Moorings at 3 locks

[alan_fincher]

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.

Because:

 

1) I have already made statements that I felt that Richard had been less than honest with me.

2) I have already stated that I intended to have a further dialogue with Richard about it.

 

I thought the fact that Richard is on the case, and had now started that dialogue himself, was worth people knowing.

 

Additionally, anybody now chosing to contribute to the thread will be aware that CRT is definitely monitoring it - something less experienced forum people may even be surprised by, I think.

Edited September 8, 2014 by alan_fincher

[junior]

How much is IWA membership? Iirc the food is so expensive in the 3 Locks that it might be worth joining to get 10% off.

 

Then again, if I eat in the pub I can get my £25 overstaying fine waived.

 

Oh I'm confused.....

[cotswoldsman]

How much is IWA membership? Iirc the food is so expensive in the 3 Locks that it might be worth joining to get 10% off.

 

Then again, if I eat in the pub I can get my £25 overstaying fine waived.

 

Oh I'm confused.....

Yes it is all very confusing. Is just having a couple of pints not enough to get an extention? Or does it have to be a meal to qualify for being non compliant?

[junior]

Imagine if you didn't get on with the landlord and he knew what your boat looked like. Surely he could cause you quite a bit of grief if it is true he has one of these handheld data logging things?

[matty40s]

He has empty pork scratching bags pinned to a blackboard with boat names sellotaped to them to keep track.

[alan_fincher]

He has empty pork scratching bags pinned to a blackboard with boat names sellotaped to them to keep track.

I object!

 

We are vegetarians, so whilst I'm happy to have boat details recorded on (say) the packaging for cheese and onion crisps, I certainly don't want my records kept on meat contaminated materials.

[alan_fincher]

More seriously, though.....

 

As there have been complaints about my alleged lack of openess on this matter, here is a copy of a further mail I have just sent to all all other members of the South East Partnrership Boating Sub-Group.....

 

Two points, please......

 

1. The published minutes of the last meeting still wrongly refer to a “short trial period of monitoring” at Three Locks. As I pointed out below, this is incorrect, as what was discussed, (and has since happened), was the actual introduction of restrictions, rather than just monitoring to establish the need. Can this please be urgently corrected, as I am constantly trying to respond to accusations that the group does not publish adequate information on what it it is involved in, and it is not at all helpful that what is published contains uncorrected errors, even when they have been pointed out.

1. Although it is not in the meeting notes, I believe we were assured my Matthew that we were talking about “just one relatively short length” being used for this trial. The fact it was to be “just one relatively short length” was one of the reasons others thought my objections were unjustified, I believe. However what has actually gone in, (as James refers to in another note), is a length both on the stretches nearest the top lock, and also nearest the bottom lock. So, from my perspective, we have not got the single length that I believe the rest of the meeting agreed. Can those who have arranged to have the signage erected please explain this discrepancy?

 

Thank you,

 

Alan

 

[bassplayer]

Does anyone know whether these pubs contribute funds to CRT for running a canal side business?

[cotswoldsman]

Does anyone know whether these pubs contribute funds to CRT for running a canal side business?

3 Locks does as CRT own the property

[LEO]

Hi,

 

I see an open meeting with Richard Parry is proposed , 6th Oct at Milton keynes.

 

L

[Alan Wildman]

Whilst I regularly follow threads on the forum, I rarely post as I am pretty busy with my (very) full time job and with RBOA matters. Also, some time back, when I did respond with genuine advice on a good piece of electrical kit I had bought, installed and tried out, I was simply shot down in flames (without good reason) by one called "Gibbo" and thought "oh well better to keep quiet than get drawn into a bun fight".

 

Nevertheless, I see my name has been brought into this particular discussion and I thought it prudent to state my case and that of RBOA.

 

Although I am not posting this with my RBOA hat on, I am comfortable in commenting because my own personal views very much reflect those of RBOA as far as VM's and stay times are concerned.

 

Firstly, if Alan F. feels I let him down at the SEWP Boating Sub Group meeting by not supporting his views on short term moorings at Three Locks, then I apologise for that. I really don't recall any great debate on the subject. It was, if I recall correctly, to be a trial exercise anyway.

 

For clarity, though:

 

I do not support changes to VM stay times unless such changes are supported by genuine evidence of need.

