The relevance of the South East sub boating group? or not

[jenlyn]

I read the exchange of emails in the original post and the last sentence from John Best reads that he is going to answer Louise's points in a separate email as follows:-

 

"I shall be sending you a different email, covering the wider content of your note, and copied to all sub-group members

Best wishes,

John Best,

Chair of SE Partnership"

 

Howard

We will be posting the second email. Even though it is only a softer worded one without the personal remarks to louise.

[alan_fincher]

There simply is no current proposal for any widespread loss of 14 day moorings in favour of shorter stay times, other than the fact that that the original South East Visitor Mooring proposal ("SEVM") suggested this for the majority, (but not all) of the 22 sites actually named in that proposal.

 

The actual proposal by South East waterways to do something like SEVM actually long pre-dates the involvement of any of here who challenged what was suggested, but even our involvement goes back maybe 18 months, so long before the South East Boaters Sub-Group was even a proposal.

 

I was initially opposed to the SEVM plan, and my involvement in the Sub-Group in no way changes that. I continuously and steadfastly challenge the need to put in restricted stay times at any site, even the most "honey-spot", unless actual evidence can be produced that the need exists - something that has never so far been done.

 

Where I think the confusion is coming from is that certain people, both within CRT themselves, and within the Navigation Advisory Group, ("NAG"), have suggested that there is little point in having some 800 (from memory!) locations identified in CRT's own systems as "Visitor Mooring" locations, when the vast majority of these have the default stay time of 14 days, no special facilities, and are not at locations that get swamped by their popularity. They are, after all, "moorable" bits of tow-path with a 14 day limit, much like many other "moorable" bits of tow-path with a 14 day limit, but not actually designated in CRT internal systems or elsewhere as specifically "Visitor Moorings".

It is therefore felt in some circles that only the much smaller number of sites with shorter stay times need to have a special status. My understanding is that NAG preferred dropping the term "Visitor Mooring" entirely, and to use instead "Short Stay Mooring" at the much more limited number of sites where stay times are designated as less than 14 days. (I believe though that CRT may now think that is not workable, because so many signs already refer to "Visitor Moorings", not "Short Stay moorings", but the actual name used doesn't change the basic principle.)

 

NAG, I believe went further in wanting possibly to call any now "declassified" 14 day moorings, formerly designated as VMs, something like (from memory again!) "Casual Moorings", and to persuade CRT that the growth in boat numbers mean that more space needs to be made suitable for "Casual Moorings", in order to reduce the pressure on the most popular sites that are "Short Stay" with specified times under 14 days.

It all sounded quite sensible to me, and unlikely to court huge controversy.

 

However now somehow this seems instead to be getting interpreted both as.....

 

1) Anything currently designated "Visitor Mooring" but 14 days, (the majority of all VMs that exist), is under threat of suddenly becoming 7 day or 2 day.

 

2) Anything declassfied to become just "Casual Mooring" of 14 days will be abandoned to its fate by CRT, will no longer be moved or cut back, and will become unusable.

 

I see no evidence at all that supports (1), although Louise clearly appears to have picked up on something I have not.

As far as (2) goes, the manager of South East Waterways has stated that there is no intention to reduce the mowing regime on a particular casual mooring site, simply because it is 14 day stay time rather than a shorter duration, but some clearly do not trust that statement, it seems. (What has confused the situation is that the number of cuts per year are anyway being reduced everywhere for budgetary reasons. This may indeed be something to be rightfully concerned about, but it is not the same thing as suggesting that more and more tow-path will not be maintained to the point people can realistically moor there, is it?).

EDIT: Only to correct types.

Edited March 13, 2014 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

There simply is no current proposal for any widespread loss of 14 day moorings in favour of shorter stay times, other than the fact that that the original South East Visitor Mooring proposal ("SEVM") suggested this for the majority, (but not all) of the 22 sites actually named in that proposal.

 

The actual proposal by South East waterways to do something like SEVM actually long pre-dates the involvement of any of here who challenged what was suggested, but even our involvement goes back maybe 18 months, so long before the South East Boaters Sub-Group was even a proposal.

 

I was initially opposed to the SEVM plan, and my involvement in the Sub-Group in no way changes that. I continuously and steadfastly challenge the need to put in restricted stay times at any site, even the most "honey-spot", unless actual evidence can be produced that the need exists - something that has never so far been done.

