IWA Calls For Action On 'Continuous Moorers'

[Chris Pink]

I suspect the problem is that those boaters who have a mooring or who cruise from "place to place" as per CRTs interpretation of the license conditions are not harrassed and dont see what the problem is.

You didn't read the recent thread by Madcat then? I thought your writing on the SE consultation and its effect on weekend boaters quite cogent.

 

Then you come along and post this divisive crap. True colours or hypocrisy?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Tuscan]

Neither but thanks for your positive contribution now pick up your crap and put it in the bin please. It was a simple comment in my opinion most of those who have a mooring or are travelling do not feel harassed or persecuted in the way that Dew describes appreciate that you may feel different.

 

With regard to the SE consultation I was advised by CRT Wednesday when I chased that their response to the consultation and subsequent workshops will be published this week or in the imminent future. I do not expect to see the £25 charge/penalty dropped nor the introduction of the return restrictions. Both of which I hope we can challenge further.

[John Margetts]

Neither but thanks for your positive contribution now pick up your crap and put it in the bin please. It was a simple comment in my opinion most of those who have a mooring or are travelling do not feel harassed or persecuted in the way that Dew describes appreciate that you may feel different.

 

With regard to the SE consultation I was advised by CRT Wednesday when I chased that their response to the consultation and subsequent workshops will be published this week or in the imminent future. I do not expect to see the £25 charge/penalty dropped nor the introduction of the return restrictions. Both of which I hope we can challenge further.

So where do you stand? Not sure from your postings if you agree with the mooring restrictions regarding returning and handing out of £25 parking tickets or not.

[Tuscan]

So where do you stand? Not sure from your postings if you agree with the mooring restrictions regarding returning and handing out of £25 parking tickets or not.

Not

[Chris Pink]

Neither but thanks for your positive contribution now pick up your crap and put it in the bin please. It was a simple comment in my opinion most of those who have a mooring or are travelling do not feel harassed or persecuted in the way that Dew describes appreciate that you may feel different. .

So which of your stereotypes do you put Madcat in when she started a thread saying she was feeling harassed ( I paraphrase) by the proliferation of 48 hour moorings?

[Tuscan]

So which of your stereotypes do you put Madcat in when she started a thread saying she was feeling harassed ( I paraphrase) by the proliferation of 48 hour moorings?

My post was in relation to the previous post made by Dew which I hope I made clear by the phrase "Dew describes" no doubt rather than niggling you will at some stage have something positive to add to the debate yourself. You often do make a positive contribution so hopefully you will have some observations of you own.

[jenlyn]

I suspect the problem is that those boaters who have a mooring or who cruise from "place to place" as per CRTs interpretation of the license conditions are not harrassed and dont see what the problem is.

Taking the above as a statement, I think your absolutely correct.

[the grinch]

sorry to disagree, but having been a weekend boater I was harrassed by the then BW to the point that I eventually sold the boat. I complied with the 14 day rule to the letter even planning our winter cruising around the stoppage list often ending up in the north over the winter, this did not stop BW from hassleing me and even refusing my licence on one occassion the lower Southern Oxford became a no go area due to the 3 day restriction all the way from Wolvercote (i worked 4 days a week) so the increase in 24 and 48 hour moorings will only accentuate the situation by making it more difficult for those that CC and work. if this draconian scheme goes ahead a large amount of working people will be forced off the canals because they won't be able to moor anywhere without hassle

[Chris Pink]

My post was in relation to the previous post made by Dew which I hope I made clear by the phrase "Dew describes" no doubt rather than niggling you will at some stage have something positive to add to the debate yourself. You often do make a positive contribution so hopefully you will have some observations of you own.

 

Am I to expect patronising and content free posts like this? From a NABO representative who puts himself forward as being able to negotiate with CRT?

