CRT deter boats

[cotswoldsman]

The figure was from the annual boat check in march. What's strange is that I did not see any figure above 30,000 in the last 4 years. So I don't know, perhaps the argos aliens can make sense of it.

Can never understand the figures that are given surely there is a little button on the computer you press and it tells you how many licences you have issued add a couple of percent for those not licenced and you have the figure, releasing the boat checkers to do something more useful like going to a meeting or sitting in the office in front of a computer screen

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The figure was from the annual boat check in march. What's strange is that I did not see any figure above 30,000 in the last 4 years. So I don't know, perhaps the argos aliens can make sense of it.

In that case I would hazard a guess that the figure you have been given is the number of private boats (possibly including those with short term licences).

 

 

 

I was only guessing that it might be 2013/14 figure but I have to say I have always had a problem with the 2012/13 figure and felt it was over stated

 

Certainly BW has overstated the figures in the past and corrected them in subsequent Annual Reports.

 

If anyone cares to read the annual reports, they will find that up to a few years ago, BW were claiming year on year increases. This was followed by 'despite the economic downturn we are just about holding our own'.

 

CaRT's first Annual Report admits to a significant drop in boat numbers but not 4.4% that the figures show.

 

 

 

 

[jenlyn]

In that case I would hazard a guess that the figure you have been given is the number of private boats (possibly including those with short term licences).

 

 

I would hazard a guess that most of your "hazardous guesses" are often as far fetched as those of Lord haw haw.

If you told me tomorrow was Tuesday, I'd flippin check.

[matty40s]

My observations this year is that there has been a jump in boats moored close to bridges with road access. This seems to have slowed journeys down far more than it used to.

There were no more than previous years in November, Dec/Jan, and early March that I could see over a wide area, however the last two months has seen an upsurge. One I have noted for a few years now.

[MtB]

Getting back to Stoke Bruerne, my thinking might be typical of the Ordinary Boater.

 

If I passed through SB I would not stop. This is because I will be coming back shortly (in less than 28 days) and I wish to keep my option to stop there on my way back.

 

On my way back I will not stop. This is in case I might be passing that way again in less than 28 days, and I'd to keep my option to stop there on my next trip.

 

Ad infinitum.

 

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

Getting back to Stoke Bruerne, my thinking might be typical of the Ordinary Boater.

 

If I passed through SB I would not stop. This is because I will be coming back shortly (in less than 28 days) and I wish to keep my option to stop there on my way back.

 

On my way back I will not stop. This is in case I might be passing that way again in less than 28 days, and I'd to keep my option to stop there on my next trip.

 

Ad infinitum.

 

 

MtB

Which would mean like many people you had failed to study and understand the rules (or even baguely understand them).

 

In terms of returns you are allowed to be there 14 days in any one calendar month, (but must of course still adhere to the maximum stay relating to your chosen spot in any one visit).

 

I find it very hard to believe that any "normal" boater needs to protect their options for a return trip, if you are actually permitted to be there for two weeks of every month. Een shared boats could normally survive within that, I would imagine?

 

In fact, other than the fines, the stay times are also considerably more relaxed than before this fiasco was dreamt up - and I do mean "considerably" - you are now allowed 7 consecutive days in the long pond in summer - it used to be 1 day before Mr Whyatt's scheme was first introduced!

 

Which makes a mockery of the suggestion that the new rules alone increase the chances of finding a mooring, if no other factors were in play, (and is in my view 100% adequate proof that they got it horribly wrong).

 

I still think the best possible explanations that people don't stop there even wit much relaxed say times are are now either....

 

1) People really don't like the highly unwelcoming feel that now exists - festooned by needless signs with £25 fines detailed on them in large letters

 

or....

 

2) There are simply less boats on this bit of the GU

 

although you now seem to have introduced a third, (if you are being serious of course)

 

3) People really don't understand the current rules, including how many days you can stay in SB in a calendar month, (or can't be arsed to wade through all the signs and/or on-line documentation to find out).

 

But still volunteers beaver about to meticulously record boats on VMs that are not even half full - and are unable to explain the point of doing so if asked!

[Paul C]

Which would mean like many people you had failed to study and understand the rules (or even baguely understand them).

 

In terms of returns you are allowed to be there 14 days in any one calendar month, (but must of course still adhere to the maximum stay relating to your chosen spot in any one visit).

