Boat removed today

[Chris Pink]

What makes you say that? Just because the owner was abroad?

 

Perhaps CaRT are planning proper enforcement action starting in a certain location and graually working their way somewhere else. This could just happen to be the first boat in that area by chance.

 

As soon as someone mentions CaRT everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that everything is being done underhand with sinister undertones.

 

Well you can jump on my post if you like, or you can ask rather than jumping to your own conclusions.

 

it's an easy target because, apparently, the owner isn't a liveaboard and therefore doesn't need to be taken to court.

[alan_fincher]

On my phone, so long reply later, but where has anybody said anything that can possibly be described at "endorsing non payment of dues".

 

As you say in many cases the issues are complex, and cant be described by one liners like that.

 

There appears to be a communications problem inside CRT at the moment such that while a lot of effort is going into trying to come up with sensible solutions, other parts of the organisation are getting heavy handed, and it seems in some cases unaware of salient information about the boat owner being targeted. (Not necessarily the case here but certainly with others which are in the process).

[Chris Pink]

I thought they always craned boats out in these circumstances,

 

They impound boats.

 

To recover the charges of the craning out from the owner would be, in my opinion, a difficult job unless they can show it was necessary to physically remove it from the water.

 

Of course, it doesn't make such good headlines.

[jenlyn]

It's the easiest thing to come up with a problem in any walk of life. The difficult bit is solving it. Now fair play to those of you for working with Cart with what is obviously a complex issue.

The difficulty is that you appear to support people who break the rules with a live and let live attitude. Not that that's necessarily wrong, but it does fuel the fire of those who believe that people are 'getting away with it'.

If you did discuss these ideas openly of how to resolve these issues you would engender more sympathy from 'the other camp'.

 

For example, it's difficult to complain about someone running an engine during the night on the one hand and apparently endorsing non-payment of dues on the other. The two examples are poles apart but both involve rules.

I am not endorsing anything. My personal views I keep private. My compassion is a natural, sometimes common human reaction. I won't "gossip" about people's personal problems on here. Your comments seem to be judgemental and ill informed.

['TheBitch']

Well you can jump on my post if you like, or you can ask rather than jumping to your own conclusions.

 

it's an easy target because, apparently, the owner isn't a liveaboard and therefore doesn't need to be taken to court.

 

Promised myself never ever to get involved in the rights and wrongs of 'personal' choice of canal use by any boater. But I will ask.

 

Anyways now I have started.

 

A). Liveaboard - 1. Someone who has a residential mooring.

.........................2. Someone who continually cruises the system.

.........................3. Problem!

 

Looks to me (and only my opinion) 1 and 2 are people who respect the system, play by the rules and encourage others to do the same.

 

3. Well can someone add what is the other option that does not allow the removal of a boat under section 8.

 

Really just want to see what I am obviously missing.

[cotswoldsman]

Promised myself never ever to get involved in the rights and wrongs of 'personal' choice of canal use by any boater. But I will ask.

 

Anyways now I have started.

 

A). Liveaboard - 1. Someone who has a residential mooring.

.........................2. Someone who continually cruises the system.

.........................3. Problem!

 

Looks to me (and only my opinion) 1 and 2 are people who respect the system, play by the rules and encourage others to do the same.

 

3. Well can someone add what is the other option that does not allow the removal of a boat under section 8.

 

Really just want to see what I am obviously missing.

You are missing loads

[nicknorman]

it is not that they have to be secret, it is a case ongoing negotiations. While some seem to rejoice at boats being removed some of us are investing a lot of our time and money in trying to solve the problem. The amazing thing about these negotiations is that the main people concerned in talking to CRT have no personal reasons for doing so.other than instead of spending all day on a keyboard moaning about others we felt it was time to actually try and solve the problems.

 

I have I missed something? Where does it say anyone has to move round the system? Oh yes I remember Vaughan Welch seemed to think that but he like you are completely wrong so can I suggest that you maybe learn the rules before expressing opinions such as the one above.

 

The detail, if it involves specific people's circumstances, should of course be secret. But I found Jenlyn's response to my gentle query strange on a number of levels. Superficially trite and patronising, refusing to even hint at what might be being done, and yet asking for help. I am sure his motives are absolutely sound, but the trouble is it comes across to the greater forum as a bit "knowledge is power", cliquey etc and one comes away thinking that actually, he quite likes to be a lone crusader morally superior to the rest of us. In your case, having met you briefly I have a bit of a handle on you, but for those that haven't your snappiness, eg in the above post for an inconsequential slip, again is likely to put people off the very idea of wanting to help, or even to soften their views. If yours and Jenlyn's intention is just to have a good rant at us reactionaries, carry on. On the other hand, if there is any desire to change attitudes and get some assistance, I fear you are going about it the wrong way.

