BW Mooring consultation

[tomsk]

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

 

 

As I have previously posted, the (vast) majority of Consultation Exercises are conducted with the policy fully formed, they are held purely to be seen to be held. A few insignificant changes may be made to the proposed subject of the consultation, but these will have been forseen and allowed for at an early stage, much in the way that a builder will leave a few obvious snags in a project to make the Clerk of Works feel he has contributed something to the project, whilst the more worrying and less obvious non-compliences are missed by the unwary/lazy Clerk of Works.

[KenK]

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 didn't say that, I said they were found to be a boater, I have no idea whether they were obeying the rules or not.

 

I find this thinking absurd. Anyone who does not conform to your way of thinking is apparently 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. I didn't say that either.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the case of the proposed kennet and avon trial this 'only' is 10 miles. Only certain sections will be designated not all of the 10 miles.

 

The proposal will make mooring from Bradford-on-Avon to Bath 48 hours only. That is not my understanding it is a while ago now since I saw the maps but certainly some of the mooring was designated for the normal 14 day maximum and then extra time could be paid for if required.

 

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?

 

This is the same K&A Trust which restored the canal in the first place and continue to work with BW and other authorities to improve the canal and its surroundings for the good of all. Not for a small minority of boaters who contribute nothing but according to you should receive some special status that is denied to the rest of us, just what is it that makes these few individuals so special in your eyes?

 

The boaters in question could either find a home mooring or follow the CC rules to which they agreed when they applied for their licence. BW require them to cruise the system not the pound but you seem to think it is ok for them to do just that, why and on what basis do you think their behaviour is justified? I know you don't have to justify yourself but I'm curious.

 

Ken

 

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.

 

Have you actually read the consultation document?

 

Ken

[tomsk]

And still the wanton abuse continues.

 

 

 

For 'Wanton' Dave Mayall, featuring Page and Plants second most famous dead drummer, Mr Mike Lee.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPtY3XzoUV0

[deletedaccount]

This is the same K&A Trust which restored the canal in the first place and continue to work with BW and other authorities to improve the canal and its surroundings for the good of all. Not for a small minority of boaters who contribute nothing but according to you should receive some special status that is denied to the rest of us, just what is it that makes these few individuals so special in your eyes?

 

The boaters in question could either find a home mooring or follow the CC rules to which they agreed when they applied for their licence. BW require them to cruise the system not the pound but you seem to think it is ok for them to do just that, why and on what basis do you think their behaviour is justified? I know you don't have to justify yourself but I'm curious.

 

Ken

 

By "contribute nothing" you actually mean "pay their licence like everyone else". Again your loaded language does your position no favours.

 

Closing the pound to all but the rich is hardly a good response to the perceived problems, is it?

 

Have you actually read the consultation document?

 

Ken

 

yes.

[KenK]

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.'

 

I seem to find myself defending BW today, to be fair they did listen to the complaints about the mooring auctions and they did amend the conditions, at least it is now transparent. The old system didn't work either, you could wait years and get nowhere and you had no real idea whether it was operated fairly or not.

 

With regard to the consultation they are looking for your opinion, and yes there is going to be a trial at three locations. I was certainly left with the impression that nothing is set in stone, they will look at the response and the results of the trial. Certainly a year or so ago they changed their minds with regard to proposals on the K&A to which valid objections were made.

 

Ken

[Lady Muck]

I seem to find myself defending BW today, to be fair they did listen to the complaints about the mooring auctions and they did amend the conditions, at least it is now transparent. The old system didn't work either, you could wait years and get nowhere and you had no real idea whether it was operated fairly or not.

 

With regard to the consultation they are looking for your opinion, and yes there is going to be a trial at three locations. I was certainly left with the impression that nothing is set in stone, they will look at the response and the results of the trial. Certainly a year or so ago they changed their minds with regard to proposals on the K&A to which valid objections were made.

 

Ken

 

I'm with Tomsk on this one, they put stuff in in order to take it out later, so we can feel like we're beign listened to. It's like planning, you go for the 15 storey behemoth luxury apartment block so that when the locals complain, you can at least get away with a 10 storey one and they can feel like you've backed down a bit.

