BW vs Davies

[sueb]

Sue, please stop making it sound as if every inch of towpath on the (Western) K&A is permanently hogged by scruffy liveaboards. It is not true, and becoming tiresome. Even now, there are spaces free in Bathampton, and in Bath. I go up and down weekly, and there is always somewhere to moor my 68'6'' boat, where I wannt it to.

Everyone knows you are coming and saves you a place Most of the towpath is impossible to moor against unless you are agile. Some enforcement would be useful, there certainly wasn't any where we overstayed. Enjoy! we are loving the GU

Sue

[ymu]

The BCN is virtually empty, but we had a nightmare finding good moorings on it because all the good moorings we saw before Catherine de Barnes were restricted to 1/24//48 hours and we had another boat to cruise back to its home at the time. Shit hot mooring wardens - freshly up to full complement, but only telling us that the spot we'd chosen was dodgy (we knew) or that we were overstaying (we had no alternator at the time).

 

It was beautiful, but so clagged up with weeds we'll not be back in a hurry. More boats desperately needed to solve both secure mooring issue and weeds. We saw 2 others on the move in 3 full days cruising, and some people said we were the first boat they'd ever seen there.

 

Intelligent enforcement needed. There's a bunch of missing licence fees and moorings because they're doing nothing to get people onto the quieter canals. Brum is commutable to almost anywhere...

[sueb]

I was expecting to see such images in the recent canal walks program that featured the K&A as based on stuff I had read on here (in the main posted by Sue) that is exactly how I'd envisaged it.

 

I know it was only a short program and it only featured a small part - but to me it didn't look any worse or different from any other...

You believe all you see on TV?

Sue

[NB Alnwick]

I really am having a few problems with this and that might be due to the fact that I do not understand what it is you are saying.

How would making more moorings 24/48h mean that they would be available in the evenings when the hire boaters arrive. Just out of interest who is going to patrol these moorings. It is also worth remembering that BW can only start there mooring clock from when they sight the boat.

The bit I am have most difficulty with is the "continuous cruisers" having to behave responsibly implying that no one else has to. For your information in four years BW have left me alone, mainly because I behave as other canal users. I pay the same licence fee as other canal users so I have the same rights as other canal users.

 

 

 

Graham can I ask what user group you represent?

 

I have only just arrived home but I think one or two people seem to have misunderstood the nature of my post.

 

I have attended several BW user group meetings held in the administrative region that covers the southern Oxford Canal. We moor at Cropredy and I believe that Jane and I were invited because we had complained to BW several times about issues that adversely affect the on-line moorers at Cropredy. It seems that no one else has sought to represent the interests of Cropredy moorers at these meetings although I do not claim that we are elected representatives. Nevertheless, we attend the meetings when we can and report back to our mooring neighbours afterwards.

 

I would say that the majority of those attending and speaking at user group meetings are representatives (usually the proprietors) of hire companies, marinas and boatyards. Boaters, like ourselves are in a very small minority.

 

At the meetings we hear presentations from BWs senior managers and the theme is generally about what they are doing about unlicensed boats and how they are managing compliance with BWs licensing conditions. There is considerable discussion about 'overstaying' on popular moorings and the need to increase the scope and range of patrol and enforcement officers.

 

The views expressed in my earlier post are based on my assessment of what I have heard from the commercial interests that dominate these meetings. At first we were quite shocked at the apparent intolerance toward private boat owners, particularly those who moor on-line but it is a continuing theme. I have no doubt that some marina proprietors would have us all forced into marinas and some hire fleet operators would prefer to see us stay there. But please do not think for one moment that I am taking their side!

Edited May 20, 2011 by NB Alnwick

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If you want to stop at a nice location and can't because it's taken by a bunch of boats ignoring a posted time limit said overstayers shouldn't be there and should be dealt with. Who cares whether they have moorings or not?

The contention has been that the overstaying is caused by Cmers & Ccers but statistics show otherwise so the caring is to rectify the villification and blaming of those who do not have a home mooring.

 

Well said but as with BW rectifying its press release, I suspect we will have a long wait.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Guest]

You believe all you see on TV?

Sue

 

Only marginally less than I read on the internet.

 

We will boat down to the K&A though at some point and form our own opinion...

[ymu]

As long as the terminology refers to boat-owners who cause problems, there's no issue. The issue is in the constant implication that it is a CCer issue and not a mooring permit holder issue, when it is actually moorers taking advantage of the lack of clarity in the 14 day rule as it applies to them (because so much pointless energy has been spent trying to solve the wrong problem) who are generating the major problems.

 

Which is why this whole goal-post moving 'debate' with mindlessly prejudiced green ink types is such a waste of time but cannot be ignored. If all those with the ability to think instead of simply emote at random give up, the morons are left making only idiotic points to further what they ignorantly assume are their own interests.

 

So I say we drive all Ccers with jobs into suburban squatted garages and let the licence fee double for Middle England as their boats become useless and worthless because, yet again, nthey demonised the very people who subsidise their lifestyles.

 

Duh!

