notes from septembers CRT meeting

[Chris Pink]

So really we need a license to differentiate those who live aboard of a leisure mooring.

 

ideas anyone?

 

ps, Mr Rollins, would you mind ever so putting your quotes in order to make it easier for others to read - ie don't delete the closing [ /quote ] bit

[lesrollins]

So really we need a license to differentiate those who live aboard of a leisure mooring.

 

ideas anyone?

 

ps, Mr Rollins, would you mind ever so putting your quotes in order to make it easier for others to read - ie don't delete the closing [ /quote ] bit

[Sir Nibble]

 

You may decide you wish to stop cc and settle down near your family

That is not a reason why you can no longer CC is it. That is making a decision to stop. It doesn't come upon you suddenly overnight and you're stuck with it through no fault of your own. If you CHOOSE to stop CCing either to be as you say near your family or for any other reason it is not incumbent upon anyone else to provide for your choice. If you make that choice then you can continue to cruise whilst looking for a mooring near your family or you can move ashore. If I would rather like to be near my family in Wales it is hardly encumbent on the Welsh assembly to build a house in the beacons near their farm to enable my choice is it.

You seem to have no argument.

[lesrollins]

So really we need a license to differentiate those who live aboard of a leisure mooring.

 

ideas anyone?

 

ps, Mr Rollins, would you mind ever so putting your quotes in order to make it easier for others to read - ie don't delete the closing [ /quote ] bit

 

Mr pink

excuse me sir but i am using a phone for this debate and it is difficult to type with sausage fingers.

 

Anyway, back to the bat cave.

I have not made a suggestion of giving different colour licences to leisure moorers i am enquiring why a person should be allowed to permantly live on a leisure mooring and cart allow it. If that person wishes to live on there boat they should become cc ers as already posted there is not enough permanent moorings.

[mayalld]

Well mystic meg how far into the future can you see. What about that sudden ilness or that bad accident you might have. We all look into the future and hopefully try and predict the path our lives will take but no one sees the unexpected and i know.

 

You don't have to be mystic meg.

 

If you are living aboard as a CCer then the inevitability of old age comes with a reasonable likelihood that CCing will become more difficult, and possibly impossible.

 

Having to give up CCing is not unexpected, it is not unforseen (indeed, you HAVE seen it as a prospect, because you believe that CR should make provision for it, despite he fact that you don't seem to feel that you should do so)

[lesrollins]

That is not a reason why you can no longer CC is it. That is making a decision to stop. It doesn't come upon you suddenly overnight and you're stuck with it through no fault of your own. If you CHOOSE to stop CCing either to be as you say near your family or for any other reason it is not incumbent upon anyone else to provide for your choice. If you make that choice then you can continue to cruise whilst looking for a mooring near your family or you can move ashore. If I would rather like to be near my family in Wales it is hardly encumbent on the Welsh assembly to build a house in the beacons near their farm to enable my choice is it.

You seem to have no argument.

 

I do believe that the brecon and monmouth canal would put you closer to your family if you did want to be close to them therefore an house would not be required, i presume you permantly live on your boat and if you are not a cc er you must be one of thelucky ones to have a permanent mooring.

[Sir Nibble]

 

I do believe that the brecon and monmouth canal would put you closer to your family if you did want to be close to them therefore an house would not be required, i presume you permantly live on your boat and if you are not a cc er you must be one of thelucky ones to have a permanent mooring.

No I don't live on my boat nor do I have any wish to live on a boat.

I cannot understand your attitude. Have you always, all through life had your wants met by sitting on your arse and screaming "Wannit!"

Local authorities have an obligation to meet housing needs for the sake of thriving communities and an available workforce so if you want or need to live in a particular area then you should find the local planning authority roughly keeping pace with the need for expansion. Local authorities do not have an obligation to provide the accommodation of your choice. By and large community and individual NEEDS are enabled, WANTS are entirely your own problem.

[Morat]

I still don't understand why the possession of a home mooring should make any difference to the how the rules are applied to you when you are away from that mooring. I also fail to understand why a CCer would have a cheaper license since they are supposedly using the canals more than marina dweller.

 

There should be two sorts of license.

