Why not join NABO?

[mrsmelly]

So do you believe Cotswoldman is wasting his time and money on a non existent cause?

Err No John is a very nice bloke. I went to one of the meetings. He is doing a good job for those that feel the need

 

Tim

[sueb]

Err No John is a very nice bloke. I went to one of the meetings. He is doing a good job for those that feel the need

 

Tim

But is there a need?

[mrsmelly]

 

This is such utter, naïve, ostrich mentality rubbish. Agreed, most of the thousands of boaters will never fall foul of the authorities – whether complying fully with the ‘rules’ or not. That is not to say that everyone abiding by them need not worry because BW and CART will be nothing but helpful; history relates otherwise.

 

If your presence on the waterways interferes with personal, financial or other institutional agendas regardless of the legitimacy of your presence or behaviour, you do well to be on guard and to be thankful if there are any prepared to fight your corner – because BW/CART have and will disregard law, decency, truth, and respect for your rights in driving through their own agenda, whatever the personal cost to you. It happens time and again – and they will continue to behave this way as occasion arises, simply because they know that they get away with it - always. Why would they change?

 

It’s not that they are “trying to stop boaters”, and the majority will share your experience. Undoubtedly too, there are many ‘rule breakers’ who will also never fall under adverse scrutiny, as well as those in more populous areas who probably should be subject to legitimate enforcement. But you have been living in your happy little bubble of carefree boating with helpful officialdom only because other agendas happened not to affect your fortunate self.

Err I take it you dont agree with me?

I am not naive or an ostrich. I have livedaboard for 24 years and still do and will do until I decide I dont want to. My boating will continue without problem as it does for all my many longterm liveaboard friends some of who have lived aboard more than forty years. There are no problems. How many years have you lived aboard? and why do you feel there are problems? I have never found any as a ccer or indeed when on a permanent mooring.

Very few of my friends are forum members could that be their reasons for not worrying?

 

Tim

 

Ps off to work now on our fab waterways.

 

Tim

[mrsmelly]

But is there a need?

Hi sue

 

I dont know any more than anyone else it would seem. My opinion is there is nothing whatsoever to fear but others have differing views. You are longterm liveaboard what horrific changes do you recall in the past twenty odd years and more importantly what worries you about CART?

Must shoot off to work now.

 

Tim

[blodger]

But is there a need?

 

Patently there is if one feels one is not represented by the organisations purportedly set up to obviate such need.

 

One aspect of collective organised representation that gets missed is representation of monorities or of those with alternative views. Echoing concerns you have been expressing regarding CWDF. There will always be a need to do things in other ways if the needs of such other are to hold any weight rather than following the blind or uncaring majority.

 

ETA second paragraph

Edited August 23, 2013 by blodger

[c c]

There are no problems.

You just gotta love the planet Mr Smelly lives aboard.

[cotswoldsman]

Hi sue

 

I dont know any more than anyone else it would seem. My opinion is there is nothing whatsoever to fear but others have differing views. You are longterm liveaboard what horrific changes do you recall in the past twenty odd years and more importantly what worries you about CART?

Must shoot off to work now.

 

Tim

Tim

I agree with you there are not many problems at present but it is what might happen in the future that is of concern,boaters need to keep CRT under check. As one of the 30 percenters I am concerned that we are seen as a minority whose views do not really matter. The reason why we have not seen any horrific changes might well be because of the work done in the past by NABO, RBOA etc I guess we will never really know, I do think we need to ensure we do not see any horrific changes over the next few years never mind the next 20 years. I have always said we need to work with CRT to sort out any perceived problems in a grown up way by discussion.

[blodger]

Tim

I agree with you there are not many problems at present but it is what might happen in the future that is of concern,boaters need to keep CRT under check. As one of the 30 percenters I am concerned that we are seen as a minority whose views do not really matter. The reason why we have not seen any horrific changes might well be because of the work done in the past by NABO, RBOA etc I guess we will never really know, I do think we need to ensure we do not see any horrific changes over the next few years never mind the next 20 years. I have always said we need to work with CRT to sort out any perceived problems in a grown up way by discussion.

 

I agree with the sentiments of that. As I have said I am being tempted towards NABO but I think if its stance on Roving Permits and Enforcement Fines are contrary to my own as I suspect they are I will not be joining but looking for an alternative, not necessarily that agrees with me but also puts the alternative view.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I agree with the sentiments of that. As I have said I am being tempted towards NABO but I think if its stance on Roving Permits and Enforcement Fines are contrary to my own as I suspect they are I will not be joining but looking for an alternative, not necessarily that agrees with me but also puts the alternative view.

