CRT Election

[Chris Pink]

I think this is an important point. I, like yourself, am happy to moor out in the sticks most of the time but find it very sad for hire-boaters (and I have been one myself), often with families, who want to be near to amenities but are prevented by selfish CMs.

 

This is exactly one of the alleged problems I would refute.

There is more than enough visitor mooring for all visitors except for busy places at busy times.

Abuse of visitor moorings has been shown to not be the exclusive (or even majority) doing of liveaboards.

[jenlyn]

Is anybody else uncomfortable with the idea that BW is in serious talks with an organisation, LB, that they've never heard of before, on what happens in London, which I have an interest in but am not near at present?

Surely a discussion about any section of the system should be with all boaters since all of them may come to London at some time?

I am not at all uncomfortable, it's a problem that needs attention. I am uncomfortable that BW have closed a section of the grand union tho.

[cotswoldsman]

I am uncomfortable that BW have closed a section of the grand union tho.

 

No it is a great idea and shows that BW are listening to Northern based boaters to keep it exclusive.

[Leonie]

Is anybody else uncomfortable with the idea that BW is in serious talks with an organisation, LB, that they've never heard of before, on what happens in London, which I have an interest in but am not near at present?

Surely a discussion about any section of the system should be with all boaters since all of them may come to London at some time?

 

London Boaters is simply the boaters who happen to be in London at whatever time whichever meeting it is goes ahead. If you want a say in what happens in and around London, come to London and give up many of your evenings and weekends to various meeting with and without British Waterways and you too can have your say. Simples.

 

Lol, we moored behind you at Berko last year, no one told me you were a teacher, you just had the look of one. No offence meant.

 

 

Heh heh, none taken. I've been called so much worse in my life/career that I'm taking it as a compliment whether it's meant as one or not.

 

I think this is an important point. I, like yourself, am happy to moor out in the sticks most of the time but find it very sad for hire-boaters (and I have been one myself), often with families, who want to be near to amenities but are prevented by selfish CMs.

 

If this problem really does exist then it is surely solved by the introduction of more facilities spreading the boats who wish to moor by them out no?

[sheriff]

London Boaters is simply the boaters who happen to be in London at whatever time whichever meeting it is goes ahead. If you want a say in what happens in and around London, come to London and give up many of your evenings and weekends to various meeting with and without British Waterways and you too can have your say. Simples.

i HAVE BEEN INFORMED ,WHEN CRT COMES INTO EFFECT...SEPERATE FROM YOUR LICENCE FEE...IF YOU OVERSTAY.YOU WILL FIND OUT WITH A FINE.WHICH YOU HAVE TO PAY OR GO TO COURT

 

AND NO PATROL NOTICE ISSUSED BEFORE HAND TO SAY MOVE.....

 

ALSO i WAS INFORMED THIS METHOD WILL BE EXPLAINED WHEN CRT COMES INTO EFFECT.

 

NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR London IN THE FRIST INSTANCE...THATIS WHAT i WAS TOLD FROM A SOURCE

[KenK]

The one solution that everyone did agree on was that BW needed to enforce the rules they already have. You will see this as success then?

I would agree that BW should enforce the rules they have. If they had done it when they first allowed people to obtain a licence without a home mooring we would not be having this discussion.

 

I believe I live my life with consideration for others and that means everyone. I therefore see no reason why other people fail to do so. If I make a committment to something I do it, if I give my word I keep it.

I think it is perfectly fair that Kanda try to convince BW / C&RT to change the guidelines and if that happens then even if I didn't agree I would accept it. Until that happens then we all abide by the ones we have.

Unfortunately some people do not care about anything except their perceived rights, responsibility these days seems to be a dirty word.

 

I'll now put the soapbox away.

 

Ken

 

Chris I would have thought that was a difficult question to answer unless you know how many hirers return.

