CRT - Press Release - Roving Mooring Permits

[Captain Zim]

I am still of the opinion that CRT have handled this very badly by giving the impression that they had taken full Legal Advise.

Fully agree. I also echo other thoughts that nick browns case might have had something to do with this. And to be fair, legal opinion can change over the period of time we are talking about. But even so, it should have been managed better and hopefully CaRT and other organisations who send out messages will learn from this. Can well understand the disappointment though.

[churchward]

Thank you for the responses to my question Steve Timebeck and the additional info from John. Refreshing to have some posts explaining the position rather than having a slanging match degrading to personal insults. It allows those interested in the matter to make up their own minds and at least leave the thread better informed.

 

We have to hope that some kind of alternative solution can be found that helps people who need it and that the demise of RMP does not effect the WMP and it is available again next winter.

 

I don't boat much in the SE other than going down through Oxford and onto the Thames occasionally but I do go out boating in the winter and I have not noticed any difference or inconvenience to me due to WMP so hard for me to see how continuing with it will be an issue.

[steve_timebeck]

Well much as I like to read fiction, I do think one or two of these points need clarifying.

 

It was also made quite clear by John Dodwell at the time, that any monies raised locally by RMP, would be spent within its own boundaries.

"Where will the income from the Roving Permit go? Ideally at least some of it would be used for improvements in the area concerned. Sally [Ash] will seek support for this approach from the Trust’s executive." - CUB Meeting Minutes 24 April 2013

The fact is, he and a 4 others attended a meeting with Sally Ash and John Dodwell that had been arranged with 60 boaters to discuss RMP.
The meeting was interrupted by Timebeck and the 4 others, through heckling and generally trying to divert the meeting onto other issues.

That would be the meeting held at Denham Yacht Club on 24 April 2013. All the questions I asked were through the chair with the kind permission of the the chairman. I do recall you bounding across the floor at one point, pint in hand, demanding to know where my boat was moored as Peter Palmer of CRT was speaking. I also recall that the three CRT persons present were happy to answer the points I raised. Sally Ash was also kind enough to elaborate on a couple of them after the meeting.

No one was threatened or abused, though I did on a later date have the police turn up to an incident in Rickmansworth, where one of Timebeck's idiots had visited my boat at night threatening to harm myself or the boat if I attempted to stay in the area.

 

Would you like me to publish the evidence here?

Your potentially libellous suggestion that I had people threaten you is a serious one. Perhaps you could post the crime number related to the incident so that it could be further investigated.

Was this the incident where you waved a baseball bat at the man on the towpath who told you exactly what he thought of you?

There were arguments surrounding the RMP in Uxbridge, from 10 people, inclusive of 3 from this forum.
Some of those interested in RMP were harassed when using the local marina where Timebeck works. This resulted in division and further argument, which then saw many not using that marina for supplies.

I would be interested in any evidence you have of people being harassed, as would the owners of Denham Marina. I probably should also remind you that I work for myself and not at the marina.

Strangely enough the marina continues to thrive in spite of you withdrawing your custom...

Most of what Timebeck has written in post 69, is bulls**t and propaganda.

Sorry I have quoted you quite a lot here and that will have upped the ratio.

 

It seemingly points to a continuation of the situation, with the goal I am told, to get rid of the winter mooring permits.

"[sally Ash] responded that the whole winter mooring scheme had not proved to be popular for a variety of reasons and clarity would be needed with regard to the interaction between the permit and winter mooring. It might prove to be better to have a more generous stay time in the winter." - CUB Meeting Minutes 24 April 2013

That certainly seems to be CRT's policy.

Some of us stood up, and tried to help CRT sort a problem, using negotiation rather than courts. The whole process was funded by myself, John sloan and Louise. No funding was asked for, or provided by CRT.

While I acknowledge your noble aims, I feel that it is boaters that need help and support rather than CRT.

[churchward]

Having been involved in The G&S RMP since the start I can say that one of the criteria was that you must have been spotted regularly on the G&S over the previous 12 months. There were about 15 - 20 boaters interested and when we checked at one meeting only 3 had received any form of enforcement 2 x CC1 and 1 x CC2 I should also say that the RMP on the G&S was rejected by those concerned about 2 weeks ago over the non 28 day

I had not realised that G&S folk had rejected the RMP I recall that people on the K&A had. Perhaps this also had a bearing on the decision? That is CRT were not seeing universal acceptance among the communities effected by the situation.

