petition against the south east mooring proposals

[Guest]

I would say the "on the ground teams " should be given a chance to carry on what they are doing throughout the Summer months(at NO extra expense) otherwise, what has the all effort been for.

 

Got to agree -

[dmr]

That is true and it was due to one woman asking the right questions. Many know who that woman was but suffice it to say Alan himself fairly comprehensively dismissed her recently ;-).

 

I chose not mention said womans name in my post.

I wanted my post to be taken seriously and am aware that any mention of the K&A and several forum members go into silly mode. I dread to think what would happen if I mentioned both the K&A and Panda in the same post!!!!!!!

 

..........Dave (must learn how to do all them smiley face things)

[Chris Pink]

Now look what you've done!!

[Tuscan]

 

I would say the "on the ground teams " should be given a chance to carry on what they are doing throughout the Summer months(at NO extra expense) otherwise, what has the all effort been for.

 

 

Absolutly agree and this is the core message I think we need to get accross on the feedback forms. I understand NABO have also queried what evidence is available to support CRT's claim for this change I wonder what IWA's position is ??

[alan_fincher]

I understand NABO have also queried what evidence is available to support CRT's claim for this change I wonder what IWA's position is ??

Sadly, even if we ignore "mavericks",(like we are now being assured Welch is!), from what I have seen of other IWA policy briefings on the "mooring" topic, (albeit generally relating perhaps more to further South towards London), I think we can probably assume they are far more likely to support most of these proposals than seriously question any of it.

 

I'd dearly like to think I'm wrong, but I fear I am not.

 

Perhaps someone who is a member of the IWA can do as I have already done with NABO - namely to contact them and ask for as much information as they can about their involvement in these proposals when Jeff Whyatt's South East team was consulting with them.

 

I don't imagine the IWA is going to tell me, if I ask!

[Keeping Up]

I'm sure the IWA's position will be exactly what C&RT tells them it should be.

[churchward]

Sadly, even if we ignore "mavericks",(like we are now being assured Welch is!), from what I have seen of other IWA policy briefings on the "mooring" topic, (albeit generally relating perhaps more to further South towards London), I think we can probably assume they are far more likely to support most of these proposals than seriously question any of it.

 

I'd dearly like to think I'm wrong, but I fear I am not.

 

Perhaps someone who is a member of the IWA can do as I have already done with NABO - namely to contact them and ask for as much information as they can about their involvement in these proposals when Jeff Whyatt's South East team was consulting with them.

 

I don't imagine the IWA is going to tell me, if I ask!

I will ask and see what happens.

[cotswoldsman]

Sadly, even if we ignore "mavericks",(like we are now being assured Welch is!), from what I have seen of other IWA policy briefings on the "mooring" topic, (albeit generally relating perhaps more to further South towards London), I think we can probably assume they are far more likely to support most of these proposals than seriously question any of it.

 

I'd dearly like to think I'm wrong, but I fear I am not.

 

Perhaps someone who is a member of the IWA can do as I have already done with NABO - namely to contact them and ask for as much information as they can about their involvement in these proposals when Jeff Whyatt's South East team was consulting with them.

 

I don't imagine the IWA is going to tell me, if I ask!

Maybe you should ask one of our 3 council members how they stand on this issue firstly as a council member and secondly as IWA Trustees and thirdly with one of the other hats they wear.

[alan_fincher]

I will ask and see what happens.

Thank you - that would be very useful.

 

Maybe you should ask one of our 3 council members how they stand on this issue firstly as a council member and secondly as IWA Trustees and thirdly with one of the other hats they wear.

Do you still have one coming to next week's meeting, John?

[churchward]

Thank you - that would be very useful.

Was there a specific text you used to ask NABO I might as well phrase it the same way.

[Tuscan]

Was there a specific text you used to ask NABO I might as well phrase it the same way.

 

 

I have just posted as a seperate topic where NABO stands on this issue so that there is transparency,hopefully IWA may wish to do the same.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Do you still have one coming to next week's meeting, John?

Yes Ivor Caplan will be attending with two of his hats one as Council Member and the other as Midland Wsterways Partnership.

[alan_fincher]

Yes Ivor Caplan will be attending with two of his hats one as Council Member and the other as Midland Wsterways Partnership.

Yes but he is also an IWA trustee, (and indeed RBOA), so I don't think it too cheeky to ask what he thinks when he has those hats on!

[cotswoldsman]

Yes but he is also an IWA trustee, (and indeed RBOA), so I don't think it too cheeky to ask what he thinks when he has those hats on!

And I thought you knew me!!!

 

Oh and Brian fletcher will be there

 

I doubt anyone will mention Vaughan Welch I am sure no one will want to know. How the council or even the midland waterways partnership feel about his opinions on continuous cruisers

[alan_fincher]

Oh and Brian fletcher will be there

David Fletcher ?

[cotswoldsman]

David Fletcher ?

Ah you know me on spelling,grammar and now names!!

[alan_fincher]

Ah you know me on spelling,grammar and now names!!

Not a problem, Ian!

