Moorings at 3 locks

[alan_fincher]

I have had some responses from Matthew Symonds and asked his permission to make them public, but he has indicated he wants to talk to me, so that is the next step.

 

I'd prefer not to be involved in anything that can't be in the fully public domain.

 

That's why I want Matthew Symonds to let me publish some responses, but I would obviously rather he had agreed to that first.

I have had a phone conversation with Mathew Symonds this morning, (spelling of his surname corrected above!).

 

Rather than having email responses he has sent quoted on the forum or other social media, Matthew would prefer to add a page to the CRT South East Visitor Moorings website that explains the situation at Stoke Hammond Three Locks.

 

I have asked that this includes detail about monitoring and enforcement, and also about the fact it is claimed to be only for a trial period, and hence there needs to be some statement at the end about how that trial was measured, and whether it can be declared a success.

 

Matthew hopes to have this done by the end of the week, so once available, I'll publish a link.

 

What I think I can say already is that Matthew says responsibility for any monitoring and enforcement rests solely with the CRT enforcement team. The landlord and/or the pub manager may of course contact the enforcement team with details of boats they believe are overstaying a time limit. However the manager / landlord has no greater responsibility in the matter than anybody else who chooses to report what they believe to be overstaying boats.

 

Also on SEVM matters.....

 

I noticed at this weekend's visit to Stoke Bruerne that, although the 2 day restrictions on the "tunnel pound" visitor moorings are supposed to be relaxed to 7 days from November to March, that some of the additional tiles that said this have now been removed, (the screw heads are still there!). Matthew knows nothing about this, but assures me we have not lost the concession of the 7 day stay time in Winter. He will look into this.

 

Note to Steve Jenkin and Mark Tizard.

 

This is the full extent of my dialogue with Matthew - I know nothing additional at this stage that might be useful to you in future meetings with CRT.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

What I think I can say already is that Matthew says responsibility for any monitoring and enforcement rests solely with the CRT enforcement team. The landlord and/or the pub manager may of course contact the enforcement team with details of boats they believe are overstaying a time limit. However the manager / landlord has no greater responsibility in the matter than anybody else who chooses to report what they believe to be overstaying boats.

 

 

 

Why is it I feel really uneasy about this? I guess because the mooring restriction came about following a conversation between Parry, Griffin and the Landlord so some power has already been moved to the Landlord. I guess the Landlord will be inclined not to report customers. I am hopefully that the time on this mooring will be monitored based on when the enforcement officer first sees the boat and not from when the landlord thinks the boat arrived.

I am sorry but I think it is all a mess and a very worrying situation. Thanks for the information Alan

[junior]

 

 

I have had a phone conversation with Mathew Symonds this morning, (spelling of his surname corrected above!).

 

Rather than having email responses he has sent quoted on the forum or other social media, Matthew would prefer to add a page to the CRT South East Visitor Moorings website that explains the situation at Stoke Hammond Three Locks.

 

I have asked that this includes detail about monitoring and enforcement, and also about the fact it is claimed to be only for a trial period, and hence there needs to be some statement at the end about how that trial was measured, and whether it can be declared a success.

 

Matthew hopes to have this done by the end of the week, so once available, I'll publish a link.

 

What I think I can say already is that Matthew says responsibility for any monitoring and enforcement rests solely with the CRT enforcement team. The landlord and/or the pub manager may of course contact the enforcement team with details of boats they believe are overstaying a time limit. However the manager / landlord has no greater responsibility in the matter than anybody else who chooses to report what they believe to be overstaying boats.

 

Also on SEVM matters.....

 

I noticed at this weekend's visit to Stoke Bruerne that, although the 2 day restrictions on the "tunnel pound" visitor moorings are supposed to be relaxed to 7 days from November to March, that some of the additional tiles that said this have now been removed, (the screw heads are still there!). Matthew knows nothing about this, but assures me we have not lost the concession of the 7 day stay time in Winter. He will look into this.

 

Note to Steve Jenkin and Mark Tizard.

 

This is the full extent of my dialogue with Matthew - I know nothing additional at this stage that might be useful to you in future meetings with CRT.

I am aware that you are not a Continuous Cruiser, in fact not even a liveaboard boater, therefore the stay times at places like Soulbury really make no difference to you I suspect. As someone who the stay times are important, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the time and effort you are putting into this, ultimately for the benefit of others. Thank you.

