Continual cruising

[John V]

Sensible comment - I wonder how long your boat would survive moored to the towpath in the middle of nowhere.

 

middle of nowhere....not too bad

 

middle of DeanS's stamping ground......5 minutes ?

[Naughty Cal]

Exactly the reason you pay for a mooring is the security of your boat while your away from it

Regards kris

Whilst the security at our marina is nice it isnt the main reason we moor there. We moor there for convenience, a place we can leave the boat and not have to worry about moving it to keep off CRT's radar.

 

If CRT are now saying that 18 miles can be classed as CCing that makes a mockery of it really as we could simply shuffle the boat around each weekend and still rack up more miles then that.

In which case I recommend you go for it. What have you got to lose?

We have had to leave NC away from her home mooring before when the river has been in flood or the flood gates on the marina have been shut so we couldn't get back in.

 

She was absolutely fine for a week each time whilst we were back in Sheffield.

 

I dont get your point

 

Leaving NC at a mooring unattended is no different to leaving a narrowboat at a mooring unattended.

[bizzard]

Become a CB'er (Continuous boozer) instead.

[John V]

Become a CB'er (Continuous boozer) instead.

 

 

I'll drink to that

[Alf Roberts]

Whilst the security at our marina is nice it isnt the main reason we moor there. We moor there for convenience, a place we can leave the boat and not have to worry about moving it to keep off CRT's radar.

 

If CRT are now saying that 18 miles can be classed as CCing that makes a mockery of it really as we could simply shuffle the boat around each weekend and still rack up more miles then that.

 

We have had to leave NC away from her home mooring before when the river has been in flood or the flood gates on the marina have been shut so we couldn't get back in.

 

She was absolutely fine for a week each time whilst we were back in Sheffield.

 

I dont get your point

 

Leaving NC at a mooring unattended is no different to leaving a narrowboat at a mooring unattended.

I'm agreeing with you. I think you should do it. Give up the marina mooring and simply move 18 miles or more each time.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm agreeing with you. I think you should do it. Give up the marina mooring and simply move 18 miles or more each time.

 

Thats not what the OP is doing.

 

The OP is moving a couple of miles, staying 14 days, moving a couple of miles. and so on, and so on, until they have completed the "agreed distance of 18 miles", then turning around and doing the same trip back.

 

Taking about 36 weeks to do the 18 mile cruise out & back.

Starts the cruise again, repeat, repeat.

This is why the OP states that it is inevitable that the patrol officer will see them on the same mooring 3 times per year.

It is only the fact that their mooring places are so close together that they are not seen on each mooring more often

[Hawkmoth]

It shouldn't be necessary for a boater to do that . . . it's Parry's job.

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you have said, I do think that we, as boaters, should be helping CRT to "get it right", and if keeping a cruising log and/or photos helps them to identify the CMers from those who at least try not to be a nuisance.

Bob

[cotswoldsman]

Whilst I agree with a lot of what you have said, I do think that we, as boaters, should be helping CRT to "get it right", and if keeping a cruising log and/or photos helps them to identify the CMers from those who at least try not to be a nuisance.

Bob

Don't quite follow the logic of that. In theory those that cruise would not come under enforcement (well it is just a theory) Those that do not move in theory should (again only a theory) the ones that do not move would not take photos. I am certainly not going to spend my life taking photos because CRT are unable to deal with those that do not move. Why is it that we seemed to have reached the stage where people feel they need to prove they are moving? Is it because CRT can not get the basics of enforcement correct?

[Naughty Cal]

Don't quite follow the logic of that. In theory those that cruise would not come under enforcement (well it is just a theory) Those that do not move in theory should (again only a theory) the ones that do not move would not take photos. I am certainly not going to spend my life taking photos because CRT are unable to deal with those that do not move. Why is it that we seemed to have reached the stage where people feel they need to prove they are moving? Is it because CRT can not get the basics of enforcement correct?

The vast majority don't have to prove anything. Its only those "cruising" on the edge of what CRT are willing to accept and are coming under CRT's scrutiny that do.

[Hawkmoth]

Don't quite follow the logic of that. In theory those that cruise would not come under enforcement (well it is just a theory) Those that do not move in theory should (again only a theory) the ones that do not move would not take photos. I am certainly not going to spend my life taking photos because CRT are unable to deal with those that do not move. Why is it that we seemed to have reached the stage where people feel they need to prove they are moving? Is it because CRT can not get the basics of enforcement correct?

Yes John, you do have a point. I was only saying that CRT has very limited funds, There is a problem in some places with CMers, and if you are "sailing close to wind but trying to comply to a minimum taking the pics might keep them happy and give them time to go after the real piss takers.

Bob

[cotswoldsman]

The vast majority don't have to prove anything. Its only those "cruising" on the edge of what CRT are willing to accept and are coming under CRT's scrutiny that do.

You are wrong I have been involved a number of times helping boaters that have cruised long distances and found themselves under enforcement. I had an email yesterday from a boater who had seen my thread that has cruised 300 miles this year from north to south and had been issued with a pre cc1 for not moving far enough for the simple reason that he has slowed down but has been moving every 14 days

[MtB]

Why is it that we seemed to have reached the stage where people feel they need to prove they are moving? Is it because CRT can not get the basics of enforcement correct?

 

 

It's because it's what the law requires. You must have missed that bit!

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

 

My emphasis.

 

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

Yes John, you do have a point. I was only saying that CRT has very limited funds, There is a problem in some places with CMers, and if you are "sailing close to wind but trying to comply to a minimum taking the pics might keep them happy and give them time to go after the real piss takers.

