CRT - Press Release - Roving Mooring Permits

[Tuscan]

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.

Interesting point , no precedent was created in this case however I understand the judge gave Davies several opportunities to say that he at some point planned to continue his navigation but he refused and on this point he lost. Interesting that in the proposals for the RMP on the K&A I'm not sure about Uxbridge or G&S you could travel less than the 10 miles in the Davies case I believe and still be legal.

[alan_fincher]

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.

David

 

Iresponded to a direct question from "Churchward" about whether I knew what the reasons were.

 

When that question was asked I had a number of choices.....

 

1) Ignore it

2) Lie about it

3) Answer it in the fairest, most honest, way I could - namely that I have been given some information, but am not in a position to pass it on.

4) Ignore requests that I did not pass it on, and do so anyway.

 

I chose 3) - would you have preferred 1) 2) or 4), and if so which, please?

 

I find is hard to see how anybody can feel smug or self-important given how it has turned out.

 

Except those who have never wanted it to succeed - I guess they are perhaps feeling smug.

 

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.

Nobody has adequately explained to me why what was proposed in any way failed to "comply with their remit from the Government" or that it was not "within the restraints imposed by current legislation".

 

Can you explain exactly why you think it failed those tests?

[David Schweizer]

Alan, you have clearly misunderstood what I was suggesting, Churward was, very cleverly, manouvering you into a position where you had a limited number of choices and, in my view, you chose the wrong response althiough I respect the reasons why you took that decision. If you are unable to address the question without loosing face, my experience suggests that the best soultion is to say nothing, that way you cannot be accused of anything, other than possibly intransigence.

 

With regard to your second point, I do not have to explain anything beyond that which I have already said :- That CaRT will still make decisions that they believe comply with their remit from the Government, and within the restraints imposed by current legislation. My second point was not attributing the failure of the RMP issue to those restraints (although it may well have been) I was merely stating my long held view that any outside lobbying that does not comply with their interpretation of their remit, will not succeed,

 

I have said it so many times that I almost tire of saying it, In more than twenty years as a Trades Union representative I quickly learnt that consultation is not negotiation, and neither party is obliged to act upon anything that has been discussed, even if it felt like agreement had been reached at the time.

Edited March 8, 2014 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

Alan, you have clearly misunderstood what I was suggesting, Churward was, very cleverly, manouvering you into a position where you had a limited number of choices and, in my view, you chose the wrong response althiough I respect the reasons why you took that decision.

OK fair enough - a difficult call, as I prefer not to look like I am evading answering, even if the answer is that I'm not in a position to repeat something.

 

Smugness was certainly not my intention - so sorry if it inadvertently came across thus.

 

In fairness to Churchward, I think he genuinely wants to understand what has actually gone on here, and I'm sure he is not alone in that.

[churchward]

OK fair enough - a difficult call, as I prefer not to look like I am evading answering, even if the answer is that I'm not in a position to repeat something.

 

Smugness was certainly not my intention - so sorry if it inadvertently came across thus.

 

In fairness to Churchward, I think he genuinely wants to understand what has actually gone on here, and I'm sure he is not alone in that.

I have no problem with your answer to me. I would have liked to learn more and still do but I understand that it is important to keep ones honour and trust so if you have given your word not to pass something on I completely respect that. I appreciate the honesty in your reply and it was preferable to no answer at all.

 

I do genuinely want to understand what has happened and I think it would be good for all to know what has happened. I hope it all unfolds in the near future and perhaps more importantly that an acceptable alternative solution is found.

 

On a general point though I do find if you have a secret, the best way to keep it is to not let anyone know you have one.

Edited March 8, 2014 by churchward

[alan_fincher]

On a general point though I do find if you have a secret, the best way to keep it is to not let anyone know you have one.

Probably time to put this point to bed, but what actually happened was.....

 

1) I suggested that there was probably more to this than has been said, but had nothing concrete that confirmed that, at that stage.

2) I have since been told things that confirm I was correct, although I certainly still don't know chapter and verse on all of it.

3) I was asked not to repeat what I was told.

4) Only subsequent to this you asked me directly if I knew the reasons.

 

Had I been cleverer, I would never have even suggested that there might be more to the decision in the first place. I wasn't clever enough this time - I must try harder!

[churchward]

Probably time to put this point to bed, but what actually happened was.....

 

1) I suggested that there was probably more to this than has been said, but had nothing concrete that confirmed that, at that stage.

2) I have since been told things that confirm I was correct, although I certainly still don't know chapter and verse on all of it.

3) I was asked not to repeat what I was told.

4) Only subsequent to this you asked me directly if I knew the reasons.

 

Had I been cleverer, I would never have even suggested that there might be more to the decision in the first place. I wasn't clever enough this time - I must try harder!

