Ssscrudddy Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 You reckon? You want to try being one of those "who keep their boat in a marina and only come out a few times a year"! Torn apart we are My marina has a pumpout, why on earth would I want to leave my marina when there is no need! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Not up for argument about person I do not know but my opinion of mooring auctions is well known and has been aired on this forum many times. Boaters and CRT are best served by sensible discussion and attempts at co operation. The problems on the K and A are part of the wider affordable housing problem and the high costs of moorings. None of this is helped by taking out or overpricing towpath moorings and trying to force boaters into marinas. I wonder what Sally Ash plans for her retirement, at 63 concentrating on doing those things that give her the greatest pleasure would be what I would advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sueb Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 I didn't realise BW/CRT have been evicting compliant CCers. That being the case, I must amend my view of CRT enforcement. George ex nb Alton retired That's why the guidance has changed over the years. Some left, some successfully fought back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 I didn't realise BW/CRT have been evicting compliant CCers. That's why the guidance has changed over the years. Some left, some successfully fought back Are you saying that BW / C&RT have changed their guidance just so they can persue/evict compliant CCers ? I'm not sure I could go with that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 That's why the guidance has changed over the years. Some left, some successfully fought back Yes, the guidance has changed over time. However, so far as I can see, BW/CRT have only ever pursued the low hanging fruit on this. Please provide an example of somebody who was removed from the waterways who would now be regarded as compliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sueb Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 I didn't realise BW/CRT have been evicting compliant CCers. Are you saying that BW / C&RT have changed their guidance just so they can persue/evict compliant CCers ? I'm not sure I could go with that view. No that isn't what I am saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul C Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 No that isn't what I am saying What are you saying then, because what you've already said is wide open to misinterpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Schweizer Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) Not up for argument about person I do not know but my opinion of mooring auctions is well known and has been aired on this forum many times. Boaters and CRT are best served by sensible discussion and attempts at co operation. The problems on the K and A are part of the wider affordable housing problem and the high costs of moorings. None of this is helped by taking out or overpricing towpath moorings and trying to force boaters into marinas. I wonder what Sally Ash plans for her retirement, at 63 concentrating on doing those things that give her the greatest pleasure would be what I would advise. Even if CaRT did seek to introduce residential moorings on the western end of the K & A, it is unlikely that the Local Authorities would grant Planning Consent for them. BW did attempt to instal some at Avoncliffe some years ago but the Planning Authority refused consent. The proposed moorings were within a few hundred metres of the Parish boundary, and our Parish Council was included in the formal consultation, where spoke I in favour of recommending approval, but was in a minority of one. The debate was an interesting one with considerable hostility being expressed by some Councillors regarding residential boats, based upon their observations of some boats already moored in the area, together with considerable objection from local residents. Since then the situation has become far worse and I'm afraid it is now just a case of give a dog a bad name!! Edited April 3, 2014 by David Schweizer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Nibble Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 No that isn't what I am sayingIt's not what you are saying that is at issue, it is what you are not saying. You are being pleaded with to say it from several directions but just won't. You have a choice here. If you can cite an example of a compliant CCer being evicted and thereby evidence CaRT's institutional downer on CCers in general you will raise the whole of the forum membership to your cause. If on the other hand you would prefer to collude with this anti CC biase, keep it a secret and just winge then you are complicit in the very offence you complain about. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick and Maggie Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Please provide an example of somebody who was removed from the waterways who would now be regarded as compliant. One here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlt Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 One here. Except that he is not regarded as "compliant" by CRT (even though they are wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 One here. I asked for an example of somebody who was removed as a non-compliant CCer who would now be compliant under the guidance as it applies today. This is not such an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Except that he is not regarded as "compliant" by CRT (even though they are wrong). And he is not a CCer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenlyn Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 One here. I don't see CRT taking something like this to court unless they have a rock solid case. They cannot afford the risk of losing one. So I suspect there is more to this than is being told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Nibble Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Now that's serious and from such an unimpeachable source too. I wonder how far away from it's mooring the boat is. Looks like there is evidence of CaRT trying to turn us all into CCers which hardly supports an anti CCer biase. Perhaps we mooring holders should recognise now before it's too late that CaRT want to stamp us out. Poor us, just because we're different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulG Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Except that he is not regarded as "compliant" by CRT (even though they are wrong). And he hasn't been evicted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlt Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Looks like there is evidence of CaRT trying to turn us all into CCers "I'm a CCer!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotswoldsman Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Just for the sake of clarity you can not have your boat removed for being "non compliant" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Just for the sake of clarity you can not have your boat removed for being "non compliant" OK, for the sake of clarity... Can anybody give me an example of somebody whose boat was removed under s8 British Waterways Act 1983, where the boat was unlicenced due to either it having been refused a licence under s17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, or the licence having been revoked under s17(4)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, and where, under the current guidance published by CRT, they would accept that the boater is engaged in bona fide navigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotswoldsman Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 OK, for the sake of clarity... Can anybody give me an example of somebody whose boat was removed under s8 British Waterways Act 1983, where the boat was unlicenced due to either it having been refused a licence under s17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, or the licence having been revoked under s17(4)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, and where, under the current guidance published by CRT, they would accept that the boater is engaged in bona fide navigation. I very much doubt it CRT only go to court as a last resort and when they are fairly certain they will win. In the case of a boat declared as not having a "home mooring" they will have been given 4 warnings before licence is removed once again for the sake of clarity as I understand it all the Associations support enforcement for ALL mon compliant boaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sueb Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Just for the sake of clarity you can not have your boat removed for being "non compliant"No Cart will refuse you a licence for being non compliant then evict you for having no licence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayalld Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 I very much doubt it CRT only go to court as a last resort and when they are fairly certain they will win. In the case of a boat declared as not having a "home mooring" they will have been given 4 warnings before licence is removed once again for the sake of clarity as I understand it all the Associations support enforcement for ALL mon compliant boaters. Sue's suggestion is that people have been through the loop of licence revoked for non-compliance, then removal who would be compliant under the rules today. She doesn't seem half as keen on giving an example as she is to repeat the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Nibble Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 I have to say that I broadly trust CaRt on this and they are far, far more likely to fail to enforce when they should than the other way around. Looking at their motivation, the responsibility to manage the waterways and the need to make income I'm afraid the "Ethnic cleansing Sally Eichmann" school of thought rubs right alongside faked moon landings and ACAB as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sueb Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Sue's suggestion is that people have been through the loop of licence revoked for non-compliance, then removal who would be compliant under the rules today. She doesn't seem half as keen on giving an example as she is to repeat the claim. No I'm not going to name people. I am surprised you expect me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Nibble Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 No Cart will refuse you a licence for being non compliant then evict you for having no licence Erm, Good? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now