 

Can you explain what you mean by the reason you gave for rejection being over the non 28 day.

 

I am guessing this means they were asking for the RMP to allow them to stay in one place for up to 28 days rather than 14. I don't think this would be on as it breaks the 14 day rule which is so embedded in the 1995 act for anything other than a long term mooring.

[Captain Zim]

 

Sorry I have quoted you quite a lot here and that will have upped the ratio.

 

In the parlance of the day, that just made me lol.

 

Sorry, not a very constructive addition to the discussion, I know, but credit where credits due for wit.

Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't the "14 days or longer if the circumstances require" give CaRT all the leeway they need for the WMP?

[cotswoldsman]

I had not realised that G&S folk had rejected the RMP I recall that people on the K&A had. Perhaps this also had a bearing on the decision? That is CRT were not seeing universal acceptance among the communities effected by the situation.

 

Can you explain what you mean by the reason you gave for rejection being over the non 28 day.

 

I am guessing this means they were asking for the RMP to allow them to stay in one place for up to 28 days rather than 14. I don't think this would be on as it breaks the 14 day rule which is so embedded in the 1995 act for anything other than a long term mooring.

This maybe where some of the confusion comes. It was not a new licence but a new type of mooring so the 14 days would not have applied but as we now know there were legal problems so let's move forward and try and find another solution.

I should add that one of the reasons why CRT said they were legal was because they were a type of mooring and not a licence

Edited March 8, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[churchward]

This maybe where some of the confusion comes. It was not a new licence but a new type of mooring so the 14 days would not have applied but as we now know there were legal problems so let's move forward and try and find another solution.

I should add that one of the reasons why CRT said they were legal was because they were a type of mooring and not a licence

I don't think I mentioned licence but I take your distinction. I still don't think more than 14 days would have been a viable option nor could CRT as if I understand you correctly they must have rejected that proposal/request before the general announcement scrapping RMP otherwise the G&S would have not voted to reject the RMP proposal.

 

I agree a new solution needs to be found but I also think it important to understand peoples positions and viewpoints rather than sweep them away, perhaps it will inform any new proposal and make it better.

Edited March 8, 2014 by churchward

[cotswoldsman]

The reason we were given for the 14 day instead of 28 days was that certain people within CRT thought it would be to controversial but that they would re visit the 28 days after the first year but as I have said it is no longer so guess going of old ground really achieves nothing.

[luctor et emergo]

As an connected aside, how many boater have been prosecuted or had S8 given, for not moving far enough, but moving otherwise within the existing guidelines?

 

If, as I expect, the only boaters prosecuted are those who don't move at all, or only if threatened with craning out, than that indicates that Crt are well aware that it is impossible to put any 'limits' on movement, under the current rules. So as long as you move, according to the current rules, (i.e. every 14 days, not overstaying on visitor moorings, and not going from one side of the bridge to the other and back) Crt will not, and can not enfrce any action, because you ARE complying with the rules. They can only argue in court if you don't move, at all.

 

That is why the RMP failed. It was charging people for something that they already pay for, in their licence.

 

All Crt need to do, is enforce the current rules. Move, forcibly if necessary, the over-stayers/never movers.

[churchward]

The reason we were given for the 14 day instead of 28 days was that certain people within CRT thought it would be to controversial but that they would re visit the 28 days after the first year but as I have said it is no longer so guess going of old ground really achieves nothing.

I tend to agree it would be too controversial and I think it would be wrong to go beyond the 14 day rule in any solution unless it was part of a long term mooring.

 

I don't agree that understanding of what has led to this point is achieving nothing. No knowledge is wasted to help the future we must understand why and how we have reached this point.

[alan_fincher]

That is why the RMP failed. It was charging people for something that they already pay for, in their licence.

 

That is nonsense - this is simply not the reason it has failed at all.

 

Many would disagree with your analysis, and you are completely wrong to suggest CRT are limiting Section 8 activity just no non movers - they are increasingly concentrating on little movers.

