Jump to content

Another new way to lose your Licence


Tony Dunkley
 Share

Featured Posts

I've not heard this from CaRT, I've heard it on an internet forum passed on doubtless in good faith, by a bloke I don't know. That's one reson why I'm not panicking. Another reason is that this seems massively unlikely because not only do CaRT have a big enough meal on their plate with the whole dull "continuous moorers" shit and will no way be in a place to consider such a police state, but also this would be a direct attack on precisely the nice people they do want on their waterways but also on the kind of use they would like them to make of their boat! (IMO)

I don't believe this is true, but the story is out there. So, Cui bono? Take a look at this thread, see all the anti CaRT stuff about how enforcement goes too far? Cute manipulation of public opinion there? Is this just "Baby eating Hun" style propaganda?

Cui bono?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL - I'm bricking it thinking of going through that tunnel for the first time!! can guarantee it won't be in the dead of night - hence why we always turn left smile.png

 

Thanks DH, I thought I had my head around guidelines, but this thread had me double guessing my understanding.frusty.gif

 

I think everyone's head gets a bit scrambled when this subject comes up. The problem is that its people who try to work the loop holes that come unstuck, where as the rest of us just get on with enjoying the canal system.

I don't think for a min that CRT are trying to evict people off the canal as that would be counter productive, but are trying to make life better and fair for the rest. (waiting now for a barrage of comments/abuse).

 

If there was no policing then people would set up home on all the visitor moorings and cause all sorts of problems. So the question is how to make things easy to understand (and yes most do) should there just be a single rule that if you use a mooring then you can stay the designated time, but then not return for the same time eg 48 hr mooring, you can stay upto 48 hrs then not return for 48hrs. if you decide you only want to stay 24 hrs then the 48hr return rule would still apply.

It would make policing easy the same way when you park a car in a no return for 2hrs slot in town for instance. Does that make sense at all??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think everyone's head gets a bit scrambled when this subject comes up. The problem is that its people who try to work the loop holes that come unstuck, where as the rest of us just get on with enjoying the canal system.

I don't think for a min that CRT are trying to evict people off the canal as that would be counter productive, but are trying to make life better and fair for the rest. (waiting now for a barrage of comments/abuse).

 

If there was no policing then people would set up home on all the visitor moorings and cause all sorts of problems. So the question is how to make things easy to understand (and yes most do) should there just be a single rule that if you use a mooring then you can stay the designated time, but then not return for the same time eg 48 hr mooring, you can stay upto 48 hrs then not return for 48hrs. if you decide you only want to stay 24 hrs then the 48hr return rule would still apply.

It would make policing easy the same way when you park a car in a no return for 2hrs slot in town for instance. Does that make sense at all??

 

It makes sense, but there's been to attempt or enthusiasm by CRT to change the law, and no serious effort to update the byelaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Local means local -- if you're struggling to understand it, go and buy a Dictionary -- you might even get one locally.

 

Why not cut out your blustering and answer the question as it was asked?

 

Around here anything within 50 miles is reasonably local!!

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

smiley_offtopic.gif I know it is not relevant to the original post, but I am deeply intrigued if you are the same Tony Dunkley who used to operate the working boat Hyperion in the early 1970s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smiley_offtopic.gif I know it is not relevant to the original post, but I am deeply intrigued if you are the same Tony Dunkley who used to operate the working boat Hyperion in the early 1970s?

 

Yes I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guidance I saw for The K&A recently (was it on here?) specifically said something along the lines of "we recognise that people with local home moorings will often moor online within a day or two of their home mooring, and that is not a problem". So CRT do recognise the right of non-CCers to make repeated visits.

 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant about the terms used in any CRT pronouncements. If we think that an official announcement deliberately oversteps the mark (or that perhaps a new member of staff who doesn't understand boating, or the history of negotiations) then we should take it seriously, without waiting for the first 'prosecution'.

 

It's important to remember that the people who ENFORCE rules are not the same people who WROTE them.

 

When an enforcement happens to YOU, it's no good appealing to the 'real intentions' of the person who drafted the rules (or who came to public meetings to smilngly explain why the new rule wouldn't affect bona fide boaters. so let's all calm down) but then left CRT immediately afterwards.

 

And if you were served with a notice, it would be no comfort to know that CRT are *probably* acting illegally and it will be alright after six months of stress and court cases.