 

I guess this trial is all academic, though, they've still got to persuade someone to do the ticketing. Who wants the worst job in the world?

[KenK]

By "contribute nothing" you actually mean "pay their licence like everyone else". Again your loaded language does your position no favours.

 

Closing the pound to all but the rich is hardly a good response to the perceived problems, is it?

 

 

 

yes.

 

You're quite right those enforcement officers have done a wonderful job!

 

If you can justify why some boaters should be allowed to abuse the system please do. I pay a licence and a mooring fee, if at some stage I survive to retire I intend to cruise the system (CC) and I will obey the rules because that is what I said I would do and I keep my word. I see no reason why other people should not do the same and I have little or no sympathy for them if they choose not to and then suffer as a result.

 

Finally the reason I asked whether you had read the document was your comment, you have a choice if you wish to stay longer at one of the designated locations which is to pay. Equally it might be that you have some kind of problem which prevents you moving, I have always found BW very helpful in those circumstances.

 

Ken

[deletedaccount]

You're quite right those enforcement officers have done a wonderful job!

 

If you can justify why some boaters should be allowed to abuse the system please do. I pay a licence and a mooring fee, if at some stage I survive to retire I intend to cruise the system (CC) and I will obey the rules because that is what I said I would do and I keep my word. I see no reason why other people should not do the same and I have little or no sympathy for them if they choose not to and then suffer as a result.

 

Finally the reason I asked whether you had read the document was your comment, you have a choice if you wish to stay longer at one of the designated locations which is to pay. Equally it might be that you have some kind of problem which prevents you moving, I have always found BW very helpful in those circumstances.

 

Ken

 

Congratulations on avoiding the question. I asked if effectively closing the pound to all but the rich and a few tourists is a good response to the perceived problem.

[KenK]

I'm with Tomsk on this one, they put stuff in in order to take it out later, so we can feel like we're beign listened to. It's like planning, you go for the 15 storey behemoth luxury apartment block so that when the locals complain, you can at least get away with a 10 storey one and they can feel like you've backed down a bit.

 

I guess this trial is all academic, though, they've still got to persuade someone to do the ticketing. Who wants the worst job in the world?

 

You could be right, but if you don't put your ideas and objections forward no one ever gets to take account of them. Its like the goverment if you don't vote then don't complain.

 

As for the ticketing there are two enforcemnt officers who did a good job of sorting out the licence evaders on that section of the K&A.

 

Ken

[Chris Pink]

This is the same K&A Trust which restored the canal in the first place and continue to work with BW and other authorities to improve the canal and its surroundings for the good of all. Not for a small minority of boaters who contribute nothing but according to you should receive some special status that is denied to the rest of us, just what is it that makes these few individuals so special in your eyes?

 

The boaters in question could either find a home mooring or follow the CC rules to which they agreed when they applied for their licence. BW require them to cruise the system not the pound but you seem to think it is ok for them to do just that, why and on what basis do you think their behaviour is justified? I know you don't have to justify yourself but I'm curious.

 

Ken

 

 

 

Have you actually read the consultation document?

 

Ken

 

As he quoted from it i think the answer to your sarcastic comment is probably yes.

 

I was one of the people who helped to restore the kennet and avon so I do feel that i have a voice.

 

The Enterprise section of the K and A trust is despised by most of the ordinary members of the Trust for it's weasel double dealings.

 

And the answer to your question is easy; The 1995 Act (amongst others) says that they can.

 

and there you go again 'sorted out the licence evaders' - complete and utter rubbish. There is so very little licence evasion, like me almost all the boaters here welcome their license because it gives us our right to tell British Waterways how we want our canal managed. the licence evaders are much more likely to be found skulking in your marina

[deletedaccount]

You could be right, but if you don't put your ideas and objections forward no one ever gets to take account of them.

 

What's the point of voicing objections if they're ignored?

 

Its like the goverment if you don't vote then don't complain.

 

Sorry, but that's blatantly bollocks for so many reasons it deserves it's own thread.