 

I find it very hard to believe that any "normal" boater needs to protect their options for a return trip, if you are actually permitted to be there for two weeks of every month. Een shared boats could normally survive within that, I would imagine?

 

In fact, other than the fines, the stay times are also considerably more relaxed than before this fiasco was dreamt up - and I do mean "considerably" - you are now allowed 7 consecutive days in the long pond in summer - it used to be 1 day before Mr Whyatt's scheme was first introduced!

 

Which makes a mockery of the suggestion that the new rules alone increase the chances of finding a mooring, if no other factors were in play, (and is in my view 100% adequate proof that they got it horribly wrong).

 

I still think the best possible explanations that people don't stop there even wit much relaxed say times are are now either....

 

1) People really don't like the highly unwelcoming feel that now exists - festooned by needless signs with £25 fines detailed on them in large letters

 

or....

 

2) There are simply less boats on this bit of the GU

 

although you now seem to have introduced a third, (if you are being serious of course)

 

3) People really don't understand the current rules, including how many days you can stay in SB in a calendar month, (or can't be arsed to wade through all the signs and/or on-line documentation to find out).

 

But still volunteers beaver about to meticulously record boats on VMs that are not even half full - and are unable to explain the point of doing so if asked!

 

I'll go for 2). No conspiracy theory, no anti-CRT reactionism, no thicko boaters not understanding rules, no throwing toys out of the pram and selling of boats, etc

[luctor et emergo]

Perish the thought... Less boats? Could that be possible? Where have all the Cmers gone???

[MtB]

Which would mean like many people you had failed to study and understand the rules (or even baguely understand them).

 

In terms of returns you are allowed to be there 14 days in any one calendar month, (but must of course still adhere to the maximum stay relating to your chosen spot in any one visit).

 

I find it very hard to believe that any "normal" boater needs to protect their options for a return trip, if you are actually permitted to be there for two weeks of every month. Een shared boats could normally survive within that, I would imagine?

 

In fact, other than the fines, the stay times are also considerably more relaxed than before this fiasco was dreamt up - and I do mean "considerably" - you are now allowed 7 consecutive days in the long pond in summer - it used to be 1 day before Mr Whyatt's scheme was first introduced!

 

Which makes a mockery of the suggestion that the new rules alone increase the chances of finding a mooring, if no other factors were in play, (and is in my view 100% adequate proof that they got it horribly wrong).

 

I still think the best possible explanations that people don't stop there even wit much relaxed say times are are now either....

 

1) People really don't like the highly unwelcoming feel that now exists - festooned by needless signs with £25 fines detailed on them in large letters

 

or....

 

2) There are simply less boats on this bit of the GU

 

although you now seem to have introduced a third, (if you are being serious of course)

 

3) People really don't understand the current rules, including how many days you can stay in SB in a calendar month, (or can't be arsed to wade through all the signs and/or on-line documentation to find out).

 

But still volunteers beaver about to meticulously record boats on VMs that are not even half full - and are unable to explain the point of doing so if asked!

 

Thank you for explaining. I'm sure others in this thread have said there is a no return in 28 days rule.

 

I must say, writing as a regular Joe Boater I feel no particular burning desire to stop in SB, and expecting me to pick up all the information about time limits and return times from the 40ft-away signage as I cruise past is expecting a bit much, especially given the rules keep changing.

 

I know I could research it in advance of every visit and discover the rules in force at the time, but frankly, at the moment SB simply isn't that important to me as a boater.

 

I'm not writing all this to complain, just attempting to explain my thinking (or lack of it), which may co-incide with other boaters', and may help explain why SB is so empty.

 

 

MtB

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I would hazard a guess that most of your "hazardous guesses" are often as far fetched as those of Lord haw haw.

If you told me tomorrow was Tuesday, I'd flippin check.

I assume from your post that you have checked my figures against those published in Annual Reports.

 

I also assume that you can find no discrepancy.

 

With regard to my 'hazardous guesses', no doubt we will find out in a months time when CaRT publishes its Annual Report if it has 35,000 boats on its system as it claims or 29,700 as you claim.

 

Would anyone wish to hazard a guess at the figure published?

 

 

[Tom and Bex]

Which would mean like many people you had failed to study and understand the rules (or even baguely understand them).

