FEDUP.

[Jerra]

It will be offered to other areas where there is a problem it is then up to those involved to to decided if they want it

Could you explain how a moratorium would work? If nothing else this thread now has people getting involved in trying to find a solution.

Ah! This is the first suggestion I have seen that it is anything other than a local answer to a local problem.

 

Basically the scheme seems to me to be a sort of open ended moratorium. In that people know they are going to have to change their lifestyle eventually but there is no time scale. Allowing for differing roll outs in different areas it may take decades to "solve" the problem.

 

To me it just seemed simpler and faster (assuming CRT records are as good as I hope they are) to say to everyone in the country (probably contacted individually) right we want to sort this problem but we realise your position so you have X years. After that full normal enforcement will be in place nation wide. X can depend on what those who know more about the required time scales than me. However I would have thought 10 or 15 years fair and shorter than the 30+ in my previous example.

 

The advantages (to me) would be:

 

1. Everyone would know exactly how long they had rather than thinking well it will take 5 years before the scheme reaches this region and then I am OK until I need to leave the area.

 

2. It would prevent more people (in other areas) having been in place long enough to qualify for the list.

 

3. There would be an end point in the not too distant future - rather than 30 or 40 years.

 

4. It would be fair to all in all areas.

 

N.B I am still only suggesting it for people in the situation that has been outlined not for all NCCCers (e.g. those who have recently begun CCing)

[alan_fincher]

Not a problem - we have no intention of selling! After all, there is nothing to "move up" to.

 

?????????????????????

 

[bowten]

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 sir can be a plonker.

[Berengaria]

Problem solved!!

 

Ok so I know you're being sarcastic but seriously, why wouldn't this solve the problem?

 

From the way I see it, the 'problem' is some people having gotten used to being in the same area and have come to rely on that location. For whatever reason BW allowed this to continue, CaRT will not.

 

By giving EVERYONE fair warning that the rules will change at a pre-determined point in the future, and giving EVERYONE the fair chance to make arrangements that allow them to continue their chosen lifestyle, why would this not be a fair solution?

 

The only people who would suffer at the end of it would be people who CHOOSE not to comply, even when given every opportunity to do so, and I think that's fair enough don't you?

[RLWP]

{snip}

 

fair chance to make arrangements that allow them to continue their chosen lifestyle

 

{snip}

 

 

as I understand it, that's exactly what is happening

 

Richard

[Timleech]

Some of you are missing my point...which is not that I am unhappy or trying to change any rules....all I'm saying is that...there are situations which do arise where people on the canals find themselves stuck between the 2 rules (a marina or a CC-er), due to no real cause of their own. These people shouldnt always be victimised, but a licence option should exist to include them. I have never been in that group of people, but, due to the fact I happen to actually be in a widebeam in Manchester, with a kid in college, should I actually hurt my back to the extent that I'm no longer able to pay a marina cost, and unable to cruise up and down the 50Rochdale locks, I should not automatically become "illegal" ...and then lose my family's home due to that.

 

does that not make sense to anyone

 

Again, I am not trying to bend rules, and am currently fully legal, but who knows what the future may hold, so what's going on in Uxbridge does have a lot of interest for many boaters across the country who would see "roving licences" as a 3rd way in the future. At the Skipton meeting, I do remember CRT mentioning different winter mooring "zones" ...which would also require a "temporary roving licence" for those months

 

I don't really understand how, in your particular situation, a change in the rules would help your hypothetical situation? Do you think you should be allowed to squat on the towpath, because your other options are very limited if you feel constrained to stick to CRT waters and don't want to go up the Rochdale locks.

 

Your initial question seemed to me to be much the same as " I had a good well paid job, bought a big house with a big mortgage. Now I've lost my job and can't afford the mortgage. What are other people going to do for me?"

 

Tim

[Berengaria]

as I understand it, that's exactly what is happening

 

Richard

 

Not quite - it's not available to everyone. That's my point.

[RLWP]

Not quite - it's not available to everyone. That's my point.

 

How do you know that?

 

Richard

[Leni]

This thread makes it very obvious that you will never be able to please everyone, but I'd like to say thank you very much indeed to John, Steve, Alan (and others) for doing what you have done and are continuing to do. When there is a next CRT Council election, I know who I would hope will stand, and for whom I would wholeheartedly vote!

[jenlyn]

When I have concrete proposals on this subject, I will post them on here. My personal view is that these proposals are tailored for the area, therefore, need not to have a national consultation.

 

IF, the proposals were to be rolled out in other areas, I would also expect them to be tailored.

I am adult enough these days not to worry about what the jones's have, and what I do not, because thats what this thread seems to be about.

I continue to wander if some just fear the thought of harmony on the system.

[Berengaria]

Your initial question seemed to me to be much the same as " I had a good well paid job, bought a big house with a big mortgage. Now I've lost my job and can't afford the mortgage. What are other people going to do for me?"

 

Tim

 

Isn't that what the benefits system is?

 

How do you know that?

 

Richard

 

Fair point, I don't for sure, it's just what has been inferred in this thread - that it's an isolated case for Uxbridge only. I'll be the first to stick my hand up if CaRT roll this out nationwide.

