CCing and BW's interpretation of the law

[Denis R]

How are they not enforcing this? I've seen wardens on regular patrol taking down licence numbers and GPS positions. And, as you ignored the content of my post, what is a significant party of the network? How can you claim they're not enforcing a rule that you can't even define accurately?

Which they do on the stretch between Blisworth and Whilton, the same numbers appear every week, they even mention it in conversation and know most of them off by heart. But nothing changes. Many of the boats have been on the stretch for a number of years. And I don't define shuffling the few miles between Blisworth and Whilton as 'a genuine progressive journey around a significant part of the network'.

Edited to add: I don't consider that 'bona fide' navigation either.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Denis R

[magpie patrick]

May I be permitted my usual laid back observations?

 

One thing that isn't disputed is that you can't stay in any "place" for more than 14 days, and while "place" is ill-defined simply moving from one bridge to the next doesn't cut it, unless you happen to be on the Severn where the rbidges are six miles and more apart...

 

There is a requirement for Bona Fide Navigation, which BW have interpreted as a single, progressive journey through a signifucant part of the system. My guess is that they did with this because the "Bona Fide Navigation" was, in their view, brought in more for people who didn't have a home area rather than who moved about within it.

 

That said, there are areas where, for a variety of reasons, people "cruise" over a very small area or not at all. I know about 5 of the CCers on the Bath to Bradford pound and while they all enjoy the lifestyle they also add that there is no housing even remotely affordable to them within Bath and it's surroundings, they tend to be self employed and on relatively low incomes. Not poverty by any means, but nowhere near enough to compete in the housing market. This doesn't mean they wouldn't take a mooring if one were available, one of these guys monitors the mooring tender list and bids every time a seventy foot mooring comes up, but they don't come up very often. It is telling that, near Keynsham, a farmer has sixty moorings and a waiting list with over seventy names on it, and these moorings are not cheap., they also have a number of liveaboards, many of them young professionals who can't afford houses locally. In this case, the presence of these boats is, at least in part, a symptom of the astronomical price of housing in Bath and the chronic lack of moorings.

 

I would not think the same can be said of the Upper Peak Forest however, Dave would know better than I but I believe there are some moorings available, even if not enough to cater for all those who don't move or hardly move at all.

 

I certainly agree with Chris Pink though. Most boaters on the K and A "show willing" and also, in mooring at places like Ferry Lane, aren't taking prime spots for tourists (yes, I know, tourists might want to moor there but most want to moor either in Bradford or Bath or in the spectacularly beautiful Limpley Stoke Valley) but in other places they don't and BW would do well to start with a system wide push against those who go a hell of a site further than breaking the guidelines and are in obvious contradiction, not of the "Bona Fide Navigation" law but of the 14 day one.

[Chris Pink]

The trouble is that you base your claim to non-enforcability upon the shifting sands of "I say that they are not in accordance with the law".

 

As you base your claim upon "I say they are". Or the grounds that BW could legally require all boats to be painted lime green. You cannot have it both ways.

 

Your arguments and assertions get lazier as this debate unfolds and your position becomes more and more untenable.

 

The last 2 pages are littered with counter-arguments you have no answer for.

[mayalld]

I would not think the same can be said of the Upper Peak Forest however, Dave would know better than I but I believe there are some moorings available, even if not enough to cater for all those who don't move or hardly move at all.

 

There are certainly some vacant moorings available that those who don't want to cruise could take up.

[Sir Nibble]

if it is a genuine question then i suggest you read some of the website in the OP. It is clear that the position taken by its publishers is that BW should enforce the 14 day rule and that if this is done there is absolutely no need for ultra vires interpretations of the 1995 Act (or any other Act). A position i support strongly.

Oh yes the question was genuine and I thank you for taking the trouble to give a sensible answer. I have read that website and I am afraid I find it extremely juvenile in tone and content.

[mayalld]

As you base your claim upon "I say they are".

 

No, I base my claim on "BW say they are", and that they are empowered by the Act to decide.

[Naughty Cal]

:facepalm:

 

Is that like Napalm?

[LoneEcho]

Out of interest what acronym will I be labelled with ?

 

Home mooring in Roydon, but hope to spend about 8 weeks of the summer up and down the Stort and Lea between Enfield and Bishops Stortford/Hertford. With the Odd trips to the Thames and Windsor etc when time permits.

 

PTCMRwHM ?

Edited August 19, 2010 by laurieb

[ymu]

Is that like Napalm?

Nope. He momentarily forgot what board he was on.

 

This is a facepalm:

 

 

Although my personal favourite is:

 

 

Out of interest what acronym will I be labelled with ?

