Moorings Management Proposals

[jenlyn]

You know this really annoys me! The cc'er guidelines are quite clear that you should be on a progressive journey around the system! Because of you lot down south clogging up the canals as a a way of getting cheap housing, you are ruining my way of life! I am now faced with stupid mooring rules and hostile BW staff. It was great before i was free to roam where I liked without being harassed. Stop arguing with BW and move your bloody boats! If you can't move every 14 days and in a progressive way get a mooring! If you can't afford a mooring sell your boat and get something you can afford without causing trouble for other people.

 

i have heard it happens up north as well

[tigster]

i have heard it happens up north as well

 

If you think the kennet and Avon is up north! To me it's down south!

[carlt]

You know this really annoys me! The cc'er guidelines are quite clear that you should be on a progressive journey around the system!

There is a huge difference between "guideline" and "law"

 

The "guidelines" (which BW acknowledge have no force in law) are BW's interpretation of how they would like the law to be written.

 

The "law" is how the law is written.

[jenlyn]

If you think the kennet and Avon is up north! To me it's down south!

 

oooops, this thread aint about the Kennet and Avon, and if you read through it, i think you will find that BW are not so much after overstayers, they seem to be wanting to stop cc'rs, owing to the popularity of it

[tigster]

No I think you'll find they are trying to clear the canals for the olympics. They don't have a problem with cc'ers or livaboards who follow the guidelines, they have a problem with bridge hoppers who don't move very far or continious moorers. This is why we live in a nanny state, the guidelines are what BW thinks is a fair way to behave on the canals. what is happening down there is unfair to the majority of boaters on the system and now because you won't follow the guidelines you are forcing BW to introduce draconian rules which is to the detriment of all canal users. It takes away my freedom and frankly arguing of the finer points of what is law or not is shameful.

[carlt]

what is happening down there is unfair to the majority of boaters on the system and now because you won't follow the guidelines you are forcing BW to introduce draconian rules which is to the detriment of all canal users. It takes away my freedom and frankly arguing of the finer points of what is law or not is shameful.

I'm not sure who you are aiming this at but I had a long term BW online mooring for nearly 10 years and, before that, CCed well within what BW considered acceptable, law or not.

 

I am not forcing BW to do anything (and I believe that the rules that BW are trying to impose are actually unlawful).

 

As to arguing the finer points of law being shameful....what a load of rubbish.

 

This is a discussion forum and I will not hang my head in shame, for having a discussion, about the finer points of law.

 

If you are feeling a little bit dirty, getting involved with this thread, then I suggest you have a shower, and stay away from those of us who have no shame.

[jenlyn]

No I think you'll find they are trying to clear the canals for the olympics. They don't have a problem with cc'ers or livaboards who follow the guidelines, they have a problem with bridge hoppers who don't move very far or continious moorers. This is why we live in a nanny state, the guidelines are what BW thinks is a fair way to behave on the canals. what is happening down there is unfair to the majority of boaters on the system and now because

you won't follow the guidelines you are forcing BW to introduce draconian rules which is to the detriment of all canal users

. It takes away my freedom and frankly arguing of the finer points of what is law or not is shameful.

 

are you refering to me personaly?

[sheriff]

You know this really annoys me! The cc'er guidelines are quite clear that you should be on a progressive journey around the system! Because of you lot down south clogging up the canals as a a way of getting cheap housing, you are ruining my way of life! I am now faced with stupid mooring rules and hostile BW staff. It was great before i was free to roam where I liked without being harassed. Stop arguing with BW and move your bloody boats! If you can't move every 14 days and in a progressive way get a mooring! If you can't afford a mooring sell your boat and get something you can afford without causing trouble for other people.

fancy being my deputy

[PiRSqwared]

So who else went yesterday? The start was a bit of a shambles. Sally Ash seemed to have been sent a supply of soft soap to use whenever things got heated. Someone from the local rowing club turned up to say his members were concerned about there being too many boats on the Lee.

I was glad to hear that she is not responsible for weed on the Lee. Does anyone know who is as I have a bit of a backache!

[Leonie]

No I think you'll find they are trying to clear the canals for the olympics. They don't have a problem with cc'ers or livaboards who follow the guidelines, they have a problem with bridge hoppers who don't move very far or continious moorers. This is why we live in a nanny state, the guidelines are what BW thinks is a fair way to behave on the canals. what is happening down there is unfair to the majority of boaters on the system and now because you won't follow the guidelines you are forcing BW to introduce draconian rules which is to the detriment of all canal users. It takes away my freedom and frankly arguing of the finer points of what is law or not is shameful.