 

Many do not want to test your grand theory that "only moving a little" is allowed under the terms of their licence by trying to fight a prosecution, and had indicated they were happy to pay for an RMP - I personally do not believe they were being duped, although some like tpo carry on that allegation.

 

It has failed because for whatever reason, (and almost certainly not just for the actual one given!), CRT have decided to pull it. It is certainly not that people would not have bought them had they been allowed to become a reality.

[churchward]

 

That is nonsense - this is simply not the reason it has failed at all.

 

Many would disagree with your analysis, and you are completely wrong to suggest CRT are limiting Section 8 activity just no non movers - they are increasingly concentrating on little movers.

 

Many do not want to test your grand theory that "only moving a little" is allowed under the terms of their licence by trying to fight a prosecution, and had indicated they were happy to pay for an RMP - I personally do not believe they were being duped, although some like tpo carry on that allegation.

 

It has failed because for whatever reason, (and almost certainly not just for the actual one given!), CRT have decided to pull it. It is certainly not that people would not have bought them had they been allowed to become a reality.

Do you know what these undeclared reasons for pulling RMP by CRT might be and can you educate us?

That is why the RMP failed. It was charging people for something that they already pay for, in their licence.

 

All Crt need to do, is enforce the current rules. Move, forcibly if necessary, the over-stayers/never movers.

Are you saying that CRT stopped the implementation of RMP because not enough people were willing to pay for it?

[alan_fincher]

Do you know what these undeclared reasons for pulling RMP by CRT might be and can you educate us?

I fully realise I must be frustrating he hell out of you, and I apologise.

 

I have been given some insight into this, but as I have not been directly involved with CRT myself recently, I don't feel I can fairly repeat what I have been told beyond saying that "internal politics" has always been to some extent a problem, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

[luctor et emergo]

 

That is nonsense - this is simply not the reason it has failed at all.

 

Many would disagree with your analysis, and you are completely wrong to suggest CRT are limiting Section 8 activity just no non movers - they are increasingly concentrating on little movers.

 

Many do not want to test your grand theory that "only moving a little" is allowed under the terms of their licence by trying to fight a prosecution, and had indicated they were happy to pay for an RMP - I personally do not believe they were being duped, although some like tpo carry on that allegation.

 

It has failed because for whatever reason, (and almost certainly not just for the actual one given!), CRT have decided to pull it. It is certainly not that people would not have bought them had they been allowed to become a reality.

Alan, I did not say it was THE (only) reason for the RMP to have failed, but it is a major one. The rules already allow you to move over a limited distance, BECAUSE there is no minimum distance, nor a prescribed direction, stated in those rules. I would like to see actual numbers of boaters who move over a short distance, but otherwise fully comply with the rules, having been prosecuted, or given a s8 notice. All the cases that I am aware of, are/were cases where the party involved did not move at all, or was a serious over-stayer.

As I understand it, the RMP was seeking to alter the mooring rules, which can not be done without an act of parliament?

Do you know what these undeclared reasons for pulling RMP by CRT might be and can you educate us?

 

Are you saying that CRT stopped the implementation of RMP because not enough people were willing to pay for it?

No, they were stopped because they can't change the mooring rules without an act of parliament, nor should they charge extra for something that you are already paying for, in your licence.

[cotswoldsman]

Well I have lived with RMP' s for 17 months and not as close as some and now want to put it behind me and find something else to work on so for that reason I am making this my last post on this subject ..........unless I happen to see some major errors

[churchward]

I fully realise I must be frustrating he hell out of you, and I apologise.

 

I have been given some insight into this, but as I have not been directly involved with CRT myself recently, I don't feel I can fairly repeat what I have been told beyond saying that "internal politics" has always been to some extent a problem, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

I suppose so and the internal politics will never go away. As with any organisation of size it is something that has to be mitigated, circumvented or overcome to get anywhere. I have never been in any corporation where this was not true.

 

Can you imagine what the internal politics of CWDF would be like if it was a corporation? We are supposed to all be boaters but we can hardly agree on anything at times.

Well I have lived with RMP' s for 17 months and not as close as some and now want to put it behind me and find something else to work on so for that reason I am making this my last post on this subject ..........unless I happen to see some major errors

I appreciate you may be campaign weary after such a time but as Alan has recognised it can be frustrating when people who seem to be in the know allude to issues and situations but not explain them further.

