Moorings Management Proposals

[canaldrifter]

I thought you were his Dad! (and Phylis' Grandad)

 

I woke up feeling great this morning.

 

Having read the above, I now feel quite ill....

 

Thanks!

 

Tone

[Lady Muck]

Come to london boaters meeting on sat 26 feb 1pm st michael & all angels church hall, lavender grove E8 3LR and sign up to mailing list london@lilo.org.uk for more info.

 

 

Just bumping this one up to top, if anyone needs a lift, I will be going from Tottenham Marshes car park at about 12.30, text me on zero 792two triple 8 two 62.

 

I'm not back 'til tonight, have a good meeting!

[romarni123]

Just had a look round NBW and it says on there that there will be no boats allowed within three miles of the olympic stadium by police order. How can BW sell moorings if you cant go there??? does anyone know.

[matty40s]

Meeting Notes.

There has already been a meeting at the North end of the L&S and todays meeting at St Micheals church hall went ahead at 1pm as planned.

Considering the extremely short notice and lack of time to plan, there was a very good turn out of approx 130 plus interested parties, and not just live-aboard CC-ers, for this will affect many people.

 

The meeting was attended by Panda from the K&A boaters association, Nick from the NABO and lots of other peple who I do not know the names of but are starting to co-ordinate a response to BW's underhand and aggressive tactics.

 

Panda outlined the way the K&A boaters had handled the BW plans and consultations, how they had communicated to, lobbied and engaged all relevant official bodies, stakeholders and others. By doing this they had made BW alter some of it's proposals, listen to others views (cue the Sally Ash disappearance from the meetings) and make some of the official bodies realise that there was another intelligent and well thought out argument to solve the issues, rather than just the BW way. Panda stressed that to keep ones head below the parapet and not act was foolish and everyone should help the movement in some way, by e-mailing, lobbying, attending consultation meetings etc. Just signing a petition would not help as everyones individual case was different and was equally worth of BW's consideration in it's future plans.

 

Nick outlined some of the legal arguments and positions that both BW has put itself in and the boaters may find themselves being in. Needless to say, the BW proposals are ready to be implemented the moment that the shortened "consultation" period ends.

There was then a question and viewpoint sesssion where many points were raised and different ideas of engaging BW and others in meaningful dialogue were discussed. The room was unanimous in agreeing some kind of boaters organisation was needed to reflect the views of all, and also unanimous in that the meetings MUST be attended by a maximum possible number if people, who should air their views and issues to BW.

The subject of the Olympics WAS raised, and it is widely believed that BW is forcing this through quickly so everything is in place before it migrates to Charitable status next May and the Olympics stats next July.

 

Summary

Very productive meeting with key decisions being made and a strategy starting to be formulated.

 

Be at the meetings to find out more.

 

 

Tuesday 1st March Stanstead Abbots Village Hall 18.30-20.30

Wednesday 2nd March Leaside Canoe Centre, Springfield 18.30-20.30

 

e-mail damian.kemp@britishwaterways.co.uk with your individual views

write to Damian Kemp British Waterways,64 Clarendon Road, WATFORD WD17 1DA

 

edited to let Damians mum know he has a job (not Damiens). I didn't add the mobile number as I dread to think what his BW mobile bill will be if we all keep leaving messages!!!

Edited February 26, 2011 by matty40s

[canaldrifter]

Meeting Notes.

 

Many thanks for this.

 

Tone

[mayalld]

Will you stop giving yourself green points? It is beginning to look like masturbation.

 

Tone

 

does it really hurt you so much to imagine that somebody actually likes what I write?

 

Actually I quite like him for his alternative pedantry views, although we have yet to meet. When we do, that is going to be one hell of an interesting banter....

 

Tone

 

I'm devastated to note that advancing years have caused you to forget that I once passed you on the Macc, and shouted a greeting.

 

Sorry, Mr Mayall, that's already covered by the licence fee. Now stop dissembling and explain what additional services are rendered to CCs that are NOT covered by the licence fee.

 

Take as long as you want.

 

 

If you would care to step back through the posts to where this particular assertion starts, you will see that we are specifically talking about BW's right to impose sub-14 day limits, which I maintain they can do under s43.