 

I believe that, if CRT were to open up more casual mooring areas by creating depth at the bank (and possibly cutting back some vegetation so that it is safe to step ashore to tie up), then the perceived problem at many VM's would go away. This view is based upon the fact that not everyone wants to moor directly on VM'S and many would be happy to moor within reasonable walking distance of the same.

 

I do not support overstay charges because I believe they are practically unenforceable and very difficult to collect from those who simply refuse to pay. My (work) experience of trying to collect funds rightly due through the County Court system supports my view on this. Furthermore, they could be viewed as "the thin end of the wedge" as far as casual mooring fees are concerned.

 

If CRT were able to properly enforce the rules/powers it already holds, then the current stay times would not need changing. The problem, I'm sure many of us agree, is that enforcement is a very difficult nut to crack - but changing the stay times doesn't necessarily make enforcement any easier.

 

CRT and Richard Parry, in particular, seem to be damned if they do and damned if they don't - there will always be criticism from some of us boaters whatever course of action they take. That said, I am a great believer in talk, talk and talk again. Never mind the failures and misunderstandings, let's keep looking and sooner or later some common ground and answers will be found. I know this might have been said many times over, throughout just as many years, but we must surely keep talking and searching. The answer is out there somewhere.

 

Forgive me if I don't get further embroiled in the debate on this (excellent) forum but I am always approachable through RBOA if you have a particular point to make or question to ask.

 

My warmest wishes go out to all boaters, but especially to those who like me live the waterways 24/7.

 

 

Alan W.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jenlyn]

Greenie for that Alan W.

[alan_fincher]

Firstly, if Alan F. feels I let him down at the SEWP Boating Sub Group meeting by not supporting his views on short term moorings at Three Locks, then I apologise for that. I really don't recall any great debate on the subject. It was, if I recall correctly, to be a trial exercise anyway.

 

For clarity, though:

 

I do not support changes to VM stay times unless such changes are supported by genuine evidence of need.

Thank you for clarifying, Alan.

 

Can I at least please ask you the same question as has been asked elsewhere?

 

Even if sold to the SE Sub-Group as a trial exercise, as no data was gathered before the change went in, what measures can possibly be used after the event to say that the trial has actually proven to give a good outcome?

 

James Griffin is already declaring it a success, and no doubt the landlord at the Three Locks pub will do the same.

 

Someone who could have legitimately moored there boat there for more than 2 days before the change, and now can not, may not see it as a success at all, though.

 

Can you honestly envisage any circumstances where the trial is declared a failure, and the moorings are reverted to 14 days? I can't see that happening, and I suspect the trial will inevitably end up as being a permanent feature.

[alan_fincher]

Greenie for that Alan W.

So unlike you did for me, then, you don't choose to criticise Alan who was at the sub-group meeting, and knew this was happening, but didn't come away from the meeting and immediately alert everybody to it, as you say I failed to do.

 

That is not intended as any kind of dig at Alan, because I think it was entirely reasonable to expect the meeting notes to be promptly published, and to be correct, but I'm interested why you think I have failed those I try to represent, but haven't aimed the same criticism at Alan?

 

EDIT: Corrected for bad grammar.

Edited September 8, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Tuscan]

The only positive I can see from this sorry saga is that there is now I hope a better level of transparency , discussion and disclosure between CRT, SE boaters and the wider boating community.

 

The three locks trial is bound to be a success as the person monitoring the usage is the Landlord.

[jenlyn]

So unlike you did for me, then, you don't choose to criticise Alan who was at the sub-group meeting, and knew this was happening, but didn't come away from the meeting and immediately alert everybody to it, as you say I failed to do.That is not intended as any kind of dig at Alan, because I think it was entirely reasonable to expect the meeting notes to be promptly published, and to be correct, but I'm interested why you think I have failed those I try to represent, but haven't aimed the same criticism at Alan?EDIT: Corrected for bad grammar.

The greenie was for his posting on here.

[bassplayer]

All I conclude is that funny handshakes and personal gain rule over common sense and morals. No change there then...In the end we will ALL have to deal with our own conscience...if we've got one...

[MtB]

Simply posting on here deserves a greenie?