The Association of Thirty Percenters

[Neil2]

Can I politely suggest that you get out and about a bit more and talk to more boaters especially those on a pension. £25 might well be throw away money to you, Can I suggest that you throw some of it in the direction of those that during the winter are unable to buy enough coal to keep their boats warm for much of the time. We have had quite a few meetings with CRT on the "Ticking time bomb" waiting to go off with ageing boaters who sold everything to buy a boat and now find that their income has not kept pace with the cost of living on a boat. CRT might well at present prefer to listen to a group with a strong mandate, we need to change that, and not just accept it. Any boater deserves an equal voice and should not have to pay for the privilege to be heard by CRT we all pay for a licence, I am not saying don't join NABO or any other organisation if that is what you want to do.

Can I politely suggest that you don't go making assumptions about others financial status!

 

The point I was trying to make was that when you consider how expensive it is to own a boat, £25 is not a lot of money - I can't believe anyone would argue with that. To put a boat legitimately on the water these days involves parting with several hundred maybe thousands of pounds, which we cough up without question. What I'm suggesting is that there might be some value in shelling out a relatively small amount of cash for proper representation of our interests, which might possibly lead to either a reduction in our general overheads or better value for money, or both.

 

Believe it or not I actually agree with your aim of seeking grass roots consultation but I just know it's never going to happen. I spent a long time working with civil servants on this when I was in local government and though everyone agrees with this sort of thing in principle, it's so difficult to achieve in practice that public organisations in particular always fall back on formal structures. A lot of it has to do with managers simply not having the confidence to believe that investing a lot of time and resources on real consultation will actually improve efficiency. I've been there and argued the case from within, but the guy at the top has to carry the can if it all goes wrong and for most of them it's just too risky.

 

For this reason I wouldn't be too critical of the way C&RT have reacted over this issue, I suspect there is a lot of sympathy within the organisation but it's early days yet. Maybe I am being too pessimistic actually, but certainly in the short term I can't see any alternative to supporting a formally constituted group.

 

And, by the way, I am from Yorkshire so the idea of throwing money in anyone's direction goes well against the grain...

[cotswoldsman]

 

Believe it or not I actually agree with your aim of seeking grass roots consultation but I just know it's never going to happen. I spent a long time working with civil servants on this when I was in local government and though everyone agrees with this sort of thing in principle, it's so difficult to achieve in practice that public organisations in particular always fall back on formal structures. A lot of it has to do with managers simply not having the confidence to believe that investing a lot of time and resources on real consultation will actually improve efficiency. I've been there and argued the case from within, but the guy at the top has to carry the can if it all goes wrong and for most of them it's just too risky.

 

For this reason I wouldn't be too critical of the way C&RT have reacted over this issue, I suspect there is a lot of sympathy within the organisation but it's early days yet. Maybe I am being too pessimistic actually, but certainly in the short term I can't see any alternative to supporting a formally constituted group.

 

And, by the way, I am from Yorkshire so the idea of throwing money in anyone's direction goes well against the grain...

Never going to happen?? Watch this space we are not going away!! We are in a new age the Internet has completely changed the way these things work. Boaters now are able to express their views and ensure they are heard this then needs to be followed up with face to face meetings. We are working on a number of different Surveys at present to ensure we promote what concerns boaters.

[blodger]

The Association of Thirty Percenters

 

Yes.

& No

I do not necesarily agree with majority rule. It's where democracy gets it wrong IMHO. The perversity of my nature means I find it difficult not to see things from an alternative view and see a real role for devil's advocates in nearly all decision making.

Edited August 23, 2013 by blodger

[Jerra]

Perhaps somebody who is a member of NABO can do some clarification fo rme.

 

Point 8 in the NABO policies begins by saying "NABO is opposed to charges being applied to visitor moorings." and near the end of the paragraph says "Where a vessel overstays the advertised mooring period, NABO will support the application of CRT’s charges,"

 

As a share boater the prospect of over staying charges worries me, as either I can't easily plan my cruise in advance (not knowing where others may have stayed) or plan and risk an overstaying charge.

 

It seems a strange policy to oppose something in one part of the paragraph and support it a line or two lower down.

[NigelMoore]

Err I take it you dont agree with me?

I am not naive or an ostrich. I have livedaboard for 24 years and still do and will do until I decide I dont want to. My boating will continue without problem as it does for all my many longterm liveaboard friends some of who have lived aboard more than forty years. There are no problems. How many years have you lived aboard? and why do you feel there are problems? I have never found any as a ccer or indeed when on a permanent mooring.