[alan_fincher]

I am aware that you are not a Continuous Cruiser, in fact not even a liveaboard boater, therefore the stay times at places like Soulbury really make no difference to you I suspect. As someone who the stay times are important, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the time and effort you are putting into this, ultimately for the benefit of others. Thank you.

You are correct. Generally, while our boating patters are as they are, it would work in our favour if just about everywhere was made 2 day maximum stay, and enforced!

 

That doesn't make it right though, and hence my stance.

 

For clarity, I repeat yet again, that I am not automatically against the introduction of shorter stay times in some of the places where it can be proved that demand regularly outstrips supply.

 

However I go not think introduction of anything less that the default 14 days should now occur unless it can be demonstrated that CRT have managed to enforce the current stay times, for which they already have sufficient powers.

 

Draconian introduction of shorter stay times should not be used as a way of trying to deal with small numbers of persistent over-stayers, or even as a way of trying to encourage certain boaters not to moor there in the first place.

 

(And one day when I'm older, and less active I may actually want to stay places for more than 2 days, and I don't want to find that when I do that loads of such places have been made short stay with nothing that ever justified the case for doing so.)

Edited September 16, 2014 by alan_fincher

[bigcol]

I would also say a Thank you to Alan for the time and dedication that you have and currently put in for the good of boaters

 

Re Juniors above post

 

Am I right in saying that the stay times at places like Soulbury. 48 hr limits etc don't make any difference to folks who have a home mooring ?

 

Or have I understood it wrong.

 

Col

Edited September 16, 2014 by bigcol

[junior]

I would also say a Thank you to Alan for the time and dedication that you put in.

 

Re Juniors above post

 

Am I right in saying that the stay times at places like Soulbury. 48 hr limits etc don't make any difference to folks who have a home mooring ?

 

Or have I understood it wrong.

 

Col

You've understood it wrong I think. The stay times apply to everyone, regardless of home mooring status.

 

I don't want to elaborate on this too much for fear of this thread descending into the usual groundhog day sort of thread with everyone arguing about their interpretation of the rules for CC'ers.

[jenlyn]

I have had a phone conversation with Mathew Symonds this morning, (spelling of his surname corrected above!).Rather than having email responses he has sent quoted on the forum or other social media, Matthew would prefer to add a page to the CRT South East Visitor Moorings website that explains the situation at Stoke Hammond Three Locks.I have asked that this includes detail about monitoring and enforcement, and also about the fact it is claimed to be only for a trial period, and hence there needs to be some statement at the end about how that trial was measured, and whether it can be declared a success.Matthew hopes to have this done by the end of the week, so once available, I'll publish a link.What I think I can say already is that Matthew says responsibility for any monitoring and enforcement rests solely with the CRT enforcement team. The landlord and/or the pub manager may of course contact the enforcement team with details of boats they believe are overstaying a time limit. However the manager / landlord has no greater responsibility in the matter than anybody else who chooses to report what they believe to be overstaying boats.Also on SEVM matters.....I noticed at this weekend's visit to Stoke Bruerne that, although the 2 day restrictions on the "tunnel pound" visitor moorings are supposed to be relaxed to 7 days from November to March, that some of the additional tiles that said this have now been removed, (the screw heads are still there!). Matthew knows nothing about this, but assures me we have not lost the concession of the 7 day stay time in Winter. He will look into this.Note to Steve Jenkin and Mark Tizard.This is the full extent of my dialogue with Matthew - I know nothing additional at this stage that might be useful to you in future meetings with CRT.

Many thanks for that. Much appreciated.

[cuthound]

Thanks Alan,

 

Like yourself my current cruising patterns don't usually mean I stay anywhere (other than my home mooring) for more than 48 hours. However I don't want to lose the right to moor for longer periods, should I change my cruising patterns in the future.

[bassplayer]

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.

If you feel their salary is justified for running a charity...that's fine...no point in arguing with you...

[ditchcrawler]

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...

That is true of every charity there is. Some of them pay the best wages in the country.Including Cancer and Childrens charities

[GeoffS]

I am aware that you are not a Continuous Cruiser, in fact not even a liveaboard boater, therefore the stay times at places like Soulbury really make no difference to you I suspect. As someone who the stay times are important, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for the time and effort you are putting into this, ultimately for the benefit of others. Thank you.

