Boat removed today

[cotswoldsman]

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!

 

Nick again because a lot of things are happening half the time I am not sure where I am except a lot of time on intercity trains. I have attended meetings with both boaters and CRT in the south and have tried to assist Jenlyn where I can but more important to try and help the boaters that on here at times can be treated as "the low life" of the canals. The FB pages are not in the public domain as they are closed groups that way we can ensure that we hear the views of those that are effected and do not have to waste time debating with "keyboard warriors" who going from earlier posts on this thread take delight on the misfortune of others.

[junior]

Roll up, roll up.

 

Get your replies in quick!

 

You know whats coming................

[bowten]

Roll up, roll up.

 

Get your replies in quick!

 

You know whats coming................

What!

[Guest]

What!

 

I think he's speculating that the thread is heading towards being locked.

[bowten]

I think he's speculating that the thread is heading towards being locked.

I don't think we are anywhere near that.

[Guest]

I don't think we are anywhere near that.

 

Nor do I.

[nicknorman]

"keyboard warriors" who going from earlier posts on this thread take delight on the misfortune of others.

That is pretty much as reactionary as me wanting the grot boats torpedoed out of the water! I appreciate that your are working very hard for our cause, but IMO part of that needs to be the hearts and minds of the greater boating public. Reacting harshly in the way you and others have done, does not change the hearts and minds, only hardens them. Arguments are not won by shouts and insults! The people you refer to are likely just ignorant of the realities and need rational persuasion. Whilst a distinction has to be made between those who choose to flout the rules, and those who have got themselves into a pickle whereby they realistically can't, I can see that the latter do need help and a compromise approach from CRT.

 

I am thick skinned and can take a beasting (just as well) and come back for more - with the consequence that my views have softened considerably. I suspect some others receiving the same treatment would not have persevered.

[bowten]

[cotswoldsman]

 

Very good!!!

['TheBitch']

I think he's speculating that the thread is heading towards being locked.

 

No chance of being locked, I have went back into my corner and will not return. Pinky said so.

[Joshua]

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!

 

All sorts of issues are discussed on this forum, every colour of the boating rainbow. Some are flippant, light hearted and open to general merriment and silliness. Others, like CRT's vision for the future of our waterways, are serious.

 

The problem is that a number of members of this forum have a job recognising the difference and when a serious issue is thrown open, they use it as an excuse either to play with it like a kitten with a ball of wool, not a care in the world (like yourself) or they use it as an excuse to simply broadcast their prejudices, content only with a tenuous relevance to the issue being discussed and with absolutely no intention to debate, just broadcast.

 

I find your comments about John and Steve particularly contemptuous as when you attended the Birmingham meeting, if memory serves, not only did you not once open your mouth, but neither before or after the meeting did you take the opportunity to engage with John, Steve, Alan or anyone else, to discuss their ideas. I can only assume you are not really bothered with the issues, but instead are just having a bit of a laugh from behind the safety of your keyboard.

 

To avoid the predictable jesters derailing otherwise potentially worthwhile ideas, is it any wonder that anyone seriously negotiating with CRT to improve their management of the system are cautious about throwing all the feedback onto the forum like so much bread on a duck pond?

Edited March 29, 2013 by Joshua

[Chris Pink]

No chance of being locked, I have went back into my corner and will not return. Pinky said so.

 

You should be careful, or you'll get a pet name too (if you'll excuse the pun)

['TheBitch']

You should be careful, or you'll get a pet name too (if you'll excuse the pun)

 

She's cute too, as per avatar.

[Higgs]

Paraphrasing an attitude.

 

FO, until you can ask me a question I'm worthy of answering.

 

Does anyone have a mooning emoticon?

[Wanted]

Except CaRT are not a statutory housing authority so if anyone is in breach of the terms and conditions they signed up to CaRT have every right to take action.

 

I do not want to see anyone lose their home and there is no need for it if the statutory housing authority (local council) allowed the provision of far more residential moorings and then paid for licenses and insurance, BSS etc. in lieu of housing benefit - if housing benefit is still available.

 

CaRT are moving the problem to where it rightly sits.

 

I understand that it is easy for CRT to say this as it is the ruels that people sign up to, however I genuinely believe that the years of mismanagement and lack of effectively enforcing exsisting rules has put them in a position of becoming a landlord. I find it gauling that there has been nothing for years and the getting all heavy( if what is being said is true)

 

My solution would be to call a amnesty on non compliant boaters and then start enforcing using existing rules.

 

That I'm affraid is not gonna happen and whilst I really respect the work of Alan, John, Steve et al have done and I think they have secured the best possible outcome under the circumstances, in my heart I can't help think that people's homes are more important than any of this.