I thought I was putting it to bed I was trying to be light hearted with my last comment but forgot the smilie! I do understand your position as I said above and would not wish you or anyone to break a confidence.

[alan_fincher]

...................but forgot the smilie!

 

I may have found it!

 

[David Schweizer]

OK fair enough - a difficult call, as I prefer not to look like I am evading answering, even if the answer is that I'm not in a position to repeat something.

 

Smugness was certainly not my intention - so sorry if it inadvertently came across thus.

 

In fairness to Churchward, I think he genuinely wants to understand what has actually gone on here, and I'm sure he is not alone in that.

 

In fairness Alan, I did not actually say you were being smug only that your reluctance to reveal the information or source "could project an image of smugness" There is a subltle, but important difference.

 

Similarily, the person who told you, but then asked you to not reveal the information was also playing games, (or was stupid!) It is a familiar device used by some people to compromise the recipient of the information, whist appearing to be helpful.

 

Probably time to put this point to bed, but what actually happened was.....

 

1) I suggested that there was probably more to this than has been said, but had nothing concrete that confirmed that, at that stage.

2) I have since been told things that confirm I was correct, although I certainly still don't know chapter and verse on all of it.

3) I was asked not to repeat what I was told.

4) Only subsequent to this you asked me directly if I knew the reasons.

 

Had I been cleverer, I would never have even suggested that there might be more to the decision in the first place. I wasn't clever enough this time - I must try harder!

 

At last, you have got there, When in doubt , say nothing, that way there can be no come back.

 

Consider the matter now in bed.

Edited March 9, 2014 by David Schweizer

[Guest]

Ed ......

 

Can't be bothered.....

Edited March 8, 2014 by The Dog House

[NigelMoore]

It is mildly surprising that people are so unquestioningly damning former BW towpath staff for their advice on acceptable boat movements, when there is nothing to suggest that they were doing anything other than more accurately interpreting the law than the present personnel’s predilictions/objectives dictate.

 

It is also mildly surprising that some confusion is apparent as to what the "Problem" is, for which the RMP was seen as a solution.

If the movement pattern once considered acceptable was in fact, due to increasing localised numbers, creating unacceptable congestion leading to extreme difficulty in visiting boats having any chance of mooring near the town centre, then how were the RMP’s addressing that problem?

 

In actual fact, the “Problem” appears to have been rather, one of falling under threat of s.8’s due to changing goalposts. In that case, paying for RMP’s could only ever have been a solution to that particular problem only – i.e. removal of the threat of seizure. Insofar as that was all that it consisted of, it was no more than a protection racket, leaving any genuine managerial problem due to congestion, not only intact but more entrenched.

 

As I said previously, if boaters were content to cough up for peace of mind, then it was no one else’s business to denounce them, but it would remain a protection racket nonetheless.

 

As to legalities – there could be nothing illegal in the RMP’s per se [permitting as they would have, the previously acceptable cruising pattern to continue], only in the extraction of a fee for doing so. But as that was always going to be a matter of mutual consent, it could concern no-one else.

 

CaRT were right, however, to shy away from the scheme for the reasons discoverable within the obfuscatory verbiage of their announcement.

[jenlyn]

It is mildly surprising that people are so unquestioningly damning former BW towpath staff for their advice on acceptable boat movements, when there is nothing to suggest that they were doing anything other than more accurately interpreting the law than the present personnel’s predilictions/objectives dictate.

 

It is also mildly surprising that some confusion is apparent as to what the "Problem" is, for which the RMP was seen as a solution.

If the movement pattern once considered acceptable was in fact, due to increasing localised numbers, creating unacceptable congestion leading to extreme difficulty in visiting boats having any chance of mooring near the town centre, then how were the RMP’s addressing that problem?

 

In actual fact, the “Problem” appears to have been rather, one of falling under threat of s.8’s due to changing goalposts. In that case, paying for RMP’s could only ever have been a solution to that particular problem only – i.e. removal of the threat of seizure. Insofar as that was all that it consisted of, it was no more than a protection racket, leaving any genuine managerial problem due to congestion, not only intact but more entrenched.

 

As I said previously, if boaters were content to cough up for peace of mind, then it was no one else’s business to denounce them, but it would remain a protection racket nonetheless.

 

As to legalities – there could be nothing illegal in the RMP’s per se [permitting as they would have, the previously acceptable cruising pattern to continue], only in the extraction of a fee for doing so. But as that was always going to be a matter of mutual consent, it could concern no-one else.

 

CaRT were right, however, to shy away from the scheme for the reasons discoverable within the obfuscatory verbiage of their announcement.

one of your stranger posts. " im not sure of how it was going to work, or how it was to be played out, but I'll condemn it anyway".