Seconded! It could also be the case that someone who isnt a CC'r at the moment may still want to be able to leave their boat somewhere for 14 days.

[Tuscan]

I wonder how Mathew Symonds can explain the recent document I have from CRT which clearly states that that CRT do not intend to monitor the site using Towpath Mooring Rangers but that the Landlord has volunteered to monitor the moorings and notify CRT of any overstaying.

 

I think Mathew is being disingenuous of course CRT are responsible for enforcement in the event of any action needing to be taken , no doubt upon the advice of their volunteer Landlord!!

[jenlyn]

I wonder how Mathew Symonds can explain the recent document I have from CRT which clearly states that that CRT do not intend to monitor the site using Towpath Mooring Rangers but that the Landlord has volunteered to monitor the moorings and notify CRT of any overstaying.

I think Mathew is being disingenuous of course CRT are responsible for enforcement in the event of any action needing to be taken , no doubt upon the advice of their volunteer Landlord!!

I tend to define Mathew as "pumpkin positive". It helps me to understand him............ sometimes.

[GeoffS]

If you feel their salary is justified for running a charity...that's fine...no point in arguing with you...

Without getting into what is the right level surely everyone is entitled to remuneration whether they are working for a charity, public body or private company?

 

What they then decide to voluntarily give in either time or money is their own personal decision.

[bassplayer]

Without getting into what is the right level surely everyone is entitled to remuneration whether they are working for a charity, public body or private company?

 

What they then decide to voluntarily give in either time or money is their own personal decision.

Indeed it is their decision...and it's for us to live with our own conscience....perhaps many of these executives do give half their salaries back to charity...fair play if that's the case...

[cotswoldsman]

If you feel their salary is justified for running a charity...that's fine...no point in arguing with you...

 

I think salaries are knda an old not. I think they are underpaid compared to equivalent in the comercial sector. It is a business with assets of over £500 million, employs I think about 500 staff and has an income of nearly £200 million

[bassplayer]

 

I think salaries are knda an old not. I think they are underpaid compared to equivalent in the comercial sector. It is a business with assets of over £500 million, employs I think about 500 staff and has an income of nearly £200 million

...well I suppose there's nothing stopping us applying for a job like that...or is there?

[cotswoldsman]

...well I suppose there's nothing stopping us applying for a job like that...or is there?

slight problem its not vacant but when it is apply by all means

[bassplayer]

slight problem its not vacant but when it is apply by all means

...don't I have to join a 'certain' club first?

[GeoffS]

Indeed it is their decision...and it's for us to live with our own conscience....perhaps many of these executives do give half their salaries back to charity...fair play if that's the case...

Why should anyone be expected to 'give back' their salary? Anyones Professional work is separate from their Voluntary work surely?

[bassplayer]

Why should anyone be expected to 'give back' their salary? Anyones Professional work is separate from their Voluntary work surely?

So does everyone think the very high salaries which executives earn running charities is reasonable then? Maybe I'm wrong...

 

Perhaps the volunteers working for CRT (and other charities) should get paid a fair wage then....which is it?

[ditchcrawler]

£234,000 for working at Save the Children

£87,000 Catholic aid charity Cafod

£89,000 ActionAid

£126,000 Christian Aid

[MtB]

So does everyone think the very high salaries which executives earn running charities is reasonable then? Maybe I'm wrong...

 

Perhaps the volunteers working for CRT (and other charities) should get paid a fair wage then....which is it?

 

A friend of mine is director of fundraising (or some such job title) for a charity. He gets paid 1% of the net funds he raises (after staffing, advertising and all other costs are knocked off). He seems to be on about £100k a year now. Is that fair, or not, considering the charity had an income of about £1m a year before he joined them, and now thanks to his effort and imagination its now £10m five years after he started fund raising for them?

 

If not why should be bother? He works his goolies off to keep the funds flowing in.

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

 

He works his goolies off to keep the funds flowing in.

 

MtB

So do volunteers and low paid staff...How come you see very few volunteer for executive positions? Maybe executives do work a lot harder than the rest of us...

[MtB]

So do volunteers and low paid staff...How come you see very few volunteer for executive positions? Maybe executives do work a lot harder than the rest of us...

 

 

I dont see many volunteers working 70 hour weeks though. Do you?

 

 

MtB