[nicknorman]

?????????????????????

 

 

Naughty! - but it did make me chuckle so I'll let you off!

 

This thread makes it very obvious that you will never be able to please everyone, but I'd like to say thank you very much indeed to John, Steve, Alan (and others) for doing what you have done and are continuing to do. When there is a next CRT Council election, I know who I would hope will stand, and for whom I would wholeheartedly vote!

 

Alan's just lost my vote!

[bowten]

Ian it was not to no avail some of us were listening just sometimes it is not worth the debate on here. I have spoken to CRT about the Skipton area

Thats good John. Because of the new Landowner from Hell we have lost our mooring after 13 years and find myself in the same predicament as the boaters I was trying to help.

[RLWP]

Fair point, I don't for sure, it's just what has been inferred in this thread - that it's an isolated case for Uxbridge only. I'll be the first to stick my hand up if CaRT roll this out nationwide.

 

Up where?

 

 

 

Richard

[Berengaria]

Up where?

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

Haha well I meant to say "Stick my hand up and apologise" but "Where the sun don't shine" will equally do.

 

By that of course I mean Manchester.

[Tuscan]

It will be offered to other areas where there is a problem it is then up to those involved to to decided if they want it

Could you explain how a moratorium would work? If nothing else this thread now has people getting involved in trying to find a solution.

It's been rejected by the boating community in the K&A I understand although I believe CRT are exerting pressure for its introduction.

 

If the boaters want it and CRT is happy to agree I can't see why there should be a lot of fuss but lets not kid ourselves that it will solve the problem or just be short term.

 

Unless there is a proper mechanism , and there isnt, that enables CRT to quickly enforce clear rules boats will continue to cluster and wait for the next amnesty or agreement. You buy a boat like Dean decide you don't want or can't afford a mooring so claim CRT should make an exception because of schooling, work, elderly relations, or whatever - sorry Dean not picking on you just picking up on your post.

[luctor et emergo]

 

How do you know that?

 

Richard

It is explained earlier on that this is a specific solution, with very defined parameters to qualify. I.e. It is specificly tailored to a small number of long term rezidentz boats in the Uxbridge area.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Thats good John. Because of the new Landowner from Hell we have lost our mooring after 13 years and find myself in the same predicament as the boaters I was trying to help.

I know Ian and it is to help people like yourself who find circumstances have changed that we are trying to solve. Some would just want you thrown off your boat made homeless but there are people that have a bit more sympathy and believe we should find a solution that works for everyone. Pm me your phone number.

[RLWP]

Haha well I meant to say "Stick my hand up and apologise" but "Where the sun don't shine" will equally do.

 

By that of course I mean Manchester.

 

At last - now we are in full agreement

 

Richard

[Doorman]

Sorry

Try to resist it

but as a geordie the best team won

 

LOL

 

coat

. At least they managed a goal! :-). Bigger coat and awaits reference to cannibalism.

[mayalld]

Some of you are missing my point...which is not that I am unhappy or trying to change any rules....all I'm saying is that...there are situations which do arise where people on the canals find themselves stuck between the 2 rules (a marina or a CC-er), due to no real cause of their own. These people shouldnt always be victimised, but a licence option should exist to include them.

I would disagree.

 

There are two options available, you may choose one. You don't have the right to demand that just because none of the available options suits you, more options should be made available.

[PaulG]

I'm trying to understand what it happening here. As far as I can see:

 

1. A group of boaters was given some advice by BW some years ago regarding the "rules" for CC-ing.

2. They have complied with these "rules" for some years.

3. The current rules for CC-ing are not the same as the old "rules".

4. Due to the passage of time, the group may have aquired some legal rights.

5. There is therefore some doubt as to whether, in their case, the current rules could be enforced in a court of law.

6. CART have therefore proposed a special licencing arrangement whereby these boaters pay some extra money, and continue to observe the old "rules".

 

If my understanding is correct, I fail to see what the argument is about. Seems perfectly sensible to me

 

Of course, I may be wrong in my understanding of the situation - I'm sure someone will soon enlighten me if this is the case!

[system 4-50]

Dear Maggie, please make it so that we can have a free market on the canals so I can sell my online mooring if I want and so DeanS can sublet his marina berth when he is not using it.

4-50

PS Please do not do this by closing down the entire canal system.

PPS Sorry, did not realise you wuz dead. Will await your resurrection.

[DeanS]

You don't have the right to demand that just because none of the available options suits you, more options should be made available.

 

Whose demanding anything.

It's just a suggestion.

and why shouldnt more options be made available?

 

 

ETA...in order to extract myself from this thread (my fault for being addicted to the forum), I'll end with this.

I know the current rules.

I currently obey the current rules.

However, I see a problem with the current rules in that...should life serve me a curveball where I had to leave the marina...it would mean I would be illegal in the eyes of CRT... which is where I think "roving licences" for boaters with special needs, is justified.

 

over and out.

Edited May 1, 2013 by DeanS

[RLWP]

Whose demanding anything.

It's just a suggestion.

and why shouldnt more options be made available?

 

There are more options available to you in particular

 

1. get a narrower boat
2. live in a house

That's four options now

 

Richard