 

As to "they can't charge twice" well, that is a separate argument.

 

BW charges a licence fee. That licence fee buys you a right to float on their waters. It buys you NOTHING else. It doesn't buy you a right to actually navigate, and it doesn't buy you a right to moor anywhere.

 

Eact time you moor to the public towpath, you are being provided with a service (yes you are, s43(8) TA 1962 says so). BW has a right under s43(3) of the same act to charge you for that (or to choose not to do so). The fact that BW doesn't charge for MOST casual mooring doesn't mean that they mustn't charge for ANY.

[Jim Batty]

Meeting Notes.

There has already been a meeting at the North end of the L&S and todays meeting at St Micheals church hall went ahead at 1pm as planned.

Be at the meetings to find out more. ...

 

Tuesday 1st March Stanstead Abbots Village Hall 18.30-20.30

Wednesday 2nd March Leaside Canoe Centre, Springfield 18.30-20.30 ...

 

e-mail damien.kemp@britishwaterways.co.uk with your individual views

write to Damien Kemp British Waterways,64 Clarendon Road, WATFORD WD17 1DA

 

Thanks Matty for this.

 

Just an additional note that a few more details on Damian Kemp (note spelling of his name and web address: damian.kemp@britishwaterways.co.uk; tel: 07887 855306) and a written response form with a few prompts (if you want them) are available here.

 

Deadline appears to be 4 April 2011.

[carlt]

 

BW charges a licence fee. That licence fee buys you a right to float on their waters. It buys you NOTHING else. It doesn't buy you a right to actually navigate, and it doesn't buy you a right to moor anywhere.

 

Does this statement sound like a Schrödinger's cat paradox to anyone else?

[DeanS]

BW charges a licence fee. That licence fee buys you a right to float on their waters. It buys you NOTHING else. It doesn't buy you a right to actually navigate, and it doesn't buy you a right to moor anywhere.

 

Eact time you moor to the public towpath, you are being provided with a service (yes you are, s43(8) TA 1962 says so). BW has a right under s43(3) of the same act to charge you for that (or to choose not to do so). The fact that BW doesn't charge for MOST casual mooring doesn't mean that they mustn't charge for ANY.

 

I dont know what the laws say, but paying a licence to use the waterways, and then being charged again for pulling over to the side, is rediculous. Of course if I buy a licence to use the waterways, I'm going to have to pull over to the side..at times. So, that would mean the licence should cover pulling over to the towpath. If some areas of land is privately owned, then that would justify a charge, by the land owner. If land is owned by BW, then there should be no charge at all. Let me say it again...it's rediculous for them to hand out a licence which only lets you stay in the middle of the water. You're saying that legally they could charge people to moor on the towpath, but we're just fortunate that they dont. WooHoo. Of course if they ever did implement, what you say they can implement, (charging for mooring), then can you just imagine what it would be like with every boat sitting mid stream

[mayalld]

I dont know what the laws say, but paying a licence to use the waterways, and then being charged again for pulling over to the side, is rediculous. Of course if I buy a licence to use the waterways, I'm going to have to pull over to the side..at times. So, that would mean the licence should cover pulling over to the towpath. If some areas of land is privately owned, then that would justify a charge, by the land owner. If land is owned by BW, then there should be no charge at all.

 

OK, is there some particular reason why BW should be different to all the other landowners of the canal side?

 

Why should they be allowed to charge and BW not be allowed to charge?

 

And just to short circuit the inevitable public/private distinction (which doesn't actually bear scrutiny), do you also believe that councils (public) should be unable to charge for parking?

 

In fact, the situation regarding mooring isn't hugely different to the situation regarding parking cars.

 

I tax my car (pretty similar to a BW licence). That allows me to keep it on a public road. It doesn't guarantee that any particular road will be open (although most will be), and it doesn't give me a right to park free of charge wherever I need to pull over. Certainly in many places I will be able to, but in others I will have to pay, and be subject to restrictions.