 

So yes, rules is rules but they are not always right..

[Chris Pink]

..

Edited March 29, 2013 by Chris Pink

[cotswoldsman]

..

 

I know how you feel!!!!!

[alan_fincher]

I find your comments about John and Steve particularly contemptuous as when you attended the Birmingham meeting, if memory serves, not only did you not once open your mouth, but neither before or after the meeting did you take the opportunity to engage with John, Steve, Alan or anyone else, to discuss their ideas. I can only assume you are not really bothered with the issues, but instead are just having a bit of a laugh from behind the safety of your keyboard.

Actually in fairness to Nick, (and I know he can defend himself!), I did have a talk with him afterwards.

 

My paraphrase, (and he can correct me if I had it wrong), he said he was happy enough with the broad direction that things had gone, not to feel it necessary to put forward any differing viewpoint of his own.

 

Nick, unlike some, (and although I often feel he is being deliberately antagonistic!), has at least at time demonstrated an ability to listen to a viewpoint, and modify his own as a result.

 

What might not be clear to some is that while John is currently in the North of the country, much of the focus of what he has been working directly with CRT on is very much pertinent to trying to come up with sensible solutions to what are judged to be "non compliant" CC-ers in the South East. He and Jenlyn have worked tirelessly to try ad find sensible solutions to a difficult "problem".

 

That "problem" is that by BW/CRTs own admission, for many years little or no effort has been made to enforce "bona fide for navigation" on a large number of boat owners. Many of those people had previously had private conversations with enforcement officers, and reached agreements on how much they needed to move to stay out of trouble. People may not like that, but that is fact - there are people on the forum who can confirm it as fact, having made their own enquiries before first moving aboard.

 

Now the goalposts have suddenly been moved , (something that it is obvious is bringing whoops of delight to some of those posting here). But the reality is that the goalpost have moved on some who are now simply incapable of meeting the much more stringent requirements for moving that CRT now seem to be imposing, for a variety of reasons around personal circumstances.

 

From my perception, much of what John, Steve, and indeed many others are working on with CRT, is how you come up with an equitable situation for many of those people, that treats them fairly as human beings, rather than just assuming they can now have their homes taken, and be thrown onto the mercy of local councils, or wherever else they may land.

 

Nobody is condoning serial piss takers, in just the same way that nobody is condoning the way BW and CRT have handled enforcement, (or a lack of it) in the past. Fortunately though, whatever else you throw at them, those involved in the decision making processes within CRT do largely accept that this needs to be dealt with in an intelligent way.

 

I think the people potentially on the receiving end of changes of direction by CRT need to be grateful that some of those posting here are not employed by CRT!

[nicknorman]

I find your comments about John and Steve particularly contemptuous as when you attended the Birmingham meeting, if memory serves, not only did you not once open your mouth, but neither before or after the meeting did you take the opportunity to engage with John, Steve, Alan or anyone else, to discuss their ideas. I can only assume you are not really bothered with the issues, but instead are just having a bit of a laugh from behind the safety of your keyboard.

 

To avoid the predictable jesters derailing otherwise potentially worthwhile ideas, is it any wonder that anyone seriously negotiating with CRT to improve their management of the system are cautious about throwing all the feedback onto the forum like so much bread on a duck pond?

Contempt is a strong word. You are correct, I didn't speak at the meeting, though had every intention of so doing at the start. It was just that everyone else was desperate to speak, and I agreed with the general message being sent to CRT so there didn't seem much point save to hear the sound of my own voice.

 

Ex-meeting chat: I arrived 30 mins early but was not allowed to join the group - wrong clique I guess! After the meeting Ray T and I had a long and enjoyable chat, and afterward I managed a chat with Alan and co before I had to catch my 11pm train. If all that makes me contemptuous in your eyes, it is such an easy status to achieve that it hardly seems worth being concerned about.

[alan_fincher]

I understand that it is easy for CRT to say this as it is the ruels that people sign up to, however I genuinely believe that the years of mismanagement and lack of effectively enforcing exsisting rules has put them in a position of becoming a landlord. I find it gauling that there has been nothing for years and the getting all heavy( if what is being said is true)

 

My solution would be to call a amnesty on non compliant boaters and then start enforcing using existing rules.

 

That I'm affraid is not gonna happen and whilst I really respect the work of Alan, John, Steve et al have done and I think they have secured the best possible outcome under the circumstances, in my heart I can't help think that people's homes are more important than any of this.

 

So yes, rules is rules but they are not always right..

Excellent post Rob.

 

Except that I genuinely think we are getting somewhere near a solution that could recognise the position of those already within the trap, whilst being far stricter about who is allowed to join the club in the first place.

