Continual cruising

[Timleech]

That in my mind is possibly the silliest post I have ever seen on this forum....

 

I for one understand what Dave was trying to say, seemed reasonable to me.

 

Tim

[John V]

What amazes me about this thread any many others like it is that it seems those with a Home Mooring are the experts on the law concerning boats without a home mooring. I wonder why they spend so much time deciding on the interpretation of a law that does not effect them

 

 

Because some of us have been licensed without a home mooring in the past and some of us would like to be so again in the future

Edited October 6, 2014 by John V

[mayalld]

What amazes me about this thread any many others like it is that it seems those with a Home Mooring are the experts on the law concerning boats without a home mooring. I wonder why they spend so much time deciding on the interpretation of a law that does not effect them

 

But is DOES have an effect on me.

 

There are a number of places along the local canals where it is effectively impossible for a leisure boater to find a mooring because the same "CCers" are there on a monotonously regular basis.

[jenlyn]

I for one understand what Dave was trying to say, seemed reasonable to me.

 

Tim

I saw it as a play, for some sort of credibility, where he attempts to interpret rather than deal with fact.

[mayalld]

In all honesty the bad reputation comes mainly from people with a home mooring that perceive others not doing what they understand to be the law. It is a small minority that do not keep within the law but some seem to think it runs into thousands

 

John,

 

my impression is that;

 

1) A large number of CCers actually keep to the rules by anybody's definition

2) A significant number of CCers keep to the rules, but could be percieved as not doing so by those who believe that CCers should be engaging in the same kind of boating as a leisure boater all the time.

3) A number of CCers are boating in a way that may well fall foul of Davies, but on the basis of actual movement it can be accepted that their intent isn't actually important

4) A number of CCers are boating over a limited area, but doing enough to keep off-radar (both CRT and local boaters)

5) A not insignificant number of CCers are on-radar, either with CRT or with local boaters, because they are loitering in a small-ish area, and trying to have the rules stretched to mean that they are OK

6) A tiny minority are blatantly taking the piss, overstay, shuttle back and forth betweem 2 or 3 moorings etc.

 

The last group is probably less than 100 boaters, and I suspect is a group that there is little dispute about (other than from extreme factions).

 

Equally, groups 1-4 are not a matter of concern (other than for the extremists)

 

Group 5, which covers a range of patterns between 4 and 6 is where there is work to do.

[bassplayer]

What amazes me is that genuine CCers support the fake CCers who give them a bad reputation.

 

But hey ho each to their own.

I do have sympathy with CM'ers who are genuinely struggling to get by? I guess you have to consider individual circumstances really. It's probably difficult for CRT to do that but I presume the CRT chaplain would feed back any issues..

[Emerald Fox]

"If you have one light bulb broken out of 20, do you replace all 20?"

 

If they are all of the same age (and let's say, over a year old), then.... yes.

 

Fix it before it's broken is my motto.

[bassplayer]

"If you have one light bulb broken out of 20, do you replace all 20?"

 

If they are all of the same age (and let's say, over a year old), then.... yes.

 

Fix it before it's broken is my motto.

Yes but would you fix the other 19 when the one bulb was broken on purpose?

[Higgs]

I do have sympathy with CM'ers who are genuinely struggling to get by? I guess you have to consider individual circumstances really. It's probably difficult for CRT to do that but I presume the CRT chaplain would feed back any issues..

 

Having been in a few desperate situations myself, in dire straits, I am reluctant to think all CM'ing is avoidable. I hope the Welfare Officer is making such cases of hardship their business and working with local authorities to enable such help as is necessary to avoid matters becoming worse.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Higgs

[Emerald Fox]

I might feel like breaking the other 19 on purpose?

[cotswoldsman]

 

But is DOES have an effect on me.

 

There are a number of places along the local canals where it is effectively impossible for a leisure boater to find a mooring because the same "CCers" are there on a monotonously regular basis.

But also the same from people with a home mooring and once again we are back to bad enforcement

[dmr]

 

John,

 

my impression is that;

 

1) A large number of CCers actually keep to the rules by anybody's definition

2) A significant number of CCers keep to the rules, but could be percieved as not doing so by those who believe that CCers should be engaging in the same kind of boating as a leisure boater all the time.

3) A number of CCers are boating in a way that may well fall foul of Davies, but on the basis of actual movement it can be accepted that their intent isn't actually important

4) A number of CCers are boating over a limited area, but doing enough to keep off-radar (both CRT and local boaters)

5) A not insignificant number of CCers are on-radar, either with CRT or with local boaters, because they are loitering in a small-ish area, and trying to have the rules stretched to mean that they are OK

6) A tiny minority are blatantly taking the piss, overstay, shuttle back and forth betweem 2 or 3 moorings etc.

 

The last group is probably less than 100 boaters, and I suspect is a group that there is little dispute about (other than from extreme factions).

 

Equally, groups 1-4 are not a matter of concern (other than for the extremists)

 

Group 5, which covers a range of patterns between 4 and 6 is where there is work to do.

 

I don't fully understand your section 3, but otherwise I have to agree with you, in fact based on section 2 I think you deserve a greeny!

 

.................Dave

[cotswoldsman]

Yes as we keep saying CRT need to get to grips with those that blatantly break the law but instead of doing that they spend their time tinkering

[jenlyn]

If anyone would like to attend Richard Parry's meeting in Milton Keynes tonight, I have a spare ticket. Pm me, and I will provide time, place etc.

[mayalld]

 

I don't fully understand your section 3, but otherwise I have to agree with you, in fact based on section 2 I think you deserve a greeny!

 

.................Dave

 

I suppose that one deserves an example!