[carlt]

I tax my car (pretty similar to a BW licence). That allows me to keep it on a public road. It doesn't guarantee that any particular road will be open (although most will be), and it doesn't give me a right to park free of charge wherever I need to pull over. Certainly in many places I will be able to, but in others I will have to pay, and be subject to restrictions.

Poor comparison.

 

The Highways Act merely gives you the right to pass and repass. It does not give any rights to stop. Parking is purely down tothe Highway Authority's discretion, whether or not to enforce.

 

The various Acts pertaining to the waterways do give specific rights to stop (particularly for those without a home mooring or place to keep their boat.

 

There is also an implied right to moor (and navigate) elsewhere in waterways legislation, relevant to all licensed boats.

Edited February 26, 2011 by carlt

[ymu]

OK, is there some particular reason why BW should be different to all the other landowners of the canal side?

 

Why should they be allowed to charge and BW not be allowed to charge?

 

<snip>

Because we pay a licence fee to BW and not to private landowners?

[DeanS]

OK, is there some particular reason why BW should be different to all the other landowners of the canal side?

 

Why should they be allowed to charge and BW not be allowed to charge?

 

And just to short circuit the inevitable public/private distinction (which doesn't actually bear scrutiny), do you also believe that councils (public) should be unable to charge for parking?

 

In fact, the situation regarding mooring isn't hugely different to the situation regarding parking cars.

 

I tax my car (pretty similar to a BW licence). That allows me to keep it on a public road. It doesn't guarantee that any particular road will be open (although most will be), and it doesn't give me a right to park free of charge wherever I need to pull over. Certainly in many places I will be able to, but in others I will have to pay, and be subject to restrictions.

 

 

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.....THEREFORE, whoever charges for the use of the waterways needs to include the travelling and the mooring under 1 licence. It makes no sense to say you have to pay a licence to travel midstream... and if you want to pull over, we'll charge again. In fact sometimes you HAVE to pull over, because levels are low, locks are blocked, etc. Anyway, I'm sure BW will just raise their licence fees anyway to cover towpath maintenance. I'm not talking about marinas at all, where you get additional services like security, car parks etc. I'm not even questioning your knowledge of the law...I'm just saying it wouldn't make SENSE that the law even considers the firsts licence as a licence that doesnt let you pull over on the towpath.

[sebrof]

OK, is there some particular reason why BW should be different to all the other landowners of the canal side?

 

Why should they be allowed to charge and BW not be allowed to charge?

 

And just to short circuit the inevitable public/private distinction (which doesn't actually bear scrutiny), do you also believe that councils (public) should be unable to charge for parking?

 

In fact, the situation regarding mooring isn't hugely different to the situation regarding parking cars.

 

I tax my car (pretty similar to a BW licence). That allows me to keep it on a public road. It doesn't guarantee that any particular road will be open (although most will be), and it doesn't give me a right to park free of charge wherever I need to pull over. Certainly in many places I will be able to, but in others I will have to pay, and be subject to restrictions.

 

It's just struck me, Mr Mayall, that you are more important than even you think. At least to some people.

 

You are living, breathing, (OK, I am making some assumptions here) proof that parallel universes do actually exist.

 

In your universe, BW stands for Black and White, which is the way you see things. It is a dull world, not entirely dissimilar to a prison, where everything is subject to rules, and power is in the hands of those who have mastered the rule book. It's the universe of Kafka, and Red Robbo, and Catch 22.

 

It's also a bit like the Island of Dr Moreau, where beasts fashioned into human form by a madman try their best to be human. But Dr Moreau was never entirely successful, and his creations, by turns comic, by turns tragic, never quite make it. They almost manage the Homo, but they miss the Sapiens.

 

Has anyone heard Mr Mayall make a joke?

 

There weren't many jokes on Moreau's island, either.

[sebrof]

Now, Mr Mayall, to answer your post.

 

BW charge a licence fee to use the canal, which necessitates stopping at night. Stopping at night, on the towpath, is covered by the licence fee. This is not spelt out because it is implicit (look it up).

 

Landlords on the other side from the towpath do not charge a licence fee. The laws of trespass enable them to make a charge for the use of their land. The charge conveys a temporary licence to do what moorers need to do.