[NB Alnwick]

 

>snip<

 

So I say we drive all Ccers with jobs into suburban squatted garages and let the licence fee double for Middle England as their boats become useless and worthless because, yet again, nthey demonised the very people who subsidise their lifestyles.

 

Duh!

 

I am trying to understand what this actually means and why anyone would take such a view. What is a "suburban squatted garage" and why should boaters in the Midlands pay more than anyone else? Who is subsidising who in this argument?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The BCN is virtually empty, but we had a nightmare finding good moorings on it because all the good moorings we saw before Catherine de Barnes were restricted to 1/24//48 hours and we had another boat to cruise back to its home at the time. Shit hot mooring wardens - freshly up to full complement, but only telling us that the spot we'd chosen was dodgy (we knew) or that we were overstaying (we had no alternator at the time).

 

It was beautiful, but so clagged up with weeds we'll not be back in a hurry. More boats desperately needed to solve both secure mooring issue and weeds. We saw 2 others on the move in 3 full days cruising, and some people said we were the first boat they'd ever seen there.

 

Intelligent enforcement needed. There's a bunch of missing licence fees and moorings because they're doing nothing to get people onto the quieter canals. Brum is commutable to almost anywhere...

 

The top end of the GU is little used. Twice as many boats use the Hatton flight compared to the Knowle flight. An appeal has been dismissed for a 140 berth marina above Knowle locks which might have brought more traffic. One of the reasons the appeal failed was need with over 15% of online and offline moorings vacant in January according to BW.

[GUMPY]

You really are not very bright are you? Or maybe it's willfull misunderstanding, the person looking for a visitor mooring doesn't care about the percentage, they care about the numbers and whether it's 90% or 70% of you continuous moorers causing the issue is irrelevant it's the number of boats after the same spot. So even if, say, people without home moorings caused twice as much problem per capita they still would not be the major cause.

 

You are right I dont give a toss who is overstaying, I just breast up to whoever is there if that's where I want to stop and the ditch is wide enough. However as I said if there are 10 boats overstaying and 6 of them have home moorings then there is a greater percentage of towpath shufflers compared to those with home moorings abusing the moorings system

But as I said this is not good for the way you like to portray things

[Sir Nibble]

I am trying to understand what this actually means and why anyone would take such a view. What is a "suburban squatted garage" and why should boaters in the Midlands pay more than anyone else? Who is subsidising who in this argument?

Massive chip on shoulder, north south devide, enthusiasm for joining any "victim" group. Cannot put it any other way.

Spesh, as and when I get time I shall start another thread to actually discuss the ramifications of this judgement and with luck we can get some constructive work done on a wider understanding before the denazification kicks in.

ymu, get on with what you are doing, no one is trying to stop you, no one is making the vaguest attempt to undermine you, there really is no reason to be so defensive in the absense of attack.

[ymu]

I'm not being defensive. Just incredulous at how stupid some apparently successful people are when it comes to cutting off their subsidies to spite the people who are subsidising them!

 

I don't read the Fail enough to even recognise some of the posters here as plausible examples of homo sapiens. It seems more like one very badly failed Turing Test half the time. Lots of information and no abillity to draw a sensible conclusion from it.

[Lady Muck]

But I don't think cc boaters are subsiding other boaters. How can they be when they are the smallest group of boaters? Go most places on the network and you see barely any at all. It's only if you go where they are concentrated do they seem numerous.

 

The number of members of staff in enforcement (in London at least) has gone up rather a lot in recent times in order to manage the growing numbers. BW's decision, not my decision, but that money for enforcement came from somewhere.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Lady Muck

[blodger]

You are right I dont give a toss who is overstaying, I just breast up to whoever is there if that's where I want to stop and the ditch is wide enough. However as I said if there are 10 boats overstaying and 6 of them have home moorings then there is a greater percentage of towpath shufflers compared to those with home moorings abusing the moorings system

But as I said this is not good for the way you like to portray things

 

When boats are overstaying it doesn't matter if they have home moorings or not and I suggest that boaters don't know the difference.

 

Yes but it matters if you are attributing blame and urging action against the wrong or only one 'group'.

 

My undertanding of the figures given are for your senario where there are 10 moorings that over a period of time overstaying notices are issued 10% to no home mooring folk and 90% to those with home moorings. So the percentages you talk of are roughly 10% of 10% and 90% of 90% to contrast. I make that that the overstaying problem nationally is insignificantly (10%)down to 'towpath shufflers' and will not be rectified by merely tackling those without home moorings.

Edited May 20, 2011 by blodger

[GUMPY]

My undertanding of the figures given are for your senario where there are 10 moorings that over a period of time overstaying notices are issued 10% to no home mooring folk and 90% to those with home moorings. So the percentages you talk of are roughly 10% of 10% and 90% of 90% to contrast. I make that that the overstaying problem nationally is insignificantly down to 'towpath shufflers' and will not be rectified by merely tackling those without home moorings.

 

If that is the case then no one group is worse than another as one in ten tickets are issued to those with no home moorings which comprise 1 in 10 of the boats on the cut.