Very few of my friends are forum members could that be their reasons for not worrying?

 

Tim

 

Ps off to work now on our fab waterways.

 

Tim

 

That’s right, I do not agree with you. The fact that you and the majority of law-abiding boaters have not run into conflict with the authorities is no guarantee that you could not and will not, despite your confidence. In other words, abiding by the law/rules/guidelines is in itself insufficient to keep you out of trouble IF the authorities have reasons of their own for wanting to get rid of you.

 

You probably will never run into trouble, most won’t; but that will not be guaranteed by your good behaviour. As a law-abiding CC’er you may be less likely to encounter serious problems than a law-abiding boater on a permanent mooring, but many law-abiding CC’ers are finding that the ‘rules’ are a tightening noose being subjected to ever more stringent conditions – and test cases are brought specifically as a method to refine those with the justification of circuit judge approval.

 

To answer your direct questions I have lived aboard since the beginning of 1990, and for most of those years I too had little or no problems, whether at my mooring or travelling. Why do I feel there are problems? - because I see and have experienced them first hand, as you well know, and because of that exposure have learnt of the problems of others.

 

Your long-term liveaboard friends are not worrying probably because like you, they cannot conceive of any lawful reason whereby they would encounter problems while complying “with the very very few and very easy rules”, and if so, like you, they would be failing to factor in the reality that the authorities are perfectly happy to act without lawful reasons if need be for their purposes. If amongst the fortunate majority, for so long as you & your friends keep your heads in the sand you will never see what is happening “out there” to others - despite their rule-keeping - and will consequently rest secure in your prejudices, and in the rightness of your defamatory implications.

 

If my tone was sharp, it is because you use your misplaced confidence in the impregnability of rule-followers to justify claiming that those who are encountering problems must necessarily therefore, be rule-breakers. It is not so.

 

All of the individuals and the organisations who are working towards clarity of the enforceable ‘rules’, whether by legal or consensual means, do so to the benefit of all, whether you think you need it or not, and they are not even necessarily doing what they do because of any personal or even general perceived immediate need. They just want an accepted consensus on what those “very very few and very easy rules” really entail, along with some assurance [for what it's worth] that the authority will not seek to act beyond that agreed boundary. Any result will affect you, even if it won’t bother you [nor I for that matter].

[Mick and Maggie]

Actually we regular see discussion about how many members (say) the IWA, NABO or RBOA have, and the questions are seldom adequately answered by any real facts.

 

As BW/CRT have in the past treated a dialogue with these people as being representative of boaters generally, (and now seem keen to back off to this again), I think it is entitrly reasonable to have some idea of how many CRT boat licences are actually backed up by the licence e having membership of one or more of these associations. If for example, (and as I expect), only around 1000 of the 33,000 (or maybe 34,000) CTY licence holders are NABO members, then NABO might "represent" (say) just 3% of us. I'm a NABO member, but I think its low membership still does not give a mandate to say it represents all inland boaters.

 

You were a strong protagonist for "Boaters Manifesto" weren't you ? How many boaters could they honestly have claimed they represented - they struggled to get 200 to just complete the tick box on a petition!

 

If anybody has tried comparing membership of the associations to that of CWDF, then that is just daft. We have little idea how many CWDF members one might count as "active", for all the reasons you give, but people like myself, John Sloan and Steve Jay have always said CWDF can't ever be considered as "representative", and nobody who has been in discussions with CRT has claimed this, nor would want to. None of us have any mandate from CWDF to say "the collective view of the forum is....", although I might seek to say sometimes "far more people giving an opinion on this topic hold this view than hold that view".

 

I give my support to any idea that gets some boaters interested in the inexorable changes that have overtaken the Inland Waterways. The complacency as a result of the old waterways lifestyle in the past, needs to change. Government quango to Charity is quite a significant change for the inland waterways. The emphasis has changed from the distant reassurance of government coffers to the new reality of the begging bowl. Now if you were one like me who felt uncomfortable with the old crowd at BW and the cock-ups that cost millions of pounds. I am not sure what reassurance you could get from the same old doing the same old.

 

The IWA is a spent force in the sense that it represents all waterways users. It has lost its independence in taking the CaRT shilling and are even now cosying up in bed and sleeping with their masters. Boaters are only one of the IWA internal divisions. If there are many differing opinions amongst boaters on CWF how many opinions would there be to serve if you include fishermen, walkers, ramblers, cyclists and many others.

