Moorings Management Proposals

[Lady Muck]

this thread is not just about licensing tho is it? I think it is more about BW trying to change a system that works perfectly well. (apart from a small minority who try to abuse it).

Its about BW trying to abuse their powers. If left to do as they please, i dont doubt for one minute, we will all suffer one way or another. BW should concentrate on clarifying the powers they have at present to sort the minority, instead of trying to find a way round it. At the end of the day, Dave banging on about cars and road tax has sod all to do with boats and a canal system.

 

It's not, no, although I can accept there are alot more boaters on the Lee than there used to be, I can't see how this system is going to benefit anybody or make any more 'room'. It affects all of us and seems to be a very expensive game of musical boats.

[canaldrifter]

I would think he quite often strikes a chord with the quiet majority.

 

Possibly out of tune?

 

tone

 

As I've said, my main concern is that what Sally steam-rollers through now might appear in future waterway legislation without proper and due consultation and agreement by us, the end users.

 

I think I might bring this wider issue to another thread.

 

Tone

[Sven...]

I would like to say thank you to the organisers for such a professional event in Hackney Saturday. It was impressive to see the turnout as well as hearing the many thoughtful and educated contributions.

 

Much of the discussion was focused on the possibility of attacking, by legal means, the consultation process itself. Leaving that to one side, I wish to focus on another issue:

 

I believe there was also consensus that boaters should, in any case, turn up at the upcoming public meetings on 1 and 2 March in order to directly air their views about the content of the new proposals.

 

Also, of course, boaters should write to BW and express their views. If every boater would do both, that would represent a substantial amount of input to the process.

 

It was agreed that it would be best if each boater present their case in their own words. Among other benefits, I guess this would serve to humanize the issues. Instead of miles and weeks and pounds, we are then suddenly talking about daily life, families, businesses, etc. This might help win the broadest possible support.

 

Some of the other interest groups involved might know precious little about boaters to start with. I know I had virtually no idea who these boating people were, until I got my own boat last Summer.

 

And there is power in numbers. Twenty real-life stories weigh more than two.

 

But, as was mentioned on Saturday, many boaters might be afraid to speak up....

 

To that end, perhaps it would be helpful if a framework or template be developed for how each boater can best present their case?

 

This can help ensure that the maximum possible number of boaters do talk or write, and also help ensure that some key points come across many times...

 

I am thinking of CCers especially, who are set to be hardest hit.

 

On another note, and as discussed on Saturday: Because many other groups than boaters will be represented at these meetings (and later on in the process), it might be best if we all try as far as possible to take an inclusive, constructive approach, especially with regards to other groups of canal users.

 

Below I have attempted to craft the beginnings of just such a template for CCers. Hopefully others can add to or otherwise improve upon this - but here we go..:

 

1. Introduction: Personal history with the canals - current lifestyle / situation.

2. Fundamentals: Referring to the 1995 Act and how our lifestyle has the protection of Parliament.

3. Recognition of some or all of the known problems in the Lea area (as recently expressed by BW).

4. Thoughts about what could be the real reasons for the problems (e.g. a lack of clarity and/or enforcement).

5. Feelings about the consultation process.

6. Personal consequences of BW's proposals - how they seem draconian, complex, unlawful, etc

7. General consequences of BW's proposals - e.g. how the proposed extreme increase in canal traffic will be disruptive, costly..

8. Personal experiences with other interest groups (residents, anglers, etc).

9. About a desire to live in harmony with these other groups. Maybe something about low-impact living, community involvement, etc.

10. Ideas for better ways of solving the recognised problems.

 

That last point is important, and further to it, I suggest we keep in mind that money is tight. Hence it might not be wise to suggest that BW spend money, without also indicating how it can be financed. On this point I guess it does not hurt if we try, at this stage, to be creative and throw in lots of (realistic) ideas.

 

Here is just one such idea: Better enforcement of existing guidelines - financed by fees payable for failure to follow them.