However that is not what is being portrayed by those that wish to excuse that group from any blame and blame those with moorings.

[blodger]

If that is the case then no one group is worse than another as one in ten tickets are issued to those with no home moorings which comprise 1 in 10 of the boats on the cut.

However that is not what is being portrayed by those that wish to excuse that group from any blame and blame those with moorings.

I agree but can you not see that there has been an unjustified attempt to soleley attribute the problem to those who do not have a home mooring?

[ymu]

I agree but can you not see that there has been an unjustified attempt to soleley attribute the problem to those who do not have a home mooring?

...leading to ever more pointlessly draconian measures to make life difficult for all CCers, which is making the problem worse by making them do more lock passages and giving them no reason at all to steer clear of visitor moorings, whilst the cause of the problem remains unacknowledged by the pitchfork wielding moorers and therefore untackled because the rest of us have better things to do that write letters of complaint to the rich cronies we don't have.

 

The major part of the problem is caused by private boat-owners who seem to think paying for the exclusive use of a prime mooring spot year round entitles them to piss over everyone else whenever they feel like it everywhere on the cut, including plonking themselves on visitor moorings at peak times when others need to use them. They're a menace.

[Lady Muck]

<wonders if she's a menace>

[ymu]

Look, there are so few CCers, and so many of them well-behaved, they could not be causing the problems attributed to them.

 

It doesn't matter if there's a higher proportion of CCers doing wrong than moorers if the majority of wrong-doers are, in fact moorers. This is a practical, not a moral issue. Smoking is a far stronger risk factor for lung cancer than it is heart disease, but smoking and heart disease is the bigger public health issue because twice the very large proportion getting heart disease is a bigger excess mortality than 14 times the very small proportion getting lung cancer.

 

If the aim is to demonise travellers, join the idiots calling for the cut to be made impossibly expensive to maintain and unusable for everyone. If the aim is to make it work without stupidly expensive measures, then enforce the 14 day rule on moorers too, with the proviso that they may reasonably be backtracking halfway through and will need to retrace their steps.

 

There are lots of people who moor half a mile from their actual mooring because the phone/TV reception is better or it's handier for the station. Well, they can't. They're not paying for two mooring spots, they're paying for one. When they're away from it, they have to behave themselves.

 

Funny how those with moorings rarely seem to agree that the same rules should apply to them, and they certainly don't bring it up very often, eh?

 

<wonders if she's a menace>

Do you take the piss on cruising rules away from your home mooring?

 

If not, no. If yes, yes.

[sueb]

Only marginally less than I read on the internet.

 

We will boat down to the K&A though at some point and form our own opinion...

Good. You will enjoy most of it.

Sue

[blodger]

Look, there are so few CCers, and so many of them well-behaved, they could not be causing the problems attributed to them.

 

It doesn't matter if there's a higher proportion of CCers doing wrong than moorers if the majority of wrong-doers are, in fact moorers. This is a practical, not a moral issue. Smoking is a far stronger risk factor for lung cancer than it is heart disease, but smoking and heart disease is the bigger public health issue because twice the very large proportion getting heart disease is a bigger excess mortality than 14 times the very small proportion getting lung cancer.

 

If the aim is to demonise travellers, join the idiots calling for the cut to be made impossibly expensive to maintain and unusable for everyone. If the aim is to make it work without stupidly expensive measures, then enforce the 14 day rule on moorers too, with the proviso that they may reasonably be backtracking halfway through and will need to retrace their steps.

 

There are lots of people who moor half a mile from their actual mooring because the phone/TV reception is better or it's handier for the station. Well, they can't. They're not paying for two mooring spots, they're paying for one. When they're away from it, they have to behave themselves.

 

Funny how those with moorings rarely seem to agree that the same rules should apply to them, and they certainly don't bring it up very often, eh?

 

 

Do you take the piss on cruising rules away from your home mooring?

 

If not, no. If yes, yes.

If that is the case then no one group is worse than another as one in ten tickets are issued to those with no home moorings which comprise 1 in 10 of the boats on the cut.

However that is not what is being portrayed by those that wish to excuse that group from any blame and blame those with moorings.

 

I agree but can you not see that there has been an unjustified attempt to soleley attribute the problem to those who do not have a home mooring?

I think the argument is won don't ruin it

Edited May 20, 2011 by blodger

[ymu]

Sorry, must have missed that. Repetitive drivel is making it hard to read through the red mist ...

 

Have they stopped now, then?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sorry, must have missed that. Repetitive drivel is making it hard to read through the red mist ...

 

Have they stopped now, then?

 

Yes you won. Quit while you are ahead.

 

After some 400 posts this forum has (almost) unanimously decided that the group responsible for overstaying problems is not CC'ers but overstayers.

[alan_fincher]

After some 400 posts this forum has (almost) unanimously decided that the group responsible for overstaying problems is not CC'ers but overstayers.

I disagree!....................................

[carlt]

 

After some 400 posts this forum has (almost) unanimously decided that the group responsible for overstaying problems is not CC'ers but overstayers.

I blame Washer Joshers.....for everything.