 

Home mooring in Roydon, but hope to spend about 8 weeks of the summer up and down the Stort and Lea between Enfield and Bishops Stortford/Hertford. With the Odd trips to the Thames and Windsor etc when time permits.

 

PTCMRwHM ?

You're just a moorer, I'm afraid (leisure or residential?). A moorer who actually moves their boat occasionally, which is a refreshing change, but no special acronyms. Sorry.

[Lady Muck]

There are certainly some vacant moorings available that those who don't want to cruise could take up.

 

FWIW the only place I've not been able to find a mooring is both end bits of the Peak Forest (Whaley and Bugsworth). I don't think it helps that BW has put permanent moorings where visiting boaters (like me) would like to moor. It was a shame to get to the end at Whaley bridge and find it full (only room for about 2 or 3 visiting boats?), then we went to Bugsworth and took on water whilst the man in the little hut watched me really carefully, issung threats along the lines of, 'no continuous mooring on this waterpoint' (Ok he was polite but I got his point), but there was no where else to moor in the basin.

 

Peak Forest is busy!

[ymu]

FWIW the only place I've not been able to find a mooring is both end bits of the Peak Forest (Whaley and Bugsworth). I don't think it helps that BW has put permanent moorings where visiting boaters (like me) would like to moor. It was a shame to get to the end at Whaley bridge and find it full (only room for about 2 or 3 visiting boats?), then we went to Bugsworth and took on water whilst the man in the little hut watched me really carefully, issung threats along the lines of, 'no continuous mooring on this waterpoint' (Ok he was polite but I got his point), but there was no where else to moor in the basin.

 

Peak Forest is busy!

Yeah - this happens a lot around Oxford. There are loads of 48 hour moorings in the centre of town, but the rest of the stretch from Oxford to Wolvercote is almost entirely Agenda 21 apart from a short 7 day stretch (and a conservation area with no mooring allowed). There are many more moorings available than there are boats with Agenda 21 permits, but noone else can use them. And the really shitty thing is that the Agenda 21 and Hythe Bridge moorers are still clinging onto the right to sell their BW mooring permit with their boats. I realise a lot of them paid a premium for their boats because of this, and that it makes no sense for BW to buy them out given that they won't make any of it back in extra mooring fees - but the situation should never have been allowed to arise.

 

Heading north out of town, the spaces at Duke's Lock, Kidlington by the Wyse Alderman (now the Highwayman), Thrupp, Emslow, Heyford (ie all the water points within a 12 mile stretch) are primarily permit holders only. This is why I find it so inexplicable that some moorers make such a big deal about CCers. Permanent moorings are always sited at some of the best spots on the canal - it's not enough for these people that they are hogging a great space that noone else can use, they have to complain about other people using public mooring spots that they want to use when they're out and about. Talk about an over-developed sense of entitlement!

 

 

Personally I'd get rid of permanent year round moorings and insist that if you have a boat on the water you use it instead of just letting it rot away - or at least hide it away in a private warehouse marina so the rest of us can use the facilities available. The number of semi-abandoned wrecks taking up permit spaces is criminal.

[Naughty Cal]

Personally I'd get rid of permanent year round moorings and insist that if you have a boat on the water you use it instead of just letting it rot away - or at least hide it away in a private warehouse marina so the rest of us can use the facilities available. The number of semi-abandoned wrecks taking up permit spaces is criminal.

 

I take it you would be willing to pay the lost revenue from licence fees that these semi abandoned wrecks create.

 

Just because someone doesnt see the need to use their boat week in week out doesnt mean that they shouldnt have the right to moor it online. There are numerous complaints that the waterways are getting too congested, if these semi abandonded wrecks were on the move as well the situation would be much worse.

[ymu]

I take it you would be willing to pay the lost revenue from licence fees that these semi abandoned wrecks create.

 

Just because someone doesnt see the need to use their boat week in week out doesnt mean that they shouldnt have the right to moor it online. There are numerous complaints that the waterways are getting too congested, if these semi abandonded wrecks were on the move as well the situation would be much worse.

It'd be a lot better if they were rotting in a marina somewhere noone wants to live - some of these are prime residential spots with electric hook-ups. And they'd still be liable for a licence fee for as long as the owner chose to keep them on BW waters.

 

They wouldn't have to use it week in, week out - just get some warehousing in a marina where they're not taking space away from anyone that could use it better.

[Naughty Cal]

It'd be a lot better if they were rotting in a marina somewhere noone wants to live - some of these are prime residential spots with electric hook-ups. And they'd still be liable for a licence fee for as long as the owner chose to keep them on BW waters.

