Moorings at 3 locks

[jenlyn]

Ah, the opposite of "hire boaters" is :normal boaters" ( quote from above post ) Often wondered.

A figure of speech, as most would recognise?

[colmac]

Right, just thought " private owned " or :shared " would be a more appropriate term. Never mind, no need to reply.

[matty40s]

Shared is something different, and you can have privately owned share boats too.....

[Tonka]

Shared boat or Shared time ?

[BlueStringPudding]

Right, just thought " private owned " or :shared " would be a more appropriate term. Never mind, no need to reply.

 

Too late, as there was no need to comment and y'all did, I'll reply:

 

"Normal" was just quick shorthand for liveaboards, CCers, marina moorers out for a few weeks, end of garden moorers out for a few weeks, online moorers out for a few weeks, and any other b*gger who hasn't just hired a boat for up to 14 days.

 

Wasn't difficult, was it.

 

Here, I've amended my post for you all, better now?

 

Course it won't. Hire boats don't stay all week at the pub. There's one day of their holiday (at a push two) when they'll stop at a pub. And not at all most of the autumn and winter. That means that most of the year, plus in the summer the other five or six days of the week that hire boaters aren't there, the pub will be losing custom as liveaboards, CCers, marina moorers out for a few weeks, end of garden moorers out for a few weeks, online moorers out for a few weeks, and any other b*gger who hasn't just hired a boat for up to 14 days, will be less likely to plan a stay there. It won't be long before even more canal side pubs close down because of the short-sightedness of one hire firm owner and CaRT who should understand cruising patterns better than they clearly do.

 

If people on here spent more time directly challenging the apparent underhand decisions at CaRT that are empowering canalside businesses to determine the future of our facilities and resources, than they do making pernickety asides about the appropriateness or not of a very basic term, then maybe we'd have less to bitch about. I for one have gone to one of the pubs in question to discuss concerns with the landlord. And I'll be returning to again soon. Have any of you lot? Because I suspect only three of you have actually raised your head above the parapet and tried to make a difference - and we all know who those people are. Come on everyone else, do something before the same crap lands on your doorstep.

Edited September 15, 2014 by BlueStringPudding

[GUMPY]

 

If people on here spent more time directly challenging the apparent underhand decisions at CaRT that are empowering canalside businesses to determine the future of our facilities and resources, than they do making pernickety asides about the appropriateness or not of a very basic term, then maybe we'd have less to bitch about. I for one have gone to one of the pubs in question to discuss concerns with the landlord. And I'll be returning to again soon. Have any of you lot, I suspect only three of you have actually raised your head above the parapet and tried to make a difference?

No because I would never stop at any of the 3 pubs, I have however spent many years up until 2012 at meetings with BW on behalf of various organisations.

48hour moorings are not new, Winkwell was changed from 14day to 48hrs years ago after the idea was floated at a user group meeting at Tring.

Personally I have no problem with 48hr restrictions at places like pubs/shops.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Loddon

[cotswoldsman]

No because I would never stop at any of the 3 pubs, I have however spent many years up until 2012 at meetings with BW on behalf of various organisations.

48hour moorings are not new, Winkwell was changed from 14day to 48hrs years ago after the idea was floated at a user group meeting at Tring.

Personally I have no problem with 48hr restrictions at places like pubs/shops.

I don't think many have a problem with 48 hour mooring if they are needed in a particular area I think what some of us object to is when it is done on the basis of a pub thinking it would be better for their business as was the case at the 3 locks

[Ange]

I don't think many have a problem with 48 hour mooring if they are needed in a particular area I think what some of us object to is when it is done on the basis of a pub thinking it would be better for their business as was the case at the 3 locks

and the fact that the landlord enforces the mooring and is happy to turn a blind eye to anyone overstaying as long as they drink in his pub.

 

How can anyone think that's ok?

[Barry]

Yep

 

As I said before, that is abuse of privilege, if not authority. How close is it to being corrupt?

[GUMPY]

I don't think many have a problem with 48 hour mooring if they are needed in a particular area I think what some of us object to is when it is done on the basis of a pub thinking it would be better for their business as was the case at the 3 locks

If it is better then it is, if its not then he loses out through his actions. I was banned from there years ago so really don't care.

Rather than worrying about VM there are fare more important things to worry about such as the decline of the system, its not back to the 70's yet but its way worse than 15-20 years ago.

[cotswoldsman]

If it is better then it is, if its not then he loses out through his actions. I was banned from there years ago so really don't care.

Rather than worrying about VM there are fare more important things to worry about such as the decline of the system, its not back to the 70's yet but its way worse than 15-20 years ago.

I don't think being concerned about visitor moorings means I do not have concerns about the system. I have a concern that as CRT fiddles with things such as VM their eye is taken off the bigger picture. The money spent on all this nonsense would be far better spent on the system

[Mrs Trackman]

You may well be right.

 

I have had some responses from Matthew Symmonds and asked his permission to make them public, but he has indicated he wants to talk to me, so that is the next step, (but I would rather deal with it from home than trying to hear him on a dodgy phone signal over a Lister HA3 - so not today).

 

I'm hoping that what this has stirred up may already have convinced Richard Parry that things were not exactly done in a reasonable way, but yet to have a direct conversation with him about it. Did anybody try to raise this directly with him at the National User Group, rather than in the meeting itself - I would be interested if they did.