[KenK]

Congratulations on avoiding the question. I asked if effectively closing the pound to all but the rich and a few tourists is a good response to the perceived problem.

 

In what way will the pound be closed? It is not going to cost any more money to cruise than it does now and if I want to stop to go shopping or for a meal etc. I can without charge provided I move on within the allowed free period. The only people who would find it expensive are people who wish to moor for longer at a particular location which falls within one of these zones and that is a choice.

 

If you are trying to justify continuous mooring as oposed to cruising, then please tell me how you justify it?

 

Ken

[deletedaccount]

In what way will the pound be closed? It is not going to cost any more money to cruise than it does now and if I want to stop to go shopping or for a meal etc. I can without charge provided I move on within the allowed free period. The only people who would find it expensive are people who wish to moor for longer at a particular location which falls within one of these zones and that is a choice.

 

If you are trying to justify continuous mooring as oposed to cruising, then please tell me how you justify it?

 

Ken

 

You are trying to treat one small section of the canal differently that the rest of the system. To use the section as you would use any other you have to be rich.

 

Fairly simple isn't it?

[tomsk]

You could be right, but if you don't put your ideas and objections forward no one ever gets to take account of them. Its like the goverment if you don't vote then don't complain.

 

As for the ticketing there are two enforcemnt officers who did a good job of sorting out the licence evaders on that section of the K&A.

 

Ken

 

 

'Consultations' bear no relation to free and fair elections. If you believe that they are held to 'Consult' then you have taken the bait. They serve a few purposes, identifing 'troublemakers' (usually the few that have a good handle on the real situation), identifying the 'Hot Potato' issues surrounding whatever project is, amongst several others. They are almost NEVER held for the benefit of 'Stakeholders' (I frikking hate that term) or the general good but purely for the fine tuning of The Plan to minimise formal objections to The Plan in the interests of those trying to implement The Plan.

[KenK]

What's the point of voicing objections if they're ignored?

 

How do you know unless you try, by that argument there is no point in doing anything

 

Sorry, but that's blatantly bollocks for so many reasons it deserves it's own thread.

 

The point I was trying to make, possibly badly, is that if you don't get involved and do something about things you believe in then complaining for the sake of it is a waste of time. Some countries by the way insist you vote, Australia I was told, might be a myth, even has a couldn't care less box.

 

 

Ken

 

You are trying to treat one small section of the canal differently that the rest of the system. To use the section as you would use any other you have to be rich.

 

Fairly simple isn't it?

 

I do not understand how this section is diferent from the rest of the system, the rules are the same everywhere. There will be a trial in three places, based on the results some changes may take place, if they do they will apply across the system not just on the K&A or the other two locations.

 

Ken

 

'Consultations' bear no relation to free and fair elections. If you believe that they are held to 'Consult' then you have taken the bait. They serve a few purposes, identifing 'troublemakers' (usually the few that have a good handle on the real situation), identifying the 'Hot Potato' issues surrounding whatever project is, amongst several others. They are almost NEVER held for the benefit of 'Stakeholders' (I frikking hate that term) or the general good but purely for the fine tuning of The Plan to minimise formal objections to The Plan in the interests of those trying to implement The Plan.

 

That is your opinion, I don't agree with it but I would of course fight for your right to hold and express it.

 

Ken

[deletedaccount]

...

 

"How do you know unless you try?" I could also try a magic spell or shouting into the wind for all the good it would do.

 

And fwiw I'd get out and vote if there was a "none of the above box" and it's got nothing to do with not caring as you somehow assume. You can be active and thoroughly immersed in politics and never vote in an election, ever. They don't have the balls to put it on the voting forms over here for fear that a large proportion of the population would give the whole system a vote of no confidence.

 

These trials change the rules for those sections. You can't deny it. And when they roll it out everywhere else they'll be able to do whatever they like wherever they like to the detriment of all users.

[tomsk]

Ken

 

 

 

I do not understand how this section is diferent from the rest of the system, the rules are the same everywhere. There will be a trial in three places, based on the results some changes may take place, if they do they will apply across the system not just on the K&A or the other two locations.

