CRT Council Election - Rob Dean

[jenlyn]

Do some research yourself. It has often been erroneously stated that Dave has an anti CC agenda. I challenge you to find just one quote to support the suggestion that Dave would be a threat to CCing.

 

 

The CCers bit is there, and is an absolute right that CRT cannot take away, but it is a fairly limited absolute right,

 

So, the position is that unless you can pass the bar on CCing, you will have to have a place where it can "reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left ".

 

What I am seeking is an answer that will, within the scope of the law as it stands, accomodate those who neither want a permanent mooring, nor feel able to comply with the CC guidance.

 

That answer will have to be constructed so that it doesn't need new legislation, and I believe that roving mooring permits are the answer.

 

For the holder of a Roving Mooring Permit, the towpath would become a place where a boat can "reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left ", provided the conditions of the permit were complied with.

 

What I would envisage is something like;

There will be a designated "home range" for the RMP

CRT will define the "home ranges", and determine the number of RMPs available in each

An RMP will be charged at 75% of the EOG fee charged within the "Home Range"

Within the designated "home range"

A maximum of 14 days at a time on any casual mooring (as in unsigned moorings).

An extensions to 28 days twice during each calendar year on such moorings.

No return to any particular mooring location until you have been absent for twice as long as you were moored.

No more than 56 days in any one year at any location in total.

No more than 3 days at any one time at any formal (signed) mooring (even if the limit is longer at that location)

Outside the designated "home range"

Compliance with the guidance for CCers for the duration of the trip out of the home range

 

This post concerns me, as a cc'er

[JDR]

I had the pleasure of sharing a few locks with Rob last year.I can only say Dave is so far off the mark it is laughable.Believe it or not there is more to the K&A than the issues of mooring on the western end. Good luck Rob, certainly one of the main contender for my vote so far.

[KenK]

Actually Rob lives in a house, he's a leisure boater, I didn't see anything in his statement which said otherwise.

 

Ken

[mayalld]

I had the pleasure of sharing a few locks with Rob last year.I can only say Dave is so far off the mark it is laughable.Believe it or not there is more to the K&A than the issues of mooring on the western end. Good luck Rob, certainly one of the main contender for my vote so far.

 

As Dave has asked a QUESTION, I'm not sure how he can be"so far off the mark it is laughable".

 

I haven't prejudged the answer, merely asked the question. A satisfactory answer will propel Rob into a very high place.

 

Actually Rob lives in a house, he's a leisure boater, I didn't see anything in his statement which said otherwise.

 

Ken

 

 

Perhaps I have misinterpreted;

 

"I work on my own boat and travel as far as each summer has allowed"

 

I took that as an indication that Rob was based on his boat.

[Sir Nibble]

The CCers bit is there, and is an absolute right that CRT cannot take away, but it is a fairly limited absolute right,

 

So, the position is that unless you can pass the bar on CCing, you will have to have a place where it can "reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left ".

 

What I am seeking is an answer that will, within the scope of the law as it stands, accomodate those who neither want a permanent mooring, nor feel able to comply with the CC guidance.

 

That answer will have to be constructed so that it doesn't need new legislation, and I believe that roving mooring permits are the answer.

 

For the holder of a Roving Mooring Permit, the towpath would become a place where a boat can "reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left ", provided the conditions of the permit were complied with.

 

What I would envisage is something like;

There will be a designated "home range" for the RMP

CRT will define the "home ranges", and determine the number of RMPs available in each

An RMP will be charged at 75% of the EOG fee charged within the "Home Range"

Within the designated "home range"

A maximum of 14 days at a time on any casual mooring (as in unsigned moorings).

An extensions to 28 days twice during each calendar year on such moorings.

No return to any particular mooring location until you have been absent for twice as long as you were moored.

No more than 56 days in any one year at any location in total.

No more than 3 days at any one time at any formal (signed) mooring (even if the limit is longer at that location)

Outside the designated "home range"

Compliance with the guidance for CCers for the duration of the trip out of the home range

 

This post concerns me, as a cc'er

And that is supposed to show an anti CC stance is it? Read it again, find the bit that even remotely suggests any change the slightest bit detrimental to CCers. If this is the best you can do then your fears are clearly unfounded and you can sleep soundly safe in the knowledge that a proposal to try and legitimise a lifestyle currently (debatably) unlawful will have no effect on CCers at all, zilch, nada.

I do realise that the only evidence needed is "This is Dave Mayall, guilty, take him down" but you owe it to yourself to demonstrate that there is indeed a monster under the bed.

[mayalld]

The CCers bit is there, and is an absolute right that CRT cannot take away, but it is a fairly limited absolute right,

 

So, the position is that unless you can pass the bar on CCing, you will have to have a place where it can "reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left ".