 

You're entitled to believe that but you are spouting crap in the absence of facts. British Waterways made it VERY clear last night in the meeting that they were against the increase of liveaboard boaters and were looking to make the lifestyle seemingly unattractive. They even floated the suggestion that 'we allow you existing boaters to continue with the relaxed old way of cruising and mooring and make these new insane draconian changes applicable only to new boaters'. I'm paraphrasing a bit ;-) but I think you get the gist. Obviously the response from us - some 200+ interested boaters - was a resounding no.

 

As to the Olympic question, I tend to agree that it feels like a little bit of the traditional Olympic city slum clearance but British Waterways have also confessed that in reality the zone around the Olympics will be so wide, they will be hard pressed to make any money out of it and the fact that nobody will be allowed to be ther, whatever their license status is thus irrelevant.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with fairness or overstaying or who does or doesn't follow the guidelines. It is blind panic about more liveaboards and the inevitability that this will bring more responsibility on them as a body as they face the reality that they are a housing authority of sorts.

[Lady Muck]

As to the Olympic question, I tend to agree that it feels like a little bit of the traditional Olympic city slum clearance but British Waterways have also confessed that in reality the zone around the Olympics will be so wide, they will be hard pressed to make any money out of it and the fact that nobody will be allowed to be ther, whatever their license status is thus irrelevant.

 

Yes, it's a huge area they are talking about, from Old Ford to Tottenham Locks, which leads me to wonder where these Olympics moorings will be -opposite me?

 

Anyone fancy an overpriced three week holiday on the towpath in Tottenham? I know a really good kebab shop.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Lady Muck

[Lady Muck]

So who else went yesterday?

 

I didn't go. After all my hot-air spouting on here I am quite exhausted.

[Leonie]

Yes, it's a huge area they are talking about, from Old Ford to Tottenham Locks, which leads me to wonder where these Olympics moorings will be -opposite me?

 

Anyone fancy an overpriced three week holiday on the towpath in Tottenham? I know a really good kebab shop.

 

The only area they have available to them is 'Hackney Marshes' they confessed disappointedly. Personally, I wish they could rent out more sites closer to the venue for a gigantic fee because it would mean an influx of cash which I would then start greedily lobbying them to spend on facilities for us. You know, like rubbish bins and toilet disposal units. Ho hum.

 

So who else went yesterday? The start was a bit of a shambles. Sally Ash seemed to have been sent a supply of soft soap to use whenever things got heated. Someone from the local rowing club turned up to say his members were concerned about there being too many boats on the Lee.

I was glad to hear that she is not responsible for weed on the Lee. Does anyone know who is as I have a bit of a backache!

 

You should talk to the rowers about the weed problem. Apparenlty British Waterways comes and clears their patch whenever they ask them to! I told him we'd field all weed clearing requests via them in future. We spoke to the canoeist to see exactly what his issues were and he was quite overwhelmed with the willingness of 'us' to engage with 'them'. Their main concern was the movement of boats (you couldn't make it up) and mooring in bends and narrow stretches of canal. We suggested the canoe club and the boaters speak to each other to see how best we can accommodate each other on that stretch.

[matty40s]

You should talk to the rowers about the weed problem. Apparenlty British Waterways comes and clears their patch whenever they ask them to! I told him we'd field all weed clearing requests via them in future. We spoke to the canoeist to see exactly what his issues were and he was quite overwhelmed with the willingness of 'us' to engage with 'them'. Their main concern was the movement of boats (you couldn't make it up) and mooring in bends and narrow stretches of canal. We suggested the canoe club and the boaters speak to each other to see how best we can accommodate each other on that stretch.

 

....i did hear that they were aghast at Sally's suggestion that they should face the way they were going.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coat

[Leonie]

....i did hear that they were aghast at Sally's suggestion that they should face the way they were going.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coat

 

Heh heh heh best way to avoid accidents.

[PiRSqwared]

The only area they have available to them is 'Hackney Marshes' they confessed disappointedly. Personally, I wish they could rent out more sites closer to the venue for a gigantic fee because it would mean an influx of cash which I would then start greedily lobbying them to spend on facilities for us. You know, like rubbish bins and toilet disposal units. Ho hum.

 

 

 

You should talk to the rowers about the weed problem. Apparenlty British Waterways comes and clears their patch whenever they ask them to! I told him we'd field all weed clearing requests via them in future. We spoke to the canoeist to see exactly what his issues were and he was quite overwhelmed with the willingness of 'us' to engage with 'them'. Their main concern was the movement of boats (you couldn't make it up) and mooring in bends and narrow stretches of canal. We suggested the canoe club and the boaters speak to each other to see how best we can accommodate each other on that stretch.

 

Yes, interesting that the boat club was worried about boats moving so BW was using that to make boats move even more! Now that there are no holiday boats being hired out on the Lee, one would think that there would be fewer boats moving around in the immediate future.

The boat club at Springfield has the "disadvantage" of being located in probably the most residential part of the Lower Lee, with the result that access to shops etc is high. It is therefore a bit of a magnet for boaters who don't necessarily wish to commune with nature all the time.

