Jump to content

Moorings at 3 locks


bigcol

Featured Posts

I think it's long established that liveaboards are not the primary group responsible for overstaying visitor moorings. As I say earlier I have no issues with the idea of visitor moorings at logical waypoints. I do have an issue with the use of visitor moorings to discourage legitimate liveaboard use.

 

The solution is simple. Sort out the oppression of people by manipulation of the housing market and the ones you and Tuscan object to will leave the canals. While we live in a system that sees property ownership primarily as a method of wealth creation this will never happen. But really it is simple.

 

It's no coincidence that the areas of maximum canal congestion coincide with areas of high property demand. But I support fully and absolutely anyone who seeks an alternative to propping up the corrupt housing market, even if it means the canals I love are more crowded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's long established that liveaboards are not the primary group responsible for overstaying visitor moorings. As I say earlier I have no issues with the idea of visitor moorings at logical waypoints. I do have an issue with the use of visitor moorings to discourage legitimate liveaboard use.

I'm not sure what your argument is here, none of my arguments had anything to do with visitor moorings, I only made the distinction between public (ie the towpath and visitor moorings, anywhere not dedicated to the use of one boat) and private (ie marine berths, long-term moorings). As far as I can tell, we're not in disagreement.

The solution is simple. Sort out the oppression of people by manipulation of the housing market and the ones you and Tuscan object to will leave the canals. While we live in a system that sees property ownership primarily as a method of wealth creation this will never happen. But really it is simple.

On this we agree.

It's no coincidence that the areas of maximum canal congestion coincide with areas of high property demand. But I support fully and absolutely anyone who seeks an alternative to propping up the corrupt housing market, even if it means the canals I love are more crowded.

On this we might have to agree to disagree.

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, I'm not making judgments on anybody. I'm happy sharing the canals with everyone there. No one would be happier than me if the situation we've had in past, when there was enough room for anyone who wanted to to be on the canals for any reason, was going to continue. My argument is that those days are gone: I don't like it any more than you do, but it's true and it has to be faced up to. There's an awful lot of people who want their own home and don't have the resources to play in the housing market as it currently exists. If all of those people who could possibly fit in were allowed to take to the canals, it would make very little difference to the housing crisis, but it would change the canals forever, in a bad way, and for everyone who's there now.Yes, the canal should be open to anyone who pays the fees and obeys the law and rules, but the rules might have to change. If you have 1000 boats on a canal system, and they spend 90% of nights in a marina, you need 100 public moorings. While everyone is happy to spend 90% of the time in a marina, you don't need any other rules. If the world changes, and now, on average, boats spend 50% of nights in a marina, you can either increase the number of public moorings to 500 (and put up the license fee to pay for them) or you make a rule that says public moorings are only available for a boat with a standard license for one at total of month a year. Or you do what we're doing now, which is to introduce arbitrary rules (14 days in one place) and hope that they discourage the people who are using lots of nights on public moorings from having a boat, because they can't obey the rules and also hold down a job. Since you can't enforce those arbitrary rules, that doesn't solve the problem, and it pisses a lot of people off whose lives are made difficult by the arbitrary rules.There's no good way to ration this scarce resource, and any way will lead to injustice. But if you want to get angry about injustice, get angry about the housing market and the people who made it the way it is. That's a much bigger injustice. When you've done that, get angry about difference in wealth between the top and bottom of the income distribution. That's a bigger injustice still.MP.

I don't think any of your post is relevant to what has happened with this particular issue.

I think the issue brought to light by Alan on this thread has much bigger implications, and needs to be addressed. If indeed as Alan suggests, Richard Parry, James Griffin and a landlord of a pub have made changes to moorings at a "club" meeting, some sort of explanation from CRT is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ETA posted this before I read to the end of the thread - excellent suggestion BSP though please don't use Tree Monkey's account at this time of the morning - I thought the world had turned on it's head when it appeared he was still up :D

:lol: he was indeed snoring away at the time

:tired:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of your post is relevant to what has happened with this particular issue.

You're right. Apologies for highjacking your thread.

I think the issue brought to light by Alan on this thread has much bigger implications, and needs to be addressed. If indeed as Alan suggests, Richard Parry, James Griffin and a landlord of a pub have made changes to moorings at a "club" meeting, some sort of explanation from CRT is needed.

I don't think it has bigger implications than the possible conversion of the canals into linear housing estates for people who don't want to be there but have no choice, you may differ. In any event your concern is certainly important and I'll let you get on with debating it.