[furnessvale]

It is mildly surprising that people are so unquestioningly damning former BW towpath staff for their advice on acceptable boat movements, when there is nothing to suggest that they were doing anything other than more accurately interpreting the law than the present personnel’s predilictions/objectives dictate.

 

It is also mildly surprising that some confusion is apparent as to what the "Problem" is, for which the RMP was seen as a solution.

If the movement pattern once considered acceptable was in fact, due to increasing localised numbers, creating unacceptable congestion leading to extreme difficulty in visiting boats having any chance of mooring near the town centre, then how were the RMP’s addressing that problem?

 

In actual fact, the “Problem” appears to have been rather, one of falling under threat of s.8’s due to changing goalposts. In that case, paying for RMP’s could only ever have been a solution to that particular problem only – i.e. removal of the threat of seizure. Insofar as that was all that it consisted of, it was no more than a protection racket, leaving any genuine managerial problem due to congestion, not only intact but more entrenched.

 

As I said previously, if boaters were content to cough up for peace of mind, then it was no one else’s business to denounce them, but it would remain a protection racket nonetheless.

 

As to legalities – there could be nothing illegal in the RMP’s per se [permitting as they would have, the previously acceptable cruising pattern to continue], only in the extraction of a fee for doing so. But as that was always going to be a matter of mutual consent, it could concern no-one else.

 

CaRT were right, however, to shy away from the scheme for the reasons discoverable within the obfuscatory verbiage of their announcement.

Once again, I read the first paragraph then my eyes glazed over. I looked across to see the author's name and instantly knew why.

 

It is such a pity. You have much useful information to impart but your writing style leaves me cold.

 

My problem of course, not yours.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NigelMoore]

one of your stranger posts. " im not sure of how it was going to work, or how it was to be played out, but I'll condemn it anyway".

 

Everyone, even I, can understand "how it was going to work"; bribery is a simple enough concept - and I was not condemning that so much as the perception of the nature of the alleged problem. RMP’s were a viable solution to the threat of s.8’s; they were never a solution to any genuine congestion/‘overstaying’ problem arising from previously acceptable cruising patterns.

 

Insofar as there appeared to be a consensus amongst certain prospective victims as to 'showing willing' in terms of 'paying their way', I did not condemn the efforts of you and others to represent those, in attempting to discover a mutually acceptable formula.

 

I did condemn the condemnation of former BW staff guidance, which seemed a commonly accepted theme. Just thought I’d demonstrate I was capable of defending even BW people when they were right.

. . . your writing style leaves me cold.

 

You sadly missed the opportunity to use my own last sentence of that post against me; I put it in especially, too.

[jenlyn]

Everyone, even I, can understand "how it was going to work"; bribery is a simple enough concept - and I was not condemning that so much as the perception of the nature of the alleged problem. RMP’s were a viable solution to the threat of s.8’s; they were never a solution to any genuine congestion/‘overstaying’ problem arising from previously acceptable cruising patterns.

 

Insofar as there appeared to be a consensus amongst certain prospective victims as to 'showing willing' in terms of 'paying their way', I did not condemn the efforts of you and others to represent those, in attempting to discover a mutually acceptable formula.

 

I did condemn the condemnation of former BW staff guidance, which seemed a commonly accepted theme. Just thought I’d demonstrate I was capable of defending even BW people when they were right.

 

You sadly missed the opportunity to use my own last sentence of that post against me; I put it in especially, too.

Bribery??

I think you have lost the plot now....

 

It's all pretty much irrelevant now anyway, as the bringing in of the K&A proposal is pretty significant.

Coupled with the with the new winter RMP, it seems there is now an acceptable cc guideline.

[furnessvale]

 

Everyone, even I, can understand "how it was going to work"; bribery is a simple enough concept - and I was not condemning that so much as the perception of the nature of the alleged problem. RMP’s were a viable solution to the threat of s.8’s; they were never a solution to any genuine congestion/‘overstaying’ problem arising from previously acceptable cruising patterns.

 

Insofar as there appeared to be a consensus amongst certain prospective victims as to 'showing willing' in terms of 'paying their way', I did not condemn the efforts of you and others to represent those, in attempting to discover a mutually acceptable formula.

 

I did condemn the condemnation of former BW staff guidance, which seemed a commonly accepted theme. Just thought I’d demonstrate I was capable of defending even BW people when they were right.

 

You sadly missed the opportunity to use my own last sentence of that post against me; I put it in especially, too.

You obviously revel in your status which is a pity as your potentially useful message is lost, to me at least.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[NigelMoore]

You obviously revel in your status which is a pity as your potentially useful message is lost, to me at least.

 

Status? I have never had any status as a CC’er.