 

My post "was in relation to" that of Dew, I agree fully with him. I was asking you, and you seem unable to either answer the question or even possibly understand it, why your statement;

 

"I suspect the problem is that those boaters who have a mooring or who cruise from "place to place" as per CRTs interpretation of the license conditions are not harrassed and dont see what the problem is.",

 

directly contradicts a thread started by Madcat, my conversations along the cut, many posts on the subject on this forum and now Hamsterfan's post above.

 

I will add that I never found Hamsterfan particularly sympathetic those he considers "continuous moorers" - the group you seem to have selected by your post.

 

My views (Daddy) are quite clearly iterated in this thread - probably 28 pages ago - to save you the research; I think the GU visitor moorings proposals attack (harass if you like) the patterns of use of leisure boaters, those with moorings and those who cruise from "place to place" at least as much as anyone else. There is much evidence for this in the related threads on the subject which is why I disagree with you.

 

I didn't realise I had to ask your permission to do so.

 

Again: your post is at best divisive and at worst hypocritical. That's my positive contribution to this page of the thread.

 

 

..

Edited April 21, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Tuscan]

 

Am I to expect patronising and content free posts like this? From a NABO representative who puts himself forward as being able to negotiate with CRT?

 

My post "was in relation to" that of Dew, I agree fully with him. I was asking you, and you seem unable to either answer the question or even possibly understand it, why your statement;

 

"I suspect the problem is that those boaters who have a mooring or who cruise from "place to place" as per CRTs interpretation of the license conditions are not harrassed and dont see what the problem is.",

 

directly contradicts a thread started by Madcat, my conversations along the cut, many posts on the subject on this forum and now Hamsterfan's post above.

 

I will add that I never found Hamsterfan particularly sympathetic those he considers "continuous moorers" - the group you seem to have selected by your post.

 

My views (Daddy) are quite clearly iterated in this thread - probably 28 pages ago - to save you the research; I think the GU visitor moorings proposals attack (harass if you like) the patterns of use of leisure boaters, those with moorings and those who cruise from "place to place" at least as much as anyone else. There is much evidence for this in the related threads on the subject which is why I disagree with you.

 

I didn't realise I had to ask your permission to do so.

 

Again: your post is at best divisive and at worst hypocritical. That's my positive contribution to this page of the thread.

 

 

..

 

My post was an observation it was not divisive or hypocritical it did not attack continuous moorers or any other category of boater it was a comment based on my observations on talking to boaters who have a home mooring and also some of he CC'ers I have met. The feeling I got from talking to them was that they had not personally felt any harressment from CRT , indeed in the main they seemed pretty ignorant or indifferent to the issues raised by CC'ers or indeed the proposed changes to Visitor Moorings.

 

What this observation tells me is that there is work to be done still in making boaters aware of the issues other boaters might have, or effects of CRT's proposals might have on their boating in the future. it tells you is I am hypocritical and divisive so be it.

[John Margetts]

sorry to disagree, but having been a weekend boater I was harrassed by the then BW to the point that I eventually sold the boat. I complied with the 14 day rule to the letter even planning our winter cruising around the stoppage list often ending up in the north over the winter, this did not stop BW from hassleing me and even refusing my licence on one occassion the lower Southern Oxford became a no go area due to the 3 day restriction all the way from Wolvercote (i worked 4 days a week) so the increase in 24 and 48 hour moorings will only accentuate the situation by making it more difficult for those that CC and work. if this draconian scheme goes ahead a large amount of working people will be forced off the canals because they won't be able to moor anywhere without hassle

Right it seems people are having differing experiences. I would be interested to know exactly what sort of harrassment you and others are experiencing. I tend to cruise in the spring and summer and moor up in the winter. For the first 4 years I had a permanent cruising mooring at Northolt and for the last two years have been lucky enough to secure temporary moorings in central London. I wonder if I have not received (yet) any unwanted attention from The Man is because on their database I will come up as having a home mooring and consequently do not have a C.C. license? I may be able to do the same again this year but this is not guarenteed from year to year. I seem totally unable to find residential moorings and am very reluctant to get involved with the BW bidding system for the CandRT moorings which is a blatant rip off and unethical. So, please let me know in what ways you have benn hassled.