 

They wouldn't have to use it week in, week out - just get some warehousing in a marina where they're not taking space away from anyone that could use it better.

 

So because a boat doesnt meet your exacting visual standards it should be forced to be in the back rows of a marina?

 

Personally i like looking at the variety of boats moored on online moorings and visitor moorings alike and think it would be a shame to end up with ranks of shiney clone craft littering the moorings instead. Variety is a good thing, it would be boring if all boats were exactly the same.

[ymu]

So because a boat doesnt meet your exacting visual standards it should be forced to be in the back rows of a marina?

 

Personally i like looking at the variety of boats moored on online moorings and visitor moorings alike and think it would be a shame to end up with ranks of shiney clone craft littering the moorings instead. Variety is a good thing, it would be boring if all boats were exactly the same.

If you could see our boat, you would know it has nothing to do with exacting visual standards!

 

The issue is people abandoning boats on permanent moorings for years on end, denying anyone else the use of the space for absolutely no purpose.

 

Use it or lose it, IMO.

[Naughty Cal]

If you could see our boat, you would know it has nothing to do with exacting visual standards!

 

The issue is people abandoning boats on permanent moorings for years on end, denying anyone else the use of the space for absolutely no purpose.

 

Use it or lose it, IMO.

 

They are paying for it, what difference does it make? They can use their boat as they like.

[ymu]

They are paying for it, what difference does it make? They can use their boat as they like.

Do you even bother to read posts?

 

The difference it makes is that there are large numbers of well serviced online mooring spots which people would like to use but can't. If the moorer were actually using the spot and the facilities it offered, it would not be a problem. But denying that space to others who could make much better use of it is just plain wrong. Boats can be warehoused anywhere - they shouldn't be allowed to take up a prime spot without using it. People get kicked off allotments if they lose interest and do no gardening there. The principle is exactly the same here. Paying for the exclusive use of a bit of public property does not give you the right to deny its use to others indefinitely whilst not using it yourself.

Edited August 19, 2010 by ymu

[mayalld]

FWIW the only place I've not been able to find a mooring is both end bits of the Peak Forest (Whaley and Bugsworth). I don't think it helps that BW has put permanent moorings where visiting boaters (like me) would like to moor. It was a shame to get to the end at Whaley bridge and find it full (only room for about 2 or 3 visiting boats?), then we went to Bugsworth and took on water whilst the man in the little hut watched me really carefully, issung threats along the lines of, 'no continuous mooring on this waterpoint' (Ok he was polite but I got his point), but there was no where else to moor in the basin.

 

Peak Forest is busy!

 

When were you at Bugsworth?

 

Even over a bank holiday weekend, it is seldom full.

 

You didn't fall into the trap of only looking at the lower basin directly ahead of you did you?

 

there is loads of mooring space in the middle and upper basins.

 

Oh, and yes the man in the hut is keen to move people on from the WP. It is a fast filler, so no reason to linger, and there are often many boats wanting to use it.

[Naughty Cal]

Do you even bother to read posts?

 

The difference it makes is that there are large numbers of well serviced online mooring spots which people would like to use but can't. If the moorer were actually using the spot and the facilities it offered, it would not be a problem. But denying that space to others who could make much better use of it is just plain wrong. Boats can be warehoused anywhere - they shouldn't be allowed to take up a prime spot without using it. People get kicked off allotments if they lose interest and do no gardening there. The principle is exactly the same here. Paying for the exclusive use of a bit of public property does not give you the right to deny its use to others indefinitely whilst not using it yourself.

 

They are using it as boat storage. They pay for the mooring, they choose how to use their boat.

[ymu]

They are using it as boat storage. They pay for the mooring, they choose how to use their boat.

You don't read posts, or you just don't/can't engage with actual arguments. No allotment association would allow a tenant to stay on for years if they never turned up to tend their plot - allotments are public property with a huge waiting list of people wanting to use them. How are BW moorings any different?

[GUMPY]

I would think there are very few moorings where the boat is left for "years" and nobody goes there mainly because after time they would sink.

 

We have two boats, one I haven't been near in at least a couple of months as I have been busy with family stuff and work has got in the way.

However I am going sailing on it next weekend, doesn't mean its not used but if you are not around to see it you would assume that I hadn't been there, to a casual observer even the barge would appear unused as its on its moorings 49 weeks a year.

Besides which if someone chooses to keep a boat and not use it (provided all the fees are paid) that's their business and none of yours.

Following on from your allotment theme there are many that I have seen that are overgrown and untended so it doesn't work the way you think everywhere.

