaters who choose to ignore the licence and mooring conditions. You constantly state that BW have no legal right to enforce their rules or conditions but that has not been tested in law and then you make vauge comments about the numbers who believe as you do. I think you will find far more people don't believe as you do than agree with you but that won't worry you as you are so sure your right.

 

You claim there is no problem removing cars, indeed true but it is not an instant process and it leads to complaints. One car had to be removed to allow a fire engine to attend a house fire, this complaint was made by the representative of the fire service, it could have resulted in a fatality but you dismiss it out of hand. Your concern for others does you credit.

 

Ken

[Allan(nb Albert)]

your vague but poisonous vitriol does you no credit.

 

"Illegally parked" well excuse me but there are well trodden methods for dealing with illegally parked cars. Or is it your contention that a boater shouldn't be allowed to park a taxed and insured car on a public road.

 

Nobody has any problem whatsoever with boating within the law. It is my, and a lot of other people's, contention that it is BW that are acting outside the law and your cosy coterie of semi-secret meetings reinforce this impression.

 

phrases like 'so-called boaters' are no use to anyone, they just reveal the fact that you have a prejudicial attitude to anyone who thinks different to you that verges on racism.

 

'in one case a car had to be towed away' - is that it? the sum total of your complaint?

 

The parish councils are backtracking very fast now that their unfounded and slanderous accusations (of human waste in the canal, of threatening behaviour) are out in the open.

 

I think Ken has rather missed the point. My understanding, is that BW have stated in the consultation document a mooring policy and have suggested three pilots may take place next year - K&A being one. What I am querying is why it seems they have already started carrying out a pilot prior to consultation and why the boaters who may have been directly affected were not consulted.

 

As Chris rightly says, laws exist for dealing with "moored motor vehicles". It would seem that NABO are saying that they should exist for "moored boats" to underpin licencing terms and conditions.

[KenK]

In which case there are legal mechanisms for it's removal. If these mechanisms have not been put in place it highlights the shortsightedness of the relevant LA. You cannot legislate for the occasional Idiot, you can however legally hit him/her in the pocket if he/she continues to behave like an Idiot (as you should know).

 

The problem was the fire engine was trying to attend to a house fire, under the circumstances there was little time to apply a legal process. The fire service were so concerned they sent a representative to the meeting. The owner was later found to be a boater moored locally.

 

Ken

[tomsk]

So by that same logic to bring in a drink driving limit for boats is unnecessary.

 

 

Sorry Phil, you have lost me again.

[KenK]

I think Ken has rather missed the point. My understanding, is that BW have stated in the consultation document a mooring policy and have suggested three pilots may take place next year - K&A being one. What I am querying is why it seems they have already started carrying out a pilot prior to consultation and why the boaters who may have been directly affected were not consulted.

 

As Chris rightly says, laws exist for dealing with "moored motor vehicles". It would seem that NABO are saying that they should exist for "moored boats" to underpin licencing terms and conditions.

Allan,

 

I haven't missed the point at all, the consultation is to allow anyone who wishes to put their opinion to BW. As I understand it BW will trial the idea at a small number of locations where there is currently perceived to be a problem, at the end of the trial period an assesment will be made to judge the succes or otherwise.

 

You are correct this is an attempt to formalise mooring at certain locations but only at those locations, the conditions on the rest of the system will remain as now, at least that is the current position. Also the proposed charges are optional, at the end of free period you can always move the boat or if you wish to stay longer pay a fee. This is not a new idea Motorway services already use the same method, two hours free after that you pay and they enforce it, what is unreasonable?

 

Ken

[tomsk]

The problem was the fire engine was trying to attend to a house fire, under the circumstances there was little time to apply a legal process. The fire service were so concerned they sent a representative to the meeting. The owner was later found to be a boater moored locally.

 

Ken

 

 

This is entirely the correct action taken by the FB. I know we have many FB/ex FB members and I think i'm right in saying if an illegally parked car is in the way attending a job (esp. if potentially life threatening) it will be bumped/shunted or towed out of the way in no uncertain fashion and the legal niceties sorted out later.