 

MP.

In which case ( your last) what should people faced with property exploitation do?

I have no answer to that. I wish I did.

 

MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the landlord is happy for them to linger longer as long as they sup his ale.

 

Is he paying towards the upkeep of the mooring? It appears he's onto a very good deal here - report the boaters that "linger longer" than they should unless they sup in his pub every night, in which case he'll tip them a wink and keep quiet.

 

I find this very disturbing

 

So do I. Trouble is CaRT have already set a precedent for accepting and acting on non-impartial complaints about over stayers instead of impartial enforcement staff. I've known boaters who are mates with long term moorers or doing a non essential job for them get away with over staying nearby but those who aren't their mates get grassed up. I've also seen house owners complain about moored boats near their home and again CaRT act on it with no questions asked. In one example it was a member of BW staff who told me that they had to ticket and force my neighbours to move because the paying long term moorers had complained

 

So I'm not surprised that CaRT are allowing other biassed people like landlords of pubs to make the rules and decide who is breaking them.

 

Come on CaRT! It's not long till you'll face a fit-for-purpose review by a governing body and you could really do with us boaters on your side instead of complaining about underhandedness and unfair dealings. Sort yourselves out and apply some principles - you're a charity now not a bloody quango that thinks it's God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is simple. Sort out the oppression of people by manipulation of the housing market and the ones you and Tuscan object to will leave the canals.

.

I am not objecting to anyone's boating habits nor wanting anyone to leave the canal nor did I say that. I was pointing out that currently CRT do not have a strategy to cope with these boaters needs . For just one example they could engage with the Partnerships in these congested areas to work with local councils etc to fund and provide better facilities , I have seen no evidence of this but perhaps it's already in hand.

 

I agree with Jenlyn that it would appear that two businesses interests here pub and hire company have created visitor mooring restrictions where CRTs own stats say it's not required. The fact that Landlord is then saying he will decide who to report and who to allow to overstay dependant upon whether they spend money in his pub compounds the issue.

Edited by Tuscan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing about 48 hour moorings is that all the pubs will be empty during the week. Lots and lots of boaters move their boats at the weekend only. By changing to 48 hour moorings live aboards who work and therfore have money to spend in the pubs won't stop unless they can leave their boat there till the next weekend. It's very short sighted business planning to think the canalside pubs will survive with only school holiday trade from hire boaters and a few marina types on their two week summer cruise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If indeed as Alan suggests, Richard Parry, James Griffin and a landlord of a pub have made changes to moorings at a "club" meeting, some sort of explanation from CRT is needed.

 

To be clear, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am only repeating an explanation that has been given (initially elsewhere) by Mark (Tuscan). I don't think I'm wrongly quoting it, but happy to be corrected on any detail. It does, of course, subsequently explain why it appears to have been a "done deal" that there was little chance of overturning.

 

When I raised this face to face with Richard Parry, before I had seen Mark's comments, he did not choose to tell me that such a deal had been struck, (or why!).

 

This thread has focussed my mind that, unless I have misunderstood something completely, Richard appears to have been less than fully candid with me, and I'm disappointed if that is the case.

 

I'm definitely intending to raise it again with him directly, because I really can't see how we can win if the man at the top is actually prepared to deviate from what he has committed to elsewhere. I believe Richard needs to explain why he thinks what has happened is OK, or provide an alternate explanation if he feels the one being reported is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be clear, and for the avoidance of doubt, I am only repeating an explanation that has been given (initially elsewhere) by Mark (Tuscan). I don't think I'm wrongly quoting it, but happy to be corrected on any detail. It does, of course, subsequently explain why it appears to have been a "done deal" that there was little chance of overturning.

 

When I raised this face to face with Richard Parry, before I had seen Mark's comments, he did not choose to tell me that such a deal had been struck, (or why!).

 

This thread has focussed my mind that, unless I have misunderstood something completely, Richard appears to have been less than fully candid with me, and I'm disappointed if that is the case.

 

I'm definitely intending to raise it again with him directly, because I really can't see how we can win if the man at the top is actually prepared to deviate from what he has committed to elsewhere. I believe Richard needs to explain why he thinks what has happened is OK, or provide an alternate explanation if he feels the one being reported is incorrect.

The deal wasn't done in the pub it was done once signed off as requested by the SE Boaters group as Richard Parry said he was going to send it to them for comment notwithstanding I understanding Alan's objection.