[nicknorman]

Haven't posted on this thread yet for fear of yet another beasting. But here goes......

 

I think the C&RT proposals are OTT. The NABO response is reasonable. However, if you had asked me a few months ago I would probably have had a different view.

 

As has been said, the problem has to be quantified and measured "scientifically" rather than anecdotally, before a solution is defined. This hasn't really happened yet.

 

I think it should be borne in mind that the active members of this forum, and CCers, represent a small or even tiny minority of all boaters. For example I am not aware of another forum poster at our marina (though there are a few lurkers!). The typical "majority" boater has his boat in a marina, and uses it for a few weeks & weekends a year for leisure purposes. However I suspect that like me (until recently), he has the feeling that there is a lot of abuse from CMers and VM abusers, even though that is almost certainly not the case in their area - it is the product of gossip and hearsay. The power of gossip should not be underestimated.

 

So, in contrast to what for example Matty40s said, complaints or opinions sent to C&RT wanting action probably represent the majority not the minority. But that doesn't make them informed or right!

 

Therefore I would reinforce the point that C&RT's primary task at the moment on this subject (apart from continuing their enforcement of the current rules) is to scientifically quantify the extent of the problem and make that information available to (or rather send it to!) the greater boating public. Only then can they start to form an opinion of what the boating community, as a whole, might want them to do.

 

And armed with facts as opposed to gossip, there would probably be less uninformed whinging!

Edited February 4, 2013 by nicknorman

[alan_fincher]

Haven't posted on this thread yet for fear of yet another beasting. But here goes......

Well I'm not in the queue!

 

Seems a pretty fair and balanced post to me.

 

I think it is good for people to be able to say that their attitudes on things have changed over time, so I applaud that.

 

Mine certainly have, as I hope I have taken the trouble to find out more than I once knew, and to understand the situation better.

[matty40s]

 

So, in contrast to what for example Matty40s said, complaints or opinions sent to C&RT wanting action probably represent the majority not the minority. But that doesn't make them informed or right!

 

Therefore I would reinforce the point that C&RT's primary task at the moment on this subject (apart from continuing their enforcement of the current rules) is to scientifically quantify the extent of the problem and make that information available to (or rather send it to!) the greater boating public. Only then can they start to form an opinion of what the boating community, as a whole, might want them to do.

 

And armed with facts as opposed to gossip, there would probably be less uninformed whinging!

I agree entirely Nick and your comments back up my thoughts, there are far more complaints going in (from a very small group(s) than is a relevant view of reality.

My point of view is taken from 364 days a year on the canals all over the place, moving boats, working on boats over a large area, and then maybe taking piccies around the system on days off.

I do cover several routes on the Midlands/SE routes frequently, and have seen massive strides taken by the enforcement teams(and have passed this back to them)

[nicknorman]

I agree entirely Nick and your comments back up my thoughts, there are far more complaints going in (from a very small group(s) than is a relevant view of reality.

My point of view is taken from 364 days a year on the canals all over the place, moving boats, working on boats over a large area, and then maybe taking piccies around the system on days off.

I do cover several routes on the Midlands/SE routes frequently, and have seen massive strides taken by the enforcement teams(and have passed this back to them)

Well that wasn't quite my point -ref your bit in red. I suspect it may be the majority view even though its probably wrong. Therefore the task may be to educate the majority on the true situation.

[Tuscan]

I agree entirely Nick and your comments back up my thoughts, there are far more complaints going in (from a very small group(s) than is a relevant view of reality.

My point of view is taken from 364 days a year on the canals all over the place, moving boats, working on boats over a large area, and then maybe taking piccies around the system on days off.

I do cover several routes on the Midlands/SE routes frequently, and have seen massive strides taken by the enforcement teams(and have passed this back to them)

 

 

A good post Nick and like you my view has been effected by further research and the views of others on here.

[alan_fincher]

Absolutly agree and this is the core message I think we need to get accross on the feedback forms. I understand NABO have also queried what evidence is available to support CRT's claim for this change I wonder what IWA's position is ??

 

 

I will ask and see what happens.

 

For reference, and I know this was ostensibly written about the London area.....

 

IWA Document - Proposal For Reducing Overstaying Boats In The London Area

 

However please note that it actually says......

 

It is proposed that eventually the London control zone should start at the top of Marsworth Flight on the GU and cover all the GU and its branches, it would extend to Hartford and Bishop Stortford on the Lee & Stort Navigation and Hampton Court on the River Thames

[cloggy]

For reference, and I know this was ostensibly written about the London area.....

 

IWA Document - Proposal For Reducing Overstaying Boats In The London Area

 

However please note that it actually says......

What made me chuckle about the IWA proposals is that 3 years ago the author of the document left his boat on the VM at Uxbridge for over 3 weeks.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cloggy

[churchward]

For reference, and I know this was ostensibly written about the London area.....

 

IWA Document - Proposal For Reducing Overstaying Boats In The London Area

 

However please note that it actually says......

I have seen that document before. I have written to the IWA national contact and my local branch (Northampton) and am waiting for an answer.