 

Where I think the confusion is coming from is that certain people, both within CRT themselves, and within the Navigation Advisory Group, ("NAG"), have suggested that there is little point in having some 800 (from memory!) locations identified in CRT's own systems as "Visitor Mooring" locations, when the vast majority of these have the default stay time of 14 days, no special facilities, and are not at locations that get swamped by their popularity. They are, after all, "moorable" bits of tow-path with a 14 day limit, much like many other "moorable" bits of tow-path with a 14 day limit, but not actually designated in CRT internal systems or elsewhere as specifically "Visitor Moorings".

It is therefore felt in some circles that only the much smaller number of sites with shorter stay times need to have a special status. My understanding is that NAG preferred dropping the term "Visitor Mooring" entirely, and to use instead "Short Stay Mooring" at the much more limited number of sites where stay times are designated as less than 14 days. (I believe though that CRT may now think that is not workable, because so many signs already refer to "Visitor Moorings", not "Short Stay moorings", but the actual name used doesn't change the basic principle.)

 

NAG, I believe went further in wanting possibly to call any now "declassified" 14 day moorings, formerly designated as VMs, something like (from memory again!) "Casual Moorings", and to persuade CRT that the growth in boat numbers mean that more space needs to be made suitable for "Casual Moorings", in order to reduce the pressure on the most popular sites that are "Short Stay" with specified times under 14 days.

It all sounded quite sensible to me, and unlikely to court huge controversy.

 

However now somehow this seems instead to be getting interpreted both as.....

 

1) Anything currently designated "Visitor Mooring" but 14 days, (the majority of all VMs that exist), is under threat of suddenly becoming 7 day or 2 day.

 

2) Anything declassfied to become just "Casual Mooring" of 14 days will be abandoned to its fate by CRT, will no longer be moved or cut back, and will become unusable.

 

I see no evidence at all that supports (1), although Louise clearly appears to have picked up on something I have not.

As far as (2) goes, the manager of South East Waterways has stated that there is no intention to reduce the mowing regime on a particular casual mooring site, simply because it is 14 day stay time rather than a shorter duration, but some clearly do not trust that statement, it seems. (What has confused the situation is that the number of cuts per year are anyway being reduced everywhere for budgetary reasons. This may indeed be something to be rightfully concerned about, but it is not the same thing as suggesting that more and more tow-path will not be maintained to the point people can realistically moor there, is it?).

EDIT: Only to correct types.

Alan, I think the problem here, is that you were not on the table where 1and1 2 were brought up with Jeff whyatt. Neither were the discussions at each table, then discussed amongst the group as a whole.

So, we have your view of events, and louise's. Luckily I had the view of another member from louise's table to confirm what she had said.

It's not your fault, it's just the way John Best chooses to run that group.

What worries me, is that people discuss thing's hypothetically, then a week later, that hypothetical discussion becomes a policy paper.

[Ronniesonic]

Genuine question. Why is there a need for any 14 days moorings? I cannot think of good reasons, but am prepared to be educated.

My question excludes 'winter moorings' & genuine illness etc .

[jenlyn]

Genuine question. Why is there a need for any 14 days moorings? I cannot think of good reasons, but am prepared to be educated.

My question excludes 'winter moorings' & genuine illness etc .

What would you suggest instead of? I think that would be a good start point.

[adam1uk]

What would you suggest instead of? I think that would be a good start point.

 

No, a good starting point when someone has asked a question is to try to answer it. Or, if you don't know the answer, keep quiet.

[Ronniesonic]

What would you suggest instead of? I think that would be a good start point.

 

Ok, here goes. I think a max 7 days days is more than sufficient anywhere on the system, with 48hrs hours max at designated 'Honeyspots' during summer months?

 

BTW, I am not trying to be confrontational, just interested in what other views are.

[jenlyn]

No, a good starting point when someone has asked a question is to try to answer it. Or, if you don't know the answer, keep quiet.

It's relatively simple to answer, what would you do with 6000 boats that did not move? Perhaps you have a solution?

Ok, here goes. I think a max 7 days days is more than sufficient anywhere on the system, with 48hrs hours max at designated 'Honeyspots' during summer months?

 

BTW, I am not trying to be confrontational, just interested in what other views are.

Ok, that's fair enough.

The effect of such movement in my mind would then cause other problems, for instance, water levels, maintenance, and of course added cost to enforcement.

[adam1uk]

It's relatively simple to answer, what would you do with 6000 boats that did not move? Perhaps you have a solution?

 

You seem to be incapable of answering a question except with another question.

