FEDUP.

[luctor et emergo]

This really is surreal.

 

Just move your boat occassionally. All this is doing, is giving ammo to Cart's 'minimum distance' gun.

 

Anybody want to buy a boat?

 

This really is surreal.

 

Just move your boat occassionally. All this is doing, is giving ammo to Cart's 'minimum distance' gun.

 

Anybody want to buy a boat?

[RLWP]

CRT, in consultation with CUB (Cowley and Uxbridge Boaters group), have agreed in principle the outline of a scheme to issue roving mooring permits within the area, to boaters without a home mooring who have been logged in the area for x amount of time within x amount of distance.

A small amount of the other boaters in the area who have permanent moorings are annoyed about this, as they feel that they are paying for something while others will be getting something that (they feel is) equivalent, but paying less for it.

 

One of/some of these people have been putting up posters/ distributing leaflets decrying this and saying how unfair it is with varying degrees of pique.

 

Tafelberg, who moors in Uxbridge, has been mentioned (not on this forum) as being one of these people, and has posted this thread to say that he is not.

(That's the very short version...)

 

Thank you, that's very clearly put

 

I don't have any skin in this game

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

So it will be ok for me to move my boat onto the Regents Canal or the Paddington Arm of the GU, sign up to be a cc'er but have no intention of moving. When CRT come along and take action, i can ask to go into the 'Transitional phase'? I this right? Or is it going to be a case of one rule for them and one rule for everyone else?

 

They must have applied for licences within the last 12 months? On doing so they must have SIGNED to say they would comply with the CC'ing guidelines and acknowledged that if they didn't, enforcement action could be taken against them? Am i right or wrong?

 

If i am right, and they are not complying, kick em' out! Or give them a last chance. Simple as that! Don't bring in some special scheme just for them that nobody else can have access to. That is a sure fire way of creating a "them and us" on the cut. I can only see that ending one way.

Ah you seemed to have solved the problem, wonder why no one ever thought of that. Send an email now to CRT as I am sure they would be interested in this new approach.

[jenlyn]

 

 

So it will be ok for me to move my boat onto the Regents Canal or the Paddington Arm of the GU, sign up to be a cc'er but have no intention of moving. When CRT come along and take action, i can ask to go into the 'Transitional phase'? I this right? Or is it going to be a case of one rule for them and one rule for everyone else?

 

They must have applied for licences within the last 12 months? On doing so they must have SIGNED to say they would comply with the CC'ing guidelines and acknowledged that if they didn't, enforcement action could be taken against them? Am i right or wrong?

 

If i am right, and they are not complying, kick em' out! Or give them a last chance. Simple as that! Don't bring in some special scheme just for them that nobody else can have access to. That is a sure fire way of creating a "them and us" on the cut. I can only see that ending one way.

Am loving your compassion toward other human beings. Pity you cannot come up with a human solution :-)

[tafelberg]

Thank you Starcoaster that's exactly it.

[junior]

Am loving your compassion toward other human beings. Pity you cannot come up with a human solution :-)

 

 

I'm sorry. I consider myself to be quite a comasssionate person. Unfortunately when one person has to pay a few thousand pounds for something and another person is getting it for free, compassion goes out the window. That is the problem here and i am sure i am not the only one.

 

Can we not start some sort of official action to stop this unfair scheme being implemented?

[nicknorman]

 

 

So it will be ok for me to move my boat onto the Regents Canal or the Paddington Arm of the GU, sign up to be a cc'er but have no intention of moving. When CRT come along and take action, i can ask to go into the 'Transitional phase'? I this right? Or is it going to be a case of one rule for them and one rule for everyone else?

 

They must have applied for licences within the last 12 months? On doing so they must have SIGNED to say they would comply with the CC'ing guidelines and acknowledged that if they didn't, enforcement action could be taken against them? Am i right or wrong?

 

If i am right, and they are not complying, kick em' out! Or give them a last chance. Simple as that! Don't bring in some special scheme just for them that nobody else can have access to. That is a sure fire way of creating a "them and us" on the cut. I can only see that ending one way.

You are of course right in theory. Trouble is these folk have been licensing their boats as CCers and living in 1 locale for years, maybe 10+ and in that time no-one has chased them. Whilst what they have done is wrong, the fact that the rules weren't enforced was wrong too and has led to this situation. It's how to get out of the situation that's the issue. As with all things, a middle path is the way to go, not extremism. And no, you don't get one since you don't have the history!

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

I'm sorry. I consider myself to be quite a comasssionate person. Unfortunately when one person has to pay a few thousand pounds for something and another person is getting it for free, compassion goes out the window. That is the problem here and i am sure i am not the only one.