Oh and I had difficulty finding a mooring when I was on the K&A in 2010 and that was in September/October

John,

No it is not a difficult question, the K&A Trust has a seat on the K&A Trade Association as do the Hire companies and is involved on the mooring consultation exercise.

 

The hire companies don't give figures but they all say the same thing.

 

Ken

Edited January 26, 2012 by KenK

[KenK]

i HAVE BEEN INFORMED ,WHEN CRT COMES INTO EFFECT...SEPERATE FROM YOUR LICENCE FEE...IF YOU OVERSTAY.YOU WILL FIND OUT WITH A FINE.WHICH YOU HAVE TO PAY OR GO TO COURT

 

AND NO PATROL NOTICE ISSUSED BEFORE HAND TO SAY MOVE.....

 

ALSO i WAS INFORMED THIS METHOD WILL BE EXPLAINED WHEN CRT COMES INTO EFFECT.

 

NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR London IN THE FRIST INSTANCE...THATIS WHAT i WAS TOLD FROM A SOURCE

 

That would require a change to the law, BW can't do it now and unless the goverment increases the powers of C&RT they will not be able to do it either. In fact there are signs at some visitor locations which say if you overstay there will be a fine of X per day, not sure if it has ever been tested in court. As far as I'm aware BW do not have the power to fine anyone.

 

Ken

[Leonie]

i HAVE BEEN INFORMED ,WHEN CRT COMES INTO EFFECT...SEPERATE FROM YOUR LICENCE FEE...IF YOU OVERSTAY.YOU WILL FIND OUT WITH A FINE.WHICH YOU HAVE TO PAY OR GO TO COURT

 

AND NO PATROL NOTICE ISSUSED BEFORE HAND TO SAY MOVE.....

 

ALSO i WAS INFORMED THIS METHOD WILL BE EXPLAINED WHEN CRT COMES INTO EFFECT.

 

NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR London IN THE FRIST INSTANCE...THATIS WHAT i WAS TOLD FROM A SOURCE

 

Yes, I've heard that too. And?

[sheriff]

That would require a change to the law, BW can't do it now and unless the goverment increases the powers of C&RT they will not be able to do it either. In fact there are signs at some visitor locations which say if you overstay there will be a fine of X per day, not sure if it has ever been tested in court. As far as I'm aware BW do not have the power to fine anyone.

 

Ken

My Thoughts also.I did ask that because normaly the chap is always going on about a law change is required for this or that.

 

So I was surprised what he said,and he did say how this can be done and why...too tired at the moment to remember..

 

Ive also noticed Alperton in London to limehouse mon-fri there is a newbie doing a patrol everyday..regardless of who you are..ie cc or cm or on an offical mooring.

[Lady Muck]

My Thoughts also.I did ask that because normaly the chap is always going on about a law change is required for this or that.

 

So I was surprised what he said,and he did say how this can be done and why...too tired at the moment to remember..

 

Ive also noticed Alperton in London to limehouse mon-fri there is a newbie doing a patrol everyday..regardless of who you are..ie cc or cm or on an offical mooring.

Whenever we house sat a relatives in Camden opposite the visitor moorings we saw patrol officers every day. They dont miss much, we borrowed a rowing boat from the pirate club and he knocked on the door the same day demanding to know where our license for it was.

[rgreg]

This is exactly one of the alleged problems I would refute.

There is more than enough visitor mooring for all visitors except for busy places at busy times.

Abuse of visitor moorings has been shown to not be the exclusive (or even majority) doing of liveaboards.

I don't know about the situation on the K&A other than what I have read but have witnessed it elsewhere on the system

[Chris Pink]

I would agree that BW should enforce the rules they have. If they had done it when they first allowed people to obtain a licence without a home mooring we would not be having this discussion.

 

The hire companies don't give figures but they all say the same thing.

 

Ken

 

BW didn't, Parliament did. Therein lies the rub.

 

And you don't really answer the question, although you imply you are in a position to do so; if there is a problem with hirers how come the hire boat numbers (for all fleets) are increasing year on year? and day boats too?