['TheBitch']

You are missing loads

 

I have a lot of respect for yourself and a lot of the other active members who donate huge amounts of time and work you are doing for the community of boaters. Unfortunately I cannot be described as being part of, (as I only ever hire) but hope to be one day. I only ask for a single line not several a 3rd example would be all I ask.

[sam pig]

I must admit there does seem to be some veiled secrecy about these issues.

 

I am not going to attend meetings. I ain't that involved but am more than happy to sign petitions and the like to object against unfair rule changes.

 

It just seems that sometimes on here, for a place that offers so much information, it can be hard to come by.

 

There is a personal message system and it works. It was very helpful (for me) a few weeks ago when dealing with a crime that occurred.

 

I would hazard a guess that most people on this forum are live and let live easy going sorts. Replies along the lines of "well if you don't understand X,and Y...Why should I bother explaining Z" do nothing to help people trying to understand the ways of the canal and the fairness or unfairness of enforcement.

 

Don't shoot me down, just saying how it appears..

Edited March 29, 2013 by sam pig

[Chris Pink]

 

Really just want to see what I am obviously missing.

 

Too much for me to explain.

 

Essentially you are making assumptions based on your very narrow view of what constitutes use of a publicly owned resource.

 

If you are serious about wanting to learn more I suggest reading the relevant parts of the 1995 Waterways Act and, probably more importantly, the background to that Act.

 

The detail, if it involves specific people's circumstances, should of course be secret. But I found Jenlyn's response to my gentle query strange on a number of levels. Superficially trite and patronising, refusing to even hint at what might be being done, and yet asking for help. I am sure his motives are absolutely sound, but the trouble is it comes across to the greater forum as a bit "knowledge is power", cliquey etc and one comes away thinking that actually, he quite likes to be a lone crusader morally superior to the rest of us. In your case, having met you briefly I have a bit of a handle on you, but for those that haven't your snappiness, eg in the above post for an inconsequential slip, again is likely to put people off the very idea of wanting to help, or even to soften their views. If yours and Jenlyn's intention is just to have a good rant at us reactionaries, carry on. On the other hand, if there is any desire to change attitudes and get some assistance, I fear you are going about it the wrong way.

 

Once again firstly you inflate your self-importance and secondly you seem to be under the strange illusion that this is some kind of private sitting room instead of a public forum.

 

If you were in negotiation with your employers, your landlord, your bank manager, I wouldn't expect you to outline your case or methodology in public.

 

Why do you have the arrogance to demand that Steve does?

 

I have a lot of respect for yourself and a lot of the other active members who donate huge amounts of time and work you are doing for the community of boaters. Unfortunately I cannot be described as being part of, (as I only ever hire) but hope to be one day. I only ask for a single line not several a 3rd example would be all I ask.

 

if your question had appeared genuine rather than a loaded point of view you may have got a more serious answer. If you take my earlier answer seriously, or indeed practice the respect for John that you preach and read some of his posts on here you will not only get a fuller answer to your trite question you may reach some deeper understanding too.

[jenlyn]

The detail, if it involves specific people's circumstances, should of course be secret. But I found Jenlyn's response to my gentle query strange on a number of levels. Superficially trite and patronising, refusing to even hint at what might be being done, and yet asking for help. I am sure his motives are absolutely sound, but the trouble is it comes across to the greater forum as a bit "knowledge is power", cliquey etc and one comes away thinking that actually, he quite likes to be a lone crusader morally superior to the rest of us. In your case, having met you briefly I have a bit of a handle on you, but for those that haven't your snappiness, eg in the above post for an inconsequential slip, again is likely to put people off the very idea of wanting to help, or even to soften their views. If yours and Jenlyn's intention is just to have a good rant at us reactionaries, carry on. On the other hand, if there is any desire to change attitudes and get some assistance, I fear you are going about it the wrong way.

Usual drivel from you. I didn't ask FOR your help, I offered you the opportunity TO help.

['TheBitch']

Too much for me to explain.

 

Essentially you are making assumptions based on your very narrow view of what constitutes use of a publicly owned resource.

 

If you are serious about wanting to learn more I suggest reading the relevant parts of the 1995 Waterways Act and, probably more importantly, the background to that Act.

 

 

I must admit Chris I didn't have you amongst the likes of cotswoldman, alan, jenlyn and the like but thanks for putting me in my place.

