Divide and Rule

[luctor et emergo]

Oh, you too have been reading these new proposals?

[NBDensie]

Superb post and one of the clearest explinations i have seen.

Agreed completely. To see the RMP in context is very helpful.

 

Hopefully some equally clear thinking can resolve the question as to what constitutes bona fide navigation.

[NBDensie]

Yeah, well , I think this is the result of pursuing battles with BWB - CRT to the point of obsession, you start to see plots everywhere, However one does have to view the `Authorities`, be they CRT or the local council or anybody else who has the power to make rules and regs. with a very careful eye indeed as the mindset of the bureaucrat is to continually make legislation for people to comply with. When I think back to the 1970`s when there was nothing like the weight of legislation on boaters, drivers or life in general I can`t recall boats blowing up all over the place or anarchy breaking out everywhere, certainly not a `golden age` but a lot less sniping at people who wanted to live on boats by the smug and well heeled who could afford to comply with the rules - am now looking for somewhere to hide.

Richard Cooper

A key difference between the 1970s and now is the numbers. There are far more boats active on the system and there has been an even greater increase in the number of people who see living permanently on a boat as a viable housing option. In the 1970s boaters could largely do their own thing without disturbance or inconvenience to others. This is is no longer the case, at least in some parts of the system. Unfortunately in any area of life there are always a minority of people who will do what they want to do irrespective of the effect on others. Hence regulation.

[Lady Muck]

In this day and age, surely it would make more sense to take a geo-tagged photo of each bowel movement, thus recording the time and date of its production. This could then be paired with a similarly tagged photo recording its safe and responsible disposal.

New CRT enforcement volunteer?

 

[luctor et emergo]

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_3C-zmMMyljlFD1y7OJs2Fq_KFxXt3aEVj8v_drjY3BI7tI5L3BElE3E

[carlt]

Unfortunately in any area of life there are always a minority of people who will do what they want to do irrespective of the effect on others. Hence regulation.

Surely you mean "Hence regulation for the poor and deregulation for the rich".

[Wanted]

Surely if the person who wrote this sour nonsense spent as much time looking for a solution we'd all be in a better place. From what I can see, Steve et al know that their solutions is far from what they actually want but does go someway to getting something out of it.

 

This world is not short of people who want what's best for them but want somebody else to do the work.

[SimonRNABO]

Only just come across this discussion about this article on my personal blog.

 

Don't know who you are 'Jenlyn', so I can say with certainty the article wasn't directed at you personally!

 

Interesting that Jenlyn went on to talk about opposition to RMP's. I certainly did not conciously have that subject in mind when I wrote the article. I was thinking more broadly of how CRT go about rubbishing what they have been told that they don't like during formal consultations, in particular the various moorings consultations over the last few years, (Point 11 in the tactic.) That goes much wider than RMP's.

 

My personal view on RMP's, stated in public and to colleagues on NABO Council, despite my misgivings and those of many others (as for instance set out in many of the responses to the formal consultations where this has been raised over the past few years), is if CRT and individual boaters want to try out RMP's, go ahead and lets see how it works in practice. If it suits individuals and does no harm to anyone else why not?

 

(BW and CRT's past consultations can be accessed here:

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/consultations/completed-consultations

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/consultations)

 

Any suggestion that what I say personally always represents NABO policy is just plain wrong.

 

I've never made personal attacks on any individual boaters, though I know others have; I totally condemn such behaviour against the anonymous Jenlyn or anyone else. I hope I can still disagree with people without having to get personal.

 

The original article was written somewhat tounge in cheek, though obviously some people didn't get it. It was published on a personal blog and intended solely on a personal basis to 'have a vent' and maybe stimulate some thought and discussion. That seems to have worked.

[cotswoldsman]

Certainly worked for me to learn more about the people running NABO and maybe others will also see what joining NABO is not such a great idea just my personal opinion.

[KevMc]

Surely if the person who wrote this sour nonsense spent as much time looking for a solution we'd all be in a better place. From what I can see, Steve et al know that their solutions is far from what they actually want but does go someway to getting something out of it.

 

This world is not short of people who want what's best for them but want somebody else to do the work.

 

In general the powers that be don't adopt solutions that come from the general public - the general public are clearly not experienced enough to know their ar5e from their elbow so can't have useful ideas. Only newly qualified graduates and expensive consultants can have ideas that are worth considering never mind implementing.

[Tuscan]

Certainly worked for me to learn more about the people running NABO and maybe others will also see what joining NABO is not such a great idea just my personal opinion.