 

What is needed is a representative voice that is consulted as an equal. That examines the issues, provides an understandable explanation for its members and listens to their voices. I'm not looking for a replacement for the IWA - long may it continue. I want an association of boat owners and anyone else who sees boats as their main interest is welcome. Staffed by those knowledgeable people who bring a wealth of all kinds of expertise and knowledge from their shore side life. But with the unequivocal standpoint of representing the best interests of its membership first and last.

 

What is happening on CWF is an amount of sabre rattling, pique and vitriol being vented. Once that is out of the way then a more measured and meaningful response to the issues will come about. Will a new association come out of CWF - I don't know, who does. However at this time NABO fills the mandate for me. John and others individuals have attempted direct action and to a point it has been successful. But CaRT have a nice convenient get out of jail card, based upon how representative the opinions that they express are. CaRT know that they can jiggle the string anytime. because John and others do not have a mandate - only an informed opinion. The one thing that CaRT do not want is activists getting organised. So whilst the angst is batted around on here and little else happens, why should they have any concern. A few cups of tea or a beer and a cosy chat with the anointed friendly trustee will do.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Build a good boaters association and the membership will beat a path to your door.

[howardang]

 

I give my support to any idea that gets some boaters interested in the inexorable changes that have overtaken the Inland Waterways. The complacency as a result of the old waterways lifestyle in the past, needs to change. Government quango to Charity is quite a significant change for the inland waterways. The emphasis has changed from the distant reassurance of government coffers to the new reality of the begging bowl. Now if you were one like me who felt uncomfortable with the old crowd at BW and the cock-ups that cost millions of pounds. I am not sure what reassurance you could get from the same old doing the same old.

 

The IWA is a spent force in the sense that it represents all waterways users. It has lost its independence in taking the CaRT shilling and are even now cosying up in bed and sleeping with their masters. Boaters are only one of the IWA internal divisions. If there are many differing opinions amongst boaters on CWF how many opinions would there be to serve if you include fishermen, walkers, ramblers, cyclists and many others.

 

What is needed is a representative voice that is consulted as an equal. That examines the issues, provides an understandable explanation for its members and listens to their voices. I'm not looking for a replacement for the IWA - long may it continue. I want an association of boat owners and anyone else who sees boats as their main interest is welcome. Staffed by those knowledgeable people who bring a wealth of all kinds of expertise and knowledge from their shore side life. But with the unequivocal standpoint of representing the best interests of its membership first and last.

 

What is happening on CWF is an amount of sabre rattling, pique and vitriol being vented. Once that is out of the way then a more measured and meaningful response to the issues will come about. Will a new association come out of CWF - I don't know, who does. However at this time NABO fills the mandate for me. John and others individuals have attempted direct action and to a point it has been successful. But CaRT have a nice convenient get out of jail card, based upon how representative the opinions that they express are. CaRT know that they can jiggle the string anytime. because John and others do not have a mandate - only an informed opinion. The one thing that CaRT do not want is activists getting organised. So whilst the angst is batted around on here and little else happens, why should they have any concern. A few cups of tea or a beer and a cosy chat with the anointed friendly trustee will do.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson said, build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. Build a good boaters association and the membership will beat a path to your door.

A suggestion which started to do the rounds a year or two ago and then died, was that because IWA had a more general remit than just boating, there should be a section of IWA specifically to speak for, and support the boating community. Part of the proposal was that this "boaters section" could be potentially be formed by some form of merger between IWA and NABO (which would have meant a re-write of NABO's Constitution to include non-boat owners) but other than an interesting five minute discussion item in the pub it never got anywhere. Maybe it might be worth a second look?

 

Howard

[cotswoldsman]

A suggestion which started to do the rounds a year or two ago and then died, was that because IWA had a more general remit than just boating, there should be a section of IWA specifically to speak for, and support the boating community. Part of the proposal was that this "boaters section" could be potentially be formed by some form of merger between IWA and NABO (which would have meant a re-write of NABO's Constitution to include non-boat owners) but other than an interesting five minute discussion item in the pub it never got anywhere. Maybe it might be worth a second look?

 

Howard

I think that would be the death nail for NABO (just MO) but would certainly open the the door for The Association of Thirty Percenters

[mrsmelly]

 

That’s right, I do not agree with you. The fact that you and the majority of law-abiding boaters have not run into conflict with the authorities is no guarantee that you could not and will not, despite your confidence. In other words, abiding by the law/rules/guidelines is in itself insufficient to keep you out of trouble IF the authorities have reasons of their own for wanting to get rid of you.