[the grinch]

as you have a home mooring you won't get hassled, from my experience I never had any until I went from having a home mooring to CCing. examples include section 8 notice after 3 days at wolvercote when it was still unrestricted I left the boat there on a sunday night and returned on thursday night to find the section notice! i was fuming to say the least as to the south there was a lot of hippy CM'rs who were being ignored as too difficult to deal with!, then I had the boat set adrift at Gnosall again an obnoxious BW bod on the phone complaining that I had left it there again a 4 day stay on a 14 day mooring, then I had further agro when i left the boat at Picketts Lock on the lee again a 10 day stay on a 14 day (unsigned) mooring below the lock, then the following licence was at first denied until I just told them straight to go ahead and I would move the boat to an EA river and save myself the £400 ish that the licence cost they then decided to renew it!! after 2 years of crap from BW I'd had enough and sold the boat!!

[Chris Pink]

My post was an observation it was not divisive or hypocritical it did not attack continuous moorers or any other category of boater it was a comment based on my observations on talking to boaters who have a home mooring and also some of he CC'ers I have met. The feeling I got from talking to them was that they had not personally felt any harressment from CRT , indeed in the main they seemed pretty ignorant or indifferent to the issues raised by CC'ers or indeed the proposed changes to Visitor Moorings.

 

What this observation tells me is that there is work to be done still in making boaters aware of the issues other boaters might have, or effects of CRT's proposals might have on their boating in the future. it tells you is I am hypocritical and divisive so be it.

 

Well, thank you, that reply is a bit clearer than the rather dismissive comment to Dew's post. And a different slant - you are now saying that it's a question of education and communication rather than CRT only harassing one section of boaters.

 

I am still a bit unclear why you should think that boaters that move from "place to place" should be free from such harassment when the post above and my experience of many boaters tells a different story.

 

i apologise for continuing to press you on this but, as I say, if you are going to represent NABO in this matter you must be inclusive - NABO Policy statement 1.

[Tuscan]

 

Well, thank you, that reply is a bit clearer than the rather dismissive comment to Dew's post. And a different slant - you are now saying that it's a question of education and communication rather than CRT only harassing one section of boaters.

 

I am still a bit unclear why you should think that boaters that move from "place to place" should be free from such harassment when the post above and my experience of many boaters tells a different story.

 

i apologise for continuing to press you on this but, as I say, if you are going to represent NABO in this matter you must be inclusive - NABO Policy statement 1.

I am struggling to get my message across so I am going to stop. I believe there is a difference between making an observation on what people have said and giving an opinion on the content. I don't believe I have made a personal comment in my recent posts on any harressment by CRT.

 

I stand by my observations and I am beginning to resent the implications that I am not inclusive or perhaps being misleading. For my opinions please read the article on the NABO web site regarding the SE Visitor mooring consultation and my subsequent letter to CRT which is in the magazine - also on the website.

 

It might be a good idea for you to start a thread calling for evidence of harressment of boaters going about their legitimate business by CRT, you can then contribute to this with others and this would add to the awareness of others who are not aware of this and perhaps bring some pressure on CRT.

[alan_fincher]

Not that I am expecting to resolve the differences between Chris Pink and Tuscan, (and anybody else participating), but I'm wondering some of the time if you are all talking about exactly the same thing.

 

From my perspective if you "move on according to the rules" you will probably not be hassled, but what does that mean in practice?

 

If you have a genuine need to be at fairly secure locations, perhaps with access to facilities and/or parking or public transport, and the number of such locations gets progressively eroded by a growth in moorings with prescribed stays of only a few days, then it becomes progressively harder to follow your style of boating, however "compliant" you are determined to try and be.

