petition against the south east mooring proposals

[Paul C]

There's some valid comments/opinions on the "reasons for signing" area of the online petition but I suspect C&RT won't collate any views except those received on the official feedback form. So there is a danger that objectors feel they have done their bit by signing the petition and writing something there. When in fact, C&RT won't recognise this feedback. Its quite possible that a workable solution can be reached by engaging in intelligent dialogue with C&RT about this matter, as others have suggested (eg Alan Fincher has encouraged everyone to write feedback on the official method).

 

Unless there was a massive amount of signatories, C&RT will be able to ignore this.

[casper ghost]

Signed...

Casp'

[Guest]

There's some valid comments/opinions on the "reasons for signing" area of the online petition but I suspect C&RT won't collate any views except those received on the official feedback form. So there is a danger that objectors feel they have done their bit by signing the petition and writing something there. When in fact, C&RT won't recognise this feedback. Its quite possible that a workable solution can be reached by engaging in intelligent dialogue with C&RT about this matter, as others have suggested (eg Alan Fincher has encouraged everyone to write feedback on the official method).

 

Unless there was a massive amount of signatories, C&RT will be able to ignore this.

 

Agreed - but it's a case of covering all bases and every little helps as they say.

 

I've done both.

 

..

Edited January 31, 2013 by The Dog House

[jenlyn]

There's some valid comments/opinions on the "reasons for signing" area of the online petition but I suspect C&RT won't collate any views except those received on the official feedback form. So there is a danger that objectors feel they have done their bit by signing the petition and writing something there. When in fact, C&RT won't recognise this feedback. Its quite possible that a workable solution can be reached by engaging in intelligent dialogue with C&RT about this matter, as others have suggested (eg Alan Fincher has encouraged everyone to write feedback on the official method).

 

Unless there was a massive amount of signatories, C&RT will be able to ignore this.

You have a habit of underestimating me. Also, all these things add up to proof that many feel the proposals are wrong and unnecessary. Merely tools for evidence in discussions. Do some research on this, its not as clear cut as some would like you to believe.

[alan_fincher]

(eg Alan Fincher has encouraged everyone to write feedback on the official method).

Actually, if he is honest, Alan Fincher is now feeling he has been heading down a few blind alleys, and with few successes.

 

I have been trying to ask CRT what I thought are very pertinent questions, if this must go ahead in some form.

 

Such as....

 

1) What about hire boats

2) Why mark areas where mooring is currently permitted as "no mooring" if the proposal is genuinely about increasing chances of visiting boaters finding a visitor mooring.

3) How will this be "policed" - by paying for more checkers, or by volunteers.

 

However after getting not too far on this, (I have answers to some questions, but not ones I find satisfactory, frankly), conversation with other people now makes me realise I have failed so far to ask the most significant question of all, namely "why is most of this necessary at all, and who is pressuring you hard to make it happen".

 

The consultation document says what they propose, but not anywhere why it has to be done, as we have already said several times, and I think that is what Steve is attempting to highlight with his petition.

 

So actually, I do have a lot of sympathy with a view that says they should be asked to drop it completely, unless they can give supporting evidence for the reasons why it is necessary. At the moment we have heard nothing on that topic beyond "we get a lot of complaints", but when that was said at a meeting in Milton Keynes they would not be drawn on how many complaints, or who is making them.

Edited January 31, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Dovetail]

Ive had my number recordered while still moving, Would this constitute as 1 day.

 

Had the same thing a couple of weeks ago I was moving along happily and this chap stopped his bike double quick time and logged my boat we exchanged waves and a smile. One thing I noticed was the GPS thingy is now a lot bigger than my previous contacts.

[oarfish]

For me the problem on the South Oxford is a decaying bankside coupled with lack of dredging. There needs to be more moorings with rings, not more restrictions. I feel terrible boating up there, the bankside is in such a state you are just ruining it further by using pins.

 

This. Combined with the permanent moorings and 'conservation' areas there are a tiny number of moorings in and around Oxford. When we came off the Thames on red boards last november the area was rammed with boats mostly waiting to get on the river. I don't particularly fancy having to cough up £25 a day for the privilege of not slamming into Osney bridge.

 

Signed.

Edited January 31, 2013 by oarfish

[Chris Pink]

Actually, if he is honest, Alan Fincher is now feeling he has been heading down a few blind alleys, and with few successes.

 

I have been trying to ask CRT what I thought are very pertinent questions, if this must go ahead in some form.

 

Such as....

 

1) What about hire boats

2) Why mark areas where mooring is currently permitted as "no mooring" if the proposal is genuinely about increasing chances of visiting boaters finding a visitor mooring.

3) How will this be "policed" - by paying for more checkers, or by volunteers.

 

However after getting not too far on this, (I have answers to some questions, but not ones I find satisfactory, frankly), conversation with other people now makes me realise I have failed so far to ask the most significant question of all, namely "why is most of this necessary at all, and who is pressuring you hard to make it happen".

 

The consultation document says what they propose, but not anywhere why it has to be done, as we have already said several times, and I think that is what Steve is attempting to highlight with his petition.