 

It should be recognised that many people will only have a sketchy appreciation of what has gone on and getting some facts rather than polarised opinions is a good thing.

 

So sorry if I seem relentless but I think this matter is important to understand properly and just hinting at something doesn't necessarily help. Which is why I appreciated your earlier posts on the sequence of events as it helped a lot.

[churchward]

No, they were stopped because they can't change the mooring rules without an act of parliament, nor should they charge extra for something that you are already paying for, in your licence.

I am not sure how that your first point can be true although my understanding of the act is probably not that complete.

 

On your second point I think that isn't correct. Many who will have been in-line for the option of RMP are clearly not showing "bona fide navigation" so they are getting something they are not paying for. I fully agree that BW caused much of this issue in its lax enforcement and it may be that CRT has no choice but to tighten enforcement to correct the problem causing upset for those having action taken against them. It is rather sad though to think that it may in part at least be these kind of arguments from other boaters that has helped the process fail.

[luctor et emergo]

I am not sure how that your first point can be true although my understanding of the act is probably not that complete.

 

On your second point I think that isn't correct. Many who will have been in-line for the option of RMP are clearly not showing "bona fide navigation" so they are getting something they are not paying for. I fully agree that BW caused much of this issue in its lax enforcement and it may be that CRT has no choice but to tighten enforcement to correct the problem causing upset for those having action taken against them. It is rather sad though to think that it may in part at least be these kind of arguments from other boaters that has helped the process fail.

 

There we go again. Please show me where the current rules state the minimum distance that you must travel, and which direction you need to travel in.

 

As long as you move your boat, complying with any mooring restrictions, you are engaged in ' bonafide navigation'. Wether you move 10, 100 or 1000 miles.

[churchward]

There we go again. Please show me where the current rules state the minimum distance that you must travel, and which direction you need to travel in.

 

As long as you move your boat, complying with any mooring restrictions, you are engaged in ' bonafide navigation'. Wether you move 10, 100 or 1000 miles.

I did not mention distance and do not intend to. I won't be drawn into your agenda or deviate from a quest for facts about the RMP situation by old pointless arguments.

[alan_fincher]

No, they were stopped because they can't change the mooring rules without an act of parliament, nor should they charge extra for something that you are already paying for, in your licence.

Before I go called away to an extended phone call, I was trying to respond with some detail to your previous post, which I didn't think could be substantiated.

 

However looking at the above, it is clear that despite thread upon thread where all this has been discussed at length you do not appear to understand what would and would not require a change in legislation.

 

I can't see much will be achieved by revisiting it again, so beyond saying I don't think a lot of what you are saying is correct, I see little point in carrying on.

 

My phone call, incidentally was from someone , (neither Steve nor John!), and who is very dejected about this latest decision - like others they have put lots of effort into something intended for the benefit of others that they would have got no personal gain from.

 

This particular person has been in asset in all they have been involved in, and now currently feels they have no stomach for carrying on - in my mind a great shame to no longer have such people fully on board. To echo someone else's words "there are no winners here".

[luctor et emergo]

I did not mention distance and do not intend to. I won't be drawn into your agenda or deviate from a quest for facts about the RMP situation by old pointless arguments.

You stated that those who would be offered a RMP were not engaged in bonafide navigation, indeed that that is the reason why they are offered. Without knowing their individual cases, and moving pattern, I can not comment wether they are navigating within the current rules , or overstayers.

 

I'm not deviating, just adding some additional info to the debate. And I also asked for facts, namely if, and how many, compliant movers haves neen prosecuted for mot moving far enough. But nobody seems to want to answer that. Perhaps no compliant movers have been prosecuted?

[alan_fincher]

Luc,

 

You seem sometimes to be mixing up "overstaying" with failure to comply with "bona fide for navigation".

 

I'm sure you actually understand that someone can meet the navigation criteria, but still be an overstayer. I'm not so sure you have fully taken on board that in CRTs eyes someone may never actually overstay at any location, but is still not in their view meeting the "navigation" requirement.

 

Either way, it just muddles the argument further if you are not clear that each is a totally different thing from the other.

 

EDIT:

 

What you do also seem to be forgetting, even as a former K&A man, that in the Paul Davies case at least a judge made a ruling that a total cruising range of (from memory!) 10 miles was not enough.