 

I may be misunderstanding, but felt that people like Madcat were complaining about being forced into this kind of pattern, rather than being actively hassled if they actually managed to adhere to it.

 

We ourselves find it a major restriction if, for example, trying to move our historic boat at weekends, to get to various events, but need to leave it somewhere in the weekdays in areas where much of the moorings are (say) only 2 days. It is particularly galling if you arrive somewhere where there are large amounts of unoccupied 2 day moorings, and you can be fairly confident it will stay that way for the rest of the week. In circumstances where we have run out of options we have left a boat 5 days on a 2 day mooring, accepting we might get ticketed, but so far never have. I would be reluctant to try it if there were £25 per day overstay charges though! (That's the point of the charges, I hear the supporters saying, but how irritating if there isn't a congestion problem there anyway).

The reason I was so violently opposed to much of the SE proposals was not that I am against the provision of 1 and 2 day moorings per-se. I accept that at genuine so called "honey pot" locations they are probably required. What I objected to so strongly is the widespread introduction of such proposals at large numbers of places where no valid case had been made, (or can be made!) for them.

 

It is something that should only be done when null enforcement of existing rules is carried out, before other measures are taken, and only then if it can be thoroughly demonstrated that demand regularly exceeds supply.

[Chris Pink]

I don't want to cause resentment but I already think useful contributions have emerged in challenge to your response to Dew's post.

 

If you have found anything confrontational then perhaps that was in response to a perception of your patronising tone.

 

I agree, this thread does seem to be revealing such evidence.

 

I can also point you to a comment posted today on the kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk website.

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/wordpress/report-bw-abuse/comment-page-1/#comment-63397

 

from someone who certainly doesn't appear to meet any criteria for CRT 'target' groups, unless scruffy boats are now included.

I am struggling to get my message across so I am going to stop. I believe there is a difference between making an observation on what people have said and giving an opinion on the content. I don't believe I have made a personal comment in my recent posts on any harressment by CRT.

I stand by my observations and I am beginning to resent the implications that I am not inclusive or perhaps being misleading. For my opinions please read the article on the NABO web site regarding the SE Visitor mooring consultation and my subsequent letter to CRT which is in the magazine - also on the website.

It might be a good idea for you to start a thread calling for evidence of harressment of boaters going about their legitimate business by CRT, you can then contribute to this with others and this would add to the awareness of others who are not aware of this and perhaps bring some pressure on CRT.

What I objected to so strongly is the widespread introduction of such proposals at large numbers of places where no valid case had been made, (or can be made!) for them.

 

is this not included in Dew's 'harassment'?

 

It would certainly be in mine.

 

I don't believe I have much in the way of difference with Tuscan. I am simply challenging what I saw as a patronising response to a serious post from someone who is a 'player' in the issues. I am happy that Tuscan's subsequent expansion makes it a little clearer where he stands.

[DeanS]

Why dont we all just leave things as they are. Some areas have it good. Some areas have it bad. That will never change. As boaters perhaps we should just all just live with the canals exactly as they are. My experience (in the north) has been that there is zero change needed. People own boats, people live in marina estates, people cruise, people hire, people drink and drive, people cruise alone, people cruise in packs of 50, people live in rural towpaths, people use gennies, people burn the wrong wood, people struggle with locks, people all leave the same marina on hot weekends, people obey the rules, people dont obey the rules, people love CRT, people shout at CRT, there is no "big answer" to suit everybody. All we should really be after is:

 

1. Lovely canals

2. As many working facilities as possible

3. Good maintenance

4. Developing more pubs and "nice areas" to encourage boaters to stop for a meal etc

5. Less bickering

[madcat]

Well I've emerged from my basket to add a bit more to the debate. Alan's post sums up the problem and the way it will just get worse unless CaRT are reigned in pretty smartly on this one. I simply have niether the desire nor the required level of fitness to be chased from one 48hr mooring to another. Iam still struggling to get back to the level of fitness i had before the Gnosall Lurgy got me and it will be a while before I do,even then Iam not up for continual moving on,that does not a holiday make and fear of the £25 overstay fee would cause unwanted stress. Iam angry with the IWA because they appear to be abusing their powers and seem to have no interest in representing all boaters.I could relate my experiences with the IWA in the past but suffice to say that they were negative enough to make me vow to never have anything further to do with them.