 

In terms of returns you are allowed to be there 14 days in any one calendar month, (but must of course still adhere to the maximum stay relating to your chosen spot in any one visit).

 

I find it very hard to believe that any "normal" boater needs to protect their options for a return trip, if you are actually permitted to be there for two weeks of every month. Een shared boats could normally survive within that, I would imagine?

 

In fact, other than the fines, the stay times are also considerably more relaxed than before this fiasco was dreamt up - and I do mean "considerably" - you are now allowed 7 consecutive days in the long pond in summer - it used to be 1 day before Mr Whyatt's scheme was first introduced!

 

Which makes a mockery of the suggestion that the new rules alone increase the chances of finding a mooring, if no other factors were in play, (and is in my view 100% adequate proof that they got it horribly wrong).

 

I still think the best possible explanations that people don't stop there even wit much relaxed say times are are now either....

 

1) People really don't like the highly unwelcoming feel that now exists - festooned by needless signs with £25 fines detailed on them in large letters

 

or....

 

2) There are simply less boats on this bit of the GU

 

although you now seem to have introduced a third, (if you are being serious of course)

 

3) People really don't understand the current rules, including how many days you can stay in SB in a calendar month, (or can't be arsed to wade through all the signs and/or on-line documentation to find out).

 

But still volunteers beaver about to meticulously record boats on VMs that are not even half full - and are unable to explain the point of doing so if asked!

I don't know about SB specifically as not visited recently but going on Foxton I would say no. 2

 

The unwelcoming signs both sides of the footbridge as you approach that you can't read unless you stop the boat are the first thing you see, the next thing that catches your eye is the £25 signs on the poles. By then you give up stopping to read further and just decide to cruise on to a more welcoming area.

 

I have to say the tone of the signs remind me very much of the "Don't park here or you will be clamped. £25 release fee" signs you see in private car parks.

[alan_fincher]

Are we assuming that the number in the annual report is for all 12 month licences issued ?

 

So

 

Gold

Canal and River

Rivers only

 

Or, alternatively

 

Private

Hire

Trading (all categories thereof)

Anything else

I guess it would be, but it doesn't actually say, does it?

 

I'm sure I have seen a breakdown by type of licence in the past, but can't immediately remember where.

Anybody have it?

 

 

Thank you for explaining. I'm sure others in this thread have said there is a no return in 28 days rule.

 

I must say, writing as a regular Joe Boater I feel no particular burning desire to stop in SB, and expecting me to pick up all the information about time limits and return times from the 40ft-away signage as I cruise past is expecting a bit much, especially given the rules keep changing.

 

I know I could research it in advance of every visit and discover the rules in force at the time, but frankly, at the moment SB simply isn't that important to me as a boater.

 

I'm not writing all this to complain, just attempting to explain my thinking (or lack of it), which may co-incide with other boaters', and may help explain why SB is so empty.

 

 

MtB

With all but the first paragraph I actually fully agree with you.

 

I think many may feel simply "can't be arsed any more - I'll moor elsewhere"

 

So in that respect, I suppose you could argue that Jeff Whyatt has fully achieved what he said he needed to do - the hundreds of yards of unoccupied space must prove he was right, mustn't they?

Would anyone wish to hazard a guess at the figure published?

I hate going first, but someone has to.....

 

32,746

 

(I wonder for how many days the fgorum software will allow me to edit that gues! )

[matty40s]

Like Uncle Richard says, you have a boat to relax and go cruising, not study the minutiae of some CRT management think tank into an imaginary problem.

[nicknorman]

Are we assuming that the number in the annual report is for all 12 month licences issued ?

 

So

 

Gold

Canal and River

Rivers only

 

Or, alternatively

 

Private

Hire

Trading (all categories thereof)

Anything else

I guess it would be, but it doesn't actually say, does it?

 

I'm sure I have seen a breakdown by type of licence in the past, but can't immediately remember where.

Anybody have it?

 

 

With all but the first paragraph I actually fully agree with you.

 

I think many may feel simply "can't be arsed any more - I'll moor elsewhere"

 

So in that respect, I suppose you could argue that Jeff Whyatt has fully achieved what he said he needed to do - the hundreds of yards of unoccupied space must prove he was right, mustn't they?

I hate going first, but someone has to.....

 

32,746

 

(I wonder for how many days the fgorum software will allow me to edit that gues! )

Why not go for 2 to the 15th power or 1000000000000000 in binary - aka 32768. So much more orderly!