[ymu]

I would think there are very few moorings where the boat is left for "years" and nobody goes there mainly because after time they would sink.

Eventually, yes. IIRC mrsmelly bought a boat that hadn't been moved for ?15 years and the hull was still sound.

 

We have two boats, one I haven't been near in at least a couple of months as I have been busy with family stuff and work has got in the way.

However I am going sailing on it next weekend, doesn't mean its not used but if you are not around to see it you would assume that I hadn't been there, to a casual observer even the barge would appear unused as its on its moorings 49 weeks a year.

I'm talking about boats rotting in the water - not just boats that I've never seen anyone on. One of the residents at Heyford gave me a quick rundown of which boats hadn't been visited once in 2-3 years. It was nearly half of them, IIRC.

 

Besides which if someone chooses to keep a boat and not use it (provided all the fees are paid) that's their business and none of yours.

Not if they are misusing public property. It's my business every bit as much as theirs. Thrupp has a 10 year waiting list which is currently closed because it's too long. There's no reason that someone who has lost interest in boating should get priority over people who are wanting to be able to use the facilities.

 

Following on from your allotment theme there are many that I have seen that are overgrown and untended so it doesn't work the way you think everywhere.

They don't usually get taken away until they've been clearly neglected for some time, for obvious reasons. Different associations have different rules, The ones with the longest waiting lists and the most active members will be the quickest to pass unused plots on - because of the length of the waiting list and because it upsets the other gardeners when their careful work is ruined by someone else's encroaching weeds. Very few allotment associations have no waiting list, and none of them like to see unused plots.

Edited August 19, 2010 by ymu

[Duchess Omnium]

I think YMU is right about unused boats, at least in this area -- there are two near me, one v small tupperware that has definitely not moved for four years at least and one narrowboat where the owners are getting on a bit and not very well and haven't even visited for more than a year. There are others that are only used/ visited occasionally.

 

I think the problem is is partly economics -- NOT that I want to pay more for moorings... but people who have got moorings in the last couple of years (under the auction system) are paying in many cases half again as much (or more) as people on the old system. At some point, as the price rises (which it will, inevitably, if market forces are allowed to come in), I guess people who never even visit their boats might wonder why they are wasting their money.

 

But I don't agree that they should be thrown out in the meantime. If they want to pay for something they don't use then that is up to them.

 

Around Oxford waiting for a mooring is a bit like waiting for someone to die...

[magpie patrick]

You don't read posts, or you just don't/can't engage with actual arguments. No allotment association would allow a tenant to stay on for years if they never turned up to tend their plot - allotments are public property with a huge waiting list of people wanting to use them. How are BW moorings any different?

 

Two things: Allotments involve very little that either the user can't take away or the next user can't use, so telling the current occupier they haven't got it anymore is straightforward. Allotments are also highly regulated under the Allotments Act 1925

 

Compare that to a mooring, it may have, say, a 62 foot narrow boat on it that has a value of £40,000 or more to the owner, that has to be put somewhere or scrapped, the owner can't just put it in the boot of their car, and the new "user" probably has their own boat to put on the mooring. The physical presence of the boat, and the fact it is private property, makes it very difficult to act. Oh yes, BW could go for powers that allowed them to remove boats that hardly moved on a large scale, but parliament would kick it out for the reason it involves in effect confiscating (because if you don't confiscate it how are you going to get it moved) many boats, all of which are worth tens of thousands of pounds to their owners, and anyway, assuming these boats pay licences aren't BW shooting themselves in the financial foot?

 

Second is, Phylis can hold an argument, part of her job is, I believe, to argue professionally for her case. I say this because her job is remarkably similar to mine, however, a :palmface: smiley would be helpful for when we are dealing with arguments that have no merit whatsoever. You position is idealogical and totally impractical, so don't expect it to get serious debate from serious debaters. As you can probably tell, I've twenty more years experience than Phylis has

[furnessvale]

FWIW the only place I've not been able to find a mooring is both end bits of the Peak Forest (Whaley and Bugsworth). I don't think it helps that BW has put permanent moorings where visiting boaters (like me) would like to moor. It was a shame to get to the end at Whaley bridge and find it full (only room for about 2 or 3 visiting boats?), then we went to Bugsworth and took on water whilst the man in the little hut watched me really carefully, issung threats along the lines of, 'no continuous mooring on this waterpoint' (Ok he was polite but I got his point), but there was no where else to moor in the basin.

 

Peak Forest is busy!

As a matter of interest, when did you go to buggie and find it full? I remember one rally where 96 boats were moored and a visitor would still have been squeezed in.

 

George ex nb Alton retired