And if I fall ill while boating and theres nobody to come and rescue me what then? Its happened before and luckily I was helped by a local boater bringing water for me, cans run out quite quick. CaRT need to apply some common sense to this situation not just react without considering the consequences for their customers.

CaRT you are a charity and you need goodwill not a load of disgruntled customers who feel put upon and un cared for.

[alan_fincher]

I have said something similar elsewhere, (possibly even earlier in this long thread, I don't recall), but I think it worth repeating because it shows to me people don't always think in a way that is to the benefit of all, but only what is best for them.

 

We were told by CRT at the South East visitor mooring workshops that about half of all respondents supported the changes put forward by CRT, whereas about half opposed. Unfortunately CRT have still not published the base data that would allow one to assess whether you believe that was true or not, but if true, then we are fighting a situation where apparently half the people bothering to respond to a survey are happy to see large amounts of 1 or 2 day moorings, (with overstay charges) slapped in with no proof given by CRT that it is actually required.

 

Now I processed some of the data, (the vast majority of the 50 answers I saw were opposed, by the way), but one "in favour" answer to me summed up the problem.

Someone had basically just done a "yes fine at all locations" response, with no apparent knowledge of where some were.

They had added that their home mooring is on the River Wey, and that they seldom visited the South East waterways covered by the consultation, but if they did, they would be unlikely to wish to stop anywhere more than 2 days, and therefore 2 day limits were ideal for them.

This actually seemed to me to mean "reserve the majority of space of some popular locations, standing empty all year, just on the off-chance we might decide to turn up there in February!".

There also seemed to be amongst several attending the workshops an attitude that if something wasn't a problem for them, they didn't much care if it was going to cause anybody else a problem. I suppose it is in some people's nature not to care too much about others, but I found it rather depressing.

Edited April 22, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Tuscan]

Alan that was my take as well, unfortunately I have found this indifference reflected in several of the conversations I have had (bit nervous about mentioning this again) with boaters who have moorings. If you recall CRT undertook to publish the data from the feedback shortly after the workshop to prevent a FOI request.

 

I was told last week that CRT will be publishing their response to the consultation and workshops imminently.

[John Margetts]

Thats the culture now- if it doesnt affect you dont get involved. This is how unpopular legislation gets pushed through. We need to stand together regardless of whether we have moorings or not, whether we are likely to be unaffected by 2 day visitor restrictions etc. Divide and rule is an old hackneyed phrase but its more true now than ever. Stand together by refusing to pay any £25 charges. If we all did this their unfair and corrupt system would be unworkable and they would be forced to act responsibly by being reigned in as Madcat says. If we give in to this, what next? Daily charges at all moorings irrespective of how long you stay? The CandRT are obviously flexing their muscles and trying to get away with just making money to line their pockets. There are no real reasons for their plans and if they say there are, they are just simply lying.

Stand firm and refuse to comply.

[Grace and Favour]

Thats the culture now- if it doesnt affect you dont get involved. This is how unpopular legislation gets pushed through. We need to stand together regardless of whether we have moorings or not, whether we are likely to be unaffected by 2 day visitor restrictions etc. Divide and rule is an old hackneyed phrase but its more true now than ever. Stand together by refusing to pay any £25 charges. If we all did this their unfair and corrupt system would be unworkable and they would be forced to act responsibly by being reigned in as Madcat says. If we give in to this, what next? Daily charges at all moorings irrespective of how long you stay? The CandRT are obviously flexing their muscles and trying to get away with just making money to line their pockets. There are no real reasons for their plans and if they say there are, they are just simply lying.