Everybody is entitled to a personal opinion as can be seen on other forums linked to RMP's. It was Simon for example that got CRT to publish details of their court cases against boaters and Simon that stood up for boaters on the recent Mayors investigation panel discussing issues with boaters overstaying etc in London I understand.

 

Jenlyns recent stand up row and subsequent formal complaint, Alan's frustration with getting reasonable responses to his emails and your frustration with CRT now wanting meetings with boaters via user groups seems to show the honeymoon period might be over and some aspects of the amusing divide and rule ditty might be true ( from a CRTs perspective anyway).

 

As I have said before IMO it doesn't matter whether you join NABO or not what is important that as individuals or through associations we continue to support CRT where we can but also where we can't make them aware from a boaters perspective of where they could change or improve the boating experience.

 

My fear that whilst having just one license in the future there will be different no return rules, different allowable cruising distances, different visitor moorings timings, different charges and penalties . Not to mention different mooring and cruising arrangements in Uxbridge, Birmngham and Blissworth etc . It will make the Stoke Breune signage look simple.

[cotswoldsman]

We all move on and I think you might find boaters meeting might well happen again (we will see) these is a meeting between about 60 boaters and CRT happening in Birmingham on 27 September.

[carlt]

 

My fear that whilst having just one license in the future there will be different no return rules, different allowable cruising distances, different visitor moorings timings, different charges and penalties . Not to mention different mooring and cruising arrangements in Uxbridge, Birmngham and Blissworth etc . It will make the Stoke Breune signage look simple.

Personally I think there should be different allowable cruising distances between, say, urban and rural waters.

 

I think it would be silly to impose the same visitor mooring times in, for example, Braunston or the middle of nowhere.

 

Charging to stay at popular spots is normal in the non-waterway world so why shouldn't CRT charge at the "honey-pot" sites (Though I still maintain that they have no legal authority to impose penalty charges).

 

There are obviously different issues with mooring and cruising arrangements in different parts of the country so why not look for different solutions?

 

Running and maintaining a transport network isn't "simple" and when it's as big as this one there is no "one size fits all" answer to the various challenges.

[KevMc]

Personally I think there should be different allowable cruising distances between, say, urban and rural waters.

 

 

Isn't that what CRT's guidelines define anyway - they say you must move from one 'place' to another 'place' every 14 days (or less if so designated) ... and they say 'place' is how it is commonly referred to. Places in cities tend to be smaller than places in the country so you woudln't have to move as far in the city as in the country.

[Tuscan]

We all move on and I think you might find boaters meeting might well happen again (we will see) these is a meeting between about 60 boaters and CRT happening in Birmingham on 27 September.

Yes the previously arranged social , a really good idea and I will be there and look forward to meeting you. I hope they do happen again as the user groups are too one sided.

[SimonRNABO]

... and Simon that stood up for boaters on the recent Mayors investigation panel discussing issues with boaters overstaying etc in London I understand.

 

Thanks Tuscan, but that's overstating it a bit! - I was there too but lots of other boaters and non boaters came and spoke independently of my input.

 

See http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/investigations/moorings-on-londons-waterways

 

If you have a couple of hours with nothing else to do the webcast is still available: http://www.london.gov.uk/webcasts/33101/asx

[mayalld]

Everybody is entitled to a personal opinion as can be seen on other forums linked to RMP's. It was Simon for example that got CRT to publish details of their court cases against boaters and Simon that stood up for boaters on the recent Mayors investigation panel discussing issues with boaters overstaying etc in London I understand.

 

Did he stand up for the overstaying boaters or for the compliant boaters who are aggrieved by overstaying boaters?

[SimonRNABO]

Did he stand up for the overstaying boaters or for the compliant boaters who are aggrieved by overstaying boaters?

 

I have never supported overstaying or individuals who do so. The baseline '14 day rule' is one thing that is crystal clear in the legislation.

[mayalld]

 

I have never supported overstaying or individuals who do so. The baseline '14 day rule' is one thing that is crystal clear in the legislation.

 

Sorry, I thought you were talking about overstaying in general, rather than remaining in one place for more than 14 days when you should be engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

The only 14 day rule that is crystal clear in the legislation is the 14 day rule that applies to CCing. The general 14 day rule has no explicit basis in primary legislation.

[SimonRNABO]

The only 14 day rule that is crystal clear in the legislation is the 14 day rule that applies to CCing. The general 14 day rule has no explicit basis in primary legislation.

 

You are quite right on that. However I hope most boaters with home moorings agree that the 14 day 'general' rule is one they are happy to observe so that there is parity in access to vistor/towpath moorings?