Edited March 3, 2011 by PiRSqwared

[Phoenix_V]

They even floated the suggestion that 'we allow you existing boaters to continue with the relaxed old way of cruising and mooring and make these new insane draconian changes applicable only to new boaters'. I'm paraphrasing a bit ;-) but I think you get the gist. Obviously the response from us - some 200+ interested boaters - was a resounding no.

 

 

 

I think this came from the first meeting and it is a shame that the "interested boaters" rejected it as clearly there is going to need to be some tightening up of (or even just enforcement of the existing rules) and a relaxation for existing ccers or possibly even some cheap towpath moorings for them seemed one constructive way forward

[tigster]

You're entitled to believe that but you are spouting crap in the absence of facts. British Waterways made it VERY clear last night in the meeting that they were against the increase of liveaboard boaters and were looking to make the lifestyle seemingly unattractive. They even floated the suggestion that 'we allow you existing boaters to continue with the relaxed old way of cruising and mooring and make these new insane draconian changes applicable only to new boaters'. I'm paraphrasing a bit ;-) but I think you get the gist. Obviously the response from us - some 200+ interested boaters - was a resounding no.

 

As to the Olympic question, I tend to agree that it feels like a little bit of the traditional Olympic city slum clearance but British Waterways have also confessed that in reality the zone around the Olympics will be so wide, they will be hard pressed to make any money out of it and the fact that nobody will be allowed to be ther, whatever their license status is thus irrelevant.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with fairness or overstaying or who does or doesn't follow the guidelines. It is blind panic about more liveaboards and the inevitability that this will bring more responsibility on them as a body as they face the reality that they are a housing authority of sorts.

 

You have made my point when I referred to being harassed the problem with boats overstaying is just this. What you are forgetting is that when you overstay in an area you are using the local resources ie council and not paying for it. I would have every sympathy overstayers if they payed the local council tax. When you genuinely cc you are spreading your impact over several councils thus not creating an issue. Because of the perceived getting away with not paying your way, local residents become annoyed. And then the councils become hostile to setting up residential moorings and the cycle starts. Frankly I have had enough of being treated like I am a scrounger because of irresponsible boating,

 

you won't follow the guidelines you are forcing BW to introduce draconian rules which is to the detriment of all canal users

 

are you refering to me personaly?

Yes if you overstay! No if you don't!

 

fancy being my deputy

Yes um!

 

I'm not sure who you are aiming this at but I had a long term BW online mooring for nearly 10 years and, before that, CCed well within what BW considered acceptable, law or not.

 

I am not forcing BW to do anything (and I believe that the rules that BW are trying to impose are actually unlawful).

 

As to arguing the finer points of law being shameful....what a load of rubbish.

 

This is a discussion forum and I will not hang my head in shame, for having a discussion, about the finer points of law.

 

If you are feeling a little bit dirty, getting involved with this thread, then I suggest you have a shower, and stay away from those of us who have no shame.

 

I would have thought you would appreciate the efforts of BW to try to sort the problem of overstayers. Maybe you should direct your comments to the boat overstaying, getting free moorings and causing BW to introduce draconian rules which doesn't affect their cruising because that don't move. And as for arguing that the rules are unlawful, the overstayer is now laughing because he/they will be thinking I can still get away with it. There is something called social responsibility and overstayers are flouting there responsibility to the canal community.

[carlt]

 

I would have thought you would appreciate the efforts of BW to try to sort the problem of overstayers. Maybe you should direct your comments to the boat overstaying, getting free moorings and causing BW to introduce draconian rules which doesn't affect their cruising because that don't move. And as for arguing that the rules are unlawful, the overstayer is now laughing because he/they will be thinking I can still get away with it. There is something called social responsibility and overstayers are flouting there responsibility to the canal community.

Why would you have thought that?

 

I don't see overstayers as a problem...unless they are sat on a water, rubbish, elsan mooring, lock landing or winding hole and, if this is the case, I will ask them to move or move them myself.

 

I've never really suffered from the 'getting free moorings' envy and I pity those that get themselves all twisted up about it.

 

I think (hope, even) that an overstayer, or anyone else reading the forum, would laugh more at my humorous postings rather than those ones trying to have an intelligent debate about the Waterways legislation but, if it amuses them, I'm happy for them.

 

I find it far more relaxing boating along, enjoying the countryside and the peace and quiet, than seething about the 'social responsibility' of my fellow waterways users.

 

Stop worrying about other folks' affairs and you may find you enjoy life so much more.

[matty40s]

I would have thought you would appreciate the efforts of BW to try to sort the problem of overstayers. Maybe you should direct your comments to the boat overstaying, getting free moorings and causing BW to introduce draconian rules which doesn't affect their cruising because that don't move. And as for arguing that the rules are unlawful, the overstayer is now laughing because he/they will be thinking I can still get away with it. There is something called social responsibility and overstayers are flouting there responsibility to the canal community.

