CaRT define "place"

[MtB]

Is there a way of displaying the map 'full screen'?

 

 

MtB

[micky1010]

 

But will you sleep at night when you are away from the boat? or worry about the scrotes jemmying the doors open.

That is the risk you take whether you live in a house or a boat, far less chance of it happening on a canal in the countryside than a house in inner city Birmingham. Worth the risk if you ask me, anyway my attack cats would purr them to death if they tried.

[Captain Zim]

Legal Hierarchy

 

• Act – sets out high level principles
• Regulations – detailed stature from Act
• Approved Codes of Practise – expands upon high level to set out more detail on how to comply with Regulations
• Industry Standards – published best practise etc
• Guidance notes etc – formally published to aid day to day compliance in absence of specifics in either Act or Regulations, ACOP’s or Industry Standards.

1,2 are legally binding you must comply.

3,4,5 not legally binding but as published support 1.2, unless in a court you can defend why you have not complied, or demonstrate compliance at am equivalent or higher level, you will be hard pressed to defend action upon you.

 

You choose to take a CaRT licence, they now define “place” via guidance or published notes– if you fail to follow guidance, in absence of specific clause in either Act or Regulations, or absence of ACOPS or Standards you may be in trouble and sanctions/actions may well follow.

You may. Or you may not. It just annoys me that only one side is presented a lot of the time. I disagree with your definition of 3,4 and 5. I don't know wht you do for work but I've tried enforcing guidance. It was a terrible mistake.

 

And I would like to apologise to David Mayall for the tone of my earlier post. It was uncalled for. As I said in another post, I suppose I'm just a bit fed up of the same old arguments. Would be nice to forget about it for a while.

[mark99]

I disagree with your definition of 3,4 and 5.

 

I'm all ears (or eyes) for yours.

 

The hierarchy principles as I set out are drummed into my profession at every opportunity.

 

However, legal is never cut and dried (hence the word "may").

 

Now if a defendant vrs CaRT tries to defend his movement but it's less than CaRT's published ones who do you think is in the best position?

Edited August 14, 2014 by mark99

[Pete & Helen]

It seems that Cart now have a map of all places.

 

https://places.crtrust.org.uk/places#lat:51.5073509,lng:-0.12775829999998223,zoom:12

 

This is centred on London but you can slide the map around to wherever interests you.

 

Were did you get the link for this? its not blatantly obvious on the CRT web site

[Paul G2]

 

It's a difficult one. If they don't visit every 14 days (exactly) it's difficult to make a case against a boat owner. If it is 14 days, and everyone knows that, boaters so inclined can work around that. What exactly would you suggest?

 

That gets a bit involved, bit it has to do with, or begins with, the landscaping budget. Right now CRT is paying one contractor £10 million per year to maintain all of the landscaping on the canals, and they are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. With around 2,000 miles of canals, that's about £5,000/mile/year. So, take the canals, divide them into 10 mile sections and make one permanent employee responsible for each 10 mile section. (I'm talking averages here, some sections would need to be shorter and some could be longer.) The employee could patrol, landscape and do light maintenance for his/her ten mile section. £50,000 per year per ten mile section would certainly be enough to pay a decent salary as well as provide a vehicle and the equipment necessary to do the landscaping and maintenance. The employee could record the boats moored on their stretch of canal, and this could be done effectively and quickly by using bar codes on the licenses that need to be displayed.

 

This could completely eliminate the enforcement officers and their budget, which could then go to maintenance. It would be a manageable system that would place responsibility on identifiable individuals for their section of the canal (much less passing the buck) and it would bring efficiency and management to the maintenance sector, not only by giving them the added funds from the defunct enforcement sector, but because the canals, and their maintenance needs, would be constantly monitored. The employees could be trained and equipped to take on minor maintenance jobs, which would make the maintenance budget go further still.

 

Keep in mind that right now CRT is not only paying every single expense connected with having their work done, but they are also paying millions of pounds that go to the profits the contractors make. By having their own employees, CRT could take the money that is going into contractors pockets and put it back into the canals instead.

[Daiboy]

I may be in a better position than some as I've taken early retirement and now live aboard and CC. I have no financial worries, a good pension and just enjoy the outdoor life the canals offer (well, some parts anyway if stories told are believed and I have no doubt that many are true).

 

I think that this is a very good guidance for those such as I who want to "keep to the rules" but also want to stay somewhere that might be interesting and want more time to explore. As has been said before, the enforcing part of this still has to be worked out by CaRT. I have been moored at Uxbridge for the last 3 weeks (moving on tomorrow Friday) due to the fact that I had to go for my annual full blood test at a surgery that was easily accessible from Uxbridge bus station. I have seen a data logger once in this 3 weeks. I wanted to talk to him and explain but no sign.