 

The request for 48 hr visitor moorings was made by the Landlord on a visit to Stoke Hammond by Richard Parry , presumably in the pub (I don't know for sure). I assume this was the same time that Richard Parry took a trip to Stoke Hammond with James Griffin as the timing fits.

 

Think it's a good think that Richard meets the hire industry just like he meets boat owners.

 

Seems a bit strange that this one coming as a result of this meeting was approved when the others being considered with similar data were put on hold. Might just be coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not objecting to anyone's boating habits nor wanting anyone to leave the canal nor did I say that. I was pointing out that currently CRT do not have a strategy to cope with these boaters needs . For just one example they could engage with the Partnerships in these congested areas to work with local councils etc to fund and provide better facilities , I have seen no evidence of this but perhaps it's already in hand.

I agree with Jenlyn that it would appear that two businesses interests here pub and hire company have created visitor mooring restrictions where CRTs own stats say it's not required. The fact that Landlord is then saying he will decide who to report and who to allow to overstay dependant upon whether they spend money in his pub compounds the issue.

Not sure about "compound", nice and polite, but crooked is my choice of word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly the landlord of the pub is abusing the new system.

 

It might be fair to to go so far as to call it corrupt.

 

I wonder what CRT's response would be if his actions, as witnessed by Bigcol (if he was prepared to put it into writing), or any one else who appears to be able to overstay provided they are pub customers, were reported to the relevant authority in CRT without the accusation of backroom dealing on CRT's behalf.

 

If CRT are not having to defend themselves initially perhaps they will be more inclined to stop the landlord's abuse especially if they also think he has just seen an opportunity and grabbed it. That part of this mess is a separate issue I think.

 

Once that has been dealt with perhaps then would be the time to ask for an explanation of exactly how the landlord got the opportunity in the first place

Edited by Bazza2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree with Alan F it is very awkward for CRT. They ask a sub commitee whose members may have never been to the area and they say that there is not a problem yet thay hear from people local to the area that there is a problem.

I am not suggesting for 1 moment that this happened in this case as I am sure Alan knows the area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember some time ago that BW as it was then, were going to take over the 'Three Locks' pub. Did this ever happen?

And if so, then C&RT are moving the goal posts mooring points to serve their own premises better. More trade, put the rent up, and whoever holds the license works harder for the same money, normal (whatever that is) cruisers are restricted, CM's lose a good spot - looks like everybody loses except C&RT. Is Parry on a bonus of some kind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember some time ago that BW as it was then, were going to take over the 'Three Locks' pub. Did this ever happen?

 

From their web-site....

 

It is now family run after having recently taken over from the Grand Union Group.

 

 

Incidentally, also from their web-site....

 

All boaters are entitled to a 10% discount on all food. Please show your IWA membership card.

 

 

I had no idea it was obligatory to be an IWA member to qualify as a boater!

 

Perhaps IWA members will be allowed to overstay 48 hours, but the rest of us will be moved on, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From their web-site....

 

 

Incidentally, also from their web-site....

 

 

I had no idea it was obligatory to be an IWA member to qualify as a boater!

 

Perhaps IWA members will be allowed to overstay 48 hours, but the rest of us will be moved on, then?

Think I would go for the Sunday lunch to be part of the over staying deal Edited by cotswoldsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both had a lovely Sunday lunch, and Matt sorted us our a window table, when it become vacant.

Really nice food, nice atmosphere and fantastic service.

I recommend the 3 locks for it great meal, and for its ales.

 

Col

Edited by bigcol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is probably fair to report that late last evening Richard Parry has directly emailed a number of us who have been critical of what appears to have occurred at Three Locks.

 

I am pleased that he has, and a couple of us have already responded to him, (maybe more, as I don't currently have access to the email account used).

 

I will suggest to Richard that in time he considers making a more public statement about it, to add to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is probably fair to report that late last evening Richard Parry has directly emailed a number of us who have been critical of what appears to have occurred at Three Locks.

 

I am pleased that he has, and a couple of us have already responded to him, (maybe more, as I don't currently have access to the email account used).

 

I will suggest to Richard that in time he considers making a more public statement about it, to add to this thread.

Why post this Alan?

This is exactly what I was criticising you for, a while back. Why did you not wait until there was something to post that would serve a purpose?

All you have done yet again, is announce you have something, but you have not divulged the actual content. A pointless exercise,

and annoying that you were not this quick with the information on the three locks issue at the time.

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
  • 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.