 

I have simply pointed out, as an unaffected boating bystander, some obvious realities about the RMP’s. Those are, that they could not address any real managerial problems arising from long-term annexation of the towpath; they consisted essentially of paying the authority to accept a cruising pattern which, for those not paying, would result in s.8’s.

 

By way of comparison, I have always maintained that the K&A sub-group approach based on consensual guidelines of considerate behaviour, was the rational and pragmatic way forward given the limitations of the existing statutory provisions.

 

[MtB]

I think George is implying he thinks you cultivate your status as a poster with a reputation for obfuscatory verbiage too!

 

If that wasn't too obfuscatory and verby

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

The K&A boating community website doesn't seem too agree with you although the NABO comment on its website website largely does

[NigelMoore]

I think George is implying he thinks you cultivate your status as a poster with a reputation for obfuscatory verbiage too!

 

If that wasn't too obfuscatory and verby

 

MtB

 

How very deeply wounding. I could wish you had been considerably more obfuscatory and verby, instead of using your considerable abilities at clarification to expose my unwilling consciousness to the true meaning of his critique.

The K&A boating community website doesn't seem too agree with you although the NABO comment on its website website largely does

 

I haven't looked at anyone else's appraisals yet, so can't comment - I will have a look tomorrow.

 

Those on the K&A website nonetheless had considerable input as well, which is not to say, of course, that the end result was necessarily a product they were pleased with, any more than I liked some of the original content myself. I found myself somewhat astonished to approve of all CaRT's rejections, as it happens, which had mirrored my own!

 

A bit worrying, in fact.

[MtB]

 

How very deeply wounding. I could wish you had been considerably more obfuscatory and verby, instead of using your considerable abilities at clarification to expose my unwilling consciousness to the true meaning of his critique.

 

Do wot, mate?

 

 

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

The K&A boating community website doesn't seem too agree with you although the NABO comment on its website website largely does

 

I've now read the KANDA article and see what you mean.

 

I would agree with the objections if it were the case that these provisions were Rules arbitrarily laid down as enforceable, but if I correctly understand the exercise as a set of mutually agreed provisions [and for so long as CaRT acknowledge this to be the case], then I don’t see any immediate problem.

 

I also understood the guidance to be aimed at all boaters in the affected vicinity, not that it was specifically directed at any class, so that the concerns expressed as to redefining various terms of the 1995 ‘CC’ provisions would be actually inapplicable.

 

Essentially, the provisions of the Plan were intended by the compilers to be entirely outwith the legislature.

 

There are, however, grounds to be concerned over one particular paragraph –

 

“We have serious concerns about CRT’s statement that “the purpose of the 12 month period is to enable those boaters without a home mooring based in this area a period of time to regularise their movement so that, after this, they can then comply with the relevant legislation and the Trust’s Guidance”. This implies that the Towpath Mooring Plan will only be a 12-month trial and that it is a precursor to more draconian changes after 12 months that will cause homelessness amongst boaters without home moorings.”

 

I agree that the wording quoted has worrying implications, because it seems to suggest that the local Partnership and the CaRT executive are working at cross-purposes, with entirely differing agendas.

 

My understanding was that the exercise was intended to trial a consensual pattern of behaviour, designed to relieve the population pressures of a section of sought-after waterway, and doing so in a way that indulgence in litigation was avoided. If that proved successful, then why on earth would the authority want to mess with it?

 

Unfortunately - I would have to agree - CaRT’s announcement of an entirely different purpose [i.e. – to paraphrase - to be more ‘lax’ for a year, simply in order to give people time to ‘get their act together’], lays the groundwork for the rest of KANDA’s fears to become a reality.

 

I’m hoping that all sides can pull together on this to such a successful extent that reversion to the legalistic big brother show trials will become a clearly recognisable folly.

 

[NigelMoore]

The K&A boating community website doesn't seem too agree with you although the NABO comment on its website website largely does

 

Just looked at the NABO article, and was interested to see their highlighting of the £25/day fine as unsustainable.

 

As I commented on initially, the partnership plan recommended this “assuming that CRT have the statutory authority to levy such charges”. They do not, as NABO correctly assert, have such statutory authority. I agree, however, that it would be useful if they did.

 

If only they had not been so insistent in the 1990's about criminalising boaters for rule infractions, the powers to erect time-limiting signage and financial penalties etc, could have been theirs. Given that the fearful percipience of the Select Committee has been fully justified by subsequent history, one can only be 'thankful for small mercies'.

[Tuscan]

Sometimes with all these changing rules , threats and charges I get quite discombobulated

[Grace and Favour]

Sometimes with all these changing rules , threats and charges I get quite discombobulated

Is that not a quotation of our esteemed Lord Blackadder?