 

So actually, I do have a lot of sympathy with a view that says they should be asked to drop it completely, unless they can give supporting evidence for the reasons why it is necessary. At the moment we have heard nothing on that topic beyond "we get a lot of complaints", but when that was said at a meeting in Milton Keynes they would not be drawn on how many complaints, or who is making them.

 

I do keep banging on about this but the way to find the data is to put in FOI requests.

 

They will have data on complaints by area and who is making them (they won't give names but enough information to see how many are serial complainers).

 

This will show whether they have anything to back this assertion or not.

[Paul C]

Actually, if he is honest, Alan Fincher is now feeling he has been heading down a few blind alleys, and with few successes.

 

I have been trying to ask CRT what I thought are very pertinent questions, if this must go ahead in some form.

 

Such as....

 

1) What about hire boats

2) Why mark areas where mooring is currently permitted as "no mooring" if the proposal is genuinely about increasing chances of visiting boaters finding a visitor mooring.

3) How will this be "policed" - by paying for more checkers, or by volunteers.

 

However after getting not too far on this, (I have answers to some questions, but not ones I find satisfactory, frankly), conversation with other people now makes me realise I have failed so far to ask the most significant question of all, namely "why is most of this necessary at all, and who is pressuring you hard to make it happen".

 

The consultation document says what they propose, but not anywhere why it has to be done, as we have already said several times, and I think that is what Steve is attempting to highlight with his petition.

 

So actually, I do have a lot of sympathy with a view that says they should be asked to drop it completely, unless they can give supporting evidence for the reasons why it is necessary. At the moment we have heard nothing on that topic beyond "we get a lot of complaints", but when that was said at a meeting in Milton Keynes they would not be drawn on how many complaints, or who is making them.

 

Do you think its reasonable that if you yourself made a complaint about an aspect of the waterways to C&RT, that this information (including your name) could be given out freely to others?

[jenlyn]

Do you think its reasonable that if you yourself made a complaint about an aspect of the waterways to C&RT, that this information (including your name) could be given out freely to others?

Why are you including the "your name" bit? What a silly post.

[Paul C]

Because Alan said "....or who is making them".

[Chris Pink]

They are not allowed to give your name or the boat(s) you complained about. But they have to say that you complained, what you complained about and how many other times you have complained. Ie all personal information is redacted.

 

What did you complain about?

[jenlyn]

Because Alan said "....or who is making them".

Yep, yep, o o o k.

I dont really think he meant name them, do you?

Edited January 31, 2013 by jenlyn

[Wanted]

Done, shared and happy to have done so.

[jenlyn]

Done, shared and happy to have done so.

[alan_fincher]

Do you think its reasonable that if you yourself made a complaint about an aspect of the waterways to C&RT, that this information (including your name) could be given out freely to others?

No, and I wouldn't expect them to name individual complainants.

 

But it is surely acceptable to say (for example) we have had 12 complaints relating to Visitor Moorings at Stoke Bruerne in the last year, 5 were from private baoters, 4 from hire companies, 2 from local residents and 1 from an angler.

 

Urged on by Chris, and noting that if they actually adhered to a 20 day response time, I should have an answer before the consultation closes on 1st March, I have now raised an FOI request.

 

Whatdotheyknow.com FOI Request Link

[Paul C]

Agreed, fair enough if they are made non-identifiable. That might not be so simple if its hire firms complaining, since with so few in a particular area, one might be able to deduce it. I guess its a balance between confidentiality (which if it were not to be upheld, lead to legal issues; or valid complaints not being aired) and the rights of everyone to know background information on a proposal.

[Tuscan]

I wonder how many FOI requests they get a year and how much they cost to respond to. Got to be easier to respond to queries . I assume they also have some statistics on usage, overstaying etc from their own patrol guys.

[alan_fincher]

I wonder how many FOI requests they get a year and how much they cost to respond to. Got to be easier to respond to queries . I assume they also have some statistics on usage, overstaying etc from their own patrol guys.

I don't really see why it should be harder, (or more costly), to respond to an FOI request than any other electronically raised request for the same information.

 

The effort to actually collate and supply the answer is surely the same? There doesn't seem to be any great bureaucracy assosciated with the process, and I could rattle off the request as fast as an e-mail.

 

I have thought hard about doing this, but any dialogue I have tried to have by e-mail has so far only really provided answers that they have preferred to leave things vague, and see what the consultation feedback is without fleshing out any more of what they propose.

 

Additionally, at the boaters meeting at Milton Keynes last year we did try asking about the actual data that was driving the perceived need for these changes, but were not given any insight into the numbers or types of complaints that they are actually a reaction to - I had dearly hoped the consultation document might contain some of the "why" as well as the "what", but it adds nothing at all about the drivers for this.

 

I realise that resorting to an FOI request might antagonise attempts at a friendly working relationship with CRT over this consultation, so its not actually a route I was keen to have to go down.

 

However I just took a fairly impromptu decision to get it submitted now, in the hope I might get an answer before the closing date for feedback on the proposals.