 

1. Owner/Occupier license: Grants permission to use a boat with current BSS certificate on all CaRT waterways. Mooring restrictions apply as indicated on the signs or otherwise 14 days max stay. You may or may not wish to purchase/rent a permanent mooring for your exclusive use.

 

2. Hire License: As above but extra BSS conditions apply, along with the current regulations on car parking, boat handover training etc.

 

Ready, aim, fire

[jenlyn]

I still don't understand why the possession of a home mooring should make any difference to the how the rules are applied to you when you are away from that mooring. I also fail to understand why a CCer would have a cheaper license since they are supposedly using the canals more than marina dweller.

 

There should be two sorts of license.

 

1. Owner/Occupier license: Grants permission to use a boat with current BSS certificate on all CaRT waterways. Mooring restrictions apply as indicated on the signs or otherwise 14 days max stay. You may or may not wish to purchase/rent a permanent mooring for your exclusive use.

 

2. Hire License: As above but extra BSS conditions apply, along with the current regulations on car parking, boat handover training etc.

 

Ready, aim, fire

That's just far to simple, CRT would struggle to get their heads round that, owing to the limited knowledge they have of boating.

[Jerra]

I must be missing something subtle in this discussion.

 

To me nobody leisure boater, CC, continuous moorer, marina moorer on line moorer etc is better/worse than any other.

 

For the life of me I can't see why anyone group (or all groups for that matter) should feel having a license which identifies them as discrimination. To my mind it would only be discrimination if having the identification prevented you doing some thing e.g. being continuously moored when you claim to be continuously cruising.

 

Which brings me to the final point. If you can't abide by the rules/regulations required then you shouldn't be doing it (and this applies to all situations where rules/regulations have been brought in). Either accept the "rules" as they apply to you or you have to choose to do something else somewhere else.

 

I hope my rather simplistic view makes sense.

 

I must be missing something subtle in this discussion.

 

To me nobody leisure boater, CC, continuous moorer, marina moorer on line moorer etc is better/worse than any other.

 

For the life of me I can't see why anyone group (or all groups for that matter) should feel having a license which identifies them as discrimination. To my mind it would only be discrimination if having the identification prevented you doing some thing e.g. being continuously moored when you claim to be continuously cruising.

 

Which brings me to the final point. If you can't abide by the rules/regulations required then you shouldn't be doing it (and this applies to all situations where rules/regulations have been brought in). Either accept the "rules" as they apply to you or you have to choose to do something else somewhere else.

 

I hope my rather simplistic view makes sense.

 

I must be missing something subtle in this discussion.

 

To me nobody leisure boater, CC, continuous moorer, marina moorer on line moorer etc is better/worse than any other.

 

For the life of me I can't see why anyone group (or all groups for that matter) should feel having a license which identifies them as discrimination. To my mind it would only be discrimination if having the identification prevented you doing some thing e.g. being continuously moored when you claim to be continuously cruising.

 

Which brings me to the final point. If you can't abide by the rules/regulations required then you shouldn't be doing it (and this applies to all situations where rules/regulations have been brought in). Either accept the "rules" as they apply to you or you have to choose to do something else somewhere else.

 

I hope my rather simplistic view makes sense.

[lesrollins]

No I don't live on my boat nor do I have any wish to live on a boat.

I cannot understand your attitude. Have you always, all through life had your wants met by sitting on your arse and screaming "Wannit!"

Local authorities have an obligation to meet housing needs for the sake of thriving communities and an available workforce so if you want or need to live in a particular area then you should find the local planning authority roughly keeping pace with the need for expansion. Local authorities do not have an obligation to provide the accommodation of your choice. By and large community and individual NEEDS are enabled, WANTS are entirely your own problem.

 

I have never sat on my arse screamin wannit, far from it. I have always worked despite being classed as disabled, i have never taken anything or wanted anything out of the system.

I do not consider i have an attitude i am just voicing an opinion in a debate or discussion.

And as you are a non liveaboard and have no desire to live on a boat how would a cc er effect you, it sounds as if your boat is a toy and not a way of life.

[mayalld]

And as you are a non liveaboard and have no desire to live on a boat how would a cc er effect you, it sounds as if your boat is a toy and not a way of life.

