South East Mooring Proposals - As Discussed At The Midlands Meeting

[alan_fincher]

Some people seem to think it is important not to divert about the Midlands meeting into further discussion of the South East moorings proposals.

 

I can also understand why some may have been frustrated this got discussed at all, or if so, why much time was spent on it at the Midlands meeting.

 

In deference to those people, I have split the discussion into a new thread - I just hope it doesn't get too confusing now!

 

(If you don't care about the proposals, simply stop reading now.)

 

However most of us involved in these discussions firmly believe it has a far wider significance than the 22 sites listed, as CRT are happy to accept that if implemented and they believe working, it is the likely basis of solutions for perceived visitor mooring problems elsewhere.

 

So, as John said, if not resisted, probably "coming to a canal near you soon!" Where you can currently tie up legitimately for 14 days, it may in future be only 2 days, with £25 per day overstay charges thereafter.

 

Odd though that at the meeting I did not hear anyone talking about the IWA at all. When we were speaking about the mooring proposals it was hire companies that seem to crop up in explanation of where the feedback was coming from and driving the CRT to change VMs.

Yes,

 

This very much demonstratives my concern about our attempts to find out who really is driving this, and the lack of satisfactory answers received.

 

Not just on Thursday in Birmingham, but also in London on Tuesday, Sally Ash was increasingly implying hire boat companies form much of the pressure to act - specifically on Tuesday she used the phrase "the marine trade and hire companies".

 

But CRT seem to see the fact that at least 3 of the sites in the proposal are never regularly visited by hire boats at all, (and that is, I stress NOT because you can't tie up there!), as a detail that can be dismissed, or just pointed out in your feedback for those sites.

 

Yet on Wednesday of last week at Hatton, when called in to brief the waterways press Sally Ash said both of the following.....

 

1) They are disappointed that people are not prepared to just take the proposal at face value, and are looking for ulterior motives.

 

then subsequently

 

2) CRT are under pressure from the IWA to actually have something in place at the priority sites before the start of the summer season.

 

These are both statements that any of those present could put in an article in any of the waterways magazines, (although I expect they will not!).

 

Basically I have no idea what the actual balance is between all the reasons given, because they are just generic and fairly meaningless statements, with no evidence to support them.

 

And yet CRT would like me to withdraw my FOI request as unhelpful.

 

If I hacked anybody at the meeting off, (other than CRT!), for being a bit too passionate about this, then please accept my belated apologies.

 

I actually think it is terribly important that as CRT continue to preach that they want to be open and communicate, that they actually do so, rather than pay it lip service. On this particular topic I believe we have been largely stone-walled ever since the paper first came out.

 

I simply don't understand if "there is no ulterior motive" why CRT can't just answer some of the questions. Or, if they don't have evidence to support their plans, to be man enough to admit it.

[Rebotco]

 

 

However most of us involved in these discussions firmly believe it has a far wider significance than the 22 sites listed, as CRT are happy to accept that if implemented and they believe working, it is the likely basis of solutions for perceived visitor mooring problems elsewhere.

 

This is a problem itself - if there are no statistics to justify the "problem", it cannot be measured to prove or disprove whether it is a success or failure. One wonders if that is the reason CART cannot or will not measure the problem first.

 

 

 

And yet CRT would like me to withdraw my FOI request as unhelpful.

 

It may well be unhelpful to them! But surely the purpose of CART's existence is to help users (payers) of the canal system, not their own convenience.

[matty40s]

It IS a Midlands issue, one of those 22 sites is Foxton Locks, and if that isn't Midlands then I might as well come from Yorkshire (eek"!!).

 

We got no answers as to why , if moorings are so scarce, that the proposals are removing perfectly good moorings completely in Berkhamsted.

 

The IWA tail is wagging the CaRT dog, and people like Vaughan Welch, Clive Henderson etc are using their high profile position to get what they want........they have already published their London Moorings Proposals which no doubt has saved Sally et al a lot of work.

[cotswoldsman]

Thank you for that Alan

 

I guess I might start off by saying why I was happy to join jenlyn in trying to organise these meetings where Boaters were given the opportunity to discuss with The Trust matters that concern them and in turn for The Trust to update Boaters on what they were doing. I started my boating fairly recently compared to some 7 years ago and from the very start I felt I had found something that had been missing from my life for many years. A life where I could do more or less as I wished (withing certain rules) not have to worry about the changing world outside to much.

