Are boaters interests really being represented anymore?

[Jerra]

 

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.

Surely that is a case where the boater should be taking it up with the higher levels of CRT and quoting the T & Cs. It isn't (to start with) CRT's fault they have a rogue employee. If after the complaint they employee isn't disciplined and/or continues then CRT are at fault.

[alan_fincher]

Are NABO keen to support live aboard CC'ers?

 

NABO has a continuous cruiser representative on its Council, so I would guess (but don't I admit know) that he is a CC-er.

 

His name is Phil Goulding and his contact details are available on the web.

 

Continuous Cruising

Phil Goulding

24 St Brannocks Park Road, Ilfracombe, EX34 8HX

cc@nabo.org.uk

 

Unless things have changed, if you contact NABO, they will send you a number of fairly recent editions of their newsletter, so you can see the areas in which they get involved, and how their council are presenting themselves.

 

I am not making a ringing endorsement of them, but having carefully considered my position, they are the only group that can represent me as a boater, and I am sticking with them as a member, but have so far shied away from getting any more involved than that and attending their AGMs.

[Tony Brooks]

Surely that is a case where the boater should be taking it up with the higher levels of CRT and quoting the T & Cs. It isn't (to start with) CRT's fault they have a rogue employee. If after the complaint they employee isn't disciplined and/or continues then CRT are at fault.

 

My understanding (that is probably far from the full truth) is that the incident is not a one off, the particular patrol officer has something of a reputation, CaRT have been informed/questioned and R Perry says he has full confidence or some such phrase in the officer.

 

I would have thought that this is just the sort of situation where the older organisations would be asking questions and widely publishing the replies.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

My understanding (that is probably far from the full truth) is that the incident is not a one off, the particular patrol officer has something of a reputation, CaRT have been informed/questioned and R Perry says he has full confidence or some such phrase in the officer.

 

I would have thought that this is just the sort of situation where the older organisations would be asking questions and widely publishing the replies.

Your understanding is correct and the Enforcement Orifice concerned is Stuart Garner, seen yesterday in the YouTube video of the boat seizure at Newark, phoning the C&RT office to get a 'ball park figure' for what the owner of the seized boat allegedly owed. He certainly does have a well deserved thoroughly bad reputation and is, and always has been, unquestioningly defended and supported by Parry on every one of the numerous occasions there are complaints about his attitude and conduct.

[SamKingfisher]

My lass got a patrol notice while waiting for the Calder to stop being shut. I suppose she should have gone around in tiny circles for a bit.

[Tuscan]

NABO has a continuous cruiser representative on its Council, so I would guess (but don't I admit know) that he is a CC-er.

 

His name is Phil Goulding and his contact details are available on the web.

 

Continuous Cruising

Phil Goulding

24 St Brannocks Park Road, Ilfracombe, EX34 8HX

cc@nabo.org.uk

 

Unless things have changed, if you contact NABO, they will send you a number of fairly recent editions of their newsletter, so you can see the areas in which they get involved, and how their council are presenting themselves.

 

I am not making a ringing endorsement of them, but having carefully considered my position, they are the only group that can represent me as a boater, and I am sticking with them as a member, but have so far shied away from getting any more involved than that and attending their AGMs.

Alan is correct , Phil Goulding is our Cc rep (he has a similar background to the new welfare officer) our legal council member is also a CC'er. NABO aims to represent the interests of all boaters as we think that in the main we all want the same thing i.e infrastructure maintenance, facilities, moorings with a variety of stay times, vegetation maintenance, fair and consistent enforcement. This involves both challenging and supporting CRT. The one thing our members have in common is a strong interest in the canal and river system.

 

There is a lot of work that goes on under the surface so for example we have the chair of one BSS committee and a member on another. Today we were at the EA National Navigation User Forum listening to the EAs plans to extend the outsourcing of its mooring charging regime to a further 22 sites and pushing for an exception to the charges for all boaters when red boards are showing that it's unsafe to move.

[thunderbird]

I have attended many meetings with CRT and been involved in the scheme to take staff out on boats. I do believe we boaters have been listened to in my experience and there have been signs of some action based on this, though on occasions the opposite has been the case. One of the problems I see is having a unified approach from boaters and the in-fighting, the rebellious, non-conformist, "them and us" attitude often displayed doesn't help. As I have said before, CRT must despair at times with the resistance to even the most basic rules and changes and whatever they do has some protesters up in arms. Pleasing everybody is near impossible and every time a decision doesn't please some they will shout "we haven't been listened to".

Of course boaters will shout that they haven't been listened to - it is no more than the truth.

[churchward]

Of course boaters will shout that they haven't been listened to - it is no more than the truth.

