Are boaters interests really being represented anymore?

[Tony Dunkley]

CRT puts much more effort into listening to boaters than our banks, insurers, politicians and government do to their customers and citizens of this country.

That isn't much of an achievement . . . particularly as they then promptly forget about whatever they've been listening to.

Listening costs nothing, and as far as C&RT is concerned, it results in the same.

It's a PR tool, for using on the gullible . . . and it seems to be working.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[David Schweizer]

I've done my time as a committee member now it's somone else's turn

 

 

No..it's all of us's turn..

 

If you're not happy then tell him...

 

richard.parry@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

SueB and I rarely agree with each other, but your comments are inapropraite. She has worked for many years as both a volunteer and committee member of a National Boaters Association, and unless you are able to demonstrate similar longievity in such a commitment, I suggest to you that your advice to her is inapropriate.

Edited February 2, 2015 by David Schweizer

[bassplayer]

SueB and I rarely agree with each other, but your comments are inapropraite. She has worked for many years as both a volunteer and committee member of a National Boaters Association, and unless you are able to demonstrate similar longievity in such a commitment, I suggest to you that your advice to her is inapropriate.

Sorry I didn't mean to cause offence. I'm just suggesting that we can all contact Richard Parry directly as well as trying to get our point across through the various associations.

[sueb]

 

 

 

SueB and I rarely agree with each other, but your comments are inapropraite. She has worked for many years as both a volunteer and committee member of a National Boaters Association, and unless you are able to demonstrate similar longievity in such a commitment, I suggest to you that your advice to her is inapropriate.

Thank you David. I am still working for Nabo on the admin side.

We no longer have a boat and our occasional hire boat holiday hardly qualifies me to get involved.

I'm not offended just disappointed by the amount of wasted talk when getting involved would achieve so much more.

[bassplayer]

Thank you David. I am still working for Nabo on the admin side.

We no longer have a boat and our occasional hire boat holiday hardly qualifies me to get involved.

I'm not offended just disappointed by the amount of wasted talk when getting involved would achieve so much more.

I have been getting involved by attending meetings and contacting CRT directly about issues. I got quite a favourable response over a year ago suggesting extending VM times in the winter months. CRT do listen to individuals sometimes! Being on the cut most of the time, I also try to help in practical terms where I can. So please don't feel disappointed.

[Alf Roberts]

thank you Bassplayer. can you tell where these extended times apply please?

[jenlyn]

I got quite a favourable response over a year ago suggesting extending VM times in the winter months. CRT do listen to individuals sometimes!

Several hundred people spent the best part of 2013 arguing with the trust for this particular point. I do hope you are not saying you were the sole saviour.

[bassplayer]

thank you Bassplayer. can you tell where these extended times apply please?

Stoke Bruerne for starters...and before anyone asks, I'm not trying to take any credit as I'm sure it was suggested by many others. I'm just pointing out that I got a response back from CRT (Damien Kemp) saying they thought it was a good idea.

Several hundred people spent the best part of 2013 arguing with the trust for this particular point. I do hope you are not saying you were the sole saviour.

 

....to late, you already asked!

[Tuscan]

No change at the VM's at the bottom of Foxton, did they change at the tunnel pound at Stoke Breune?

[alan_fincher]

thank you Bassplayer. can you tell where these extended times apply please?

 

To be clear, I feel sure we are talking about increasing the winter stay time on moorings that are marked at less than 14 days, rather than allowing more than 14 days at any location.

 

This has certainly already been applied at least in part to the locations like Stoke Bruerne that were part of the "SEVM" sites.

 

My understanding is that if the latest framework for visitor and casual moorings goes through as drafted, it should become the default position on moorings that are less than 14 days in suimmer, and that the case for keeping short stay in winter would need to be as an exception, rather than the norm.

 

As "Jenlyn" says, though, however much many of us agree, or disagree on certain issues, the idea of relaxing stay times in winter has been one that many of us have been consistently promoting at every opportunity. If it happens then the credit for it will not go down to any person or association, it will be because enough random people have continually tried to say the same thing.

[bassplayer]

Ok, so is anyone suggesting that it's a waste of time contacting CRT directly without the help of an association? Are any of the Associations coming up with a plan to persuade CRT to amend the proposed new T&C's?