 

The order of the items is not important. Again, these were just my ideas for a template as to how each and every boater can speak up and make a case in the upcoming public meetings on 1 and 2 March (and/or in writing).

 

It would be interesting to see alternative framework ideas - I am sure it can be done even better, and/or with more detail. Perhaps someone could even write up their full story / views - with or without building on this framework - as an inspiration for others?

 

I would guess that the more we prepare and think about this in the short time available, the better we will fare in the process to come.

 

All the best,

Sven

[Sir Nibble]

I would like to say thank you to the organisers for such a professional event in Hackney Saturday. It was impressive to see the turnout as well as hearing the many thoughtful and educated contributions.

 

Much of the discussion was focused on the possibility of attacking, by legal means, the consultation process itself. Leaving that to one side, I wish to focus on another issue:

 

I believe there was also consensus that boaters should, in any case, turn up at the upcoming public meetings on 1 and 2 March in order to directly air their views about the content of the new proposals.

 

Also, of course, boaters should write to BW and express their views. If every boater would do both, that would represent a substantial amount of input to the process.

 

It was agreed that it would be best if each boater present their case in their own words. Among other benefits, I guess this would serve to humanize the issues. Instead of miles and weeks and pounds, we are then suddenly talking about daily life, families, businesses, etc. This might help win the broadest possible support.

 

Some of the other interest groups involved might know precious little about boaters to start with. I know I had virtually no idea who these boating people were, until I got my own boat last Summer.

 

And there is power in numbers. Twenty real-life stories weigh more than two.

 

But, as was mentioned on Saturday, many boaters might be afraid to speak up....

 

To that end, perhaps it would be helpful if a framework or template be developed for how each boater can best present their case?

 

This can help ensure that the maximum possible number of boaters do talk or write, and also help ensure that some key points come across many times...

 

I am thinking of CCers especially, who are set to be hardest hit.

 

On another note, and as discussed on Saturday: Because many other groups than boaters will be represented at these meetings (and later on in the process), it might be best if we all try as far as possible to take an inclusive, constructive approach, especially with regards to other groups of canal users.

 

Below I have attempted to craft the beginnings of just such a template for CCers. Hopefully others can add to or otherwise improve upon this - but here we go..:

 

1. Introduction: Personal history with the canals - current lifestyle / situation.

2. Fundamentals: Referring to the 1995 Act and how our lifestyle has the protection of Parliament.

3. Recognition of some or all of the known problems in the Lea area (as recently expressed by BW).

4. Thoughts about what could be the real reasons for the problems (e.g. a lack of clarity and/or enforcement).

5. Feelings about the consultation process.

6. Personal consequences of BW's proposals - how they seem draconian, complex, unlawful, etc

7. General consequences of BW's proposals - e.g. how the proposed extreme increase in canal traffic will be disruptive, costly..

8. Personal experiences with other interest groups (residents, anglers, etc).

9. About a desire to live in harmony with these other groups. Maybe something about low-impact living, community involvement, etc.

10. Ideas for better ways of solving the recognised problems.

 

That last point is important, and further to it, I suggest we keep in mind that money is tight. Hence it might not be wise to suggest that BW spend money, without also indicating how it can be financed. On this point I guess it does not hurt if we try, at this stage, to be creative and throw in lots of (realistic) ideas.

 

Here is just one such idea: Better enforcement of existing guidelines - financed by fees payable for failure to follow them.

 

The order of the items is not important. Again, these were just my ideas for a template as to how each and every boater can speak up and make a case in the upcoming public meetings on 1 and 2 March (and/or in writing).

 

It would be interesting to see alternative framework ideas - I am sure it can be done even better, and/or with more detail. Perhaps someone could even write up their full story / views - with or without building on this framework - as an inspiration for others?

 

I would guess that the more we prepare and think about this in the short time available, the better we will fare in the process to come.