[Chris Pink]

The problem was the fire engine was trying to attend to a house fire, under the circumstances there was little time to apply a legal process. The fire service were so concerned they sent a representative to the meeting. The owner was later found to be a boater moored locally.

 

Ken

 

so your contention is the way to deal with one irresponsible person's parking is to say this incident happened because they are a boater who disregards mooring rules?

 

I find this thinking absurd.

 

By your logic if this person had been found to be a resident of a local housing estate then completely unrelated sanctions should be placed against all residents.

 

You, BW and a small vociferous minority of the Kennet and Avon Trust, have an issue; you don't like the liveaboard boaters in the western k and a. so you find anything and everything you can throw at them to support your position.

 

And that amounts to pretty small and petty stuff.

 

Sorry but you place yourself in the same absurd position as the hire boat operator who, also lying to BW, stated that he tells his customers not to cruise to Bath.

 

Lies that are believed because Sally Ash and Simon 'Satan' Salem haven't a clue what goes on in reality.

 

 

 

 

Aformalise mooring at certain locations but only at those locations

 

 

In the case of the proposed kennet and avon trial this 'only' is 10 miles.

 

The proposal will make mooring from Bradford-on-Avon to Bath 48 hours only.

 

The only conclusion that can be reached is that it is an attempt to remove those boaters who live and cruise this pound.

 

Your pathetic attempts to make it sound reasonable is painted with the same brush as BW's corporate spin.

 

Tell me, what do you think is going to happen to the boaters in this area? Are they really going to just disappear?

[tomsk]

I don't do vitriol, I attended a meeting at which many perfectly reasonable people clearly had enough of what they saw as totaly unreasonable behaviour on the part of some people living on boats, BW presented the proposal as a response to their concerns.

 

The point was made that no boaters had been involved with this consultation that is not the case.

 

These were some of the complaints made at the meeting, by no means all, if you had taken the time and trouble to attend the meeting you might have more sympathy with the people who are fed up with the current situation. You are clearly on the side of the boaters who choose to ignore the licence and mooring conditions. You constantly state that BW have no legal right to enforce their rules or conditions but that has not been tested in law and then you make vauge comments about the numbers who believe as you do. I think you will find far more people don't believe as you do than agree with you but that won't worry you as you are so sure your right.

 

You claim there is no problem removing cars, indeed true but it is not an instant process and it leads to complaints. One car had to be removed to allow a fire engine to attend a house fire, this complaint was made by the representative of the fire service, it could have resulted in a fatality but you dismiss it out of hand. Your concern for others does you credit.

 

Ken

 

 

Have you considered why the right to enforce has never been legally tested? In my experience it is usually because the 'body' trying to enforce is less than confident of their claims standing up to legal scrutiny. They would far rather the sheep stump up/comply without argument thus raising some income/compliance than fail in the legal test. The cases where forthright opposition is encountered are quietly dropped, this decision will be taken by the organisations retained solicitor or employed Legal Officer. It is a 'Commercial Decision'.

[deletedaccount]

Allan,

 

I haven't missed the point at all, the consultation is to allow anyone who wishes to put their opinion to BW. As I understand it BW will trial the idea at a small number of locations where there is currently perceived to be a problem, at the end of the trial period an assesment will be made to judge the succes or otherwise.

 

You are correct this is an attempt to formalise mooring at certain locations but only at those locations, the conditions on the rest of the system will remain as now, at least that is the current position. Also the proposed charges are optional, at the end of free period you can always move the boat or if you wish to stay longer pay a fee. This is not a new idea Motorway services already use the same method, two hours free after that you pay and they enforce it, what is unreasonable?

 

Ken

 

The consultation is pointless if they've already decided what they're going to do. Insulting even.

[Lady Muck]

The consultation is pointless if they've already decided what they're going to do. Insulting even.

 

and it's exactly what they did with the moorings auctions. None of us wanted that either...

 

ETA it's not reaslly a consultation, it's more like, 'we're not listening la la la.'

Edited November 5, 2009 by Lady Muck

[deletedaccount]

If they think they're going to extract £10 a night off me for mooring on an empty towpath they can fuck right off tbh. I don't know a single person who'll pay it.