 

What I am seeking is an answer that will, within the scope of the law as it stands, accomodate those who neither want a permanent mooring, nor feel able to comply with the CC guidance.

 

That answer will have to be constructed so that it doesn't need new legislation, and I believe that roving mooring permits are the answer.

 

For the holder of a Roving Mooring Permit, the towpath would become a place where a boat can "reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left ", provided the conditions of the permit were complied with.

 

What I would envisage is something like;

There will be a designated "home range" for the RMP

CRT will define the "home ranges", and determine the number of RMPs available in each

An RMP will be charged at 75% of the EOG fee charged within the "Home Range"

Within the designated "home range"

A maximum of 14 days at a time on any casual mooring (as in unsigned moorings).

An extensions to 28 days twice during each calendar year on such moorings.

No return to any particular mooring location until you have been absent for twice as long as you were moored.

No more than 56 days in any one year at any location in total.

No more than 3 days at any one time at any formal (signed) mooring (even if the limit is longer at that location)

Outside the designated "home range"

Compliance with the guidance for CCers for the duration of the trip out of the home range

 

This post concerns me, as a cc'er

 

Why?

 

If you are a CCer, it won't affect you.

 

If you are only pretending to be a CCer, it might affect you, by allowing you to pay to legitimise a cruising pattern that falls short of CCing.

[jenlyn]

And that is supposed to show an anti CC stance is it? Read it again, find the bit that even remotely suggests any change the slightest bit detrimental to CCers. If this is the best you can do then your fears are clearly unfounded and you can sleep soundly safe in the knowledge that a proposal to try and legitimise a lifestyle currently (debatably) unlawful will have no effect on CCers at all, zilch, nada.

I do realise that the only evidence needed is "This is Dave Mayall, guilty, take him down" but you owe it to yourself to demonstrate that there is indeed a monster under the bed.

Fair enough, we will have to agree to differ.

[jenlyn]

Why?

 

If you are a CCer, it won't affect you.

 

If you are only pretending to be a CCer, it might affect you, by allowing you to pay to legitimise a cruising pattern that falls short of CCing.

It will effect me dave, because it's likely to clog up honeypot areas for genuine cc'ers. If enough people in London took up the option you suggest, it could possibly shut cc'ers out of the area. The suggestions you have made also resemble a BW statement put out last year, almost word for word. It was and still is being rejected by many.

[mayalld]

It will effect me dave, because it's likely to clog up honeypot areas for genuine cc'ers. If enough people in London took up the option you suggest, it could possibly shut cc'ers out of the area. The suggestions you have made also resemble a BW statement put out last year, almost word for word. It was and still is being rejected by many.

 

 

May I direct your attention to;

 

CRT will define the "home ranges", and determine the number of RMPs available in each

No more than 3 days at any one time at any formal (signed) mooring (even if the limit is longer at that location)

 

It is my belief that such measures would ensure that honeypot sites are NOT clogged up.

 

Perhaps it would help to READ what was said before condemning it.

[jenlyn]

May I direct your attention to;

 

CRT will define the "home ranges", and determine the number of RMPs available in each

No more than 3 days at any one time at any formal (signed) mooring (even if the limit is longer at that location)

 

It is my belief that such measures would ensure that honeypot sites are NOT clogged up.

 

Perhaps it would help to READ what was said before condemning it.

And I therefore point out that you do not know the area and it would cause clogging, and possibly many more problems than there is now.

[Sir Nibble]

Fair enough, we will have to agree to differ.

Well, no, not really. We cannot just agree that we have different interpretations of a piece of writing when you are enterpreting what is not written nor implied. As far as I can see you have a paranoid fear of one bloke (admittedly if you're going to have a paranoid fear it's easier to join in with someone elses) and being unable to evidence the reasons for that fear you are pretending that the difference between evidence and no evidence is subjective. It isn't, you have so far failed to meet my challenge and pretending you have is just plain silly. Surely you are a rational enough person to need more than this to form a solid conclusion?

[jenlyn]

Well, no, not really. We cannot just agree that we have different interpretations of a piece of writing when you are enterpreting what is not written nor implied. As far as I can see you have a paranoid fear of one bloke (admittedly if you're going to have a paranoid fear it's easier to join in with someone elses) and being unable to evidence the reasons for that fear you are pretending that the difference between evidence and no evidence is subjective. It isn't, you have so far failed to meet my challenge and pretending you have is just plain silly. Surely you are a rational enough person to need more than this to form a solid conclusion?