 

All the best,

Sven

 

Once again there is the urging that each and every boater should make their views known and even a template to do so, but overlying this is the usual assumption that every boater is united in opposition to the proposals. How about if in response to your urging 50 boaters e mail their opposition and 200 their support for the proposals? Don't go running away with the idea that there are no other opinions than your own. Play your cards closer to your chest and don't forget that placing a campaign organisation on an open website opens your thinking to your opponents.

[carlt]

Play your cards closer to your chest and don't forget that placing a campaign organisation on an open website opens your thinking to your opponents.

Yeah, one of them secret campaign organisations.

 

I've got one but I'm not going to tell you what it's about, or what we're going to do...

 

Wanna join?

[romarni123]

Yeah, one of them secret campaign organisations.

 

I've got one but I'm not going to tell you what it's about, or what we're going to do...

 

Wanna join?

Have you got a secret handshake

[Steilsteven]

Having followed this very interesting thread all the way, I have come to the conclusion that whatever happens nothing will really change.

If BW find the current 14 day rule impossible to enforce, how on Earth will they be able to enforce the proposed rules?

 

What is the difference between ignoring an overstaying notice now and ignoring an overstaying notice in future?

 

Either way, to be able to enforce the rules requires daily patrols along the entire length of the waterway noting the position of every boat.

The cost of this is said to be covered by the fees/fines charged, this assumes that there would be a lot of people who are prepared to pay £20-£40 per day to remain in their chosen spot. The reality is more likely to be that a few would stick it out and then face an enormous bill at the end of the year, which they wouldn't pay and the rest would move to avoid having to pay. The end result would be, just as now, that enforcing the rules would not be self financing.

 

Keith

[carlt]

Have you got a secret handshake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QshjXuVIs40

Edited February 27, 2011 by carlt

[romarni123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QshjXuVIs40

Very good I wanna be in your gang

[DeanS]

I was thinking about amassing a big positive score, not just votes on this thread. The anti-mayallists are very vocal but can't vote him down. I would think he quite often strikes a chord with the quiet majority.

 

 

Why would you vote someone down just because they have a different view to you.? I havent met Dave, and I'm sure he's a nice guy. Just because he might stick to his guns on some issues, doesnt mean it has to get personal in any way. Dave get's my vote, although I still think he's wrong about the car/boat comparison...LOL

Edited February 27, 2011 by DeanS

[Sir Nibble]

Yeah, one of them secret campaign organisations.

 

I've got one but I'm not going to tell you what it's about, or what we're going to do...

 

Wanna join?

Now let's take a holiday in the real adult world. I have never been a member of a secret campaigning organisations, but I have been a member of a few more public ones from a national political party to minority pressure groups and it strikes me that the same could be said for command of an army as well. DO NOT PUBLISH IN PUBLIC WHAT YOU ARE INTENDING TO DO BECAUSE YOU WILL FIND YOURSELF OUTMANOUVRED. This should be obvious to anyone with more intelligence than a jellyfish even if the object is as trivial as winning a game of whist. The lapse of good sense that allows this is down to the sheer hubris of assuming that everyone shares your view and there is only a faceless "them" to defeat. Let me tell you, Sally Ash has not devided the boating community, the umpteen who have taken a view that they have more right to determine the law than the navigation authority have,and have taken to a lifestyle which in their hearts they know is illegal but pretend is not and have done so in such numbers as to arouse the ire of significant numbers of both the boating community and other stakeholders such as hire firms and canalside communities. If you should post on this forum any information which would help BW to frustrate your campaign, SOMEONE WOULD BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION!

Now that explains the gist of what I was seeking to say, ignore it and take the piss please, I hope you fail.

 

 

Now earlier in this thread Chris Pink posted a weird little piece of condescending crap at me concerning "tippy toeing through long words" or some such playground rubbish, it took me a while to realise that he thought I had read a court judgement and that, of course is a disgraceful thing to do in the peoples republic of bridgehopper, well I've not read it, so lets just ask shall we. Have BW's guidelines for continuos cruisers been in any significant measure upheld? or in any significant measure struck down? Let's stop messing about, what is the judgement of the law?