 

It would be easy for me to say the hire companies would say that wouldn't they? No independent audit has ever shown a problem with moorings. Why hasn't someone (BW, APCO) commissioned an analysis if the problem really exists? Without proper figures this is just your (and my) personal soapbox.

[KenK]

BW didn't, Parliament did. Therein lies the rub.

 

And you don't really answer the question, although you imply you are in a position to do so; if there is a problem with hirers how come the hire boat numbers (for all fleets) are increasing year on year? and day boats too?

 

It would be easy for me to say the hire companies would say that wouldn't they? No independent audit has ever shown a problem with moorings. Why hasn't someone (BW, APCO) commissioned an analysis if the problem really exists? Without proper figures this is just your (and my) personal soapbox.

 

Boaters wanted it, BW agreed, Parliament rubber stamped it.

 

Hire boat numbers are increasing simply because hiring them is popular. However in the current economic climate that could change.

You do like to change what people actually say to fit your own arguement. I didn't say there was an issue with hirers, I said there was an increase in complaints. Our boat has Kennet & Avon in the signwriting, away from the canal we often are asked is it as difficult as people claim and are there any moorings. You deny the problem but that is not the perception.

 

I'm not aware of any independant mooring audit ever being carried out. In some locations moorings are in short supply but of course it does depend on what you mean. I'm happy to moor well away from busy areas but not everyone is. As I said in another post, last year we cruised in London in August and had no problem finding moorings were we wanted them including Paddington. So for me there is no problem but others would disagree.

 

I don't really care if hireboaters complain or not, that is not the point. This discussion began because a boater standing for the council referenced London Boaters and put forward their ideas for change. I would agree that change is required but it has to come about by majority agreement not because some boaters bend the existing rules and then demand the rules are changed to fit with their life style. That applies anywhere on the system not just London or the K&A.

 

Ken

[sheriff]

Boaters wanted it, BW agreed, Parliament rubber stamped it.

 

Hire boat numbers are increasing simply because hiring them is popular. However in the current economic climate that could change.

You do like to change what people actually say to fit your own arguement. I didn't say there was an issue with hirers, I said there was an increase in complaints. Our boat has Kennet & Avon in the signwriting, away from the canal we often are asked is it as difficult as people claim and are there any moorings. You deny the problem but that is not the perception.

 

I'm not aware of any independant mooring audit ever being carried out. In some locations moorings are in short supply but of course it does depend on what you mean. I'm happy to moor well away from busy areas but not everyone is. As I said in another post, last year we cruised in London in August and had no problem finding moorings were we wanted them including Paddington. So for me there is no problem but others would disagree.

 

I don't really care if hireboaters complain or not, that is not the point. This discussion began because a boater standing for the council referenced London Boaters and put forward their ideas for change. I would agree that change is required but it has to come about by majority agreement not because some boaters bend the existing rules and then demand the rules are changed to fit with their life style. That applies anywhere on the system not just London or the K&A.

 

Ken

exactly that..though with the K&A and the London Boaters...before long they will be the majority

[matty40s]

I don't really care if hireboaters complain or not, that is not the point. This discussion began because a boater standing for the council referenced London Boaters and put forward their ideas for change. I would agree that change is required but it has to come about by majority agreement not because some boaters bend the existing rules and then demand the rules are changed to fit with their life style. That applies anywhere on the system not just London or the K&A.

Ken

 

as part of my research for the LondonBoaters group, I investigated the alleged "congestion" which BW stated was rife in the L&S.

I volunteered mysef for a cruise in March to do the entire L&S system, whilst winter moorings would still be in place.

The ONLY congestion I saw at moorings, lock landings, IN LOCKS, etc were BW boats moored where you and me would be breaking regulations and taking the piss.

I counted in total 6 BW boats on lock landings, one Tug and day boat actually abandoned in a lock. and a further 5 BW boats on visitor moorings.