I will live with MY paranoia, and canvas against Dave being elected, as is my right in a free election process, thus leaving the electorate to make up their minds as to who they wish to believe

[Sir Nibble]

I will live with MY paranoia, and canvas against Dave being elected, as is my right in a free election process, thus leaving the electorate to make up their minds as to who they wish to believe

of course this is your right, and you would not be the first to peddle as truth something entirely unfounded. Don't you think though, that it would be honest to just admit "I just don't like the bloke and there's an end to it" rather than fabricating unsubstantiated arguments?

[jenlyn]

of course this is your right, and you would not be the first to peddle as truth something entirely unfounded. Don't you think though, that it would be honest to just admit "I just don't like the bloke and there's an end to it" rather than fabricating unsubstantiated arguments?

I just don't like the bloke would be a silly statement for me to make, I don't know him. However, I will freely state, that I do not like some of his views in relation to his election campaign

[mayalld]

I will live with MY paranoia, and canvas against Dave being elected, as is my right in a free election process, thus leaving the electorate to make up their minds as to who they wish to believe

 

Indeed so, and if you can find any friends who would like to join you and Pinky in your campaign, I feel sure that I can capitalise on the the volume of unreasoned opposition to further my campaign.

[Sir Nibble]

I just don't like the bloke would be a silly statement for me to make, I don't know him. However, I will freely state, that I do not like some of his views in relation to his election campaign

And that is fair and right and democratic so long as you restrict criticism to his stated views and not add to the mix views he has never stated and for which there is no evidence he has ever held. It would I hope you agree be perfectly acceptable for me to campaign against David Cameron, but disingenuous to do so because of his support for cannibalism.

[jenlyn]

And that is fair and right and democratic so long as you restrict criticism to his stated views and not add to the mix views he has never stated and for which there is no evidence he has ever held. It would I hope you agree be perfectly acceptable for me to campaign against David Cameron, but disingenuous to do so because of his support for cannibalism.

I have not mentioned David Cameron in any of my posts?

[Sir Nibble]

He ate my uncle.

[jenlyn]

He ate my uncle.

Lol

[Sir Nibble]

And Dave Mayall has not expressed a biase against CCers. Touche.

[jenlyn]

And Dave Mayall has not expressed a biase against CCers. Touche.

Lol, I would say its far from touché, but hey ho

[GSer]

Please, don't go there.

 

I only asked the question because dave implied that if you stayed on the k&a and held a cc licence you couldn't possibly be legal.

[Rob Dean]

Rob, you made it to my longlist.

 

In order to decide where I might rank you, can I ask whether you have a residential mooring on the K&A, or are you a continuous cruiser?

 

If the latter, what proportion of each year are you away from the K&A?

 

Dave,

Thanks for your interest.

 

Sadly I'm neither a full time liveaboard nor a continuous cruiser. For the past few summers, I have managed to live aboard (last year for 3 months) by taking my boat on a journey to and around London (to enable me to work) and then up to the midlands on holiday.

 

That means I spent 3 months away from the K&A last year on (respectively) the Thames, GU, Regents, Lee, Nene and Oxford.

 

I think I also confused by saying "I work on my boat". What I meant by that was that I get my hands dirty on the maintenance side. I bought a rusty heap and have done a lot of refit work over 8 years including relining it. Last winter I even rewired the thing (with help from forum members here).

 

Paid work-wise, I drive a desk in London. But only for another 84 sleeps . .

 

Hope that helps

 

Rob

Edited February 6, 2012 by Rob Dean

[14skipper]

I also happen to think it shows an assumption that anyone on The K&A is a Continuous Moorer.

 

Are they not then ?

 

14skipper

[mayalld]

Dave,

Thanks for your interest.

 

Sadly I'm neither a full time liveaboard nor a continuous cruiser. For the past few summers, I have managed to live aboard (last year for 3 months) by taking my boat on a journey to and around London (to enable me to work) and then up to the midlands on holiday.

 

That means I spent 3 months away from the K&A last year on (respectively) the Thames, GU, Regents, Lee, Nene and Oxford.

 

I think I also confused by saying "I work on my boat". What I meant by that was that I get my hands dirty on the maintenance side. I bought a rusty heap and have done a lot of refit work over 8 years including relining it. Last winter I even rewired the thing (with help from forum members here).

 

Paid work-wise, I drive a desk in London. But only for another 84 sleeps . .

 

Hope that helps

 

Rob

 

Thanks, and sorry if my question appeared to imply any presumption of wrongdoing on your part.

 

On the contrary, my question was posed merely because what you have said marked you out as potentially worth voting for, and I wished to clarify that single point.

 

As the point is clarified, I think I can safely say that your name will be in the upper quartile of my preferences.