Moorings Management Proposals

[Allan(nb Albert)]

BW's mistake is and was not enforcing their guidelines.

 

BW's mistake is not enforcing the law!

 

BW's guidelines are only BW's interpretation of the law which they chose not to test in court.

[carlt]

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.

Have you read their guidelines?

 

If you do you will see the bit that says:

This guidance does not have the force of law but seeks to interpret the law as set out in s.17 British Waterways Act 1995

That is why they cannot enforce them, because (and they admit themselves) they are guidelines, not rules.

 

It does not affect me and it never has. It only affects those who get upset when they think someone who is getting something for nothing.

 

If BW enforce the law and keep facility moorings clear then there will be no problem.

 

The law allows them to do this. It doesn't allow them to make Mickey Mouse rules up that, when it comes to it, they will fail to enforce.

[jenlyn]

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.

awwww, carlt's on thong song again

[tigster]

Have you read their guidelines?

 

If you do you will see the bit that says:

 

That is why they cannot enforce them, because (and they admit themselves) they are guidelines, not rules.

 

It does not affect me and it never has. It only affects those who get upset when they think someone who is getting something for nothing.

 

If BW enforce the law and keep facility moorings clear then there will be no problem.

 

The law allows them to do this. It doesn't allow them to make Mickey Mouse rules up that, when it comes to it, they will fail to enforce.

 

Well I am glad that it dosent affect you, it affects me when I will have to follow the mickey mouse rules that overstayers are forcing BW to come up with. Because unlike other people I am socially responsible and not selfish in my attitude to the canals.

[tigster]

Great the London boaters have set up an action group! http://www.londonboaters.org/discussions At last now maybe they can sort this mess out without having stupid rules imposed on the rest of us!

[carlt]

Because unlike other people I am socially responsible and not selfish in my attitude to the canals.

Don't be so arrogant.

 

Social responsibility has nothing to do with whether you can moor your boat up or not.

 

Overstayers are not forcing BW to come up with these spurious rules. The people who look down, from their high horse, whining to BW about people they perceive are getting something for nothing, are forcing BW to come up with spurious rules.

 

Existing legislation (if enforced) deals with keeping boats moving. It doesn't deal with keeping boats moving as much as the moaners would like so, because they complain loudly enough, BW favours the continuous moaner, over the continuous cruiser and feels it has to extend its remit, beyond legislation, to stop them writing letters, making phone calls and, generally being a nuisance.

 

Great the London boaters have set up an action group! http://www.londonboaters.org/discussions At last now maybe they can sort this mess out without having stupid rules imposed on the rest of us!

It's not an action group, it's a discussion forum, just like this one.

[tigster]

Don't be so arrogant.

 

Social responsibility has nothing to do with whether you can moor your boat up or not.

 

Overstayers are not forcing BW to come up with these spurious rules. The people who look down, from their high horse, whining to BW about people they perceive are getting something for nothing, are forcing BW to come up with spurious rules.

 

Existing legislation (if enforced) deals with keeping boats moving. It doesn't deal with keeping boats moving as much as the moaners would like so, because they complain loudly enough, BW favours the continuous moaner, over the continuous cruiser and feels it has to extend its remit, beyond legislation, to stop them writing letters, making phone calls and, generally being a nuisance.

 

 

It's not an action group, it's a discussion forum, just like this one.

 

Now who's getting there knickers in a twist.

[carlt]

Now who's getting there knickers in a twist.

Not me, I'm just commenting on how the moaning minority are the ones that BW always cow-tows to.

 

No need for me to get my knickers in a twist...I've been an interested bystander for 5 years now, having moved off BW waters, to pastures mercifully free of the bureaucratic monolith and its ineptitude.

[Jim Batty]

Wow what a meeting that was in Stanstead Abbots between BW and boaters..!

 

... Personally I noticed some rather surprising comments from Sally Ash which might suggest that the continuous cruising lifestyle is not entirely understood or embraced. Maybe these were just Freudian slips, but I noticed her saying that “we cannot have more and more continuous cruisers coming” and in another context “Ideally we would like to give you all permanent moorings”.

 

Sven

Thanks for the report Sven.

 

Yes I am starting to get fed up with uninformed and bizarre understandings of continually cruising. Some obviously do it much faster than others. There is nothing strange or wrong about travelling slowly and really drinking in the communities and countryside (and urban settings) of this country. That experience can and should legitimately include spending two weeks in Place A, moving down the canal two miles and spending two weeks in Place B, moving down the canal a mile and a half and spending two weeks in Place C, moving down the canal a mile ... It can and should also legitimately include those that are keen on covering the entire system in three years and spend every evening moored in a different place. (Heaven forbid.)