Edited by Clifford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guidance I saw for The K&A recently (was it on here?) specifically said something along the lines of "we recognise that people with local home moorings will often moor online within a day or two of their home mooring, and that is not a problem". So CRT do recognise the right of non-CCers to make repeated visits.

 

 

 

 

I think that is what they call a selective quote!!!

 

 

*Boaters with a home mooring

If your home mooring is within the local plan area, we understand that you might use the
neighbourhoods closest to your home mooring more frequently than those further afield but we
would ask that you always return your boat to your home mooring when not being used for
cruising.
If your home mooring is elsewhere but you are visiting the canal between Bath and Foxhangers,
we ask that you follow this guidance until you leave the local plan area.

 

These are some fundamental changes for boaters with a home mooring. What it says is that boaters with a home mooring can not leave their boat on a 14 day mooring and leave his boat for a few days to go home or whatever. It also says that boaters with a home mooring must follow the guidance for boaters without a home mooring when in the area. These to me are some fairly major changes to the guidance for boaters with a home mooring and should this experiment be introduced in other areas boaters with a home mooring are going to find they become more and more subject to the guidance for boaters without a home mooring. Just one other minor point it would seem if you are a boater without a home mooring it is ok to leave your boat for a few days or even upto 14 days but not ok for a boater with a home mooring!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cotswoldman,

 

Thanks for quoting in full. I DO take your point - there are serious implications.

 

And as I said, it's no good saying "they won't use this against bona fide boaters".

 

Enforcement teams in ALL walks of life go by what's written, not by the 'real original intention'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. What it says is that boaters with a home mooring can not leave their boat on a 14 day mooring and leave his boat for a few days to go home or whatever.

That is not the way I read it. It's couched in a gentle conditional tense ("we would ask"....) rather than barking orders at the boaters in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not the way I read it. It's couched in a gentle conditional tense ("we would ask"....) rather than barking orders at the boaters in question.

That is because CRT have no authority to order boaters not to use moorings for the purpose with which they were intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Dunkley

 

Cut the crap

 

Where is your home mooring? Where do you go to every time you leave your home mooring?

 

What is the duration that you stay at each of the mooring locations?

 

.......... or are you taking the piss

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not the way I read it. It's couched in a gentle conditional tense ("we would ask"....) rather than barking orders at the boaters in question.

 

i do get confused surely all the guidance's are about asking as the only thing that matters are the Acts of Parliament. Having said that I have always encouraged those without a Home Mooring to follow the guidance as it was a few years ago, I now think the "tinkering dept." within CRT see it as a frequant duty to change them and that leads to confusion. I think they now feel they need to tinker with the guidance for those with a home mooring and whatever language they use it is a change from what has gone before. As I said before I came onto the canals as it seemed to me at the time to be the one place where I could get away from rule after rule seems I was wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well John my lovely, I like to avoid "loud and aggressive persons, for they are a vexation to the spirit" like the amusingly mis-named 'Proper Job' above your post and the canals are, in general, perfect for that.

 

His aggression and scowling tone are nobody's problem but his own and Tony Dunkley is to be commended for the way he calmly ignores such.

 

The easy way to avoid your dilemma is to adopt Lord Nelson's technique "I see no rules". As you have so rightly pointed out, our conduct is between us and Parliament and if CART wish to chase their tails in ever decreasing circles, it's best to leave them to it.

 

 

 

 

i do get confused surely all the guidance's are about asking as the only thing that matters are the Acts of Parliament. Having said that I have always encouraged those without a Home Mooring to follow the guidance as it was a few years ago, I now think the "tinkering dept." within CRT see it as a frequant duty to change them and that leads to confusion. I think they now feel they need to tinker with the guidance for those with a home mooring and whatever language they use it is a change from what has gone before. As I said before I came onto the canals as it seemed to me at the time to be the one place where I could get away from rule after rule seems I was wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is what they call a selective quote!!!

 

 

These are some fundamental changes for boaters with a home mooring. What it says is that boaters with a home mooring can not leave their boat on a 14 day mooring and leave his boat for a few days to go home or whatever. It also says that boaters with a home mooring must follow the guidance for boaters without a home mooring when in the area. These to me are some fairly major changes to the guidance for boaters with a home mooring and should this experiment be introduced in other areas boaters with a home mooring are going to find they become more and more subject to the guidance for boaters without a home mooring. Just one other minor point it would seem if you are a boater without a home mooring it is ok to leave your boat for a few days or even upto 14 days but not ok for a boater with a home mooring!!