 

Your pet name is Pinky by the way.....(all forum members have a pet name so you don't all feel left out)... I will let all others dream up the meaning of it... as I will dream up the meaning of the 3rd example.

[nicknorman]

Usual drivel from you. I didn't ask FOR your help, I offered you the opportunity TO help.

And you have made it pretty clear to me, and I suspect plenty of others, that in fact you actively don't want help, you just like to tell us what a good chap you are. There is, I'm sure, some truth in that (good chap bit) but I feel sure that with your current attitude, you will continue to be a lone crusader so hopefully that's what you want - which is fine, by the way.

 

Anyway, since its claws out now, at least I don't like to wear a funny hat indoors!. So there!

Edited March 29, 2013 by nicknorman

[sam pig]

So are you a babe or a munter pretending to be a babe?

 

I really am a pig by the way.... right little oinker

[Athy]

.

 

Your pet name is Pinky by the way.....(all forum members have a pet name)

Well, his posts are usually quite perky so it does make sense. But what's this about all forum members having a pet name?

['TheBitch']

If your question had appeared genuine rather than a loaded point of view you may have got a more serious answer. If you take my earlier answer seriously, or indeed practice the respect for John that you preach and read some of his posts on here you will not only get a fuller answer to your trite question you may reach some deeper understanding too.

 

Chris I explained I didn't want to get involved, I asked a really really simple question not loaded at all and all I get is, it is too long to answer. Abused for being ill-informed or actually not informed at all. And written off as another a*sehole. Well this little 'Bitch' will give as good as she gets, Pinky...

 

So are you a babe or a munter pretending to be a babe?

 

I really am a pig by the way.... right little oinker

 

All 'Babe' Sam. x

[Chris Pink]

Pinky...

 

If that's supposed to be an insult Porky, you really must try harder.

 

What was it they said about Geoffrey Howe - like being savaged by a dead sheep?

 

And written off as another a*sehole.

 

Suggest you don't behave like one then.

 

I am unconvinced that you can't see the loading in your original post.

 

But if you really can't then you are part of the problem whereas at least John and Steve are trying to be part of the solution.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Guest]

The guy in Breadline Britain said he had no job. He lived in RedCar in the North East. I have been there. It is a ghost town. He only stays there because he has some support from his family in the area. He should really look for work elsewhere.? He looked ok to me. Roof over his head. Heating. Food. He still slated the government though...which is the bit I fail to understand.

 

 

No it is not, I have no idea which part you visited. It is like many towns and villages around me suffering in the current financial climate, but I'm not sure it could be described as a 'ghost town'. I haven't seen the program but have no doubt 'poetic licence' was liberally used to portray another North East town in the worst possible light.

[Tuscan]

It's interesting I have been on the canals as a boat owner for some 25 years and a hirer and broads cruiser owner before that. I have always had a pretty much live and let live attitude to BW and other boat owners. I started off with a wreck and latterly through good fortune have a converted my working boat so guess I am now a shiny boat owner (only with real rivets!). In the last 12 months I have become much more concerned at the actions of CRT and also the actions of some boaters who do overstay both on services or visitor moorings. So I have decided to do something about it resulting in being co-opted to NABO's council and driving their response to the recent mooring consultation.

 

Simultaneously their are others like Cotswaldsman and Jenlyn who from what I can see have also recently been motivated to become involved and try and both challenge and work with CRT, then there are individual activists like Alan all of who contribute. All of these guys and others are genuinely trying to engage with CRT.

 

My point Is that there would appear to be more people now who feel that CRT need to be challenged and also encouraged to change. So far CRT seem willing to talk with lots of boater groupings but my fear is that beneath this flexible veneer they have yet to demonstrate that they are really listening and acting accordingly. Mooring solutions being discussed in London maybe not what the boaters on the K&A or Oxford want so we run the risk of a break up of the system with regional rules and regulations.

 

The biggest danger is CRT's continual interpretation of what it is legally entitled to do , just because a £25 fine/service charge or no return rules might sound reasonable now doesn't mean we should accept it, think how easy they could then be changed. The same could be said by changing user group meetings into customer meetings limited to 15 mins per subject, introduction of community moorings etc etc.

 

Let's hope CRT are listening to all groups and canal users in a genuine way and not just abusing the goodwill they have.