So why does the SE Mooring Consultation bother me? Well I have visited the area on my travels and will visit again in the near future. What we have here with this consultation is some major changes to the moorings in a specific area based on very little evidence (well in my opinion none). Like Alan I think this has been driven by The Hire Boat Industry and the IWA. So I have to ask myself two questions who is The canal System run by? Secondly how is it possible that 2 groups that do not represent the majority of boaters can be so influential in making changes?and this makes me think the answer to my first question is that the canals are run by whoever shouts the loudest and the longest. I don't want the life I enjoy changed by the minority. I still believe that these things should happen because it is what the majority need and want.

I have no problem with Visitor Moorings being changed because there is a need and maybe The South East does need some changes but please ensure that these changes are done with proper thought and facts. To just change a complete section of moorings without knowing what the end result is just does not make sense. How can closing a section of canal completely to no mooring help provide the much needed moorings they say are required?

Does it matter? Yes it does matter because change needs to be thought out properly.

[David Schweizer]

I may be being dim, but am I correct in understanding the current proposals to reduce existing 14 or 7 day moorings to 48 hour mooring will only apply to selected locations where signage already exists, but that the general provision of permitting up to 14 days mooring on the towpath where there are no restriction notices will continue.

 

If my assumption is correct, the main consequence that I can see is that it could force those boats, which currently monopolise the signed 14 day moorings, to move out to the less crowded unsingned locations in more rural locations. This could have a negative impact for those who prefer the more isolated mooring locations, but would benefit those who wished to stay overnight at poular locations.

 

Swings and roundabouts, or have I missed something?

Edited February 16, 2013 by David Schweizer

[churchward]

I think the likely answer to who is causing CRT to make the proposal is a number of sources and some within CRT for good measure.

 

I think it suits CRT if the definitions of VMs and the consequences of overstaying are clarified and understood by all and particularly deter overstaying. In principle I would agree with this. Therefore any outside influence is probably pushing on an open door.

 

The IWA clearly wish overstaying (as a national policy) to be tackled by CRT and The VM proposal is a possible means to help this policy. More locally it is not surprising that there are varying views on the issue and how this can be tackled. Ranging from the unhelpful Mr Welch to in my local area just wanting good management and monitoring of the present situation and rules following on from the success of cracking down on license evasion.

 

The hire companies would like more VMs and for them to be available to their customers.

 

The traditional user groups BW and CRT have used also have inputed to this.

 

However, in terms of what we need to do going forward I am not sure it matters how CRT arrived at the proposal. The fact is it exists people need to respond to the consultation and let them know what we think and what alternatives may be available.

 

Another point is that there does appear to be some acceptance that the issue of overstaying does in fact exist John did concede that point at the meeting ie agreeing that 2000 boats aprox are overstayers. Now it is true that changing VMs will not make that issue go away but some kind of clarification might help to minimise the impact of the problem in those popular areas where VMs exist.

Edited February 16, 2013 by churchward

[Tuscan]

Surely it's pretty clear now that CRT can produce no evidence gathered by there own staff to support their proposals, in fact they now seem to want to introduce these changes and then produce the evidence by daily inspections which will only prove that the Visitor Moorngs are full in the summer. There will always be those that overstay do CRT seriously think that the prospect of a fine that they are unlikely to want to collect is going to deter them.

 

Perhaps rather than be accused of hijacking other meetings it would be a good idea to have a meeting in the SE solely to discuss this consultation. Time is short but I would be up for attending or help if need be. Perhaps we could get some stats from the specific sites all on the same day to produce our own evidence.

[churchward]

Thank you for that Alan

 

I guess I might start off by saying why I was happy to join jenlyn in trying to organise these meetings where Boaters were given the opportunity to discuss with The Trust matters that concern them and in turn for The Trust to update Boaters on what they were doing. I started my boating fairly recently compared to some 7 years ago and from the very start I felt I had found something that had been missing from my life for many years. A life where I could do more or less as I wished (withing certain rules) not have to worry about the changing world outside to much.

So why does the SE Mooring Consultation bother me? Well I have visited the area on my travels and will visit again in the near future. What we have here with this consultation is some major changes to the moorings in a specific area based on very little evidence (well in my opinion none). Like Alan I think this has been driven by The Hire Boat Industry and the IWA. So I have to ask myself two questions who is The canal System run by? Secondly how is it possible that 2 groups that do not represent the majority of boaters can be so influential in making changes?and this makes me think the answer to my first question is that the canals are run by whoever shouts the loudest and the longest. I don't want the life I enjoy changed by the minority. I still believe that these things should happen because it is what the majority need and want.