 

And?

 

Is there some magic rule that says that if something is a "way of life" for you Nanny has to hand things to you on a plate

[Sir Nibble]

it sounds as if your boat is a toy and not a way of life.

Yes, quite right it is no more than a toy.

I know you are expressing an opinion I just find it hard to see how you sustain it. The idea that moorings should be made available for those who have to give up CCing is not too silly until you examine it and realise that there is no such thing as "having" to give up CCing in a manner that is not entirely forseeable and therefore the responsibility of the individual.

When asked to provide an example of why one might have to give up CCing you have only provided a reason why one might WANT to which is not at all the same thing and again the responsibility of the individual. I still maintain my position that you have no argument, just a wooly headed sort of suggestion that it is the responsibility of a public body to stand ready to enable your choices.

[Chris Pink]

 

There should be two sorts of license.

 

1. Owner/Occupier license: Grants permission to use a boat with current BSS certificate on all CaRT waterways. Mooring restrictions apply as indicated on the signs or otherwise 14 days max stay. You may or may not wish to purchase/rent a permanent mooring for your exclusive use.

 

2. Hire License: As above but extra BSS conditions apply, along with the current regulations on car parking, boat handover training etc.

 

 

That's exactly what there is. (what is your point?) except you have forgotten the two levels of trading license.

[mayalld]

I still don't understand why the possession of a home mooring should make any difference to the how the rules are applied to you when you are away from that mooring.

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

BW wanted (and to a large extent got) a rule that said that by and large people should have home moorings.

 

We could question what their motivations were, but by and large the rule is generally beneficial.

 

• From the BW/CRT POV, it is a cash cow.
• It means that we don't have a mooring free for all with all the best mooring perpetually occupied.

The concession was that for those who genuinely had no use for a home mooring (because they didn't stay in one place), they didn't have to have one.

 

As such, it is reasonable to have rules that require those who don't have a home mooring because they couldn't use one to actually cruise.

 

Where a boater has a home mooring, their cruising will, as a matter of necessity, bring them to the same locations repeatedly. It would be unreasonable to apply the same restrictions to them.

 

So, I have a home mooring at New Mills. There are a limited range of places I can cruise to at a weekend, so it is reasonable for me to be found at Bugsworth on a fairly regular basis.

 

If I had no home mooring on the basis that I was engaged in bona fide navigation (and consequently could not actually USE such a mooring), it would be reasonable to expect that I was NOT at Bugsworth every weekend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mayalld]

Sally Ash's report was most enlightening. She sees non-compliant cc'ing as a problem caused by 2000 boaters but in John Dodwell's introduction he says 2000 cc'ers do less than 10km per year.

 

To me, this reads as: If I were a cc'er and I did more than 10km per year, I wouldn't be included in that 2000 and therefore I wouldn't be classed as causing a problem.

 

If I was being prosecuted by CaRT for non-compliance, I'd be using this information in my defense.

 

Have CaRT finally, but inadvertantly, defined 'bona-fide navigation'???

 

No, I don't think that they have.

 

They have recognised that a significant number of people who are registered as CCers do no such thing, and that they lack the resources to take enforcement action agains all who are not playing the game.

 

They have identified that around 600 boaters are remaining within the same 3 mile stretch for prolonged periods. These boaters are blatantly not complying

[mayalld]

Sally Ash's report was most enlightening. She sees non-compliant cc'ing as a problem caused by 2000 boaters but in John Dodwell's introduction he says 2000 cc'ers do less than 10km per year.

 

To me, this reads as: If I were a cc'er and I did more than 10km per year, I wouldn't be included in that 2000 and therefore I wouldn't be classed as causing a problem.

 

If I was being prosecuted by CaRT for non-compliance, I'd be using this information in my defense.

 

Have CaRT finally, but inadvertantly, defined 'bona-fide navigation'???

 

No, I don't think that they have.

 

They have recognised that a significant number of people who are registered as CCers do no such thing, and that they lack the resources to take enforcement action agains all who are not playing the game.

 

They have identified that around 600 boaters are remaining within the same 3 mile stretch for prolonged periods. These boaters are blatantly not complying

[bowten]

OK, I'll bite.