Edited March 8, 2014 by alan_fincher

[NBDensie]

There we go again. Please show me where the current rules state the minimum distance that you must travel, and which direction you need to travel in.

 

As long as you move your boat, complying with any mooring restrictions, you are engaged in ' bonafide navigation'. Wether you move 10, 100 or 1000 miles.

 

That is an assertion that is certainly open to argument. "Bona fide navigation" is a criterion of motive. Is one's objective to travel from A to B and onwards, or is it to stay as close to A as possible perhaps because one's life is based at A? Unfortunately motive is a little difficult to measure. However various prima facie tests can be applied, one of which is distance travelled. Others could include place of work (if any), where one's children are at school, time spent in area, overstaying in particular places, long term history of movement etc etc.

[luctor et emergo]

Before I go called away to an extended phone call, I was trying to respond with some detail to your previous post, which I didn't think could be substantiated.

 

However looking at the above, it is clear that despite thread upon thread where all this has been discussed at length you do not appear to understand what would and would not require a change in legislation.

 

I can't see much will be achieved by revisiting it again, so beyond saying I don't think a lot of what you are saying is correct, I see little point in carrying on.

 

My phone call, incidentally was from someone , (neither Steve nor John!), and who is very dejected about this latest decision - like others they have put lots of effort into something intended for the benefit of others that they would have got no personal gain from.

 

This particular person has been in asset in all they have been involved in, and now currently feels they have no stomach for carrying on - in my mind a great shame to no longer have such people fully on board. To echo someone else's words "there are no winners here".

Then why don't CRT simply tell all ccers how far to travel minimally? Why the faffing about?

Sorry Alan, I don't dis-respect those who have invested so much time and effort into this, but it was only ever tinkering with the existing rules.

 

Besides, I feel that that has been a certain amount of 'stringing along' going on, again...

 

That is an assertion that is certainly open to argument. "Bona fide navigation" is a criterion of motive. Is one's objective to travel from A to B and onwards, or is it to stay as close to A as possible perhaps because one's life is based at A? Unfortunately motive is a little difficult to measure. However various prima facie tests can be applied, one of which is distance travelled. Others could include place of work (if any), where one's children are at school, time spent in area, overstaying in particular places, long term history of movement etc etc.

Again, where to draw the line? All of the system? The Northern canals? The beautifully Limpey Stoke Valley?

Are people with jobs to be excluded from ccing, on the basis that it is surely not possible? How far from a job must you travel? 10 miles? 100 miles?

Luc,

 

You seem sometimes to be mixing up "overstaying" with failure to comply with "bona fide for navigation".

 

I'm sure you actually understand that someone can meet the navigation criteria, but still be an overstayer. I'm not so sure you have fully taken on board that in CRTs eyes someone may never actually overstay at any location, but is still not in their view meeting the "navigation" requirement.

 

Either way, it just muddles the argument further if you are not clear that each is a totally different thing from the other.

 

EDIT:

 

What you do also seem to be forgetting, even as a former K&A man, that in the Paul Davies case at least a judge made a ruling that a total cruising range of (from memory!) 10 miles was not enough.

Also from memory, Paul Davies didn't want to move at all. And also from memory, BW had to climb down pdq after their thriumpant press release, when it transpired that the distance as used by the judge was irrelevant.

[David Schweizer]

I fully realise I must be frustrating he hell out of you, and I apologise.

 

I have been given some insight into this, but as I have not been directly involved with CRT myself recently, I don't feel I can fairly repeat what I have been told beyond saying that "internal politics" has always been to some extent a problem, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

 

Has it not occurred to you that it might be better to say nothing rather than suggest that you know what lies behind decisions, but for some undeclared reason you cannot, or would rather not, say what they are or who told you. It does nothing other than to project an image of smugness and self importance. It is a cloak which you do not wear well.

 

Personally, and you already know this, it is my opinion, based upon my experience of many similar situations in the past, that despite all the consultations, CaRT will still make decisions that they believe comply with their remit from the Government, and within the restraints imposed by current legislation, and no amount of input that fails to sit comfortably with that scenario will succeed.

Edited March 8, 2014 by David Schweizer