So they should if they feel strongly enough. But let's not confuse "listening" with "you must do whatever I suggest or I'll complain"

 

Consultation and listening to people's views and input is good but then all they opinions (often of course there are many different ones) need to be weighed and considered and a course of action decided upon. However, the course of action may not be as a direct result of any one of the opinions but an amalgamation and some folk will not necessarily like the outcome as it did not go their way. But it does not mean they have not been listened to.

 

It is always a difficult balance and it always rather depends on ones point of view compared to the outcome whether or not someone is happy with the result.

 

Sometimes on the other hand injustices can and do happen and these need to be guarded against and shouted about when they happen.

[sueb]

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.

 

Nabo spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with CC concerns. There has always been a ccer on the council and at one time the chairman was a ccer. They also have council members that are on rivers or have holiday boats. They have been lucky to have a good mix of boaters, which makes for some interesting discussions.

 

[Captain Zim]

I think it was earlier in this thread (apologies if not) that someone mentioned that due to the loss of legal aid, challenging a decision is very difficult. I am not a member of an association but I would consider joining one who provided some kind of assistance to members in this way. In other words, I would happily chip in a sum each year to go to a pot to help those who are suddenly on the receiving end of unfair enforcement. I stress unfair of course, and this wouldn't be hard to determine. Between us all a small donation would raise quite a lot to ensure that CRT are challenged when they need to be. Maybe we could do it through canalworld rather than an association?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Captain Zim

[Paul C]

I think it was earlier in this thread (apologies if not) that someone mentioned that due to the loss of legal aid, challenging a decision is very difficult. I am not a member of an association but I would consider joining one who provided some kind of assistance to members in this way. In other words, I would happily chip in a sum each year to go to a pot to help those who are suddenly on the receiving end of unfair enforcement. I stress unfair of course, and this wouldn't be hard to determine. Between us all a small donation would raise quite a lot to ensure that CRT are challenged when they need to be. Maybe we could do it through canalworld rather than an association?

 

How would you (or more pertinanly, the boating associations) determine "unfair" then? There's a good chance that if it were not defined, or too widely defined, that the facility could be abused by some and it would not take too many of these kinds of court cases to effectively bankrupt a boating association.

[bassplayer]

I think it was earlier in this thread (apologies if not) that someone mentioned that due to the loss of legal aid, challenging a decision is very difficult. I am not a member of an association but I would consider joining one who provided some kind of assistance to members in this way. In other words, I would happily chip in a sum each year to go to a pot to help those who are suddenly on the receiving end of unfair enforcement. I stress unfair of course, and this wouldn't be hard to determine. Between us all a small donation would raise quite a lot to ensure that CRT are challenged when they need to be. Maybe we could do it through canalworld rather than an association?

I think that's a great idea although I suspect it may be easier to work through an existing association rather than start something from scratch. In the end someone has to deal with CRT in court face to face, there's only so much you can do remotely through a forum.

 

One of the problems we face is that we are spread all over the country. The internet helps in that respect but I'm not really sure on-line conferences will work.

 

Being a slightly paranoid person (anyone noticed?), I do worry a bit about associations being infiltrated by individuals who, let's say, haven't got the interests of it's members best at heart. I suppose there will always be that risk but so long as the majority are happy with the results that's all that matters.

 

It does seem to me that the highest priority is to test the legality of the changes to the T&C's. In particular, is it legal to get around the data protection act by just saying you agree because your boat is in CRT waters? I'm pretty sure most judges wouldn't see eye to eye on that one particularly as we entered the contract with CRT under different terms and conditions.

 

Maybe I'm over reacting but I think these changes are the tip of the iceberg. I'm seriously contemplating selling my home and going down the camper route. Unfortunately that's seeing similar problems with councils imposing rules which haven't been legally approved.

 

It seems that the dream of escaping into a free lifestyle is quickly being eroded. That's going to capture the imagination of many who still have to work 9 to 5 in the city. I wonder how much effect the media could have in rousing support against these draconian changes.

[Captain Zim]

 

How would you (or more pertinanly, the boating associations) determine "unfair" then? There's a good chance that if it were not defined, or too widely defined, that the facility could be abused by some and it would not take too many of these kinds of court cases to effectively bankrupt a boating association.

Well off the top of my head I would suggest something like: approach competent law firm and work in partnership to devise agreed understanding for association members.

[Tam & Di]

 

How would you (or more pertinanly, the boating associations) determine "unfair" then? There's a good chance that if it were not defined, or too widely defined, that the facility could be abused by some and it would not take too many of these kinds of court cases to effectively bankrupt a boating association.