Stand firm and refuse to comply.

Just so I don't misunderstand your point - - could you just explain for me what is corrupt about the CRT system please?

[John Margetts]

Just so I don't misunderstand your point - - could you just explain for me what is corrupt about the CRT system please?

There is no evidence that the visitor moorings need restricting to 2 days and have £25 overstay fines imposed to discourage people from causing congestion. The CandRT have said that people not being able to moor up is the reason for these restrictions. Since they must have researched it and talked to people they must have found out that their "fears" are unjustified therefore they must be lying if they still continue to use an argument which has no basis of fact. I concluded therefore that they must have a hidden agenda of just trying to make money, justified by lies. This is what corruption is. Taking money from people under false pretences. Do you think corruption is the wrong word? Perhaps criminal would have been better since they would be conning people out of money by suggesting a situation existed when it quite evidently does not.

[Doorman]

 

All we should really be after is:

 

1. Lovely canals

2. As many working facilities as possible

3. Good maintenance

4. Developing more pubs and "nice areas" to encourage boaters to stop for a meal etc

5. Less bickering

Hello Dean,

 

You'll be pleased to learn that a new canal build proposal is being pencilled in for 2014 and will be aptly named Utopia.

 

Every time that I enquire about the exact date of commencement I get told to come back tomorrow!

 

Mike

[alan_fincher]

There is no evidence that the visitor moorings need restricting to 2 days and have £25 overstay fines imposed to discourage people from causing congestion. The CandRT have said that people not being able to moor up is the reason for these restrictions. Since they must have researched it and talked to people they must have found out that their "fears" are unjustified therefore they must be lying if they still continue to use an argument which has no basis of fact. I concluded therefore that they must have a hidden agenda of just trying to make money, justified by lies. This is what corruption is. Taking money from people under false pretences. Do you think corruption is the wrong word? Perhaps criminal would have been better since they would be conning people out of money by suggesting a situation existed when it quite evidently does not.

Actually having worked long and hard with others on the topic of the South East visitor moorings proposals, I don't actually agree with your reasons as to what you think CRTs end game is.

 

I don't actually believe they have any great interest in trying to make money out of the overstaying charges, and in fact I believe they know they are on very sticky ground in terms of trying to extract them from anybody who simply refuses to pay. I don't think they would actually like to test it in court much, either, because as soon as they lose a case, the whole idea falls into disrepute.

 

I believe they are doing it, (as they say they are), as a "deterrent", (or you could say "threat"), because they don't believe people will comply with short stays unless they make such a threat.

 

I do agree firmly though that CRT have been "dishonest" in this whole matter, if not actually "corrupt", because I believe at many locations their reasons for doing it are in a misguided attempt to try and push overstaying live-aboard boaters off the moorings in question, but they are simply not prepared to admit that that is a major factor in what they now propose.

 

I, and many others, have tried to make the point throughout the whole process, that if they are currently unwilling, or unable, to enforce the current very clear, and unambiguous limits of 14 day stays, why do they suddenly believe they will get magical compliance by changing to just 1 and 2 day limits, (which in my opinion is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and then probably still missing the nut). Many made this point on consultation feedback, but it was largely dismissed at the workshops.

 

So in short, I do not believe the exercise is about raising revenue for CRT. I know the words are emotive, but I think in some cases it is more based on trying to "socially cleanse" stretches of canals of boats that a certain percentage of both the boating population and of local residents would prefer to see moved on. Unfortunately this misguided approach then, in my view, adversely affects many other boaters, who were probably not actually the target of the initiative.

 

IMO no mooring time limits should ever be decreased until it can be demonstrated that existing stay times have been thoroughly enforced, and that this has still not been sufficient to solve the perceived problem. However many clearly disagree with such a view, and are happy to see very draconian limits put in with no justification for them actually demonstrated.

 

(Sorry I thought I had stopped ranting on this topic, but it still makes me angry!).