 

And I have no idea what 6000 boats has to do with the question of whether a mooring has a sign that says 14 days, or whether it's 14 days by default.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Ok, here goes. I think a max 7 days days is more than sufficient anywhere on the system, with 48hrs hours max at designated 'Honeyspots' during summer months?

 

BTW, I am not trying to be confrontational, just interested in what other views are.

It might well be for you but we are all different. I often stay 14 days in certain areas it gives me time to explore the area and do what I want. For someone like myself who has no car and has to rely on bus's 14 days is ideal. On average I guess I spend 10 days per area so do you recon maybe I should push for 10 day moorings?

[jenlyn]

You seem to be incapable of answering a question except with another question.

 

And I have no idea what 6000 boats has to do with the question of whether a mooring has a sign that says 14 days, or whether it's 14 days by default.

Are we talking visitors moorings, or 14 day moorings in general? Ronniesonic seemed to say 14 day moorings, perhaps he meant 14 day Vm's?

[Guest]

Ok, here goes. I think a max 7 days days is more than sufficient anywhere on the system, with 48hrs hours max at designated 'Honeyspots' during summer months?

 

BTW, I am not trying to be confrontational, just interested in what other views are.

Most of our local VM's are 48 hour anyway when they easily could accommodate boats for longer apart from some very specific spots. So I think certainly in our locale 7 days max. would be great but reduce it to 48 or perhaps 72 hours at certain locations. That said now that mooring just off them and a little further along the towpath is not such an issue following the demise of commercial traffic it's actually quite easy to get quite close to them where of cours you can stay for 14 days anyway.

 

This of course does not work every where so I don't think there is an answer that actually suits all parts of the system.

[Tuscan]

Since it's formation has the SE Partnership boating group been specifically tasked by the SE partnership for any specific information. Has it prepared a report specifically for the partnership and is it in the public domain.

 

I keep reading about working with CRT but I didn't think it reported to CRT however as the meetings are held at CRTs offices and the minutes published in CRTs name and on CRTs letterhead I guess we are wrong. Surely it's time for the group to be reformed perhaps be a sub group for NAG at least then it can fit into some form of national umbrella.

 

I have no opinion on whether the group are representative or not , however I am concerned that CRT have been using a small group of boaters who they have selected to help shape a national policy on visitor moorings and I'm pleased to see that there is now a wider engagement on this issue with other boaters, boating groups and trade organisations.

[alan_fincher]

What worries me, is that people discuss thing's hypothetically, then a week later, that hypothetical discussion becomes a policy paper.

Has that happened in this case, and if so can you point me at the policy paper that has resulted from it, please?

 

Obviously I can't comment on what was, or was not said where small breakaway groups were used as part of the main meeting, for those I was not in. I would not expect anything emanating from just a handful of people to give rise to "policy", or even suggested "policy", unless it had been presented more widely, and even if the whole group were to agree something, (which clearly could not happen for either of the things listed!), it is still only advisory, and I would expect many other back-stops to be available afterwards.

 

It is a shame Louise was not at the latest meeting, all of which was done around the one table, with far less being contributed by CRT, and most of the input for the first time coming from the sub-group members. In my view easily the best of the three so far, and I hope the chair (of the sub-group) will choose to run more along these lines in future.

 

As you will have seen elsewhere, the CC-er who remains within the group made an impassioned plea that CRT needs to modify the languages it uses that seem to link "non compliant" more with CC-ers than other boaters, and that seem to be well received by the group.

 

I have said elsewhere that I pushed strongly that anything that is a recommendation, or which results in us being charged to go out and investigate things is clearly recorded in the meeting notes - both what we are recommending or doing, and the reasons why. That seemed to be taken on board, and time will tell. Ultimately it is not my role to defend the existence of the group, its chosen make up, what it covers, or how it is run - those are all questions for CRT and the Partnership, not for me as an individual member. All I can do is try to give as unbiased an opinion as I am able of what is taking place.

[carlt]

Carl, I'm not getting into any of your silly little anti ACC games. We have heard it all before. I'm sorry, but I do not get the same excitement from whizzing around roundabouts, as you seem to.

I have said nothing against the ACC here at all, merely extended the example you have offered.

 

The question I ask is a valid one however but you invent an irrelevant argument to avoid answering it (even though the question was not aimed at you).

 

If you don't want to get into "silly games" you could either address the point I raised or no respond at all.

[cotswoldsman]

Ultimately it is not my role to defend the existence of the group, its chosen make up, what it covers, or how it is run - those are all questions for CRT and the Partnership, not for me as an individual member.