 

Most significantly any such association would need to know the difference between "unfair" and "illegal". There have been threads on CWDF where the majority of posters condemn some boater's actions, but where they have been determined in Court to be completely legal. There have been other threads where a boater has been pushing the bounds of the rules to great acclaim of the majority, but where the person has not been acting legally. CRT must operate within the law, and it does not always do so, but there is not a lot of point in taking legal action simply because something they do is "unfair".

Edited February 3, 2015 by Tam & Di

[bassplayer]

Most significantly any such association would need to know the difference between "unfair" and "illegal"......but there is not a lot of point in taking legal action simply because something they do is "unfair".

No, that's when we need to change the law!

[Captain Zim]

 

Most significantly any such association would need to know the difference between "unfair" and "illegal". There have been threads on CWDF where the majority of posters condemn some boater's actions, but where they have been determined in Court to be completely legal. There have been other threads where a boater has been pushing the bounds of the rules to great acclaim of the majority, but where the person has not been acting legally. CRT must operate within the law, and it does not always do so, but there is not a lot of point in taking legal action simply because something they do is "unfair".

I used unfair as a simple term. I think, or hope, most would realise that we are talking about actions contrary to the law. If we can't even agree on the principle that it would be nice to fight as a unit then I suppose that sums things up pretty well anyway and the idea is a waste of time.

 

In fact, do you know what, forget I even mentioned it. I'm more than capable of defending myself in a court of law so why do I care anyway? I'm sure typing words on a keyboard will bring about the changes people seem to want.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Captain Zim

[Tony Brooks]

Your understanding is correct and the Enforcement Orifice concerned is Stuart Garner, seen yesterday in the YouTube video of the boat seizure at Newark, phoning the C&RT office to get a 'ball park figure' for what the owner of the seized boat allegedly owed. He certainly does have a well deserved thoroughly bad reputation and is, and always has been, unquestioningly defended and supported by Parry on every one of the numerous occasions there are complaints about his attitude and conduct.

 

With the greatest of respect and in no way impugning what you say I fear that you could be portrayed as "having an axe to grind" and that gives CaRT a ready let out. It is also why, if this officers reputation really is as I understand and you alleged, those organisation with local branch networks should be investigating and publishing their findings. Those organisations that do not have a branch structure could also do that but without local feet on the ground would find it more difficult. If those investigations seem to confirm both our impressions then, in the defence of boaters interests, they should be questioning CaRT and trying to hold them to account.

 

Unless I have missed something this officer seems to have been ignored by the organisations so how can any boater be sure he will not be posted elsewhere or another "rouge" officer will not be employed?

 

I raise the two specific instances in my posts to illustrate just how far "out on our own" individual boaters are and wonder just how many of us would go up against Shoesmiths in a dispute. I suspect many would just pay up.

[bassplayer]

I used unfair as a simple term. I think, or hope, most would realise that we are talking about actions contrary to the law. If we can't even agree on the principle that it would be nice to fight as a unit then I suppose that sums things up pretty well anyway and the idea is a waste of time.

In fact, do you know what, forget I even mentioned it. I'm more than capable of defending myself in a court of law so why do I care anyway? I'm sure typing words on a keyboard will bring about the changes people seem to want.

I know how you feel. A lot of what's driving this is what I call Putin style tactics. Push the boundaries to the extreme and create fear in order to get the best position after negotiation. Unfortunately this method ends up causing a lot of suffering to the innocent and that often comes with a backlash.

[Mike Todd]

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.

The whole point of defining something using the term 'reasonable' is just so that you do not list all of the circumstances. If the issue is contested it is ultimately up to a court to test the case against the well defined notion of reasonable. By maintaining such flexibility it is possible to look at individual cases in a way that a long list of what is allowed would frustrate.

[Captain Zim]

The whole point of defining something using the term 'reasonable' is just so that you do not list all of the circumstances. If the issue is contested it is ultimately up to a court to test the case against the well defined notion of reasonable. By maintaining such flexibility it is possible to look at individual cases in a way that a long list of what is allowed would frustrate.

I think that was Alf's point. CRT are good at banging on about the 14 day rule but nowhere do they highlight the caveat to that rule that longer stays may be permitted depending on circumstances

[Peter Cruiser]

Thanks for all the info, very impressive. Having cruised over 400miles this summer between winter moorings. And currently a boater with no home mooring, will be joining NABO.

[Jerra]

I think that was Alf's point. CRT are good at banging on about the 14 day rule but nowhere do they highlight the caveat to that rule that longer stays may be permitted depending on circumstances

The guidance for boaters without a home mooring mentions it as does the new T & C