Boat removed today

[nicknorman]

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

John, my post was not aimed as a criticism of you, I was merely responding to Reg using equally emotive (better word than confrontational) language as he was. I think it was a little unfair for me to be accused of not participating ex-meeting when in fact I made every effort to do so, and Reg was a witness to me being asked go elsewhere. Yes I appreciate you had to fit in what you had to fit in. If I am totally honest, I was slightly miffed but I got over it pretty quickly and in part it was my mistake for getting the meeting start time 30 mins wrong, so don't worry about it. I understand the pressures.

 

Anyway, along with the thrust of my other comments, don't forget that a clique is such only in the eyes of outsiders, never those within!

Edited March 29, 2013 by nicknorman

[cotswoldsman]

So a very big thank you from me, and I will fill your tankards at the London Banter!

 

London Banter when?wher?how? Count me in any hotels nearby Travelodge?

[Boaty Jo]

Not really sure where to start of if it is worth even attempting to reply. Firstly where do you get the information that we support rule breakers? Why on earth do you think we are looking for sympathy? sympathy for what? Where have we endorsed non-payment of dues?

In the case of the running of the engine I think Jenlyn was concerned for the people living in the flats and the effect it might have on how people react to boaters.

 

If you read what I wrote earlier I said you APPEAR to support rule-breakers / non-payers. As in give the impression of..

Sympathy was wrong, empathy is a better word. Surely you're better off with more people on side. I think you'd get them if you explained yourself a little more clearly.

The overwhelming majority of all boaters want to boat / live in a fair and settled environment. Your (and others) work to help those who really need it is great.

Of course no-one is asking for details of specific cases but to get others behind you you perhaps need to explain that what you're doing is helping those few in real need without endorsing those who can, but wilfully refuse, to play by the rules. This is what really appears to cheese people off.

[Wanted]

London Banter when?wher?how? Count me in any hotels nearby Travelodge?

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=55104&pid=1043968&st=0entry1043968

 

Plenty of nearby B'nBs and probable a sofa bed or two on a boat.

Would be great to see you there!

 

(Apologies for OT)

[nicknorman]

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.

Thanks for the support (I need it!). I do find it a shame how quickly some superficially pleasant people can turn downright nasty in a flash just because someone else has a different opinion or viewpoint from theirs. Of course you encounter such people in all walks of life, its just that I would prefer not to encounter them on the canals! (For avoidance of doubt, I am of course not referring to you there!). In Reg's case I suspect he's got a sulk on with me because I said in the nicest way that his parking discs were not needed yet.

Edited March 29, 2013 by nicknorman

[cotswoldsman]

If you read what I wrote earlier I said you APPEAR to support rule-breakers / non-payers. As in give the impression of..

Sympathy was wrong, empathy is a better word. Surely you're better off with more people on side. I think you'd get them if you explained yourself a little more clearly.

The overwhelming majority of all boaters want to boat / live in a fair and settled environment. Your (and others) work to help those who really need it is great.

Of course no-one is asking for details of specific cases but to get others behind you you perhaps need to explain that what you're doing is helping those few in real need without endorsing those who can, but wilfully refuse, to play by the rules. This is what really appears to cheese people off.

 

Firstly it is difficult to support rule breakers when the rules are so unclear. I support the boaters who find themselves in a situation where they have been forced into breaking some people's interpretations of the rules through no real fault of their own either lack of moorings or lack of affordable moorings. At this stage I am not really bothered about who supports us and who doesn't. I know that those that have an understanding of the problem such as CRT and some on this forum support what we are trying to do. I do not need to go into details with you before all is finalised just so we can get your support we have managed so far without it.

[nicknorman]

At this stage I am not really bothered about who supports us and who doesn't. I know that those that have an understanding of the problem such as CRT and some on this forum support what we are trying to do. I do not need to go into details with you before all is finalised just so we can get your support we have managed so far without it.

 

You will of course fight your campaign as you see fit, however the point I was trying to make earlier is that you are lobbying CRT in one direction, whilst other groups are lobbying in the opposite direction. Therefore it would seem to me that getting the great unwashed boater on your side is helpful to your cause, and this forum is a good place to do it. But like I said, you will do it your way. If as you suggest you are close to victory, perhaps it doesn't matter.

[cotswoldsman]

You will of course fight your campaign as you see fit, however the point I was trying to make earlier is that you are lobbying CRT in one direction, whilst other groups are lobbying in the opposite direction. Therefore it would seem to me that getting the great unwashed boater on your side is helpful to your cause, and this forum is a good place to do it. But like I said, you will do it your way. If as you suggest you are close to victory, perhaps it doesn't matter.