Other than that, I passed 8 moving narrowboats in the period , and a couple of canoes, rowing teams.

I had a great time, but as a single hander, I thought BW put myself at risk and made my life more difficult,

[Leni]

 

The problem is that your posts implies that personal or financial reasons come into play. Sorry to be harsh, but they really don't.

 

 

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I was wanting to say. It looks from your reply (and I apologise if I've got it wrong!) as if you think I am in some way excusing those who can't or won't pay for a mooring. That wasn't what I intended at all.

 

I said :

there are those who would not want to be moored in a marina, but would happily pay to stay on a bit of towpath or within a limited area, maybe because that's what they want or maybe it's what they need for personal or financial reasons. Many of these would willingly pay for a mooring if there was one available where they want or NEED to stay. Then there are also those who don't want or can't afford to pay for moorings. They may be happy to continuously cruise, they may want to stay in one place, but they can't or won't pay for a mooring.

And then in the next paragraph I said

However, it does seem to me a bit unfair to lump all 'Bridge hoppers' in the category of 'scroungers and skivers', and to presume that they don't continuous cruise – which seems to be the only option where a 'Home mooring' is not available – because they are trying to diddle BW / CRT out of mooring fees which 'honest' boaters willingly pay!

 

My point was that IMHO there is a distinction between those who would like a mooring and are willing to pay for one but none are available, and those who just want to get away with not paying. I still get the feeling there are posters here who feel there is no difference between the two types of 'Bridge hopper'. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the reluctant Bridge hopper, and not much at all for the 'free-loader'!

[sheriff]

as part of my research for the LondonBoaters group, I investigated the alleged "congestion" which BW stated was rife in the L&S.

I volunteered mysef for a cruise in March to do the entire L&S system, whilst winter moorings would still be in place.

The ONLY congestion I saw at moorings, lock landings, IN LOCKS, etc were BW boats moored where you and me would be breaking regulations and taking the piss.

I counted in total 6 BW boats on lock landings, one Tug and day boat actually abandoned in a lock. and a further 5 BW boats on visitor moorings.

Other than that, I passed 8 moving narrowboats in the period , and a couple of canoes, rowing teams.

I had a great time, but as a single hander, I thought BW put myself at risk and made my life more difficult,

100 percent,been there done it,seen it...and sometimes padlocked to the visitor moorings to boot.

[mayalld]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I was wanting to say. It looks from your reply (and I apologise if I've got it wrong!) as if you think I am in some way excusing those who can't or won't pay for a mooring. That wasn't what I intended at all.

 

I said :

And then in the next paragraph I said

 

My point was that IMHO there is a distinction between those who would like a mooring and are willing to pay for one but none are available, and those who just want to get away with not paying. I still get the feeling there are posters here who feel there is no difference between the two types of 'Bridge hopper'. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the reluctant Bridge hopper, and not much at all for the 'free-loader'!

 

Whilst it is fair to say that the boater who is not willing to pay and has no intention of CCing is more deserving of our contempt, I don't believe that we can entirely excuse the "reluctant bridge hopper" either.

 

"I would have a mooring if I could find one" isn't a valid excuse. Why get a boat if you haven't made the necessary arrangements to use it legally?

[mayalld]

I am a member of no group. This is a simple untruth that somehow seems to make you feel better. I can do nothing for your problem.

 

As usual, you attempt to avoid discussion of the issues by simply denying everything that has been said, particularly by denying anything not directly relevant, because by doing so, you hope to avoid discussing the issue properly.

 

I have no idea what the membership structure of any K&A organisation might be, or indeed whether it has a membership structure. Doubtless, there will be something in the membership structure or lack of it that makes it true to say that you are not a member of that group in a formal sense.

 

However, it is certainly the case that you are associated with a group of boaters who call themselves the K&A boating community. You participate in activities with them, you share a common cause with them, you argue in favour of their positions. You look after their website.