Bob

I just think a simple conversation would clear most of this up. I do like the what they are doing on the K&A by sending a text giving the boater an opportunity to phone and have that conversation

[Naughty Cal]

You are wrong I have been involved a number of times helping boaters that have cruised long distances and found themselves under enforcement. I had an email yesterday from a boater who had seen my thread that has cruised 300 miles this year from north to south and had been issued with a pre cc1 for not moving far enough for the simple reason that he has slowed down but has been moving every 14 days

Surely someone cruising that far would have some form of proof of having done so?

I just think a simple conversation would clear most of this up. I do like the what they are doing on the K&A by sending a text giving the boater an opportunity to phone and have that conversation

Any boater has the opportunity to have a conversation with CRT. They just have to pick up the phone and do so.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

It's because it's what the law requires. You must have missed that bit!

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

 

My emphasis.

 

 

MtB

I have not missed that point you seem to think by copying and pasting you are winning some sort of debate. My point was have we reached the stage where we think CRT logging system and enforcement is so bad that we need to take photos every time we moor?

Surely someone cruising that far would have some form of proof of having done so?

 

.

Rachel I live in the real world where people worry and panic when they get a ticket it is the first step to losing your boat. It should be the enforcement officer that checks how far a boat has cruised before issueing a ticket and if you think sorting these things are a simple as a quick phone call you really are on another planet

[Naughty Cal]

I have not missed that point you seem to think by copying and pasting you are winning some sort of debate. My point was have we reached the stage where we think CRT logging system and enforcement is so bad that we need to take photos every time we moor?

No.

 

As has already been pointed out for the vast majority there is no problem and no need to provide proof of where one has been.

[John V]

I just think a simple conversation would clear most of this up. I do like the what they are doing on the K&A by sending a text giving the boater an opportunity to phone and have that conversation

 

John...probably a phone conversation with a ccer would clear up a misunderstanding but with a cmer would it? Anyone who is keeping to the spirit of the regulation should not be put to much effort to keep a photo log. (even their normal "snaps" would probably indicate the range of movement)

Anyone sailing close to the line probably should keep a proper log in order to satisfy the board if queried.

Non of this seems onerous to me and would at least enable C&RT to identify real "pisstakers"

[Alan de Enfield]

The ones prepared to keep a log / photos are probably those that dont need to.

[cotswoldsman]

No.

 

As has already been pointed out for the vast majority there is no problem and no need to provide proof of where one has been.

Ok you win can't be bothered with your world anymore

[John V]

The ones prepared to keep a log / photos are probably those that dont need to.

 

Yes, and if they do they immediately remove themselves from the target list and allow C&RT to concentrate on the remainder

[cotswoldsman]

 

John...probably a phone conversation with a ccer would clear up a misunderstanding but with a cmer would it? Anyone who is keeping to the spirit of the regulation should not be put to much effort to keep a photo log. (even their normal "snaps" would probably indicate the range of movement)

Anyone sailing close to the line probably should keep a proper log in order to satisfy the board if queried.

Non of this seems onerous to me and would at least enable C&RT to identify real "pisstakers"

But with proper enforcement they would know who the non compliant boaters are where I am now i allready know 2 non compliant boats (not liveaboards) and that is after just 8 das and no I have not taken a photo of where I am and Stan does not have a camera to take one of his boat. All I am trying to say this all comes about through years of inconsistent enforcement

[alan_fincher]

Sensible comment - I wonder how long your boat would survive moored to the towpath in the middle of nowhere.

 

I can't personally see a heap of difference in the chance of a boats safety and security between a typical CRT long term mooring site that is on the towpath, (as most are of course), and leaving the boat on a stretch of tow-path that is not at a long term mooring site.

 

Can you explain the difference, (other than one attracts a charge, and the other does not, of course).

[John V]

But with proper enforcement they would know who the non compliant boaters are where I am now i allready know 2 non compliant boats (not liveaboards) and that is after just 8 das and no I have not taken a photo of where I am and Stan does not have a camera to take one of his boat. All I am trying to say this all comes about through years of inconsistent enforcement

 

You are undoubtably correct but to get to a level of consistent enforcement I suspect would be expensive whereas getting people to keep a rudimentary log would not. I personally would be prepared to do a little more myself in order that C&RT finances were put to better use in maintenance

[Alf Roberts]

Exactly. I agree with Naighty Cal, why should she pay for her marina mooring when she can just leave her boat by the towpath for free.

 

I look forward to hearing her experiences.

 

I can't personally see a heap of difference in the chance of a boats safety and security between a typical CRT long term mooring site that is on the towpath, (as most are of course), and leaving the boat on a stretch of tow-path that is not at a long term mooring site.

 

Can you explain the difference, (other than one attracts a charge, and the other does not, of course).

But with proper enforcement they would know who the non compliant boaters are where I am now i allready know 2 non compliant boats (not liveaboards) and that is after just 8 das and no I have not taken a photo of where I am and Stan does not have a camera to take one of his boat. All I am trying to say this all comes about through years of inconsistent enforcement

No-one has mentioned the corollary to this buffoonery- that the enforcement appears to be entirely random and no boater is going to have respect for a system that arbitrarily picks on one boater whilst leaving some obvious non-compliant boats alone. The waterways can only be policed by consent and respect based on perceived fairness is essential to this. Edited October 3, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[cotswoldsman]

 

You are undoubtably correct but to get to a level of consistent enforcement I suspect would be expensive whereas getting people to keep a rudimentary log would not. I personally would be prepared to do a little more myself in order that C&RT finances were put to better use in maintenance

John without dragging this on I have no problem if people want to take photos to show CRT last week I showed Richard Parry the photos from my daughters wedding the Saturday before. I personally shall keep taking photos of things that matter to me. I also happen to think CRT do not need to allocate any more money to enforcement they just need to spend what they have more wisely