 

I do not actually think the eventual outcome of this will be uncontrolled enforcement actions against the most vulnerable, without some alternatives being offered to them by CRT.

 

Or at least I very much hope not. You can't be certain of anything, until it is a done deal, but I don't think it is as bleak as it may seem. If I did, I don't think I could still be involved.

 

There is a widespread acceptance by CRT that they have messed up in the past, and that solutions need to recognise this.

 

Unfortunately I don't think everybody with a CRT uniform blundering around putting tickets on boats has necessarily heard the message about trying to handle things in a more sympathetic way, but that doesn't mean there is not considerable intent within the organisation to take a more balanced line.

[Guest]

Contempt is a strong word. You are correct, I didn't speak at the meeting, though had every intention of so doing at the start. It was just that everyone else was desperate to speak, and I agreed with the general message being sent to CRT so there didn't seem much point save to hear the sound of my own voice.

Ex-meeting chat: I arrived 30 mins early but was not allowed to join the group - wrong clique I guess! After the meeting Ray T and I had a long and enjoyable chat, and afterward I managed a chat with Alan and co before I had to catch my 11pm train. If all that makes me contemptuous in your eyes, it is such an easy status to achieve that it hardly seems worth being concerned about.

 

If it was like the Skipton meeting you(I) had to be very forceful in order to interject and get a word in, some people didn't speak there either but I suspect it wasn't because they didn't want to.

[steve hayes]

Paraphrasing an attitude.

 

FO, until you can ask me a question I'm worthy of answering.

 

Does anyone have a mooning emoticon?

[alan_fincher]

Ex-meeting chat: I arrived 30 mins early but was not allowed to join the group - wrong clique I guess! After the meeting Ray T and I had a long and enjoyable chat, and afterward I managed a chat with Alan and co before I had to catch my 11pm train. If all that makes me contemptuous in your eyes, it is such an easy status to achieve that it hardly seems worth being concerned about.

Nick,

 

Just to be clear, prior to the main meeting at Brum was an agreed pre-meeting seesion with CRT. It wasn't intended as any kind of clique, it was just unfortunate we had to fit it in as best as we could in a public place.

 

My view is that by showing an interest and willingness to be at the main meeting, you have already put yourself well ahead of many, becuase frankly it is only a fairly dedicated few that really want to turn out for such things much of the time.

 

I didn't have a problem with you not speaking in the main meeting - it was fairly hectic at times, so unless someone had a radically different view to throw in, then simply observing seems entirely reasonable to me. I hope you would not be put off attenfing another.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Ex-meeting chat: I arrived 30 mins early but was not allowed to join the group - wrong clique I guess! After the meeting Ray T and I had a long and enjoyable chat, and afterward I managed a chat with Alan and co before I had to catch my 11pm train. If all that makes me contemptuous in your eyes, it is such an easy status to achieve that it hardly seems worth being concerned about.

 

There you go again trying to be confrontational. 5 of us including a trustee and CRT employee(by no stretch of the imagination a clique) had arranged to meet before the meeting to discuss the situation in the SE these were serious discussions concerning a seriuous discussion with remarks like that you wonder why we prefer to keep our negotiations close to our chests. Nick you have to understand that we are trying to solve a problem here and if you like to call us a "clique" that to me shows you understand very little about negotiating with an organisation the size of CRT

[Wanted]

Excellent post Rob.

 

Except that I genuinely think we are getting somewhere near a solution that could recognise the position of those already within the trap, whilst being far stricter about who is allowed to join the club in the first place.

 

I do not actually think the eventual outcome of this will be uncontrolled enforcement actions against the most vulnerable, without some alternatives being offered to them by CRT.

 

Or at least I very much hope not. You can't be certain of anything, until it is a done deal, but I don't think it is as bleak as it may seem. If I did, I don't think I could still be involved.

 

There is a widespread acceptance by CRT that they have messed up in the past, and that solutions need to recognise this.

 

Unfortunately I don't think everybody with a CRT uniform blundering around putting tickets on boats has necessarily heard the message about trying to handle things in a more sympathetic way, but that doesn't mean there is not considerable intent within the organisation to take a more balanced line.

 

Yes, you are right and in fact I have quite a positive feeling about the work that has been done, my hackles were up in response to Loddons lack of compassion. Having worked for a charity that has almost completely changed in 6 years I can also understand that CRT have a sizemic shift ahead that is not always going to be smooth. I think though that the work you guys have done it has proven that dialog is, at present the way forward.

 

I also agree that communication from the Gents has been excellent and deliverd in a way that presents fact instead of gossip. So a very big thank you from me, and I will fill your tankards at the London Banter!