[alan_fincher]

Ok, so is anyone suggesting that it's a waste of time contacting CRT directly without the help of an association? Are any of the Associations coming up with a plan to persuade CRT to amend the proposed new T&C's?

 

It would seem that this was sprung on even the associations at quite short notice, and not at all initially to the rest of us.

 

NABOs original statements on this make it clear that they are now reviewing the changes to prepare a response to CRT.

 

An obvious observation in cases like this, is that although NABO have made a lot of recent efforts to be more visible on the Internet, both through their own website, and via Facebook groups, they acknowledge that many of their membership make little use of the Internet, and certainly quite recently that they didn't have valid email addresses for many.

 

To try reacting to something CRT springs on them by putting it in a "house" magazine that only arrives every couple of months gives little chance for the "less connected" members to let those actually dealing with CRT know their thoughts or concerns.

 

This is not a criticism of NABO, just a statement f how the real world is. So for many people you really are placing your faith in the small number of people in an association that actually sit at table with CRT, and hoping how they present their case is sufficiently in line with how you feel about things.

 

Generally from my observations the small NABO committee work hard, and present a fairly balanced view, given that they represent boaters with a wide ranging set of views and requirements. I'd be lying to say I agree with everything they ever say, but I agree with enough of it that I am glad they are prepared to give up their time to do what they do.

[bassplayer]

It would seem that this was sprung on even the associations at quite short notice, and not at all initially to the rest of us.

 

NABOs original statements on this make it clear that they are now reviewing the changes to prepare a response to CRT.

 

An obvious observation in cases like this, is that although NABO have made a lot of recent efforts to be more visible on the Internet, both through their own website, and via Facebook groups, they acknowledge that many of their membership make little use of the Internet, and certainly quite recently that they didn't have valid email addresses for many.

 

To try reacting to something CRT springs on them by putting it in a "house" magazine that only arrives every couple of months gives little chance for the "less connected" members to let those actually dealing with CRT know their thoughts or concerns.

 

This is not a criticism of NABO, just a statement f how the real world is. So for many people you really are placing your faith in the small number of people in an association that actually sit at table with CRT, and hoping how they present their case is sufficiently in line with how you feel about things.

 

Generally from my observations the small NABO committee work hard, and present a fairly balanced view, given that they represent boaters with a wide ranging set of views and requirements. I'd be lying to say I agree with everything they ever say, but I agree with enough of it that I am glad they are prepared to give up their time to do what they do.

Holding my hands up here....I still haven't joined an association having thought about it for a long time. It is difficult to know which one to join. As a live aboard CC'er it would make sense to join the ACC, NBTA or RBOA. Are NABO keen to support live aboard CC'ers? I don't mind getting involved but it does appear that some associations these days spend more time fighting over their constitution than the cause.

[mango]

From what I know they do listen as Parry did with his open meetings and then just carry on doing as they wish. Having said that I do think the Associations do make them re look at things and tone them down. As I have said before I think CRT see boaters as a nuisance and in an ideal world for CRT we would all just go away

If you really believe that then perhaps it would be better to let those of us who have a more positive attitude to make constructive suggestions about how our waterways are managed. However, I'm sure you are right if you modify your sentence to refer to SOME boaters.

[Tony Dunkley]

Holding my hands up here....I still haven't joined an association having thought about it for a long time. It is difficult to know which one to join. As a live aboard CC'er it would make sense to join the ACC, NBTA or RBOA. Are NABO keen to support live aboard CC'ers? I don't mind getting involved but it does appear that some associations these days spend more time fighting over their constitution than the cause.

I would forget about the RBOA, they're about as much use as Lord Lucan's Passport.

[David Schweizer]

...a bit, nowhere in any of CRT's literature or the foaming rants of the skirt followers is the phrase 'except as is reasonable in the circumstances ' mentioned.

Yes there is. I got the phrase slightly wrong (I did say it was from recollection) Having now trawled though them again, the Draft General Terms and Conditions. Page 11 actually say :-

 

"There are three key legal requirements:

 

- The boat must genuinely be used for navigation throughout the period of the licence.

 

- Unless a shorter time is specified by notice the boat must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days (or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances); and

 

- It is the responsibility of the boater to satisfy the Trust that the above requirements are and will continue to be met."

 

What No response from Alf yet?

 

The paragraphs shown above from the draft rules and regulations, are taken from the1995 British Waterways Act, Part III Regulation and Management of Inland Waterways , Section17 - Conditions as to certificates and licences, para c. either—

 

(i) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(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.