 

I seem to see the problem as BW's.

 

For a long time (and I mean many,many years, not just months) they have allowed the present situation to develop, indeed, have encouraged it by their non-enforcement policy, even recommending good stratgegies to boaters, such as the move two locks, and go up the Stort for a bit etc. The rivers only licence is another reason that the local boaters have a big case.

 

All of a sudden the Holympiks is here and we have to do something pronto as we can't have Billy's BBQ on the towpath when the Japanese tourists visit, and Jan's big pants will have to be dried inside the boat in case it offends the Yemen O.A.

 

BW do seem to have got an enforcement team in place now which will be effective..... The boaters at the two meetings I have attended so far seem to agree that the 14 day mooring "guidance" can be stuck to if it helps. .....

 

BW has to work with the boating community, not tell it what to do, a move which will benefit both sides in the long run/

Edited March 3, 2011 by matty40s

[tigster]

Why would you have thought that?

 

I don't see overstayers as a problem...unless they are sat on a water, rubbish, elsan mooring, lock landing or winding hole and, if this is the case, I will ask them to move or move them myself.

 

I've never really suffered from the 'getting free moorings' envy and I pity those that get themselves all twisted up about it.

 

I think (hope, even) that an overstayer, or anyone else reading the forum, would laugh more at my humorous postings rather than those ones trying to have an intelligent debate about the Waterways legislation but, if it amuses them, I'm happy for them.

 

I find it far more relaxing boating along, enjoying the countryside and the peace and quiet, than seething about the 'social responsibility' of my fellow waterways users.

 

Stop worrying about other folks' affairs and you may find you enjoy life so much more.

 

I didn't have a problem with overstayers as far as I was concerned it's between them and BW, but now there choices are affecting my lifestyle! As I have said before the only reason we are having this discussion about "waterway legislation" is because of irresponsible boating. If people didn't overstay and followed the guideline we wouldn't have a problem!

[carlt]

As I have said before the only reason we are having this discussion about "waterway legislation" is because of irresponsible boating.

As you see it maybe.

 

I'm having this discussion because I find it interesting.

 

I just don't get my knickers in a twist about it.

 

If the guidelines reflected the legislation, and BW enforced the letter of the law, instead of fudged attempts at enforcing their interpretation, of the law, then I don't believe we'd have a problem.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

As you see it maybe.

 

I'm having this discussion because I find it interesting.

 

I just don't get my knickers in a twist about it.

 

If the guidelines reflected the legislation, and BW enforced the letter of the law, instead of fudged attempts at enforcing their interpretation, of the law, then I don't believe we'd have a problem.

 

Have to agree.

 

The problems with the guidelines are -

 

BW's reluctance to bring court cases to demonstrate that guidelines reflect the law.

 

BW sometimes maintains that its guidelines (to the law) are mooring terms and conditions.

 

BW varies its interpretation of definitions such as 'place' and 'navigation'.

[jenlyn]

You have made my point when I referred to being harassed the problem with boats overstaying is just this. What you are forgetting is that when you overstay in an area you are using the local resources ie council and not paying for it. I would have every sympathy overstayers if they payed the local council tax. When you genuinely cc you are spreading your impact over several councils thus not creating an issue. Because of the perceived getting away with not paying your way, local residents become annoyed. And then the councils become hostile to setting up residential moorings and the cycle starts. Frankly I have had enough of being treated like I am a scrounger because of irresponsible boating,

 

 

Yes if you overstay! No if you don't!

well, i dont overstay. however, your rantings on here only show that you know nothing of the situation BW have got themselves into, not boaters, BW. Research it a little, get your head round it, and try putting your brain into gear before you accuse all and sundry

 

Yes um!

 

 

 

I would have thought you would appreciate the efforts of BW to try to sort the problem of overstayers. Maybe you should direct your comments to the boat overstaying, getting free moorings and causing BW to introduce draconian rules which doesn't affect their cruising because that don't move. And as for arguing that the rules are unlawful, the overstayer is now laughing because he/they will be thinking I can still get away with it. There is something called social responsibility and overstayers are flouting there responsibility to the canal community.

[tigster]

As you see it maybe.

 

I'm having this discussion because I find it interesting.

 

I just don't get my knickers in a twist about it.

 

If the guidelines reflected the legislation, and BW enforced the letter of the law, instead of fudged attempts at enforcing their interpretation, of the law, then I don't believe we'd have a problem.

 

My knickers and there state of twistedness is none of your concern. :-) BW's mistake is and was not enforcing their guidelines. They have dug themselfs a whole out of which is coming a whole load of stupid rules and again this affects all boaters including you! All because of few inconsiderate boaters, who are now crying foul and asking the rest of us to come to their defence.