 

Let us assume that I work in Manchester. Every two weeks I move the boat, always to a location on the Cheshire ring (or perhaps a little off it) where I can get a train into Manchester for work.

 

If we take Davies at face value, I am not cruising Bona Fide, but moving simply to comply with the letter of the law whilst remaining in reach of work.

[Naughty Cal]

Yes as we keep saying CRT need to get to grips with those that blatantly break the law but instead of doing that they spend their time tinkering

Better to spend time tinkering then to do nothing at all.

[John V]

 

I don't fully understand your section 3, but otherwise I have to agree with you, in fact based on section 2 I think you deserve a greeny!

 

.................Dave

 

Yes I agree, that was a very reasonable well argued post have another one

[jenlyn]

I suppose that one deserves an example!

 

Let us assume that I work in Manchester. Every two weeks I move the boat, always to a location on the Cheshire ring (or perhaps a little off it) where I can get a train into Manchester for work.

 

If we take Davies at face value, I am not cruising Bona Fide, but moving simply to comply with the letter of the law whilst remaining in reach of work.

Without to much emphasis on quoting one of your favoured sayings, "to satisfy the board".

Now it seems that even the board being satisfied, does not work for you.

[dmr]

Better to spend time tinkering then to do nothing at all.

 

No, doing bad things is much much worse than doing nothing at all.

Some of the new silly regulations will make life less pleasant for compliant boaters who ultimately might begin to see CaRT as the enemy, or decide that its better to engage in legal battles rather than obey the rules..

 

.............Dave

[Naughty Cal]

 

No, doing bad things is much much worse than doing nothing at all.

Some of the new silly regulations will make life less pleasant for compliant boaters who ultimately might begin to see CaRT as the enemy, or decide that its better to engage in legal battles rather than obey the rules..

 

.............Dave

Well something has to be done because the system doesn't work as is.

[mayalld]

Without to much emphasis on quoting one of your favoured sayings, "to satisfy the board".

Now it seems that even the board being satisfied, does not work for you.

 

If the board is satisfied (which they will be if shown evidence) then that is their choice.

 

I am, however, entitled to express my views as to what I think they should require (as are you)

 

In fact, let me share my view of it;

 

 

There are two thinks to take into account;

1) The intent of the boater (whether an intent to wander "W", or an intent to remain locally "L")

2) The distance travelled, taking the two most distant points on the cruise, in a 3 month period

 

If the movement lands in the purple segment (less than 5 miles in a 3 month period and an intent to stay in one place), there must be (other than in the most exceptional circumstances) a presumption that this is taking the piss, and this should be going into enforcement.

 

If the movement lands in the red segments, then it is possible that there isn't an intention to take the piss, but the end result is that the boater isn't fulfilling their end of the bargain. If this is a one-off, then we might accept that this was a slow part of a genuine CC and move on. Otherwise enforcement.

 

In the orange segments, the boater still isn't compliant, but they are moving to a reasonable extent. If such a pattern continued for two years or more then enforcement.

 

In the yellow segments, the boater isn't stricty CCing, but their movement is such that it wouldn't be reasonable to take action.

 

Green is what I would say is genuine CCing as they signed up for.

[jenlyn]

If the board is satisfied (which they will be if shown evidence) then that is their choice.

 

I am, however, entitled to express my views as to what I think they should require (as are you)

 

In fact, let me share my view of it;

The fact is, the original poster has stated that the board is happy with the 18 miles done, though they would like pictures to prove compliance. You constantly promote that the board has to be satisfied. Yet now, you say the board is wrong, because you have a different interpretation?

You call this debating? Lol

[mayalld]

The fact is, the original poster has stated that the board is happy with the 18 miles done, though they would like pictures to prove compliance. You constantly promote that the board has to be satisfied. Yet now, you say the board is wrong, because you have a different interpretation?

You call this debating? Lol

 

I call it an ability to discuss more than one issue.

 

CRT have said that they will accept movement over an 18 mile range.

 

The OP feels that being asked to prove this is unfair.

 

I have responded that;

 

1) The law places the onus on the boater to show compliance, so it is not unfair.

2) Given that CRT is prepared to accept 18 miles as Bona Fide Navigation, the OP is being given a very easy ride in terms of Bona Fide Navigation, and is being spectacularly silly to engage in a battle about it.

 

I don't say that the board is wrong, because by definition they are right. I say that I FEEL that they are being unduly permissive in what they choose to accept.

[Bod]

As with any problem solving, I find it's always best to start by dealing with the root cause. In my mind, this is where CRT fail.

They are not "seen" to be dealing with that core group whom give the problems.

 

I think the way CRT are choosing to handle this is not so much about money, but more to do with the judicial system getting a bit peed off with them. I understand this has been mentioned to CRT at a couple of court cases, within the last 18 months.

 

I can fully understand the issues CRT have, and the complexity surrounding them. There is no easy answer, but I struggle to understand the way they are attempting to deal with it. They often choose solutions that come across as combative to genuine CCer's, who then consequently suffer for the actions of a few that fail to tow the line.

 

So come on CRT, stop faffing, deal with the root problem.

 

Here here.

At last the direction to follow.

The Trust should (must) get their facts correct, in every case, checked, and rechecked, before accusing.

If the facts show that help is needed, then help to be offered. Easier now with a welfare officer.

"Places" map guidelines should be worked out, and published widely.

The intent should be to create a "song-sheet" that every one sings from.

Once guidelines are set out, then dealing with awkward situations is much clearer.

 

Bod

[jenlyn]

I call it an ability to discuss more than one issue.

 

I think " I call it an ability to deflect from the issue". Did you invent the roundabout?