 

Edited for typo and to point out it's my birthday and I'm a little bit P&S.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Sir Nibble

[carlt]

Now let's take a holiday in the real adult world.

I was trying to put you on the charabanc.

 

How can you drum up public support if you are not publicising your beliefs and how you are going to (publicly) campaign for those beliefs.

 

It's like NABO telling us "Join us and we'll tell you what we stand for."

 

Edited to add...Now learn the hand shake and you're in.

Edited February 27, 2011 by carlt

[Sir Nibble]

You say, "This is what we stand for and what we seek to achieve", it's called a manifesto, and applies to the smallest groups. Having gathered support for that point of view you begin to plan strategy and campaign tactics, in private, like any leader with half a brain would. Do you think every member of the Labour party is privy to shadow cabinet strategy for opposition? Do you think David Cameron is? Do you think every lawyer is aware of his opponent's strategy? You do know the police monitor facebook to outmanouvre protesters stupid enough to use it for a conversation that should remain private? And the point is you will find as many opponents as supporters reading your supposed strategy.

[matty40s]

.....these proposals affect EVERY boater, not just CC'ers.

As Lady Muck says, people with legitimate LTM are having their normal cruising and mooring rights affected by these ill-thought out measures.

This does not JUST affect those on the Lee and Stort, but WILL affect everyone if BW manage to railroad these measures through without proper consultation or listening to other ideas.

they already have the powers to enforce the regulations, but chose NOT to use them effectively, why will a new set of rules change things.

It states in the proposals that they are already planning the same in the rest of the London region, this will mean a two or three week holiday in London currently enjoyed by many people cruising from the Midlands Southweards,is no longer possible, or much ,more expensive.

 

.......and then it will be rolled out nationally.

[carlt]

And the point is you will find as many opponents as supporters reading your supposed strategy.

I don't regard anyone as an opponent, just as a "yet to be convinced".

[mayalld]

I use my car to travel to from A (my own home) to B (my friends home). I dont HAVE to pull over half way.....WHEREAS, canals are different....you HAVE to pull over at some point.

 

Not so.

 

It is (theoretically) possible never to moor to the public towpath, by taking a provate mooring each night.

 

You seem to imagine that the fact that it is less than convenient to do so means that BW MUST provide you with overnight moorings FOC. The fact that they do provide free moorings in 99% of places doesn't mean that they are obliged to do so.

[GUMPY]

It states in the proposals that they are already planning the same in the rest of the London region, this will mean a two or three week holiday in London currently enjoyed by many people cruising from the Midlands Southweards,is no longer possible, or much ,more expensive.

 

.......and then it will be rolled out nationally.

 

Cant wait the sooner they roll it out the better.

 

They can't enforce the present system because there is no definition of "place" so I could move 100 yards and claim to be in another place. With the new definitions that is not possible.

 

As for affecting a holiday in London it all depends on where they put the boundaries of the areas and whether they reduce the time at the present mooring sites. If they stay at 14days as they are now and the boundary is at Camden then no problems at all 14 days at Little Venice / Paddington then 14days at Islington.

 

Having looked back over the years of boating I can only see a matter of a few weeks where it might have affected me when I was shuffling between Kings Langley Aylesbury and Marsworth back in the early 90s before I got a mooring.

 

 

BTW is anyone prepared to release the result of the court case I really would like to know which way it went or do I take by the deafening silence that BW won

Edited February 27, 2011 by idleness

[matty40s]

Cant wait the sooner they roll it out the better.

 

They can't enforce the present system because there is no definition of "place" so I could move 100 yards and claim to be in another place. With the new definitions that is not possible.

 

As for affecting a holiday in London it all depends on where they put the boundaries of the areas and whether they reduce the time at the present mooring sites. If they stay at 14days as they are now and the boundary is at Camden then no problems at all 14 days at Little Venice / Paddington then 14days at Islington.

 

Having looked back over the years of boating I can only see a matter of a few weeks where it might have affected me when I was shuffling between Kings Langley Aylesbury and Marsworth back in the early 90s before I got a mooring.