[Alan Wildman]

Further to Alan F's comments on how the "trial" at 3 Locks is judged, having thought about the situation some more, I have to agree that without fully understanding the extent and nature of the suggested "problem" and the due diligence that honestly ought to have gone into the research before making any changes, it does seem there is little that can be measured when the results of the "trial" are analysed. Perhaps that is a question that Alan and I might raise at the next sub-group meeting.

 

As for the sub-group itself, I understand it to be a talking shop to enable the views of people from various user sectors to be aired and discussed. The group is not a decision maker as such but does give the opportunity for a wide variety of views to be aired. Certainly, that is the reason that I attend and I am grateful to have been given the chance to do so.

 

Alan has taken some criticism for not declaring what was talked about regarding the 3 Locks exercise. That being the case then I deserve similar criticism. In our defence, though, it was agreed early on in the existence of the sub-group that none of us would comment publicly about the talks therein until after the meeting notes were made public. This was agreed not in the interests of secrecy but to try and ensure that mis-understandings between attendees could be avoided or at least corrected in public against the published notes.

 

I believe that the likes of Alan F. and myself attend these and other meetings to try and bring about what we and those that support us feel is best for the waterways - in our particular cases it is hopefully clear that we put boats and boating at the forefront of what we do and say; because without boats and boaters the waterways would likely become overgrown ditches as opposed the treasure that they are.

 

By all means continue to criticise, encourage us to change our tactics and views if you think we are wrong, but please never underestimate the time and commitment that he and I and others (that includes Steve J and ACC) put in to try and make life better for all of us that care about the inland waterways. Do we get it wrong sometimes ? - yes we do - please keep having your say and help us get it right.

 

Warmest regards to all.

 

 

Alan W.

[Barry]

Well said Alan Wildman. There speaks the voice of reason, honesty, and integrity

 

I like the way the two Alans are approaching a very difficult process by getting on the inside and working quietly from within.

[bigcol]

Going through the locks yesterday morning, we noticed that the moorings south of the locks are also 2 day moorings now.

Both mooring spots, no one moored up at all.

 

We traveled past the Globe, and that's still the same as always 14 days I think,? Only 2 boats there, plenty of free space.

 

We thought we go further, instead of pub hopping, but it's one big hop !!! to the next eatery.

Emergency rations last night.

 

Also like many that use the canals, I like to say a big thank you to the Alan's , Steves and everyone else that puts so much time effort into fighting boaters and can canal users corner

 

Col

Edited September 9, 2014 by bigcol

[alan_fincher]

Yes,

 

I think Alan is being very balanced in the circumstances, particularly as I have been openly critical of the fact that nobody backed me in opposing the Three Locks restrictions.

 

I still don't know how we stop it happening again, other than I would hope that CRT note it has generated enough bad press about their processes and transparency that they don't try to push any others through in the same manner.

 

I think it has been a nonsense to push this through as "only a trial", but I will be very happy to eat many of my own words on the subject if we are subsequently told the trial is unsuccessful, and they are now taking down the rather permanent looking signs.

[bassplayer]

Well said Alan Wildman. There speaks the voice of reason, honesty, and integrity

 

I like the way the two Alans are approaching a very difficult process by getting on the inside and working quietly from within.

Yes but if the people responsible are over-riding what has been agreed in committees and making 'private' deals etc, it just becomes hot air. The only way to deal with these people is to expose them publically and hope their consciences kick into to line. If anything looks illegal (e.g pecuniary gain), take them to court.

[Tuscan]

Unfortunately we are still left with the fait accompli of new 48 hour moorings here, Atherstone , and on the Lancaster . As well as the changes at Foxton for example. It is to be hoped that when a national strategy for the visitor moorings is agreed that another look will be made at the changes made over the last couple of years to see if they comply.

 

I assume the only way these changes at the three locks will be deemed to have failed will be if the trade at the pub suffers compared with before their introduction as the Landlord is the only one who has been tasked with monitoring usage.

[MtB]

I assume the only way these changes at the three locks will be deemed to have failed will be if the trade at the pub suffers compared with before their introduction as the Landlord is the only one who has been tasked with monitoring usage.

 

 

Yes as I read the situation the pub landlord's opinion is ONLY way success or failure of the scheme will be judged.

 

And what date has been set to make this decision?

 

 

MtB