I have no problem with Visitor Moorings being changed because there is a need and maybe The South East does need some changes but please ensure that these changes are done with proper thought and facts. To just change a complete section of moorings without knowing what the end result is just does not make sense. How can closing a section of canal completely to no mooring help provide the much needed moorings they say are required?

Does it matter? Yes it does matter because change needs to be thought out properly.

I agree there needs to be fair representation of views and input to any proposal. However I do have an issue with down playing the legitimate representation of existing groups. Let us not kid ourselves that you I and anyone else that attends these meetings are representing the complete or majority boaters view. It is a great means for the opinions to be sought but this is no more valid than other organisations who have an opinion and stake in the outcome like NABO, RBOA or indeed the IWA all of which may not have the majority of boaters as membership they do have a significant minority either on their own and certainly collectively.

[cotswoldsman]

I think the likely answer to who is causing CRT to make the proposal is a number of sources and some within CRT for good measure.

 

I think it suits CRT if the definitions of VMs and the consequences of overstaying are clarified and understood by all and particularly deter overstaying. In principle I would agree with this. Therefore any outside influence is probably pushing on an open door.

 

The IWA clearly wish overstaying (as a national policy) to be tackled by CRT and The VM proposal is a possible means to help this policy. More locally it is not surprising that there are varying views on the issue and how this can be tackled. Ranging from the unhelpful Mr Welch to in my local area just wanting good management and monitoring of the present situation and rules following on from the success of cracking down on license evasion.

 

The hire companies would like more VMs and for them to be available to their customers.

 

The traditional user groups BW and CRT have used also have inputed to this.

 

However, in terms of what we need to do going forward I am not sure it matters how CRT arrived at the proposal. The fact is it exists people need to respond to the consultation and let them know what we think and what alternatives may be available.

 

Another point is that there does appear to be some acceptance that the issue of overstaying does in fact exist John did concede that point at the meeting ie agreeing that 2000 boats aprox are overstayers. Now it is true that changing VMs will not make that issue go away but some kind of clarification might help to minimise the impact of the problem in those popular areas where VMs exist.

 

I was quoting The Trust figures with the 2,000 but if they are correct changing Visitor Moorings does not make that number go away. I would support proper enforcement 100% and until that comes in we will never fully understand the problem. Another slight correction I did say the 2,000 boats were Non Compliant Boaters that is very different to saying they are overstayers it simply means that The Trust have identified them as not complying with the Trust's interpretation of the rules covering there licence in distance traveled in one 6 month period.

 

I agree there needs to be fair representation of views and input to any proposal. However I do have an issue with down playing the legitimate representation of existing groups. Let us not kid ourselves that you I and anyone else that attends these meetings are representing the complete or majority boaters view. It is a great means for the opinions to be sought but this is no more valid than other organisations who have an opinion and stake in the outcome like NABO, RBOA or indeed the IWA all of which may not have the majority of boaters as membership they do have a significant minority either on their own and certainly collectively.

 

I am not saying that the people who attend these meetings represent the majority infact far from it what I am saying is that other boaters are given their chance to express their views. A lot of the people who attend these meetings are also members of these groups. What I am saying is that I am not happy with certain groups being able to influence policy to the degree they do and it is important that the views of all boaters is heard. These meetings are open to anyone that wishes to attend and when anyone speaks it is accepted that they speak for themselves.

[Chris Pink]

It seems that if CRT continue without the basics of planning; define your problem, measure to test your statement, propose changes, consult, modify, implement, measure results, with feedback at each stage to the previous then the regime they implement will be ignored and sabotaged.

[churchward]

I was quoting The Trust figures with the 2,000 but if they are correct changing Visitor Moorings does not make that number go away. I would support proper enforcement 100% and until that comes in we will never fully understand the problem. Another slight correction I did say the 2,000 boats were Non Compliant Boaters that is very different to saying they are overstayers it simply means that The Trust have identified them as not complying with the Trust's interpretation of the rules covering there licence in distance traveled in one 6 month period.

 

 

 

I am not saying that the people who attend these meetings represent the majority infact far from it what I am saying is that other boaters are given their chance to express their views. A lot of the people who attend these meetings are also members of these groups. What I am saying is that I am not happy with certain groups being able to influence policy to the degree they do and it is important that the views of all boaters is heard. These meetings are open to anyone that wishes to attend and when anyone speaks it is accepted that they speak for themselves.

