Enforcement or Harassment

[mango]

Why are you so worried about it?

Dealing with the problem is wasting CRT's money.

[jenlyn]

Dealing with the problem is wasting CRT's money.

Is it?

Perhaps CRT are wasting money because people like you worry and whinge about it. What business is it of yours how many miles a CC'er does in a week?

[mango]

 

In the "continuous cruising" thread apparently C&RT told the OP that 2 miles per fortnight, going 'out' for 18 miles (18 weeks) then turning around and doing 2 miles per fortnight (18 miles over 18 weeks) on the return was sufficient to be a CCer

I expect that CRT will issue some formal guidance soon.

[Alan de Enfield]

mango, on 01 Nov 2014 - 2:40 PM, said:

I would be interested to know if anyone who covered a mere two miles a week in a continuous journey would be subject to the enforcement procedure.

 

mango, on 01 Nov 2014 - 2:49 PM, said:

I expect that CRT will issue some formal guidance soon.

 

 

 

Well your question has been answered - someone doing 50% of the distance you proposed is NOT being subject to enforcement.

 

Well - to be accurate they are sort of being subject to Enforcement as C&RT dont believe they are managing to hit the challenging target of 2 miles per week, but, if they did, they wouldnt be subject to enforcement

Edited November 1, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[mango]

 

Well your question has been answered - someone doing 50% of the distance you proposed is NOT being subject to enforcement.

 

Well - to be accurate they are sort of being subject to Enforcement as C&RT dont believe they are managing to hit the challenging target of 2 miles per week, but, if they did, they wouldnt be subject to enforcement

I would be interested to know if anyone who covers a hundred miles in a year, perhaps moving once a week, has been harassed or subject to enforcement.

[Tony Dunkley]

I would be interested to know if anyone who covers a hundred miles in a year, perhaps moving once a week, has been harassed or subject to enforcement.

Yes, I do know of some who cover many hundreds of miles a year and don't stay anywhere longer than 14 days, except when it is "reasonable in the circumstances" to do so, and they have not only been harassed and subject to threats of enforcement beyond the issue of PN's and CC Letters, but have been put at risk by being intimidated into moving on a flooded river in conditions unsafe for pleasure boats. The EO concerned was the one mentioned at the start of this thread, Parry's blue eyed boy, the well known and deservedly much complained about Stuart Garner.

[Mike Todd]

 

It does nothing of the sort. It says that CaRT have the necessary powers to ensure everyone has a fair chance at a temporary mooring in their turn – wherever that might be. “Hotspots” are precisely the areas where the relevant legislation becomes most readily accessible. You need to read the relevant legislation and think on it – alternatively, look back over previous discussions on the available powers for specific commentary relative to the issue.

But do not CaRT have the right to declare any stretch of towpath as a LTM? If so, then they can also permit a shorter period as well. It does not seem to be challenged that CaRT can charge for LTMs.

[Alf Roberts]

Who's going to complain? There is no background legislation to charging for towpath mooring except where a service is provided.

 

And no, simply allowing a boat to moor is not a service.

[Paul C]

 

And no, simply allowing a boat to moor is not a service.

 

Are you sure?

[Alf Roberts]

 

Are you sure?

Sorry. Thought this was a discussion forum. This is my contention. 'Sure' would require a judicial review, so the answer is no, as far as I know this has never gone to judicial review.

 

As I say, a pragmatic viewpoint will mean it probably never will.

[Paul C]

Sorry. Thought this was a discussion forum. This is my contention. 'Sure' would require a judicial review, so the answer is no, as far as I know this has never gone to judicial review.

 

As I say, a pragmatic viewpoint will mean it probably never will.

 

Yeah, in fact I agree with you on this one but I've had my "view" challenged, a lot, on this forum about the very same issue. If it were true, then the thousands of CRT LTMs would be meaningless, as would EOG mooring (fees) and winter moorings which are made available by CRT to CCers. The fact that many thousands of people continue to pay their money for LTM, EOG or winter moorings would point to a widespread acceptance of the charge for this (perceived) "service". And PS I pay none of those.

[NigelMoore]

But do not CaRT have the right to declare any stretch of towpath as a LTM? If so, then they can also permit a shorter period as well. It does not seem to be challenged that CaRT can charge for LTMs.

 

Have you not read the posts subsequent to that which you quoted? Specifically page 15, #290 & page 16, #310.

 

There is no statutory power to carve out sections of towpath for the exclusive use of those prepared to pay for the privilege.

The fact that many thousands of people continue to pay their money for LTM, EOG or winter moorings would point to a widespread acceptance of the charge for this (perceived) "service".

 

It certainly does, but - is this the old argument: umpteen million Chinamen can't be wrong?

[Naughty Cal]

 

Well your question has been answered - someone doing 50% of the distance you proposed is NOT being subject to enforcement.

 

Well - to be accurate they are sort of being subject to Enforcement as C&RT dont believe they are managing to hit the challenging target of 2 miles per week, but, if they did, they wouldnt be subject to enforcement

I don't believe that figure was ever given in writing though, was it?

[jenlyn]

I don't believe that figure was ever given in writing though, was it?

Will be soon though.

[thunderbird]

Is it?

Perhaps CRT are wasting money because people like you worry and whinge about it. What business is it of yours how many miles a CC'er does in a week?

Sorry but here I have to agree with Jenlyn. Just what problem is it of ours, those of us warm and cosy in our homes when the weather turns bad, whilst those CCing brave the elements on a daily basis? It's a hard enough life for goodness sake, whatever happened to live and let live? Green eyed jealousy, perhaps? If you've bought a boat and can't CC, then live with the fact it's your own choice to pay for moorings, or exchange it for a caravan you can park on your drive! Stop driving the argument and putting boater against boater 'cos at the end of the day we'll all pay the price at the hands of a gleeful CaRT!

[Guest]

Sorry but here I have to agree with Jenlyn. Just what problem is it of ours, those of us warm and cosy in our homes when the weather turns bad, whilst those CCing brave the elements on a daily basis? It's a hard enough life for goodness sake, whatever happened to live and let live? Green eyed jealousy, perhaps? If you've bought a boat and can't CC, then live with the fact it's your own choice to pay for moorings, or exchange it for a caravan you can park on your drive! Stop driving the argument and putting boater against boater 'cos at the end of the day we'll all pay the price at the hands of a gleeful CaRT!

Errrrrmmm. No I don't think so.

 

People who CC have in the main made a lifestyle choice, and much of what I read on here and from those who I speak to seem very very happy with it. Just read the number of positive posts on here about cruising in winter., they are not 'braving the elements' by some way of need or depravation they are doing it because they love it. To suggest otherwise does a lot of them a disservice.

 

I am for one not envious of it, or remotely jelous of it, and why should I be? I am happy with my choice, living aboard and CCing is not some 'holy grail' it's just a way of life. Yours is a well worn argument as to why it is claimed boaters with a home mooring somehow resent boaters who don't have one and being frank it is rubbish and divisive.

 

As you do say correctly though, live and let live, we are all boaters at the end of the day.

Edited November 3, 2014 by The Dog House