 

How on earth are CaRT going to monitor these "places" if they don't employ more staff and have an up to date computer logging system that works (another topic).

 

If they do employ more staff and upgrade their system, does that mean money then spent will be less for the repair and maintenance of the canal superstructure, locks, gates, paddles and the like?

 

It's a strange world eh!!

[Quinafloat]

 

Were did you get the link for this? its not blatantly obvious on the CRT web site

 

I stole it from an Internet forum.

[Jerra]

My gob is well and truly smacked. During my time on this forum the commonest complaint has been if only CRT would define a place. So now they have and the complaint appears to be Oh dear they have defined a place, it's the end of the world.

 

I admit I am not a CCer and never likely to be but I have looked at 2 examples. You could spend 20 weeks near Great Haywood and have only covered 10 miles and you could spend about a year and a quarter on the Lancaster and only have cruised the full length (and Glasson arm)about twice.

 

This doesn't seem to me to be a problem in fact personally I wouldn't class the first example as "Bona fide navigation".

 

Why are people getting upset about CRT doing what they have long been asking for?

[kris88]

 

That gets a bit involved, bit it has to do with, or begins with, the landscaping budget. Right now CRT is paying one contractor £10 million per year to maintain all of the landscaping on the canals, and they are doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. With around 2,000 miles of canals, that's about £5,000/mile/year. So, take the canals, divide them into 10 mile sections and make one permanent employee responsible for each 10 mile section. (I'm talking averages here, some sections would need to be shorter and some could be longer.) The employee could patrol, landscape and do light maintenance for his/her ten mile section. £50,000 per year per ten mile section would certainly be enough to pay a decent salary as well as provide a vehicle and the equipment necessary to do the landscaping and maintenance. The employee could record the boats moored on their stretch of canal, and this could be done effectively and quickly by using bar codes on the licenses that need to be displayed.

 

This could completely eliminate the enforcement officers and their budget, which could then go to maintenance. It would be a manageable system that would place responsibility on identifiable individuals for their section of the canal (much less passing the buck) and it would bring efficiency and management to the maintenance sector, not only by giving them the added funds from the defunct enforcement sector, but because the canals, and their maintenance needs, would be constantly monitored. The employees could be trained and equipped to take on minor maintenance jobs, which would make the maintenance budget go further still.

 

Keep in mind that right now CRT is not only paying every single expense connected with having their work done, but they are also paying millions of pounds that go to the profits the contractors make. By having their own employees, CRT could take the money that is going into contractors pockets and put it back into the canals instead.

Paul g2 for chief exec this would seem a much more sensible way forward, than the present sub contracting debacle

[mayalld]

You may. Or you may not. It just annoys me that only one side is presented a lot of the time. I disagree with your definition of 3,4 and 5. I don't know wht you do for work but I've tried enforcing guidance. It was a terrible mistake.

 

And I would like to apologise to David Mayall for the tone of my earlier post. It was uncalled for. As I said in another post, I suppose I'm just a bit fed up of the same old arguments. Would be nice to forget about it for a while.

 

Well, it's awfully nice of you, but not necessary.

 

Whilst some may decry it, I am firmly of the view that a little robustness in discussions helps!

[Phoenix_V]

Paul g2 for chief exec this would seem a much more sensible way forward, than the present sub contracting debacle

[Phoenix_V]

Paul g2 for chief exec this would seem a much more sensible way forward, than the present sub contracting debacle

Much too sensible common sense even they will never buy that one

Edited August 15, 2014 by Phoenix_V

[matty40s]

Were did you get the link for this? its not blatantly obvious on the CRT web site

I wonder why this wasn't given the full Leo2 and Lawrence Hogg publicity treatment like everything else they do is shouted about.

 

It has been slipped in quietly.

[Flocal]

According to the page above, the Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring has been updated to include a requirement to rely on these maps. The Licence Terms and Conditions require compliance with the Guidance. SO the maps are, apparently, now binding (in terms of a "guarantee of non-enforcement"). However the Towpath Mooring Control Project's July Report (on CRT website under Towpath Mooring Management) says that the maps woudl be released this September, only to be sent to the user groups for consultation. So why they have been published now is a mystery. It sounds like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing... Another curious point. The file properties of the latest version of the Guidance says date: 1st August2014. Author: SALLY ASH. Sally Ash retired on 30th June 2014. A spectre? Sally Ash is known to launch new initiatives in August each year, to catch people unawares while they are in teh "silly season".... Scary stuff.

[matty40s]

Is there a way of displaying the map 'full screen'?

 

 

MtB

Buy a bigger screen

[Tuscan]

I wonder why this wasn't given the full Leo2 and Lawrence Hogg publicity treatment like everything else they do is shouted about.