 

You probably will never run into trouble, most won’t; but that will not be guaranteed by your good behaviour. As a law-abiding CC’er you may be less likely to encounter serious problems than a law-abiding boater on a permanent mooring, but many law-abiding CC’ers are finding that the ‘rules’ are a tightening noose being subjected to ever more stringent conditions – and test cases are brought specifically as a method to refine those with the justification of circuit judge approval.

 

To answer your direct questions I have lived aboard since the beginning of 1990, and for most of those years I too had little or no problems, whether at my mooring or travelling. Why do I feel there are problems? - because I see and have experienced them first hand, as you well know, and because of that exposure have learnt of the problems of others.

 

Your long-term liveaboard friends are not worrying probably because like you, they cannot conceive of any lawful reason whereby they would encounter problems while complying “with the very very few and very easy rules”, and if so, like you, they would be failing to factor in the reality that the authorities are perfectly happy to act without lawful reasons if need be for their purposes. If amongst the fortunate majority, for so long as you & your friends keep your heads in the sand you will never see what is happening “out there” to others - despite their rule-keeping - and will consequently rest secure in your prejudices, and in the rightness of your defamatory implications.

 

If my tone was sharp, it is because you use your misplaced confidence in the impregnability of rule-followers to justify claiming that those who are encountering problems must necessarily therefore, be rule-breakers. It is not so.

 

All of the individuals and the organisations who are working towards clarity of the enforceable ‘rules’, whether by legal or consensual means, do so to the benefit of all, whether you think you need it or not, and they are not even necessarily doing what they do because of any personal or even general perceived immediate need. They just want an accepted consensus on what those “very very few and very easy rules” really entail, along with some assurance [for what it's worth] that the authority will not seek to act beyond that agreed boundary. Any result will affect you, even if it won’t bother you [nor I for that matter].

Hi

 

sorry I dont have a clue who you are so the highlighted bit is incorrect. As for the sharp tone, well no worries there I assure you I have dealt with immeasureably worse things than that during my lifetime.

My view may be simplistic but I have heard scaremongering on and off for all my time aboard. We need to bookmark this thread and leave it for say five years and come back to it and see what if any major changes have been made.

 

Cheers

 

Tim

[Rusty Shackleford]

Perhaps somebody who is a member of NABO can do some clarification fo rme.

 

Point 8 in the NABO policies begins by saying "NABO is opposed to charges being applied to visitor moorings." and near the end of the paragraph says "Where a vessel overstays the advertised mooring period, NABO will support the application of CRTs charges,"

 

As a share boater the prospect of over staying charges worries me, as either I can't easily plan my cruise in advance (not knowing where others may have stayed) or plan and risk an overstaying charge.

 

It seems a strange policy to oppose something in one part of the paragraph and support it a line or two lower down.

I'm not a member but I assume it means they are opposed to charging for visitor moorings, ie....24, 48 hr etc where they are currently free, and in favour of charges for overstaying on them. Pretty fair. Edited August 24, 2013 by Rusty Shackleford

[Jerra]

I'm not a member but I assume it means they are opposed to charging for visitor moorings, ie....24, 48 hr etc where they are currently free, and in favour of charges for overstaying on them. Pretty fair.

You may be right but to me an over staying charge is a "charge being applied"

[Rusty Shackleford]

You may be right but to me an over staying charge is a "charge being applied"

I suppose they support the CRT view that there must be an 'incentive' to stop people overstaying on VM. Maybe they should propose that CRT have a line of contact where boaters can have the charge waived if in trouble, emergency or need a temporary extension.

[Paul C]

You may be right but to me an over staying charge is a "charge being applied"

 

That's like saying speeding fines are an extra charge on the average motorist. Even if you interpreted it like that, you can see that the thrifty motorist/boater has an easy way to 'avoid' these extra charges.

[cotswoldsman]

 

That's like saying speeding fines are an extra charge on the average motorist. Even if you interpreted it like that, you can see that the thrifty motorist/boater has an easy way to 'avoid' these extra charges.

Ummmm Fine? Speeding is a fine for breaking the law surely? I thought the £25 was a charge for using facilities, am I missing something here?

[Rich]

Ummmm Fine? Speeding is a fine for breaking the law surely? I thought the £25 was a charge for using facilities, am I missing something here?

I haven't heard about this. Is there to be a charge for using the canalside facilities, presumably water, elsan disposal and refuse disposal? Is this charge 25 quid a time or for a set period?

[Paul C]

Ummmm Fine? Speeding is a fine for breaking the law surely? I thought the £25 was a charge for using facilities, am I missing something here?

 

No you're not missing anything except that you're interpreting things a slightly different way than many others. I know as much as you whether the £25 overstay charge is legally enforceable - time will tell on this one.