 

Can we not start some sort of official action to stop this unfair scheme being implemented?

Who is getting what for free?

[luctor et emergo]

Having been involved in this process I must have missed the bit about CCing rules being changed can you please explain what rules are being changed?

John, with all due respect, you are not 'involved' in CART's decicion making process. They talk to boaters, but will do as they please. And this will only end one way. The current CC rules will get amended, taking into acount the 'transisionairy' roving permits, to do away with the free CC rules as they are.

 

Watch this space. I did predict that all four spaces on the council would go to IwA members..

[jenlyn]

You are of course right in theory. Trouble is these folk have been licensing their boats as CCers and living in 1 locale for years, maybe 10+ and in that time no-one has chased them. Whilst what they have done is wrong, the fact that the rules weren't enforced was wrong too and has led to this situation. It's how to get out of the situation that's the issue. As with all things, a middle path is the way to go, not extremism. And no, you don't get one since you don't have the history!

Well worth a greenie.

[CV32]

Putting on the tin hat - I fail to see why anyone should be granted rights when they have for many years appear to have failed to follow the rules and are now being given special treatment. Perhaps i should have failed to tax my car for 20 years - would I now be getting a free tax disc from the DVLA ...., perhaps i should fail to do a tax return and wait for my cheque from HMRC ....

 

As others have said earlier, its not difficult to play the game and try to stay within the rules.

[cotswoldsman]

They will still have to move so nothing like a mooring.

 

Putting on the tin hat - I fail to see why anyone should be granted rights when they have for many years appear to have failed to follow the rules and are now being given special treatment. Perhaps i should have failed to tax my car for 20 years - would I now be getting a free tax disc from the DVLA ...., perhaps i should fail to do a tax return and wait for my cheque from HMRC ....

 

As others have said earlier, its not difficult to play the game and try to stay within the rules.

Where does all this free come from? What have I missed?

[jenlyn]

Something had to be done to move forward, sitting on here forever debating was going nowhere. So some of you are going to lose the moral high ground, thats a bummer and I apologise.

[Jerra]

They will still have to move so nothing like a mooring.

 

Where does all this free come from? What have I missed?

So out of interest what is the difference between CCing as many seem to carry it out and what is being suggested?

[DeanS]

There are all sorts of boaters on the cut.

Some pay marina licences.

Some claim to CC.

Some claim that they dont have a marina, and dont CC, and want CRT to recognise them as a special group.

I dont see a problem with that, however.....

 

every other boater without a home mooring, and who doesnt CC, will (correctly) be able to point to Uxbridge and say...."if they got special recognition, we want that in our area too. "

 

So I DO see this "new group of boaters" in many more places round the country. If it allows CRT to draw a line in the sand and stop "new" boaters from doing the same thing (by signing an adapted CC licence), then this should be a solution CRT can run with, hoping that over time this "new group" will become smaller and smaller or at least remain the same size and not grow larger. (As they will come down heavily on new licencees who try the same thing).

 

Those who argue that it is a bad move by CRT, havent offerred an alternative solution, and most likely have no understanding of the real issues affecting these boaters. CRT cannot just remove them from the canals, as the eviction process would keep CRT in the law courts for years.

 

Get real people

[junior]

You are of course right in theory. Trouble is these folk have been licensing their boats as CCers and living in 1 locale for years, maybe 10+ and in that time no-one has chased them. Whilst what they have done is wrong, the fact that the rules weren't enforced was wrong too and has led to this situation. It's how to get out of the situation that's the issue. As with all things, a middle path is the way to go, not extremism. And no, you don't get one since you don't have the history!

 

I'm sorry. Is admitting you (i'm not saying you personally) have been breaking the rules for 10 years not WORSE than breaking the rules for one year?

 

One thing i have read over and over on here is people saying that hopefully CRT will sort out the problem of non-compliant CC'ers as BW were useless in doing so.

 

Now you seem to be saying that because BW didn't bother to do anything, it is unfair of CRT to tackle the problem.

 

The solution seems simple to me. Go and say to these NCCC'ers "you've been lucky to get away with this for so long long, now pack your bags and stop taking the piss. Or get a mooring like everybody else".

[ChimneyChain]

How are cart/cub planning to enforce this new enterprise when they can't maintain the current situation.

 

Darren

[nicknorman]

Putting on the tin hat - I fail to see why anyone should be granted rights when they have for many years appear to have failed to follow the rules and are now being given special treatment. Perhaps i should have failed to tax my car for 20 years - would I now be getting a free tax disc from the DVLA ...., perhaps i should fail to do a tax return and wait for my cheque from HMRC ....