[cotswoldsman]

The detail, if it involves specific people's circumstances, should of course be secret. But I found Jenlyn's response to my gentle query strange on a number of levels. Superficially trite and patronising, refusing to even hint at what might be being done, and yet asking for help. I am sure his motives are absolutely sound, but the trouble is it comes across to the greater forum as a bit "knowledge is power", cliquey etc and one comes away thinking that actually, he quite likes to be a lone crusader morally superior to the rest of us. In your case, having met you briefly I have a bit of a handle on you, but for those that haven't your snappiness, eg in the above post for an inconsequential slip, again is likely to put people off the very idea of wanting to help, or even to soften their views. If yours and Jenlyn's intention is just to have a good rant at us reactionaries, carry on. On the other hand, if there is any desire to change attitudes and get some assistance, I fear you are going about it the wrong way.

 

Nick you really do not seem to understand. The process is quite simple there are a number of boaters involved in this process (in the hundreds) The actual face to face discussions with CRT are done in smaller numbers infact the last discussion I had with CRT involved myself and one Trustee. The discussions are ongoing and while this process is happening there is nothing to report. This is not secrecy but a simple fact that though close we still do not have a final resolution. Not sure what you mean by "hint" this is not some sort of children s game like "Eye Spy" we are playing.

not sure what you mean by the greater forum. Jenlyn is not a lone crusader infact the complete opposite on the 2 Facebook pages involved in this process there are over 200 boaters involved not in a crusade but in a process of trying to solve a problem.

[bowten]

There as been a multitude of posts on this forum about the work being done by certain members and many other posts on the outcome of meetings with CRT, obviously some posters are not doing their homework.Where is the secrecy?There is none!I for one went to a meeting in Skipton and was invited to another in Leeds but was unable to attend due to a bereavement.Every meeting as had a full report published on this forum.The next meetings may be in your area,why not attend.The search button is your friend.

['TheBitch']

 

Suggest you don't behave like one then.

 

 

 

OK

[nicknorman]

 

If you were in negotiation with your employers, your landlord, your bank manager, I wouldn't expect you to outline your case or methodology in public.

 

Why do you have the arrogance to demand that Steve does?

 

I'm in a trade union. The previous chairman of the company council worked quite hard for our cause but loved the power and secrecy - definitely a knowledge is power type, and a bully. So he had plenty of good in him, but also plenty of arse. The current guy is just as hardworking but has no visible personal agenda and is "inclusive" - even though there is plenty we can't be told, its gone about in a way that we don't mind. When the previous guy was in charge, there were always vacancies on the council. Now its full of good guys. Hopefully you get the allusion...

[nicknorman]

Nick you really do not seem to understand. The process is quite simple there are a number of boaters involved in this process (in the hundreds) The actual face to face discussions with CRT are done in smaller numbers infact the last discussion I had with CRT involved myself and one Trustee. The discussions are ongoing and while this process is happening there is nothing to report. This is not secrecy but a simple fact that though close we still do not have a final resolution. Not sure what you mean by "hint" this is not some sort of children s game like "Eye Spy" we are playing.

not sure what you mean by the greater forum. Jenlyn is not a lone crusader infact the complete opposite on the 2 Facebook pages involved in this process there are over 200 boaters involved not in a crusade but in a process of trying to solve a problem.

John I am of course fully aware of the work you have been doing with the CRT meetings - I have been to one as you know, and the meetings of others have been published. However as far as I am aware you have not been particularly involved with live-aboards in the SE who have fallen on hard times and or are unable or unwilling to comply with the CC rules. This seems to be Steve's area and I have no idea what is being done, what aims and by whom since it has not been posted on here as far as I know. Sorry, I don't do Facebook - the best thing I ever did was to delete my membership - being addicted to one forum is enough!

 

If its the public domain on FB then surely no reason not to give us a clue on here? But anyway, with the hostile reaction I received from Steve from the outset, any involvement I might have been able to have (tricky living in Aberdeen) is a non-starter. And I suspect for many others seeing the reactions from the vociferous few. As I said, if no help or change of views is wanted, carry on, but if not then reactions from the vociferous ones need to soften.

 

By the way, your response above was quite mild for you and having met you, I read your posts differently so I can take a slagging!

[Higgs]

 

No it is not, I have no idea which part you visited. It is like many towns and villages around me suffering in the current financial climate, but I'm not sure it could be described as a 'ghost town'. I haven't seen the program but have no doubt 'poetic licence' was liberally used to portray another North East town in the worst possible light.

 

I think over the past few decades people have shown willingness to move around to find work, it's something I've done all of my working life; inside and outside the UK. This kind of thing should not be forced on people. Can't really blame people for placing a higher priority on friends, family and their community. Governments, in 'their wisdom', place no particular importance in the community.