 

In Manchester Picadilly village there is a lovely little mooring basin called Thomas Telford basin. At the entry is a large sign that says "PRIVATE MOORINGS" but the small print underneath says "mooring for up to 24 hrs allowed, please don't disturb the peace" ( my paraphrasing). On the Bridgewater (non-CRT of course) there are signs saying "RESERVED MOORINGS" but the small print tells you you can moor for up to 48 hrs, no return within 3 days.

 

So it always pays to read the small print. If that is too taxing, maybe consider taking up bowls?

 

It also shows that unfortunately, things have to be spelt out these days otherwise the pisstakers will do what they do best...

 

(That said I still don't like the predominance of the £25 over everything else on these SEVM signs.)

Edited June 9, 2014 by nicknorman

[MtB]

A

With all but the first paragraph I actually fully agree with you.

 

I

 

It was Tony Brooks saying it, in post 51.

 

CRT refused to answer his question about whether a second visit with 28 days is acceptable if the first visit is less than the max stay allowable.

 

"They also declined to answer my question about could the 48 hours no return within 28 days (or whatever) be used over more than one visit or would a 2 hour stop for shopping prevent you returning for 28 days."

 

You appear to be saying you can visit as many times as you like in 28 days provided the sum is less than 14 days, if I understand you correctly. Do you have a reference for that please?

 

Thanks,

MtB

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Are we assuming that the number in the annual report is for all 12 month licences issued ?

 

So

 

Gold

Canal and River

Rivers only

 

Or, alternatively

 

Private

Hire

Trading (all categories thereof)

Anything else

 

I guess it would be, but it doesn't actually say, does it?

 

I'm sure I have seen a breakdown by type of licence in the past, but can't immediately remember where.

 

Anybody have it?

 

With all but the first paragraph I actually fully agree with you.

 

I think many may feel simply "can't be arsed any more - I'll moor elsewhere"

 

So in that respect, I suppose you could argue that Jeff Whyatt has fully achieved what he said he needed to do - the hundreds of yards of unoccupied space must prove he was right, mustn't they?

I hate going first, but someone has to.....

 

32,746

 

(I wonder for how many days the fgorum software will allow me to edit that gues! )

 

Are we assuming that the number in the annual report is for all 12 month licences issued ?

 

Not really sure this matters providing consistency exists between published figures in annual reports.

 

I'm sure I have seen a breakdown by type of licence in the past, but can't immediately remember where.

 

I think you are right. However, is it relevant if published figures are consistent?

[alan_fincher]

It also shows that unfortunately, things have to be spelt out these days otherwise the pisstakers will do what they do best...

That's a view, but you would have some difficulty persuading me that it is a majority view across the whole of all boaters on CRT waters. Many compliant boaters clearly do not like the consequences of "spelling it out", and are increasingly saying so.

 

Another view is that there is little point in spelling out anything you can't legally enforce, and that if piss takers want to be piss takers they will probably know that and still take the piss whether you spell it out or not.

 

A piss taker may not be the best thing in the world, but being a piss taker doesn't necessarily make them a problem - there are plenty of places people can and do "take the piss", but really the only annoyance many cause is that you and others don't like the fact they can do it. If they are somewhere you don't actually want t be, (or do, but there is still adequate space), you could actually argue that forcing them to move on unwillingly just creates further congestion, (and certainly doesn't mean less boats about the place overall).

 

I'm absolutely not condoning piss-taking, but I believe that apparently draconian, (but ultimately ineffective and often largely unenforcible), measures aimed at dealing with piss takers have the potential to spoil the experience as much as maybe the piss-takers do.

 

There is an excellent open letter to Richard Parry in this month's NABO news, where Simon Greer very eloquently (amongst many other things) argues the case against micro-managing and over-regulation by CRT, (often actually assuming powers they do not actually posses in law). I have suggested to NABO that thi single letter be extracted and put into the public domain. I strongly agree with everything it says, and very much hope Mr Parry is able to at least consider the case that Simon Greer argues.

 

It can be found on pages 20 - 23 of this PDF Document, but I would like it more freely accessible as a simple HTML page that could be linked to in isolation. It's long, but I feel worth a read, even if you disagree - but actually I'm sure a lot of boaters will actually empathise with most, if maybe not all of it. I wish I had written it, but I'm not good enough to have done so!