 

Problem is Idleness, if salubrious spots such as Hackney Wick, Tottenham,Stonebridge and Bow are all deemed 7 day moorings, I doubt 14 days will exist anywhere on the Regent Canal. It will be absolute maximum 7 days, and probably 48 hours at LV, Paddington,etc

....and don't forget, there are many people in the same situation you were in all those years ago, who cannot find affordable moorings any more.

[GUMPY]

Problem is Idleness, if salubrious spots such as Hackney Wick, Tottenham,Stonebridge and Bow are all deemed 7 day moorings, I doubt 14 days will exist anywhere on the Regent Canal. It will be absolute maximum 7 days, and probably 48 hours at LV, Paddington,etc

....and don't forget, there are many people in the same situation you were in all those years ago, who cannot find affordable moorings any more.

 

Affordable wasn't anything to do with it

There were no moorings available at all all, those that did exist were taken.

Apart from a few at Winkwell (nothing below the lock then), a couple of small offside moorings and the BW ones at fisheries and above five paddle lock there was nothing between Cowroast and Watford.

[Lady Muck]

Camden is 7 days (per 12 calendar months), Paddington is 7 days as well, again I think there's a limit on how often you can visit?

 

Thing is, I can't see how this is going to make the Lee any less busy than it is already? It will just make boating more expensive.

[GUMPY]

Camden is 7 days (per 12 calendar months), Paddington is 7 days as well, again I think there's a limit on how often you can visit?

 

 

So visiting for 3 weeks you would have to move twice even now.

[matty40s]

Camden is 7 days (per 12 calendar months), Paddington is 7 days as well, again I think there's a limit on how often you can visit?Thing is, I can't see how this is going to make the Lee any less busy than it is already? It will just make boating more expensive.

 

 

 

....and increase wear and tear on the infrastructure if people move around like they are supposed to.....

 

 

Paddington is no return within a month. Kensal Green is also 14 days in 12 Calendar months according to the signs.

[DeanS]

Not so.

 

It is (theoretically) possible never to moor to the public towpath, by taking a provate mooring each night.

 

You seem to imagine that the fact that it is less than convenient to do so means that BW MUST provide you with overnight moorings FOC. The fact that they do provide free moorings in 99% of places doesn't mean that they are obliged to do so.

 

 

1. The licence issued by BW should not rely on your ability to find private moorings, which may or may not be available, since any private marina can lock it's gates at a whim.

2. There would not be enough private marinas to cope with all the boats on the system trying to find a place for the night.

3. Lastly, we could hope that BW provide marinas. They do, but the last time I tried asking for a short stay, they told me I had to bid for the whole year.

 

In the light of points 2 and 3 above, I feel BW are obliged to.

 

???

Edited February 27, 2011 by DeanS

[mayalld]

1. The licence issued by BW should not rely on your ability to find private moorings, which may or may not be available, since any private marina can lock it's gates at a whim.

2. There would not be enough private marinas to cope with all the boats on the system trying to find a place for the night.

3. Lastly, we could hope that BW provide marinas. They do, but the last time I tried asking for a short stay, they told me I had to bid for the whole year.

 

In the light of points 2 and 3 above, I feel BW are obliged to.

 

???

 

Do your arguments not apply equally to car parking?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Camden is 7 days (per 12 calendar months), Paddington is 7 days as well, again I think there's a limit on how often you can visit?

 

Thing is, I can't see how this is going to make the Lee any less busy than it is already? It will just make boating more expensive.

 

The voice of reason!

 

As someone who started boating on the Lee some 50 years ago, I can categorically state that it is now busier!

 

However, imposing 'parking fines' will not make the Lee less busy. They will be ignored by those who BW claim they are targeting but paid by the majority.

 

Quite simply, if boaters do not oppose BW on this issue then we will see the imposition of creeping mooring charges across the system.

 

If BW were playing with a straight bat then why are the proposals for the Lee so different to the K&A?