Good. I am glad you see it that way. But the point of these organisations is to promote its aims and maximise the voice of its membership.

[davey b]

I was quoting The Trust figures with the 2,000 but if they are correct changing Visitor Moorings does not make that number go away. I would support proper enforcement 100% and until that comes in we will never fully understand the problem. Another slight correction I did say the 2,000 boats were Non Compliant Boaters that is very different to saying they are overstayers it simply means that The Trust have identified them as not complying with the Trust's interpretation of the rules covering their licence in distance travelled in one 6 month period.

 

 

This is precisely the point I have made in my reply to the consultation.

 

The introduction of the off the road notice for uninsured vehicles has not reduce the number of uninsured drivers, just missed the point entirely but showed someone doing something - which is what CRT are doing to pacify the IWA and Hire Boat Operators (if they are the true instigators of this plan; no doubt their membership will benefit but no-one has proven this information).

 

This is a barefaced attempt to introduce a charging system for all visitor moorings to raise revenue.

[Smelly]

 

 

This is a barefaced attempt to introduce a charging system for all visitor moorings to raise revenue.

 

I wholeheartedly agree and believe it should be thoroughly resisted.

[GUMPY]

I may be being dim, but am I correct in understanding the current proposals to reduce existing 14 or 7 day moorings to 48 hour mooring will only apply to selected locations where signage already exists, but that the general provision of permitting up to 14 days mooring on the towpath where there are no restriction notices will continue.

 

If my assumption is correct, the main consequence that I can see is that it could force those boats, which currently monopolise the signed 14 day moorings, to move out to the less crowded unsingned locations in more rural locations. This could have a negative impact for those who prefer the more isolated mooring locations, but would benefit those who wished to stay overnight at poular locations.

 

Swings and roundabouts, or have I missed something?

That is how read it as well so either we are being thick or everyone else is reading in things that arnt there.

Personally having a VM at 14 days is daft IMO I did used to think 7 days but am coming to believe 48hr is the way to go.

I know who is behind this and have given specific clues on here but its as usual been drowned in the noise!

 

I wholeheartedly agree and believe it should be thoroughly resisted.

Why landowners charge on other navigations why not on canals.

There is plenty of room other than on VM

[Lady Muck]

It seems that if CRT continue without the basics of planning; define your problem, measure to test your statement, propose changes, consult, modify, implement, measure results, with feedback at each stage to the previous then the regime they implement will be ignored and sabotaged.

And they will never gain the trust of we, the boaters, who should really be their supporters. A very dangerous game to play. Shows a total lack of respect.

[alan_fincher]

I may be being dim, but am I correct in understanding the current proposals to reduce existing 14 or 7 day moorings to 48 hour mooring will only apply to selected locations where signage already exists, but that the general provision of permitting up to 14 days mooring on the towpath where there are no restriction notices will continue.

 

If my assumption is correct, the main consequence that I can see is that it could force those boats, which currently monopolise the signed 14 day moorings, to move out to the less crowded unsingned locations in more rural locations. This could have a negative impact for those who prefer the more isolated mooring locations, but would benefit those who wished to stay overnight at poular locations.

 

Swings and roundabouts, or have I missed something?

You have, and you haven't!........

 

I'll come back to my Berkhamsted example.

 

CRT wish to change what is currently one mile of 14 day mooring to 0.8 miles of 48 hour mooring, and 0.2 miles of no mooring at all.

 

They will charge £25 for each day beyond the first two, and have not suggested it will be at certain times of the year only.

 

The strong suspicion is that they must be doing this to cause somewhere between (I would say) 5 and 10 boats that currently overstay somewhere in that one mile to look for somewhere else to overstay.

 

However, if full 0.8 miles of mooring are made 48 hours, and fully policed, for much of the year it will stand very much mostly empty, as there is no way boat numbers passing through the town will normally ever produce anything approaching full occupancy.

 

Genuine CC-ers, such as John will not be able to spend more than 2 days without paying, even if most of the bank is free.

 

The current 5 to 10 boats that are probably the background to this degree of overkill will either still overstay, knowing CRT has little hope of collecting the charge, and hoping the whole thing will quickly fall into disrepute, or may simply give up the struggle and move on to more of those out of town locations. These may well be some of the locations that people like "Idleness" are already familiar with, some of which CRT has actually cleared out in the recent past (!)