 

Secondly, most CC-ers I have met are not people who wish to have a home mooring but can't afford it. They are people who LIKE moving about. Again, some like to tackle great stretches and eat up new waterways; others shuttle back and forth along a particular stretch. What they seem to me to have in common is that they LIKE moving about - whether its great distances or smaller distances - and they are independent minded, friendly and helpful. There seem to be very few CC-ers who seem to be bothering anyone or hogging resources. Some CC-ers (boaters) appear real oddballs from a DISTANCE - but appear curiously human close up, whatever their appearance. Right?

 

CC-ing is an EXCITING lifestyle. It is not an easy one, nor a cheap one, but it is one worth living and it should be encouraged as an antidote to stale, suburban, over-consumption-based and energy/resource-squandering lifestyles.

 

Also, regarding the London cruising experience, it should be remembered that (according to my BW Boating in London guide), between Rickmansworth and Bishops Stortford, across London, there are precisely 399-days worth of LEGAL VISITOR MOORINGS to stop at. It is possible, and perfectly legal to spend a year crossing the city, or spend half a year crossing it one way and returning in the second half. And such is the extent of the public transport system that you can legally commute to a full time job, if that is your want or need, and continually cruise. (Schooling is obviously going to be much more challenging, and suggests the need for a permanent mooring). There is nothing weird, decrepit, loathesome, or beyond the pale about this way of life. It is a completely worthwhile and valuable life for those up to the physical rigours and who have the knowledge to undertake it.

 

This doesn't and shouldn't undermine or threaten leisure boating and residentially moored live-aboarding. CC-ing certainly shouldn't be 'legislated against'. I agree with others ... BW should simply enforce the rules that already exist ... the ones we all sign up to when we buy a licence.

[Leonie]

Well I am glad that it dosent affect you, it affects me when I will have to follow the mickey mouse rules that overstayers are forcing BW to come up with. Because unlike other people I am socially responsible and not selfish in my attitude to the canals.

 

I don't know you personally so have no idea what your 'attitude to the canals is'. I can only judge you from the few posts you've made here and I must say, you come across as incredibly selfish in your attitude to people and socially irresponsible in your 'I'm in the right, everyone else is in the wrong' attitude. Perahps I'm reading it incorrectly? Hope so, we are all just people living on boats at the end of the day aren't we?

[sueb]

Great the London boaters have set up an action group! http://www.londonboaters.org/discussions At last now maybe they can sort this mess out without having stupid rules imposed on the rest of us!

Don't worry it will be called a club, run by a clique before long

Sue

[carlt]

Edited because I totally misread who was quoting who

 

Don't worry it will be called a club, run by a clique before long

Sue

So what is NABO's take on this issue?

 

Presumably they will be organising some form of protest, if so count me in.

Edited March 4, 2011 by carlt

[sueb]

Edited because I totally misread who was quoting who

 

 

So what is NABO's take on this issue?

 

Presumably they will be organising some form of protest, if so count me in.

Nabo are already involved and will be talking to the relevant authorities. Negotiation usually works, which is why Nabo doesn't organise protests. I am assuming you mean mass rally type protests rather than the written sort. If the latter please do write to your MP, BW or whoever you like.

Sue

[carlt]

If the latter please do write to your MP, BW or whoever you like.

Sue

Yes because we wouldn't want our campaigning organisation actually being seen to be campaigning, in public, now would we?

 

I haven't actually seen a single piece of evidence that NABO's 'negotiations' have stopped BW from shafting the boater.

 

It all seems very cosy, to me.

 

Also, if these 'negotiations' are behind closed doors (they certainly get zero publicity) then it's easier to explain away the apparent inactivity and claim credit when BW back down.

 

What a joke!

[sueb]

Yes because we wouldn't want our campaigning organisation actually being seen to be campaigning, in public, now would we?

 

I haven't actually seen a single piece of evidence that NABO's 'negotiations' have stopped BW from shafting the boater.

 

It all seems very cosy, to me.

 

Also, if these 'negotiations' are behind closed doors (they certainly get zero publicity) then it's easier to explain away the apparent inactivity and claim credit when BW back down.

 

What a joke!

Wear your blinkers and blind folds and carry on rubbishing people who do try to work for the benefit of boaters. Luckily it won't stop Nabo or any of the other organisation from doing their best to help.

Sue

[matty40s]

Yes because we wouldn't want our campaigning organisation actually being seen to be campaigning, in public, now would we?

I haven't actually seen a single piece of evidence that NABO's 'negotiations' have stopped BW from shafting the boater.

It all seems very cosy, to me.

Also, if these 'negotiations' are behind closed doors (they certainly get zero publicity) then it's easier to explain away the apparent inactivity and claim credit when BW back down.

What a joke!

 

Hi Carl, NABO are currently working with the london group , that's all I am going to say ;-).

Edited March 4, 2011 by matty40s

[Sir Nibble]

Wear your blinkers and blind folds and carry on rubbishing people who do try to work for the benefit of boaters. Luckily it won't stop Nabo or any of the other organisation from doing their best to help.