I think you have listed the reasons Louis left the group as she thought the agenda was already set before the meetings and that they were not listening to the all the opinions. This is how I read it anyway and I have not spoken to Louis about this subject

[carlt]

I think you have listed the reasons Louis left the group as she thought the agenda was already set before the meetings and that they were not listening to the all the opinions. This is how I read it anyway and I have not spoken to Louis about this subject

Even if her views were in the minority, within the group (and it would seem from Alan's post they are not) would it not be better to remain in the group as an agitant or be replaced with a like minded individual rather than have no representation at all?

[KenK]

How about this.

 

C&RT feel, for whatever reason, that there is a need to reduce 14 day VM's to a shorter period. In exchange they tidy up a section of towpath adjacent to the said moorings, install piling, cut the grass to the edge and spot dredge if required. If this is not possible because of the nature of the canal then the mooring time cannot be reduced. The increased length of mooring is not designated as VM's but just subject to the normal 14 day requirement.

Or is that too simple?

 

Ken

[Leo No2]

Even if her views were in the minority, within the group (and it would seem from Alan's post they are not) would it not be better to remain in the group as an agitant or be replaced with a like minded individual rather than have no representation at all?

I have always thought that it was better to remain a member of a group (however difficult) and know what's going on than to resign and to have to guess what's going on. In a democracy you are not individually responsible for the decision of the group in my view.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Leo No2

[jenlyn]

I have always thought that it was better to remain a member of a group (however difficult) and know what's going on than to resign and to have to guess what's going on. In a democracy you are not individually responsible for the decision of the group in my view.

It's a difficult call when many state "you are wasting your time" or, "you will get directly blamed for the outcome". It's also easy to say how one should deal with something, if you have not been there and experienced the situation yourself.

Louise has explained in her post what she felt, and why she felt she could not continue. It was acceptable, given that many know what it's like dealing with some employees of the trust.

[Naughty Cal]

It's a difficult call when many state "you are wasting your time" or, "you will get directly blamed for the outcome". It's also easy to say how one should deal with something, if you have not been there and experienced the situation yourself.

Louise has explained in her post what she felt, and why she felt she could not continue. It was acceptable, given that many know what it's like dealing with some employees of the trust.

What is the point of ACC if they dont field representitives to these meetings and User Groups?

[carlt]

It's a difficult call when many state "you are wasting your time" or, "you will get directly blamed for the outcome". It's also easy to say how one should deal with something, if you have not been there and experienced the situation yourself.

This is true but, looking at the exchange of emails (which is all we have to go on) the "personal comments" directed at her seem no more personal than the ones directed at Ann Davies.

 

I would add that I, personally, cannot stand Mrs Davies' views on how the waterways should be run and by whom and have held that opinion for around 15 years but I still feel that losing representation on the group is a bad move.

 

As long as the group exists and has any influence at all then it is folly to withdraw representation because you don't like the way it works.

 

You merely reduce any influence you had to zero.

 

Edited to add: and you also risk losing influence outside of the group if you lose respect because of your actions.

Edited March 13, 2014 by carlt

[jenlyn]

This is true but, looking at the exchange of emails (which is all we have to go on) the "personal comments" directed at her seem no more personal than the ones directed at Ann Davies.

 

I would add that I, personally, cannot stand Mrs Davies' views on how the waterways should be run and by whom and have held that opinion for around 15 years but I still feel that losing representation on the group is a bad move.

 

As long as the group exists and has any influence at all then it is folly to withdraw representation because you don't like the way it works.

 

You merely reduce any influence you had to zero.

 

Edited to add: and you also risk losing influence outside of the group if you lose respect because of your actions.

I suspect things will change over the next few weeks, which will then throw things into a different light.

 

With the reference to losing respect, we are at the moment generally getting support that far outweighs any non support.

Edited March 13, 2014 by jenlyn

[carlt]

I suspect things will change over the next few weeks, which will then throw things into a different light.

That seems to be your mantra.

 

Perhaps you could air your suspicions rather than be evasive.

 

You did, after all, start the discussion so you could speculate away just like the rest of us.

[jenlyn]

All I want Carl, is the recognition and respect I feel constant cruisers deserve.

 

Up until recently, and arguably, cc'ers have had a pretty rough deal, being tarnished with this brush and that brush.

Organisations and associations blaming them for this and that.

 

It's not right and definitely not acceptable.

 

Ultimately it's all crappy politics, I accept that and play the game, maybe it's turning me into a paranoid, raving lunatic, but that's where we are.