Edited February 16, 2013 by alan_fincher

[GUMPY]

Using yourBerko example I cant see the problem you are alluding to

Mooring above gas2 will still be 14day

And down below bank mill as I belive its only above the footbridge that will be restricted.

And lets face it one of those boats targeted has been moored in the area pretty much in one spot (outside the crystal palace) for the best part of 20 years.

I would also think that the moorings will be offered as winter moorings as well rather than the ones above lock 57.

Me I have no problem with it.

I would think that Berko is a prime target for the hire boat company concerned for obvious reasons.

[David Schweizer]

You have, and you haven't!........

 

I'll come back to my Berkhamsted example.

 

CRT wish to change what is currently one mile of 14 day mooring to 0.8 miles of 48 hour mooring, and 0.2 miles of no mooring at all.

 

They will charge £25 for each day beyond the first two, and have not suggested it will be at certain times of the year only.

 

The strong suspicion is that they must be doing this to cause somewhere between (I would say) 5 and 10 boats that currently overstay somewhere in that one mile to look for somewhere else to overstay.

 

However, if full 0.8 miles of mooring are made 48 hours, and fully policed, for much of the year it will stand very much mostly empty, as there is no way boat numbers passing through the town will normally ever produce anything approaching full occupancy.

 

Genuine CC-ers, such as John will not be able to spend more than 2 days without paying, even if most of the bank is free.

 

The current 5 to 10 boats that are probably the background to this degree of overkill will either still overstay, knowing CRT has little hope of collecting the charge, and hoping the whole thing will quickly fall into disrepute, or may simply give up the struggle and move on to more of those out of town locations. These may well be some of the locations that people like "Idleness" are already familiar with, some of which CRT has actually cleared out in the recent past (!)

It is some years since I have been through Berkhamsted, and without knowing which one mile stretch you are referring to, it is difficult for me to make a definitive response, but if it is the section I believe it to be, adjacent to a park or public grassed area, I have moored there on more than one occasion, but it was fairly full and, at that time, there was no evidence of anyone staying there long term.

 

I am aware that some people will not moor close to boats which are clearly being lived on because of the potential for one of them starting up a noisy generator when they get home from work, and running it all evening. If cruising boaters are reluctant to moor overnight because of that concern, the stretch will be comaratively empty apart from the continuous overstayers, again swings and roundabouts.

[Ray]

My problem with all of this is that it appears someone, somewhere (or more than one) have complained about visitor moorings being continually blocked by the same people. Instead of checking that what is alleged is actually happening (and causing a problem), CRT appear to have come up with an idea that does seem not to have been fully thought out with regard to the practicalities of its implementation.

 

I boat in the area concerned and several of the affected areas are places that I may reasonably wish to visit more than once per month. Under the current proposals I could lose that ability. Yes, I could move elsewhere but if I have friends with me and like a specific pub or other attraction in an area, I may be faced with an excessive trek from the alternative mooring or having to extend or curtail my cruising to ensure that I can my boat if I wish to.

 

Equally, at least as far as Marsworth is concerned (and I know this also applies to Alan) I could quite legitimately cruise to the VM there, visit the Anglers Retreat and return to my home mooring for the night. I may wish to do the same on the next two (or more) days. If I happen to be moored there when the site is visited by the ranger each day I will be judged to have stayed overnight and, by the third day face a £25 overstay charge when I've done no such thing.

 

It is almost certain that an individual site will not be visited by the same ranger every day, so mooring someone different within the VM area each day would not allow me to escape incorrect detection. I was seen on a specific VM on a number of consecutive days so I must have stayed overnight there.

 

I believe that CRT need to first enforce the current restrictions (whatever they should be) - something that should be easy if they have a ranger in the area each day. They can also use these daily visits to ascertain the extent of the problem. If they then find that there is still a problem, based on their own evidence, rather than heresay from someone, then by all means publish the evidence and proposals to reduce or even eliminate the actual problem they found, not a problem that someone else implied existed.

 

I have cruised that particular stretch of canal more than 2000 times in the last 25 years, often on several consecutive days. I know it like the back of my hand. Yes, there have been problems with overstayers, but there have also been problems with overstayers over a far larger area within the vicinity of Marsworth so why is nothing being proposed to address that. Notwithstanding that, I may well have been guilty in the past of a perception of an overstayer problem when I cruised the area a little less frequently than every day.