 

BW wanted (and to a large extent got) a rule that said that by and large people should have home moorings.

 

We could question what their motivations were, but by and large the rule is generally beneficial.

 

• From the BW/CRT POV, it is a cash cow.
• It means that we don't have a mooring free for all with all the best mooring perpetually occupied.

The concession was that for those who genuinely had no use for a home mooring (because they didn't stay in one place), they didn't have to have one.

 

As such, it is reasonable to have rules that require those who don't have a home mooring because they couldn't use one to actually cruise.

 

Where a boater has a home mooring, their cruising will, as a matter of necessity, bring them to the same locations repeatedly. It would be unreasonable to apply the same restrictions to them.

 

So, I have a home mooring at New Mills. There are a limited range of places I can cruise to at a weekend, so it is reasonable for me to be found at Bugsworth on a fairly regular basis.

 

If I had no home mooring on the basis that I was engaged in bona fide navigation (and consequently could not actually USE such a mooring), it would be reasonable to expect that I was NOT at Bugsworth every weekend.

This what we have and I agree with you.

[lesrollins]

And?

 

Is there some magic rule that says that if something is a "way of life" for you Nanny has to hand things to you on a plate

 

There is no magic rule but if you chose to do something ie live on boat then i would say that constitutes a "way of life"

[mayalld]

There is no magic rule but if you chose to do something ie live on boat then i would say that constitutes a "way of life"

 

Yes, it constitutes a way of life.

 

Are you saying that choosing to spend my leisure time on a boat doesn't?

 

The point is that just because you have chosen a "way of life", it does not suddenly create an obligation on any public authority to provide facilities to support that way of life (still less to support any conceivable future development of that way of life).

[lesrollins]

If some cc ers are not abiding by the rules let them get on with it. If someone wants to pay money for a home mooring and decides they are going to use it for residential use whilst cart turns a blind eye who is in the wrong. The cc er or cart you cannot have a rule for one and a rule for another. So make them provide residential moorings instead of intimidating and victimsing people. They need to sort there own rules out before going harrassing others.

[Morat]

That's exactly what there is. (what is your point?) except you have forgotten the two levels of trading license.

 

So the CC license doesn't exist?

 

I haven't forgotten the two levels of trading license, I just don't see that that there is a need for them.

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

BW wanted (and to a large extent got) a rule that said that by and large people should have home moorings.

 

We could question what their motivations were, but by and large the rule is generally beneficial.

 

• From the BW/CRT POV, it is a cash cow.
• It means that we don't have a mooring free for all with all the best mooring perpetually occupied.

The concession was that for those who genuinely had no use for a home mooring (because they didn't stay in one place), they didn't have to have one.

 

As such, it is reasonable to have rules that require those who don't have a home mooring because they couldn't use one to actually cruise.

 

Where a boater has a home mooring, their cruising will, as a matter of necessity, bring them to the same locations repeatedly. It would be unreasonable to apply the same restrictions to them.

 

So, I have a home mooring at New Mills. There are a limited range of places I can cruise to at a weekend, so it is reasonable for me to be found at Bugsworth on a fairly regular basis.

 

If I had no home mooring on the basis that I was engaged in bona fide navigation (and consequently could not actually USE such a mooring), it would be reasonable to expect that I was NOT at Bugsworth every weekend.

 

My scheme didn't include any "anti bridge hopping" rules so the distinction made for those with a home mooring wouldn't be necessary.

It would depend, of course, on effective enforcement of the 14 day rule - and possibly introduction of a way to stop people creating encampments on the towpath - but my central idea is that the same rules should apply to all, apart from hirers who of course won't have their own license.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Morat

[Dave_P]

No, I don't think that they have.

 

They have recognised that a significant number of people who are registered as CCers do no such thing, and that they lack the resources to take enforcement action agains all who are not playing the game.

 

They have identified that around 600 boaters are remaining within the same 3 mile stretch for prolonged periods. These boaters are blatantly not complying

 

I can't agree with you. If they have identified 2000 continuous cruisers as 'the problem', this clearly implies that they don't see other continuous cruisers as a problem. That would include anyone who covers more than 10km per year.