 

As others have said earlier, its not difficult to play the game and try to stay within the rules.

It easy to draw such comparisons - I have been routine speeding for the past 40 years but suspect it would be a bad defence in court! On the other hand, lets consider a council house tenant. He has underpaid his rent for the past 20 years. He kind of knew it, but the council didn't pick up the error for 20 years. Now its been identified, the back rent is £50,000 which he doesn't have. Does the council evict him, making him homeless, or do they enter into a middle path agreement whereby he pays a little extra towards the debt each month, even though this is effectively granting an interest free loan that is not available to others.

[jenlyn]

 

I'm sorry. Is admitting you (i'm not saying you personally) have been breaking the rules for 10 years not WORSE than breaking the rules for one year?

 

One thing i have read over and over on here is people saying that hopefully CRT will sort out the problem of non-compliant CC'ers as BW were useless in doing so.

 

Now you seem to be saying that because BW didn't bother to do anything, it is unfair of CRT to tackle the problem.

 

The solution seems simple to me. Go and say to these NCCC'ers "you've been lucky to get away with this for so long long, now pack your bags and stop taking the piss. Or get a mooring like everybody else".

You sound just like ian duncan smith :-)

[junior]

Putting on the tin hat - I fail to see why anyone should be granted rights when they have for many years appear to have failed to follow the rules and are now being given special treatment. Perhaps i should have failed to tax my car for 20 years - would I now be getting a free tax disc from the DVLA ...., perhaps i should fail to do a tax return and wait for my cheque from HMRC ....

 

As others have said earlier, its not difficult to play the game and try to stay within the rules.

 

 

I'm glad i am not the only to be going through this with the same logic. This whole thing is obsured and IMO stinks!!!

[cotswoldsman]

There are all sorts of boaters on the cut.

Some pay marina licences.

Some claim to CC.

Some claim that they dont have a marina, and dont CC, and want CRT to recognise them as a special group.

I dont see a problem with that, however.....

 

every other boater without a home mooring, and who doesnt CC, will (correctly) be able to point to Uxbridge and say...."if they got special recognition, we want that in our area too. "

 

So I DO see this "new group of boaters" in many more places round the country. If it allows CRT to draw a line in the sand and stop "new" boaters from doing the same thing (by signing an adapted CC licence), then this should be a solution CRT can run with, hoping that over time this "new group" will become smaller and smaller or at least remain the same size and not grow larger. (As they will come down heavily on new licencees who try the same thing).

 

Those who argue that it is a bad move by CRT, havent offerred an alternative solution, and most likely have no understanding of the real issues affecting these boaters. CRT cannot just remove them from the canals, as the eviction process would keep CRT in the law courts for years.

 

Get real people

Thank you Dean and you pay for a marina so pleased to see you are able to see it as it is. The amazing thing is that the people that have been involved in this process actually have nothing to gain from it.

[nicknorman]

 

I'm sorry. Is admitting you (i'm not saying you personally) have been breaking the rules for 10 years not WORSE than breaking the rules for one year?

 

One thing i have read over and over on here is people saying that hopefully CRT will sort out the problem of non-compliant CC'ers as BW were useless in doing so.

 

Now you seem to be saying that because BW didn't bother to do anything, it is unfair of CRT to tackle the problem.

 

The solution seems simple to me. Go and say to these NCCC'ers "you've been lucky to get away with this for so long long, now pack your bags and stop taking the piss. Or get a mooring like everybody else".

But CRT are doing something to tackle the problem. But they are proposing (or going along with) a middle path solution. Come on Junior, I know you are ex mil but we don't need the same tactics we used to invade Iraq for this one!

[Paul C]

Maybe it should go to public consultation?

[nicknorman]

Maybe it should go to public consultation?

Ah democracy! Look where that has got this country!

[junior]

It easy to draw such comparisons - I have been routine speeding for the past 40 years but suspect it would be a bad defence in court! On the other hand, lets consider a council house tenant. He has underpaid his rent for the past 20 years. He kind of knew it, but the council didn't pick up the error for 20 years. Now its been identified, the back rent is £50,000 which he doesn't have. Does the council evict him, making him homeless, or do they enter into a middle path agreement whereby he pays a little extra towards the debt each month, even though this is effectively granting an interest free loan that is not available to others.

 

 

Nobody is suggesting they pay XX ammount or years back pay for a mooring. Using your example, from the point in which the council realise the tennant has been underpaying, he should be expected to pay the correct ammount. If he can't afford it then he thinks to himself " ah well,at least i got away with it for so long. All good things come to an end", and moves out. If he want to pay the current going rate then he can stay there.