 

Ken

 

 

 

That is your opinion, I don't agree with it but I would of course fight for your right to hold and express it.

 

Ken

 

 

It is my opinion based on many years experience being involved in such Consultations albeit in a (slightly) different field, engaged by the Client (as, believe it or not, their Consultant) to be their representative at such Consultations. Trust me, I know how these things work, intimately....... Your stance is either the result of swallowing the bait, or baiting the hook, either way it's questionable... I hope it's the former.

[KenK]

"How do you know unless you try?" I could also try a magic spell or shouting into the wind for all the good it would do.

 

And fwiw I'd get out and vote if there was a "none of the above box" and it's got nothing to do with not caring as you somehow assume. You can be active and thoroughly immersed in politics and never vote in an election, ever. They don't have the balls to put it on the voting forms over here for fear that a large proportion of the population would give the whole system a vote of no confidence.

 

These trials change the rules for those sections. You can't deny it. And when they roll it out everywhere else they'll be able to do whatever they like wherever they like to the detriment of all users.

 

Works for Harry Potter!

 

With regard to politics, there is no perfect system, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

BW don't have unlimited powers, but you are correct the rules will change for the trial period. If it proves sucessful it almost certainly will be rolled out across the system in some form but unless the majority of boaters support it BW won't be able to impose it especially if it is to our detriment.

 

Ken

[Naughty Cal]

Congratulations on avoiding the question. I asked if effectively closing the pound to all but the rich and a few tourists is a good response to the perceived problem.

 

That isnt what the document proposes though (and i suspesct you know that)

 

"Any stay beyond the maximum free period will be subject to payment of a daily charge. The local

mooring strategy may set a limit on the total number of days over the maximum free period that a

boater may be permitted to stay on a fee-paying basis. In the absence of such a limit, providing

that the boater keeps up to date with daily payments and complies with BW’s other requirements, no

enforcement action would be necessary."

 

Free mooring in these areas will still be avaliable but only for a set period after which if you choose to stay you will pay for the priviledge. Everybody has the choice to pay or move on, so a fair system. If a circumstance beyond your control meant you HAD to stay longer, BW are often very accomodating to genuine reasons for overstaying.

[deletedaccount]

define 'successful'

[Naughty Cal]

define 'successful'

 

Something or someone that is a success?

[deletedaccount]

Something or someone that is a success?

 

In the context of Kens post, obviously.

[KenK]

It is my opinion based on many years experience being involved in such Consultations albeit in a (slightly) different field, engaged by the Client (as, believe it or not, their Consultant) to be their representative at such Consultations. Trust me, I know how these things work, intimately....... Your stance is either the result of swallowing the bait, or baiting the hook, either way it's questionable... I hope it's the former.

 

I don't think either is true, I certainly don't work or have any connection with BW, other than paying them large sums of money every year. I am a member of the K&A Trust and I have seen BW spin at first hand but equally not everything they do is bad. I had prior notification of this consultation and the opportunity to question Sally Ash, Simon Salem and Nick Worthington, lots of other groups have also had a chance to voice their opinion. I don't think much will change before the trial as I doubt many individuals will bother to respond to the document, the result of the trials may tweak things a little. It is however an attempt to solve a problem if it suceeds it will in my opinion benifit most boaters.

 

Ken

[deletedaccount]

What problem? How will you measure the success?

[Lady Muck]

I don't think either is true, I certainly don't work or have any connection with BW, other than paying them large sums of money every year. I am a member of the K&A Trust and I have seen BW spin at first hand but equally not everything they do is bad. I had prior notification of this consultation and the opportunity to question Sally Ash, Simon Salem and Nick Worthington, lots of other groups have also had a chance to voice their opinion. I don't think much will change before the trial as I doubt many individuals will bother to respond to the document, the result of the trials may tweak things a little. It is however an attempt to solve a problem if it suceeds it will in my opinion benifit most boaters.

 

Ken

 

Anything that costs me more money isn't to my benefit. If the enforcement officers have done such a great job (as you say) then why do we suddenly all need to be charged for it?

 

This is just another stealth charge by BW, IMO.