 

To put it another way: if I was a continuous cruiser and did around 100km per year (which isn't really very much), I would be thinking that I would be far, far off th radar of enforcement officers.

 

Or do they mean something different when they say 10km? Maybe they're talking about cruising within a 10km radius, but they don't say that.

[mayalld]

If some cc ers are not abiding by the rules let them get on with it. If someone wants to pay money for a home mooring and decides they are going to use it for residential use whilst cart turns a blind eye who is in the wrong. The cc er or cart you cannot have a rule for one and a rule for another. So make them provide residential moorings instead of intimidating and victimsing people. They need to sort there own rules out before going harrassing others.

 

 

You keep repeating the same demand that CRT should provide residential moorings, yet you have utterly failed to explain why it is their job to do so.

 

Did they stand there in sharp suits saying "roll up, roll up, come and live on the canals, it will be a walk in the park"? or did those who MADE A CHOICE to live on the canals as CCers do so KNOWING that residential moorings were rare and expensive and that they might need one eventually?

 

"Well, I might need a mooring and I can't afford one. Oh never mind, if I do, I'll just bleat that somebody should be responsible for sorting it out for me"

 

You also conveniently ignore that it is not in their gift to create residential moorings as you demand. Residential status is about planning permission, and CRT can't grant that.

 

Perhaps we need a new sentence on the back end of the CCer declaration;

 

"I am a grown up, and I understand the concept of personal responsibility. I know that residential moorings are rare and expensive. I appreciate that circumstances in the future may mean that I need one, and I fully understand that it is up to me to make appropriate provision for this eventuality"

 

I can't agree with you. If they have identified 2000 continuous cruisers as 'the problem', this clearly implies that they don't see other continuous cruisers as a problem. That would include anyone who covers more than 10km per year.

 

To put it another way: if I was a continuous cruiser and did around 100km per year (which isn't really very much), I would be thinking that I would be far, far off th radar of enforcement officers.

 

Or do they mean something different when they say 10km? Maybe they're talking about cruising within a 10km radius, but they don't say that.

 

They do mean that.

 

They mean that starting from the initial observation, the boat has never been observed more that 10km away.

 

Essentially, they have identified that 45% of those registered as CCers are making VERY little effort indeed to comply, and are doing so little that CRT are satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that they could legitimately take action.

 

This isn't a black and white issue.

 

There are "The Problem" (the 2,000 who hardly move at all), "The not a problem" (some unspecified number who cruise far and wide), and "the grey area" (those who do more that 10km, but in some cases not much more)

 

The problem is now so marked that they are only in a position to do anything about the worst offenders.

[Dave_P]

You keep repeating the same demand that CRT should provide residential moorings, yet you have utterly failed to explain why it is their job to do so.

 

Did they stand there in sharp suits saying "roll up, roll up, come and live on the canals, it will be a walk in the park"? or did those who MADE A CHOICE to live on the canals as CCers do so KNOWING that residential moorings were rare and expensive and that they might need one eventually?

 

"Well, I might need a mooring and I can't afford one. Oh never mind, if I do, I'll just bleat that somebody should be responsible for sorting it out for me"

 

You also conveniently ignore that it is not in their gift to create residential moorings as you demand. Residential status is about planning permission, and CRT can't grant that.

 

Perhaps we need a new sentence on the back end of the CCer declaration;

 

"I am a grown up, and I understand the concept of personal responsibility. I know that residential moorings are rare and expensive. I appreciate that circumstances in the future may mean that I need one, and I fully understand that it is up to me to make appropriate provision for this eventuality"

 

You raise a good point because no Navigation Authority in the country acts as a landlord in any way. The question is: should they?

 

Vulnerable people living on land have a safety net: the local authority who have a duty to house local people. Especially if they fall into a vulnerable group. Do continuous cruisers have the same safety net? How easy is it to get housed by a local authority if you don't already permanently live in that authority? To my mind, the simplest solution to this inequality is to require navigation authorities to take more responsibilty for the people who live there. Or course there are many other solutions....

 

It's just not good enough to wash your hands of a vulnerable group by simply blaming them for their own situation. Apart from anything else, it's uncivilised.