 

But then he already knew that!!

Edited February 2, 2015 by David Schweizer

[Alf Roberts]

yes, David, I know it's in the Act. though thank you very much for quoting it, but that's not what I said is it?

[David Schweizer]

yes, David, I know it's in the Act. though thank you very much for quoting it, but that's not what I said is it?

 

 

As you seem to enjoy the activity so much, I am posting you a hair to split.

[Alf Roberts]

why thank you very much, I shall go and sharpen my axe

 

although my point remains ; CRT say 'do this' 'don't do that' but nowhere do they point to 'reasonable in the circumstances' which to me covers flooding, ice and broken legs.

 

though I'll go a catch a bus in South London if you like and ask around.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Peter Cruiser]

Holding my hands up here....I still haven't joined an association having thought about it for a long time. It is difficult to know what association to join. As a live aboard CC'er it would make sense to join the ACC, NBTA or RBOA. Are NABO keen to support live aboard CC'ers? I don't mind getting involved but it does appear that some associations these days spend more time fighting over their constitution than the cause.

I was a member of the ACC, it seems to be solely run by Jenlyn.. Also like yourself have been considering supporting another boating association and on reading Alans posts, it will probably be NABO. I wonder if Tuscan can tell us some more about cc representation, l heard via Facebook that a cc was recently elected to committee and was reported as being a welcome addition for CC'ers. In the meantime l continue to contact CRT as the need arises. I was impressed that when l contacted CRT regards the changes to the VMS at Atherstone, it was reported back that some of the planned 48 hour moorings would now be 7 days and that NABO had also intervened in opposing the changes, so it seems both individual and association representation can work hand in hand.

[Jerra]

Surely the following quote from the new T & Cs cover reasonableness or is that not what you meant?

 

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are

where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

Examples include temporary mechanical breakdown preventing cruising until repairs are complete, emergency navigation stoppage, impassable ice or serious illness (for which medical evidence may be required

[jenlyn]

The ACC is not run by only myself, it has a treasurer, secretary and 4 committee members.

I should also point out that we represent CCer's, and we are very strict about that. It's one of the reasons CRT respect us.

We have had on occasion reason to remove a member when we have discovered they are not abiding by the legislation.

This of course does not stop them becoming an associate member, however, we would not be happy to represent someone knowing they are blatantly abusing the right to declare for a cc licence.

 

I'm sorry if some feel this is "not fair", but that has always been our stance.

Edited February 2, 2015 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

I was a member of the ACC, it seems to be solely run by Jenlyn.

 

According to the ACC published constitution, it should by now have held elections to replace the initial council.

 

INITIAL COUNCIL

 

Composition

 

Until January 2015 the Association shall be managed by the ‘the initial council’. A quorum for the purposes of meetings shall consist of at least 6 ‘founding members’ no more than 2 of whom may be associate members. In January 2015 or earlier if deemed appropriate, membership elections will be held to elect a new council.

 

 

I know I'll be told as a non-member that it shouldn't concern me what has, (or has not happened) within ACC, but assuming someone has paid their subscription, it would seem reasonable to ask, (assuming you have not already been communicated with on this particular subject).

[jenlyn]

According to the ACC published constitution, it should by now have held elections to replace the initial council.

 

 

 

I know I'll be told as a non-member that it shouldn't concern me what has, (or has not happened) within ACC, but assuming someone has paid their subscription, it would seem reasonable to ask, (assuming you have not already been communicated with on this particular subject).

We are in process of organising our agm, and the process to bring in new committee members.

I am afraid peter cruiser will not have his membership renewed.

[Tony Brooks]

 

Surely the following quote from the new T & Cs cover reasonableness or is that not what you meant?

 

Circumstances where it is reasonable to stay in one neighbourhood or locality for longer than 14 days are

where further movement is prevented by causes outside the reasonable control of the boater.

Examples include temporary mechanical breakdown preventing cruising until repairs are complete, emergency navigation stoppage, impassable ice or serious illness (for which medical evidence may be required

 

 

But reports suggest that at least one patrol officer does not consider an injury that makes lock operation down right dangerous together with high river flows to be such circumstances. It is even more concerning that the reported instructions to move were made at a time of the year when demands for moorings would be low anyway.