 

I'm also aware of a very close friend who will say there is no space on a VM (or wherever) of they have to moor within 20 yards of another boat when they arrive.

 

It appears that the majority of people on this forum that are participating in these discussions are concerned that proposals are being made based on perception and without CRT producing factual evidence to support their proposals or, indeed, being able to confirm that a problem actually exists. Equally CRT are proposing a scheme that imposes a considerable burden on them (by way of providing daily inspections) when they apparently can't even carry out the necessary inspections that would allow them to enforce the existing restrictions.

 

I wonder if anyone has worked out the logistics of the staffing levels required to implement the proposals, even recognising that the rangers may all be volunteers. There are 22 site, mostly far enough aprat to require their own distinct (set of) rangers. They will need a base of between three and four rangers per site each and every day to cover sickness, holidays and other commitments if the daily visits are to be maintained. They only need to occasionally fail to make the daily visit (even in the depth of winter - and what volunteer is going to work on Christmas Day) for the system to become a joke and then be abused like the current system is perceived to be.

[RLWP]

It seems that if CRT continue without the basics of planning; define your problem, measure to test your statement, propose changes, consult, modify, implement, measure results, with feedback at each stage to the previous then the regime they implement will be ignored and sabotaged.

 

Meanwhile, boaters who follow the rules will have their boat entered into a database by on-site appointed recorders. I strongly object to having my leisure activity watched and recorded in this way.

 

It's like Ceausescu's Romania!

 

Richard

[churchward]

Meanwhile, boaters who follow the rules will have their boat entered into a database by on-site appointed recorders. I strongly object to having my leisure activity watched and recorded in this way.

 

It's like Ceausescu's Romania!

 

Richard

I know sometimes these things seem like an invasion of privacy when you are following the rules but unless they start getting some statistics they will never know what the issues are and where action needs to be taken. This of course will mean recording the rule breakers and observers alike.

 

If we were in Ceausescu's Romania then I suspect the GU at least would be reserved entirely for the personal use of the Securitate.

Edited February 16, 2013 by churchward

[Lesd]

Using yourBerko example I cant see the problem you are alluding to

Mooring above gas2 will still be 14day

 

Julian, that whole pound is so shallow its a joke, you may get one of two boats in near the locks at the two ends but the rest is useless, its why nobody moors there now.

And down below bank mill as I belive its only above the footbridge that will be restricted.

 

Above the footbridge to the riser will be no moring at all. Below the foot bridge to the road bridge reduced to 7 days.

And lets face it one of those boats targeted has been moored in the area pretty much in one spot (outside the crystal palace) for the best part of 20 years.

 

A bit of an exaggeration but why dont they deal with problem boats, no need to ruin the whole stretch becuase of a few boaters behavior surely

 

I would also think that the moorings will be offered as winter moorings as well rather than the ones above lock 57.

 

Nobody will take them up at the prices charged so no win there

 

Me I have no problem with it.

I would think that Berko is a prime target for the hire boat company concerned for obvious reasons.

[GUMPY]

Not an exageritation ask MBC when he got his boat 1993 if memory serves and until recently he has been there all the time apart from a few weeks here and there ususlly then he is down here.

I havent named his boat as I woul get castigated for that but if you dont know who I mean pm me and Ill tell you.

Remember I have been aroind here for a long time

[Lesd]

The other specific site that confuses me is the one in Cassiobury park, Brdige 168 to lock 78.

This little stretch (100m long ?) does get busy and there may be some overstaying but its NOT a honey pot, there is nothing there and I cant see why they need to change that stretch. I cant imagine why a vistor/hireboat would be put out by not being able to stop on that particular 100m stretch. The other side of bridge 168 all the way up through Cassiobury is lovely and there is always lots of space....another mystery to me.

[Lesd]

Not an exageritation ask MBC when he got his boat 1993 if memory serves and until recently he has been there all the time apart from a few weeks here and there ususlly then he is down here.

I havent named his boat as I woul get castigated for that but if you dont know who I mean pm me and Ill tell you.

Remember I have been aroind here for a long time

 

I know exactly who you mean Julian. Infact I know lots of the people who 'stretch the rules' around Berko but my point is why bring in these crazy proposals because of a few individuals, why not just enforce what rules we have in place. If the new rules come in then the ''best'' case scenario is you'll move the problem boats just out of town (maybe right down opposite you again) and Berko will be half empty all year round, where's the sense in that ?

 

 

Les