[alan_fincher]

You appear to be saying you can visit as many times as you like in 28 days provided the sum is less than 14 days, if I understand you correctly. Do you have a reference for that please?

 

 

Not exactly - it's "within a calendar month" - 28 days doesn't figure, (unless it is February, and not a leap year, of course).

 

From Stoke Bruerne Visitor Moorings Leaflet

 

Maximum stay in area:

Single visit - 7 Days

Calendar Month - 14 Days

 

 

The "welcome boards" say the same, (or should do, provided they have actually managed to keep them fully updated as they have moved various goal posts).

 

I don't think it is necessarily on the individual "totems" with the "tiles", although it may now be - there have been several attempts to get it right, often without any real consistency!

Edited June 9, 2014 by alan_fincher

[MtB]

Ok thanks! I'll stop next time I pass through after all.

 

Can these signs be read from a boat in the middle of the cut without use of a telescope, out of interest?

 

MtB

[nicknorman]

That's a view, but you would have some difficulty persuading me that it is a majority view across the whole of all boaters on CRT waters. Many compliant boaters clearly do not like the consequences of "spelling it out", and are increasingly saying so.

 

Another view is that there is little point in spelling out anything you can't legally enforce, and that if piss takers want to be piss takers they will probably know that and still take the piss whether you spell it out or not.

 

A piss taker may not be the best thing in the world, but being a piss taker doesn't necessarily make them a problem - there are plenty of places people can and do "take the piss", but really the only annoyance many cause is that you and others don't like the fact they can do it. If they are somewhere you don't actually want t be, (or do, but there is still adequate space), you could actually argue that forcing them to move on unwillingly just creates further congestion, (and certainly doesn't mean less boats about the place overall).

 

I'm absolutely not condoning piss-taking, but I believe that apparently draconian, (but ultimately ineffective and often largely unenforcible), measures aimed at dealing with piss takers have the potential to spoil the experience as much as maybe the piss-takers do.

There is an excellent open letter to Richard Parry in this month's NABO news, where Simon Greer very eloquently (amongst many other things) argues the case against micro-managing and over-regulation by CRT, (often actually assuming powers they do not actually posses in law). I have suggested to NABO that thi single letter be extracted and put into the public domain. I strongly agree with everything it says, and very much hope Mr Parry is able to at least consider the case that Simon Greer argues.

 

It can be found on pages 20 - 23 of this PDF Document, but I would like it more freely accessible as a simple HTML page that could be linked to in isolation. It's long, but I feel worth a read, even if you disagree - but actually I'm sure a lot of boaters will actually empathise with most, if maybe not all of it. I wish I had written it, but I'm not good enough to have done so!

I read it. I disagree with nearly all of it. It is proposing an anarchic system with no regulation. The survival of the fittest. A lefty socialist agenda. Multiple pieces of very flawed logic. The only bit I could agree with is the loss of canalside to development. You may like it Alan but please don't presume it reflects the views of the silent majority. I think it absolutely doesn't. You think it does. The truth may be somewhere between the two. I really hope things don't go this way, it would be a disaster. Unfortunately as always, the noisy ones tend to get heard, the silent majority doesn't. Makes me want to join the IWA.

Edited June 9, 2014 by nicknorman

[alan_fincher]

I really hope things don't go this way, it would be a disaster.

It is actually very much how many of us remember things before BW/CRT decided that is not how things should be any more.

 

In the not so far distant past, there was often little real need to "spell it out", and things generally actually chugged along very nicely. (Not always, but generally!).

 

There was also far less division of boaters "by type", often attempting to try and make us believe that those who are not in the same camp as we sit in are somehow the bad guys. BW/CRT have got away with much of what they have by just this approach.

 

I have no idea how many people feel as I do, and how many feel as you do.

 

The problem, I suspect, is that neither do CRT, and that they have never made any real effort to find out. They either just assume and tell us, (or maybe accept that something like the IWA view is representative), or they carry out surveys and consultations that are demonstrably flawed.

 

I wish they were into the game of actually finding out what "the silent majority" actually want on balance, but thy may never achieve that because they listen to the likes of you and me, (who are anything but silent!), but really have no idea what the vast majority that don't attend meetings or speak out in other ways actually want.