It has been slipped in quietly.

It was sent to those that attended the last meeting of boating associations for comment late on Tuesday evening this week prior to going out to consultation. One of the recipients must have chosen to release it, it is a demo site and not live on CRTs website yet unless they have scrabbled around to do so now it is in the public domain.

[furnessvale]

Keep in mind that right now CRT is not only paying every single expense connected with having their work done, but they are also paying millions of pounds that go to the profits the contractors make. By having their own employees, CRT could take the money that is going into contractors pockets and put it back into the canals instead.

Having worked for a nationalised industry I can see one little flaw in this argument.

 

To be valid, your idea requires the contractor and direct labour to work equally efficiently. Without referring specifically to BW/CRT I have seen contractors out in all weathers working because they are paid by the job, not the hour. In the same weather I have seen, and been a member of, direct labour safely tucked up in the cabin. I won't even mention extended meal breaks or travelling time.

 

To balance the argument I should also mention shoddy rushed work by some contractors if they can get away with it. The answer to this is proper supervision by the client, which seems sadly lacking in BW/CRT.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Bettie Boo]

Personally, I quite like the clearer definition of "place". Being a live a board cc'er; who wants to live within the requirements of our license, this makes it much easier. As some of you might remember, it was one of the things I was concerned about back when we were looking to buying our boat.

 

I just couldn't get my head around how far we needed to move every couple of weeks in the winter (spring, summer & fall not being a problem as we'll be on trips around the whole of the system we have access to) when the weather isn't at it's best for cruising and being somewhere closeish to some facilities....water, waste & pump-out.

 

With the help of the map, we can now make plans for the winter, using it along with the winter stoppages information, we now have the peace of mind that we are able to fulfill the requirements of our license not just in the nicer weather months, but during the winter as well.

 

In short - This is great for us

[AndrewIC]

Do the amended guidelines still include the requirement for a "genuine progressive journey" (or words to that effect)? If so I don't see how hovering around a fixed point, however many "places" that might be, could be compliant?

 

And in the absence of changes to statute this is just CRT's opinion of what constitutes a "place"?

[mango]

As others have pointed out, the modest requirement for moving are not very onerous but at least it could be a step forward to actually getting more boats to actually move and help resolve a long standing problem.

 

It would be good to have some input from the Association of Continuous Cruisers. Their constitution indicates that they want genuine continuous cruisers as members, so I assume that they welcome the definition of 'place'.

[MtB]

it is a demo site and not live on CRTs website yet

 

 

This would seem consistent with the false statement on the page that the CC Guidelines have been updated to incorporate the map.

 

The Guidelines haven't been updated, nor can anyone cite a link to the map page on the CRT site, therefore it is reasonable to conclude it is an unpublished trial page still in development.

 

MtB

Edited August 15, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Captain Zim]

I'm all ears (or eyes) for yours.

 

The hierarchy principles as I set out are drummed into my profession at every opportunity.

 

However, legal is never cut and dried (hence the word "may").

 

Now if a defendant vrs CaRT tries to defend his movement but it's less than CaRT's published ones who do you think is in the best position?

Yes it was a poor choice of words on my part. Clearly the definitions are correct. That will teach me to post in haste. What I meant was, the idea that 3,4 and 5 will will necessarily support 1 and 2 is not always so clear cut. Yes, you would have to construct a very good argument, but things shouldn't be presented as so cut and dried. I know that wasn't your intention. I'm talking about CRT.

 

Place remained undefined for a reason. I don't have a problem with CRT spending money and time and effort on producing maps, though I'd rather they spent that money on cutting trees and dredging.

 

To answer the last question, I think the judge will likely lean towards CRT as that would be natural. But the tendency to believe an authority over an individual is slightly on the wane. No doubt due in part to many authorities continuously ballsing things up. Ask a policeman how he's recieved in court these days. It's a far cry from a few years back when their word was law. I would simply urge boaters to arm themselves with the relevant facts because you may well arrive in a nice little town and think that 2 stops of 14 days in 2 different locations is something that you'd like to do. But now, CRT's map says otherwise. It's a shame.

[mango]

 

 

This would seem consistent with the false statement on the page that the CC Guidelines have been updated to incorporate the map.

 

The Guidelines haven't been updated, nor can anyone cite a link to the map page on the CRT site, therefore it is reasonable to conclude it is an unpublished trial page still in development.

 

MtB

Some of the links on this page take you to what appears to be a mirror of CRT's website. Does anyone know what's going on here?

[MtB]

Some of the links on this page take you to what appears to be a mirror of CRT's website. Does anyone know what's going on here?

 

I suspect the OP has jumped the gun and published an embargoed private distribution to parties involved in the development of the page and/or the policy.

 

 

MtB