 

The car parking analogy is absurd. Councils are in a similar position to landlords opposite the towpath.

[jenlyn]

OK, is there some particular reason why BW should be different to all the other landowners of the canal side?

 

Why should they be allowed to charge and BW not be allowed to charge?

 

And just to short circuit the inevitable public/private distinction (which doesn't actually bear scrutiny), do you also believe that councils (public) should be unable to charge for parking?

 

In fact, the situation regarding mooring isn't hugely different to the situation regarding parking cars.

 

I tax my car (pretty similar to a BW licence). That allows me to keep it on a public road. It doesn't guarantee that any particular road will be open (although most will be), and it doesn't give me a right to park free of charge wherever I need to pull over. Certainly in many places I will be able to, but in others I will have to pay, and be subject to restrictions.

 

can you stop trying to hi jack this thread? you sound like a bloody cracked record, same thing from you all the time, BORING!!!!!

[matty40s]

can you stop trying to hi jack this thread? you sound like a bloody cracked record, same thing from you all the time, BORING!!!!!

 

 

I must admit I have been biting my tongue on this one, even though it is my thread, however enuf is enuf........

 

My BW license is a Continuous Cruising license, if that doesn't give me the right to navigate then I might as well scuttle Old Friends and get a tent on the towpath of the Macc canal. Stay on topic Dave. Thanks. This new ruling doesn't just affect CC'ers, or indeed CM'ers, it affects every boater who uses the L&S navigations.

Edited February 26, 2011 by matty40s

[carlt]

I must admit I have been biting my tongue on this one, even though it is my thread, however enuf is enuf........

 

My BW license is a Continuous Cruising license, if that doesn't give me the right to navigate then I might as well scuttle Old Friends and get a tent on the towpath of the Macc canal. Stay on topic Dave. Thanks. This new ruling doesn't just affect CC'ers, or indeed CM'ers, it affects every boater who uses the L&S navigations.

Presumably, if you don't have the right to navigate...and you don't have the right to moor against the tow path, but "That licence fee buys you a right to float on their waters.", then chuck a mudweight fore and aft and, by Dave's reasoning, you can stop as long as you like.

 

An unpowered portable craft licence is a lot cheaper than mooring fees so you can use a tender to get to and from the bank.

 

Sorted!...and, what's more, Dave says it's all above board and legal.

[matty40s]

Presumably, if you don't have the right to navigate...and you don't have the right to moor against the tow path, but "That licence fee buys you a right to float on their waters.", then chuck a mudweight fore and aft and, by Dave's reasoning, you can stop as long as you like.

 

An unpowered portable craft licence is a lot cheaper than mooring fees so you can use a tender to get to and from the bank.

 

Sorted!...and, what's more, Dave says it's all above board and legal.

 

However, Dave also says it is legal to tax your car and leave it in the middle lane of the nearest road as you may be charged if you leave it at the side............no mud weights needed.

Edited February 26, 2011 by matty40s

[canaldrifter]

does it really hurt you so much to imagine that somebody actually likes what I write?

 

 

 

I'm devastated to note that advancing years have caused you to forget that I once passed you on the Macc, and shouted a greeting.

 

 

 

Was that you? I thought it was a Nabo member....

 

Tone

[canaldrifter]

does it really hurt you so much to imagine that somebody actually likes what I write?

 

 

'Imagine' being the operative word. There is no way that other contributors on this site would have voted you an aggregate +75 going by the responses that I read.

 

Bless....

 

Tone

[jenlyn]

Mr mayall probably votes himself up

[journeyperson]

'Imagine' being the operative word. There is no way that other contributors on this site would have voted you an aggregate +75 going by the responses that I read.

 

Bless....

 

Tone

 

I'm not so sure. People feel strongly about these licensing issues and will be inclined to vote on them. Opinions are divided, but now only those agreeing are counted.

[jenlyn]

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.

[journeyperson]

this thread is not just about licensing tho is it?

 

>snip<

 

Dave banging on about cars and road tax has sod all to do with boats and a canal system.

 

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.

Edited February 27, 2011 by journeyperson