Sue

To help who? Have NABO canvassed their membership for their opinions? There are a lot of people out there who hate these proposals and a lot who support them, how have NABO decided which way to jump?

[carlt]

Wear your blinkers and blind folds and carry on rubbishing people who do try to work for the benefit of boaters. Luckily it won't stop Nabo or any of the other organisation from doing their best to help.

Sue

I'm not wearing blinkers or blindfolds.

 

I am constantly asking what action the NABO are taking, about various issues, and the answer is always "Join and we'll tell you."

 

The blinkers aren't mine, the smoke screen is the NABO's.

 

that's all I am going to say ;-).

Funny how that seems to be a mantra, when the NABO are involved.

[canaldrifter]

I'm not wearing blinkers or blindfolds.

 

I am constantly asking what action the NABO are taking, about various issues, and the answer is always "Join and we'll tell you."

 

The blinkers aren't mine, the smoke screen is the NABO's.

 

 

Funny how that seems to be a mantra, when the NABO are involved.

 

When are you going to realise that Nabo is not your enemy? Nabo is (surprisingly?) on the side of boaters.

 

What 'exactly' is your problem with us?

 

Tone

[tigster]

I don't know you personally so have no idea what your 'attitude to the canals is'. I can only judge you from the few posts you've made here and I must say, you come across as incredibly selfish in your attitude to people and socially irresponsible in your 'I'm in the right, everyone else is in the wrong' attitude. Perahps I'm reading it incorrectly? Hope so, we are all just people living on boats at the end of the day aren't we?

 

I live on, cruise the canals covering 5 counties 365 days. I work, I don't own a car so use puplic transport, as I stated before I never used to have a problem with overstayers, as far as I was concerned it was between them and BW. I follow the cc'er guidelines and have no issue with them, I move every two weeks, not because I have too, or because I can't afford a mooring, I move because I want too, I love being a traveller.

I now find myself having to get involved in mooring issues and having to complain that what is proposed in restricting my ability to cruise. I am finding that there are going to be several different rules around the system, it's confusing and on top of that if I get it wrong I can be fined.

All for the sake of a minority of boaters who refuse to follow the guidelines and move

In all the 8 years of being a ccer this is the most contact I have had with BW, they are becoming hostile towards boaters and see living on as undesirable

All for the sake of a minority of boaters who refuse to follow the guidelines and move.

Local authorities are hostile towards boaters by refusing to grant planning permission for Marina, local communities are become hostile and don't want boats in there areas

All for the sake of a minority of boaters who refuse to follow the guidelines and move.

Who's being selfish?

[carlt]

When are you going to realise that Nabo is not your enemy? Nabo is (surprisingly?) on the side of boaters.

 

What 'exactly' is your problem with us?

 

Tone

I've explained once.

 

I think there should be an active, campaigning association, openly objecting and protesting about BW's shortcomings, not one that 'negotiates' behind closed doors, and sticking their nose in the air, when actual 'protest' is suggested.

 

"Protest? Oh dear no! We don't do that sort of thing, that's for common people. We prefer to negotiate."

 

I can see the negotiations now, NABO leaving the room saying "Oh, I think that went rather well." with BW waving them off, thumb touching forefinger behind their back.

 

and when one of the chief defenders of the NABO, on this forum, comes out with crap like "If you want 240V have you considered a park home?" then this just reinforces my point.

[Sir Nibble]

When are you going to realise that Nabo is not your enemy? Nabo is (surprisingly?) on the side of boaters.

 

What 'exactly' is your problem with us?

 

Tone

I don't have a problem with NABO, never have had but you say you are on the side of boaters so I repeat my question.

 

To help who? Have NABO canvassed their membership for their opinions? There are a lot of people out there who hate these proposals and a lot who support them, how have NABO decided which way to jump?

 

As an addendum to that, I don't even know which way NABO has decided to jump. I am assuming from the context of your posts that NABO will campaign against the proposals, it seems to go without saying. So how has that judgement been made? Has any other viewpoint been considered?

[carlt]

I live on, cruise the canals covering 5 counties 365 days.I follow the cc'er guidelines

If you only cover 5 counties then you are not making "a continuous journey, throughout the whole of the system", so in fact, you only follow the bits of the guidelines that you feel you need to.

[ymu]

If you only cover 5 counties then you are not making "a continuous journey, throughout the whole of the system", so in fact, you only follow the bits of the guidelines that you feel you need to.

Where does it say 'whole of the system'? It's 'significant part of the network' IIRC. I can't see anything in the law or guidelines that requires you to use more than one BW waterway, let alone all of them.

[canaldrifter]

 

 

As an addendum to that, I don't even know which way NABO has decided to jump.

 

So how can you comment?

 

Nabo consults the views of its members and acts accordingly. If you are a Nabo member you would have been asked for your opinion. Are you a member?

 

If not, then you can hardly expect grounds to criticise their reactions.

 

If you are, then you are entitled to a response from council, who's meetings you are entitled to attend.

 

Tone