The reason for the new rules on what is a fairly short stretch of canal is simply to reduce congestion. There is a limited amount of mooring so C&RT have simply requested that boaters who do have a home mooring take their boat back into the marina once they have finished cruising. It is there simply so that the limited moorings are available to boaters who do not have a mooring on that stretch of canal. Lets not read too much into this it is just an attempt to improve the situation on a section of canal which has a reputation for mooring issues. Don't forget this isn't C&RT's doing it was the Waterways Partnership who came up with the proposals.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Dunkley

 

Cut the crap

 

Where is your home mooring? Where do you go to every time you leave your home mooring?

 

What is the duration that you stay at each of the mooring locations?

 

.......... or are you taking the piss

 

The perfect "keyboard warrior".

 

Or do you go around in real life talking to people like that?

 

Nasty, nasty little post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The perfect "keyboard warrior".

 

Or do you go around in real life talking to people like that?

 

Nasty, nasty little post.

 

We are clearly only getting part of the story, and this could be very important if CRT are really acting in the way that TD has portrayed, so I think it's necessary for all the facts to be in the open if he wishes to be taken seriously.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the new rules on what is a fairly short stretch of canal is simply to reduce congestion. There is a limited amount of mooring so C&RT have simply requested that boaters who do have a home mooring take their boat back into the marina once they have finished cruising. It is there simply so that the limited moorings are available to boaters who do not have a mooring on that stretch of canal. Lets not read too much into this it is just an attempt to improve the situation on a section of canal which has a reputation for mooring issues. Don't forget this isn't C&RT's doing it was the Waterways Partnership who came up with the proposals.

 

Ken

Ken I have said right from the beginning that I support the fact that this was done in agreement but you also have to see that the version CRT put out is different to the version agreed it has been tinkered with and sorry for having concerns for any changes that effect boaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We are clearly only getting part of the story, and this could be very important if CRT are really acting in the way that TD has portrayed, so I think it's necessary for all the facts to be in the open if he wishes to be taken seriously.

 

Tim

I couldn't agree more as I said earlier I would like to know the back story. To me refusal to give at least some more details makes me very suspicious that all is not as we are are supposed to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more as I said earlier I would like to know the back story. To me refusal to give at least some more details makes me very suspicious that all is not as we are are supposed to believe.

 

 

Agreed.

 

PJ could have worded his request more moderately but it's what I've been thinking too and it needed saying.

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Eidt to add the quote.)

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or is anyone else wondering why we haven't seen Mr Dunkley and our dear George94 in the same place at the same time? They need to be introduced at the very least as they'd get on like a house on fire!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The perfect "keyboard warrior".

 

Or do you go around in real life talking to people like that?

 

Nasty, nasty little post.

 

I don't think so.

 

He's not given the facts. He's playing smoke and mirrors and has avoided any direct questions

 

I think he's trying to stir the Sh1t and spread miss-information

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slight aside - "back story" seems to have become this year's "in" expression, superseding "iconic" (last year) and "stunning" (the year before). Where does it originate? Is it synonymous with "the story behind this" or "the background to this"? It's an iconic and stunning expression, whatever its roots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the new rules on what is a fairly short stretch of canal is simply to reduce congestion. There is a limited amount of mooring so C&RT have simply requested that boaters who do have a home mooring take their boat back into the marina once they have finished cruising. It is there simply so that the limited moorings are available to boaters who do not have a mooring on that stretch of canal. Lets not read too much into this it is just an attempt to improve the situation on a section of canal which has a reputation for mooring issues. Don't forget this isn't C&RT's doing it was the Waterways Partnership who came up with the proposals.

 

Ken

Having cruised over much of the network (over 1000 miles) in the last 12 months I did find congestion a few times but generally speaking I could always find a mooring (not always where I would have liked). Certainly outside the Summer months there is no problem. Maybe the 'congestion' you speak of is only reported by occasional Summer boaters. In which case, if this rule is going to be applied, just apply it in Summer months. If it isn't broken, don't fix it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.