Nick please understand we are lobbying though I prefer to call it negotiating with CRT for a specific group of boaters because we were asked to by the boaters. I am happy to lobby on behalf of any boaters if I happen to believe in that cause. I have tried to arrange meetings all over the country the next one being on 11 April to allow boaters to lobby direct with CRT and you were one of the people who took up that chance. I also happeni to be very active with CRT on Fundraising and as I am sure you are aware I am also involved in trying to find a solution to perceived overstaying at visitor moorings. If I posted about all my activities at present people would soon get bored but when I have something to report that might interest other boaters I will post it on here. I am using the word I as my activities within groups.

['TheBitch']

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!

 

Thanks Alan. A much better understanding now.

 

Number 3. Vulnerable people caught up in non conformance from years gone back.

 

but I suppose there will also be ...

 

Number 4. Non-Vulnerable people caught up in non conformance and no intention to conform.

 

I have total sympathy for all those caught up in the above and by all means lets protect them, it is the only fair way to treat them.

 

As for all the Number 4's well .... everyone to there own.

 

I will come to a canal near you when I can conform.

[cotswoldsman]

Thanks Alan. A much better understanding now.

 

Number 3. Vulnerable people caught up in non conformance from years gone back.

 

but I suppose there will also be ...

 

Number 4. Non-Vulnerable people caught up in non conformance and no intention to conform.

 

I have total sympathy for all those caught up in the above and by all means lets protect them, it is the only fair way to treat them.

 

As for all the Number 4's well .... everyone to there own.

 

I will come to a canal near you when I can conform.

I think number 4 is not to many but until number 3 is sorted difficult to identify number 4 and then we need to find moorings for them in the area they need to be.

[Tuscan]

You will of course fight your campaign as you see fit, however the point I was trying to make earlier is that you are lobbying CRT in one direction, whilst other groups are lobbying in the opposite direction. Therefore it would seem to me that getting the great unwashed boater on your side is helpful to your cause, and this forum is a good place to do it. But like I said, you will do it your way. If as you suggest you are close to victory, perhaps it doesn't matter.

 

 

This is of course true there are a lot of people and groups lobbying CRT now, many broadly from the same direction, some trustees are engaged and most not I suspect. There are real issues and practical solutions to be discussed agreed and the good work being done by some here and on the K&A are addressing this. There are others that are concerned whether CRT can enforce the changes it proposes.

 

What can't be ignored is that the vast majority of boaters even after all the various meetings are broadly indifferent to everything that is going on. If we take the consultation as an example where individual boaters were emailed, petitions raised all the forums and canal press were discussing only 375 (my estimate as I dont have the exact number with me) boaters bothered to give feedback to the consultation and broadly 50% of these were in agreement with CRT's proposals. This is out of the 8000 that CRT identified that had travelled the area and the many others that fell outside the immediate area.

[bowten]

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.

That's the third time you have brought this subject up,you having a go at me again

[cotswoldsman]

That's the third time you have brought this subject up,you having a go at me again

 

Not you I think

[Guest]

That's the third time you have brought this subject up,you having a go at me again

 

Not at all, nor anyone else, it just genuinely was hard to get a word in edgeways. I think it's been acknowledged that the meeting would have run better aided with a chairperson.

 

I'm used to meetings which are quite formal because of my professional background so I probably noticed it more.

 

Not you I think

 

Nor you for the avoidance of any doubt.

[cotswoldsman]

Not at all, nor anyone else, it just genuinely was hard to get a word in edgeways. I think it's been acknowledged that the meeting would have run better aided with a chairperson.

 

I'm used to meetings which are quite formal because of my professional background so I probably noticed it more.

 

That's me told...............

[bowten]

Not you I think

A little fine tuning and I am sure you will be a very good Chair person.

[Guest]

That's me told...............

 

I think you have said the same......

Edited March 30, 2013 by The Dog House

[cotswoldsman]

A little fine tuning and I am sure you will be a very good Chair person.

 

Nah I cant keep quite that is why I just sat round the table in Leeds. Must now learn not to say what I am thinking

[bowten]

Nah I cant keep quite that is why I just sat round the table in Leeds. Must now learn not to say what I am thinking

Yep I find it difficult not to say what I believe is right.

[Joshua]

That's the third time you have brought this subject up,you having a go at me again

 

Considering that I was sat next to you, I am surprised you got the chance to say anything at all, must have been while I was out of the room!

 

 

 

Gobby Git

 

 

[bowten]

Considering that I was sat next to you, I am surprised you got the chance to say anything at all, must have been while I was out of the room!

 

 

 

Gobby Git

Yea right!Gobby Git At the very least we put up a good fight.