 

It is very much in the interests of a group of people that you associate with to deny that there is a problem.

[KenK]

as part of my research for the LondonBoaters group, I investigated the alleged "congestion" which BW stated was rife in the L&S.

I volunteered mysef for a cruise in March to do the entire L&S system, whilst winter moorings would still be in place.

The ONLY congestion I saw at moorings, lock landings, IN LOCKS, etc were BW boats moored where you and me would be breaking regulations and taking the piss.

I counted in total 6 BW boats on lock landings, one Tug and day boat actually abandoned in a lock. and a further 5 BW boats on visitor moorings.

Other than that, I passed 8 moving narrowboats in the period , and a couple of canoes, rowing teams.

I had a great time, but as a single hander, I thought BW put myself at risk and made my life more difficult,

 

Yes, if you see my earlier post, I had no problem finding moorings in London, I cruised from the GU down the Paddington arm, on to Limehouse and back up the tideway, mind you the riots were taking place at the time which may have reduced boater numbers.

However is that the issue, BW's arguement is that boaters claim they do not need to pay for a mooring because they will conform to the CC guidelines and then they do not. I can see the need for change, life styles change, what worked originally clearly does not work now and if London Boaters and BW can come up with a fair system then I'm all for it. However it has to be fair to everyone not just those who do not want to play by the existing guidelines.

 

Ken

[jenlyn]

Whilst it is fair to say that the boater who is not willing to pay and has no intention of CCing is more deserving of our contempt, I don't believe that we can entirely excuse the "reluctant bridge hopper" either.

 

"I would have a mooring if I could find one" isn't a valid excuse. Why get a boat if you haven't made the necessary arrangements to use it legally?

ooop, The Daily Mayall is back, with I note, the same old headline

[rgreg]

ooop, The Daily Mayall is back, with I note, the same old headline

At least it's the truth

[jenlyn]

At least it's the truth

Hmmmm, so we are lead to believe

[Chris Pink]

Boaters wanted it, BW agreed, Parliament rubber stamped it.

 

Hire boat numbers are increasing simply because hiring them is popular. However in the current economic climate that could change.

You do like to change what people actually say to fit your own arguement. I didn't say there was an issue with hirers, I said there was an increase in complaints. Our boat has Kennet & Avon in the signwriting, away from the canal we often are asked is it as difficult as people claim and are there any moorings. You deny the problem but that is not the perception.

 

 

Ken

 

I say the problem s not as the perception. if loud mouth bigots from Macclesfield who have never been there shout long and loud enough then of course there will be a perception of a problem but there really really are no WMD on the K and A.

 

BW at no point agreed, this is why they have spent the next 16 years trying to get their own way through nefarious means.

 

As usual, you attempt to avoid discussion of the issues by simply denying everything that has been said, particularly by denying anything not directly relevant, because by doing so, you hope to avoid discussing the issue properly.

 

 

 

As usual you fabricate your world view from whole cloth. You seem incapable of realising that just because you endlessly repeat something does not make it so. Somehow from 200 miles away you identify me as a member of a group simply because I agree with some of what they say?

 

And then you, risibly, suggest you might be capable of representing me on the CaRT council? Absurd.

[Sir Nibble]

Here we go again. There was a problem on the western K&A. Certain visitor moorings were taken for residential use. Whole stretches of towpath in the best places were similarly monopolised. Boats remained unmoved for months or years. One nice towpath mooring was occupied by the same boat for four years.

Since the mooring consultation turned a spotlight on the situation, all of a sudden everybody plays the game, gets off the visitor moorings, moves every 14 days and swears blind they always did.

Hence there is as Chris says, no problem.

Mind, there are signs of a slow drift back.

All this suggests that "there is no problem and action is not needed" is not correct. It would be more correct to say BECAUSE there has been action the problem is greatly reduced, I suspect that if the pressure were taken off it would be right back to square one.