 

In practice, I have probably already left it too fine, as I have failed to allow enough working days. The site lists my request as for response by 28th Feb, so that is a bit tight for March 1st - I actually wish I had done this sooner now!

 

(Although Allan Richards will no doubt be along in a minute to say BW/CRT seldom manage to respond to any FOI request within the 20 working days they should do, anyway! )

 

EDIT:

 

Sorry forgot - it is easy to see how many FOI requests they get, just by looking at the site - for CRT it seems to be 59 to date.

 

The cost of answering one persons questions was of course the subject of an FOI request in its own right.....

 

FOI Request Link

Edited January 31, 2013 by alan_fincher

[Skye]

Well I've read the 12 page proposal, I can not find any reasons for the proposal in it. There is a 5 or 6 line reasoning (I say tongue in cheek)prior to the on line response. Could one complainant want a quick turn round of people who moor in this area(and win a £25 voucher from Sainsbury's).

 

Sadly your petition will be given the same weight as one person complaining, I will sign it but, the best way is to fill in their own response form, as this is what they will be looking at, not necessarily taking any notice of but certainly looking at.

 

David

 

Petition signed

Edited February 1, 2013 by Skye

[cotswoldsman]

I wonder how many FOI requests they get a year and how much they cost to respond to. Got to be easier to respond to queries . I assume they also have some statistics on usage, overstaying etc from their own patrol guys.

 

In this case it should not cost anything and the reply should be instant as they must have the information to hand having used it to draw up the consultation document.

[Tuscan]

I don't really see why it should be harder, (or more costly), to respond to an FOI request than any other electronically raised request for the same information.

 

The effort to actually collate and supply the answer is surely the same? There doesn't seem to be any great bureaucracy assosciated with the process, and I could rattle off the request as fast as an e-mail.

 

I have thought hard about doing this, but any dialogue I have tried to have by e-mail has so far only really provided answers that they have preferred to leave things vague, and see what the consultation feedback is without fleshing out any more of what they propose.

 

Additionally, at the boaters meeting at Milton Keynes last year we did try asking about the actual data that was driving the perceived need for these changes, but were not given any insight into the numbers or types of complaints that they are actually a reaction to - I had dearly hoped the consultation document might contain some of the "why" as well as the "what", but it adds nothing at all about the drivers for this.

 

I realise that resorting to an FOI request might antagonise attempts at a friendly working relationship with CRT over this consultation, so its not actually a route I was keen to have to go down.

 

However I just took a fairly impromptu decision to get it submitted now, in the hope I might get an answer before the closing date for feedback on the proposals.

 

In practice, I have probably already left it too fine, as I have failed to allow enough working days. The site lists my request as for response by 28th Feb, so that is a bit tight for March 1st - I actually wish I had done this sooner now!

 

(Although Allan Richards will no doubt be along in a minute to say BW/CRT seldom manage to respond to any FOI request within the 20 working days they should do, anyway! )

 

EDIT:

 

Sorry forgot - it is easy to see how many FOI requests they get, just by looking at the site - for CRT it seems to be 59 to date.

 

The cost of answering one persons questions was of course the subject of an FOI request in its own right.....

 

FOI Request Link

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was not to criticise The FOI request but that it has got to be easier and less hassle for them to respond to the queries received by people like your good self. On re reading I can see that it might be inferred differently for which I can only blame the red wine. I think they are consulting which is a good thing and needs to be encouraged and it will be interesting to see if they acknowledge the feedback they get or better still react to it. Many I suspect will agree with the proposal given the recent IWA push but people tend to respond less if positive.

 

If however it is shown they have gone to consultation without any research or facts to back their proposal then the good will they had built up by attending these recent meetings will be seriously damaged in my view

Edited February 1, 2013 by Tuscan

[johnthebridge]

 

 

The cost of answering one persons questions was of course the subject of an FOI request in its own right.....

 

FOI Request Link

 

 

Hmmm-Tommasina Crosli(Ms)----- Tom Crossley? Shome mishtake, shurely?

[blodger]

No, and I wouldn't expect them to name individual complainants.

 

But it is surely acceptable to say (for example) we have had 12 complaints relating to Visitor Moorings at Stoke Bruerne in the last year, 5 were from private baoters, 4 from hire companies, 2 from local residents and 1 from an angler.

 

Urged on by Chris, and noting that if they actually adhered to a 20 day response time, I should have an answer before the consultation closes on 1st March, I have now raised an FOI request.

 

Whatdotheyknow.com FOI Request Link

 

Spot on hence greenie. Signed petition. Cannot see what it is fixing plus makes weekending the boat around down there more problematic or impossible.

[Lesd]

No, and I wouldn't expect them to name individual complainants.

 

But it is surely acceptable to say (for example) we have had 12 complaints relating to Visitor Moorings at Stoke Bruerne in the last year, 5 were from private baoters, 4 from hire companies, 2 from local residents and 1 from an angler.

 

Urged on by Chris, and noting that if they actually adhered to a 20 day response time, I should have an answer before the consultation closes on 1st March, I have now raised an FOI request.

 

Whatdotheyknow.com FOI Request Link

 

Well done Alan, I'll be waiting to see the results before submitting my form.

Les