 

I have always said if someone can prove to me that I am out of line with what the majority want on a particular topic, then I will withdraw from actively fighting those battles. All I can say is I talk to huge numbers of boaters across a wide spectrum, and clearly very large numbers don't think as you do. I'm sure you can say exactly the same, though!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I read it. I disagree with nearly all of it. It is proposing an anarchic system with no regulation. The survival of the fittest. A lefty socialist agenda. Multiple pieces of very flawed logic. The only bit I could agree with is the loss of canalside to development. You may like it Alan but please don't presume it reflects the views of the silent majority. I think it absolutely doesn't. You think it does. The truth may be somewhere between the two. I really hope things don't go this way, it would be a disaster. Unfortunately as always, the noisy ones tend to get heard, the silent majority doesn't. Makes me want to join the IWA.

Having read the article through several times, it would seem to me that Simon Greer is simply asking that CaRT adhere to the spirit of the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

I believe that Simon Greer provided input to that act.

[cotswoldsman]

I read it. I disagree with nearly all of it. It is proposing an anarchic system with no regulation. The survival of the fittest. A lefty socialist agenda. Multiple pieces of very flawed logic. The only bit I could agree with is the loss of canalside to development. You may like it Alan but please don't presume it reflects the views of the silent majority. I think it absolutely doesn't. You think it does. The truth may be somewhere between the two. I really hope things don't go this way, it would be a disaster. Unfortunately as always, the noisy ones tend to get heard, the silent majority doesn't. Makes me want to join the IWA.

Firstly I guess you are saying Simon Green is part if the vocal minority and he is hardly that unless somewhere I missed all his musings. I would be interested to know what parts are flawed IYO I found it a well thought out letter (did not agree with it 100%) I personally think it needs a thread of its own. Simon is a very long time boater and as Allan pointed out was involved in the 1995 Act. Now you may wish to dismiss that piece of legislation but it is one of the more important Acts that say's what can or can not be done.

You might well consider yourself as part of the silent majority but that is to dismiss the vocal minority who feel it is important to ensure the silent majority are aware of their opinions and thoughts. You seem to want to make another division in an already very decisive group by classing those that say things as they see them as being Lefties and I guess logic would say you think the silent majority as sitting on the right. Like Alan Fincher I speak to many boaters and I have to say that most of them are most probably the silent majority but many have the same concerns as Simon that to much time is spent trying to change things for the sake of change, yet when boaters come up with some ideas based on their experience of boating these are completely ignored

Edited June 10, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Tony Brooks]

 

It was Tony Brooks saying it, in post 51.

 

CRT refused to answer his question about whether a second visit with 28 days is acceptable if the first visit is less than the max stay allowable.

 

"They also declined to answer my question about could the 48 hours no return within 28 days (or whatever) be used over more than one visit or would a 2 hour stop for shopping prevent you returning for 28 days."

 

You appear to be saying you can visit as many times as you like in 28 days provided the sum is less than 14 days, if I understand you correctly. Do you have a reference for that please?

 

Thanks,

MtB

 

No I am saying that I do not understand. My main interest is in the South OXford and I have not been down there for three years now specifically because I do not fully understand what CaRT's new "regulations" actually mean in practice. I understand the signs say 48 hours no return within 28 days. Those I have seen when visiting places by car do not seem to indicate how far an individual restriction applies. As an example I take what has been said about Foxton. Could one stop at the top of the locks on the way out and at the bottom on the way back or would CaRT aggregate both visits and fine you.

 

I also want to know and I use Banbury as an example, can I stop there overnight on the way down and again within 28 days for shopping on the way back or would CaRT count this as two visits (although I had not been there for the full 48 hours).

 

All of this plus the content on other threads about refusals to re-license boats makes me very wary about what CaRt's real motives are and wonder how much longer it will be worth keeping a canal boat.

[cotswoldsman]

Tony if you were to ask people within CRT the same question you would get different answers most probably triggering a series of meetings involving the "tinkering" department who would then pass it onto the "change for the sake of change" department who would then pass it to "how complicated can we make this" department who would then pass it to the "let's make a complicated sign" department and then 6 months later it would at the "let's start this all over again" department and hey then it might even end up at the "oh dear this is not legal" department that normaly seems to happen about 18 month after the "this is legal" department have said all is ok

Edited June 10, 2014 by cotswoldsman