At the National User group meeting I did ask Richard Parry about local initiatives on mooring times directly after Dean Davies said that CRT did not wish to micro manage each set of visitor moorings. The answer was rather hurried over with Richard Parry saying CRT were planning the overall strategy. Richard suggested I spoke to Dean over lunch.. Dean insisted local sites would be monitored for usage.

At the User Group meeting visitor mooring was only mentioned very briefly, it was not really what the meeting was about specifically. However what was said does not appear to be what is happening.

[Mrs Trackman]

I don't think being concerned about visitor moorings means I do not have concerns about the system. I have a concern that as CRT fiddles with things such as VM their eye is taken off the bigger picture. The money spent on all this nonsense would be far better spent on the system

I think that is the argument that Richard Parry was putting forward. CRT want to look at the bigger picture and not get bogged down micro managing visitor moorings or enforcement though obviously these still need work doing.

[jenlyn]

I think that is the argument that Richard Parry was putting forward. CRT want to look at the bigger picture and not get bogged down micro managing visitor moorings or enforcement though obviously these still need work doing.

The problem is people like Mathew Symmonds trying to justify their jobs. The positions of some are not really needed, they realise that and are attempting to make themselves invaluable. Extra money that does not really need to be spent, and would better go towards maintenance.

[Tuscan]

Just come from Welford to Buckby today, Welford Junction 14 day visitor moorings half full, Yelvertoft 14 day visitor moorings empty, Crick visitor moorings empty, Buckby top visitor moorings full, 48 hour below the lock plenty of room. Not a no return , £25 charge sign in sight.

 

There seems little strategy engaged in any of the recent decisions , just local pressure being applied by vested interests be they local boating Groups, businesses or partnerships. My understanding happy to be proved wrong it wasn't the partnership that insisted that all the visitor moorings created below Atherstone were 48 hrs but CRT. As there is currently no coherent strategy it's become a blame game, even CRT will no doubt join in how convenient to blame the partnership or vice versa.

 

There would appear to be a definately willingness at HQ to develop a national policy but I very much doubt this will involve any changes to decisions or trials that have already been made be it Foxton, a Stoke Breune or 3 locks.etc etc

 

Meanwhile the Canal time boat that was moored and locked at the Yelvertoft water point was only beaten by the private boat at Crick Services who had chairs on the wharf either side of the water point and a table got their lunch and wine. As long as this complete disregard of common sense remains I wonder if any other changes will make a difference.. Rant over.

[bassplayer]

The problem is people like Mathew Symmonds trying to justify their jobs. The positions of some are not really needed, they realise that and are attempting to make themselves invaluable. Extra money that does not really need to be spent, and would better go towards maintenance.

This is exactly right...tinkering to justify highly paid executive jobs (which are being paid for indirectly by public donations). Charities should be run by volunteers in the same way much of the maintenance and hard graft is done by volunteers and poorly paid staff. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

[BlueStringPudding]

This is exactly right...tinkering to justify highly paid executive jobs (which are being paid for indirectly by public donations). Charities should be run by volunteers in the same way much of the maintenance and hard graft is done by volunteers and poorly paid staff. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

 

They are - the Board of Trustees

[bassplayer]

They are - the Board of Trustees

I don't think that's the same thing...I believe the Trustees have a say in the running of CRT but they don't manage CRT's operations..I'm happy to be told otherwise...

 

Ok, look at it this way....our band occasionally do charity gigs for nothing..If we had a manager (which we don't) and they still charged the charity an extortionate amount for 'managing' the band at that gig do you think that would be reasonable?

[BlueStringPudding]

That's nothing to do with how a charity is managed so doesn't even slightly compare. Please see my explanation on the thread about CaRT making people homeless - "charity" for CaRT and the majority of other organisations registered with the Charities Commission, is a business construct and not a set of humanitarian ideals.

[bassplayer]

That's nothing to do with how a charity is managed so doesn't even slightly compare. Please see my explanation on the thread about CaRT making people homeless - "charity" for CaRT and the majority of other organisations registered with the Charities Commission, is a business construct and not a set of humanitarian ideals.

It can be dressed up as much as you like but it boils down to the fact that some people give a lot of their time for nothing and others extract extortionate wages for doing very little...at worst...some of these people actually make things worse by tinkering...

[junior]

Richard Parry is doing a live Q&A session tonight on the CAT Web page. Perhaps a good opportunity for someone to question him on this? If nothing else, it will again reinforce to him that people are a aware of what has gone on in this situation and make him think twice about making any more private agreements for 48hr moorings.

[cotswoldsman]

Richard Parry is doing a live Q&A session tonight on the CAT Web page. Perhaps a good opportunity for someone to question him on this? If nothing else, it will again reinforce to him that people are a aware of what has gone on in this situation and make him think twice about making any more private agreements for 48hr moorings.

I thought it was on the CRT facebook Page

[junior]

I thought it was on the CRT facebook Page

You are probably right, I only caught it out of the corner of my eye whilst I was doing something else.

[BlueStringPudding]

It can be dressed up as much as you like but it boils down to the fact that some people give a lot of their time for nothing and others extract extortionate wages for doing very little...at worst...some of these people actually make things worse by tinkering...

So tell me about the volunteering you seem to think senior CaRT staff don't do for theirs and other people's charities. (Because how dare they receive a salary for a job as outlined in their job description)

 

Oh, you mean you don't know?

 

I rest my case.

[cotswoldsman]

You are probably right, I only caught it out of the corner of my eye whilst I was doing something else.

https://www.facebook.com/canalrivertrust?fref=ts