NABO stand up to be counted.

[jenlyn]

I think this is a seperate issue. Certainly CRT's movement data needs to be robust.

Is it?

I've no idea because it seems that it is much the same people complaining about the letter, as are complaining about the robustness of the movement data. They have an unreasonable take on the letter (my suspicion being, intentionally) and so why should I give any credence to the general moaning about the robustness of the movement data? Sure, it won't be perfect, nothing is, but it may or may not be reasonable, I just don't know. It's called "cry wolf".

To be honest and somewhat frank nick, I'm not really bothered what a "few" of you think on here.

Most of the posts I put up if not for my own entertainment, are aimed at those who have an idea of what's happening, and wish to be kept informed, but don't use farcebook.

 

The forum is a little more than a meeting hall for yourself and the "usual suspects" I'm afraid.

[nicknorman]

To be honest and somewhat frank nick, I'm not really bothered what a "few" of you think on here.

Most of the posts I put up if not for my own entertainment, are aimed at those who have an idea of what's happening, and wish to be kept informed, but don't use farcebook.

The forum is a little more than a meeting hall for yourself and the "usual suspects" I'm afraid.

Your problem is that it is me who is aligned with the majority view. It is the folk ranting on about "how unfair" it all is, that are in the minority. In the context of boaters I mean, not those on here nor members of some Farcebook rantgroup.

[kris88]

Are you a cc'er nick? Do you live on your boat?

Regards kris

[The Lockie]

Your problem is that it is me who is aligned with the majority view. It is the folk ranting on about "how unfair" it all is, that are in the minority. In the context of boaters I mean, not those on here nor members of some Farcebook rantgroup.

Totally agree. Not taking sides here Jenlyn. Perhaps you and Nick have "issues"?? I neither know or care if you do.

 

But The majority of boaters are decent people and abide by the rules. Its those that think they can cheat the system that will suffer and rightly so!!

[mrsmelly]

Your problem is that it is me who is aligned with the majority view. It is the folk ranting on about "how unfair" it all is, that are in the minority. In the context of boaters I mean, not those on here nor members of some Farcebook rantgroup.

 

Nick the facts are that the vast majority of boaters have a home mooring. Of the boaters who claim to cc the greatest majority comply and travel all over the place. There are just a few who extract the urine and they always will people in all walks of life do it if they are that kind of person. It is also true that most boaters are not on this or any other forum I know that the majority in fact vast majority of my boating friends never do forums or blogs etc. I do like the term " Farcebook " uttered by one of the " Ususal suspects " though I completely agree with that term and Twatter

 

Tim

[The Lockie]

Deleted double post

Edited March 9, 2015 by The Lockie

[Boat&Bikes]

Totally agree. Not taking sides here Jenlyn. Perhaps you and Nick have "issues"?? I neither know or care if you do.

But The majority of boaters are decent people and abide by the rules. Its those that think they can cheat the system that will suffer and rightly so!!

Like many here I speak with lots of boaters, some liveaboard some not. The vast majority see no problem with complying with cruising regulations. Seems a few here expect to be able to do as they wish and let the majority cover the costs of keeping our waterways usable.

 

Ian.

[nicknorman]

Are you a cc'er nick? Do you live on your boat?

Regards kris

No, and no. However I hope to, one day.

 

Let's be clear, I have absolutely nothing against CCers, in fact I am quite envious of them. However there are, it seems, a fairly small minority who perport to be CCers but are thus in name only. They want to stay in one place, often a place where they couldn't afford to live on land, for work reasons etc, and they take the piss by clogging up the canals for people who actually want to cruise and have somewhere to moor at the end of the day. I am thinking of London of course. I suspect these folk are the primary target of CRT's wrath, and rightly so. I have no idea about your lifestyle /cruising pattern but if you are a genuine CCer I'm sure you have nothing to fear.

[jenlyn]

Totally agree. Not taking sides here Jenlyn. Perhaps you and Nick have "issues"?? I neither know or care if you do.

But The majority of boaters are decent people and abide by the rules. Its those that think they can cheat the system that will suffer and rightly so!!

I don't have any "issues" with nick. We just don't always agree that's all.

We have met a couple of times at different meetings, are both polite to each other and respectful.

Perhaps if you cannot think of something sensible when commenting, assuming or judging, you would do better to not comment at all.

[FadeToScarlet]

Nick the facts are that the vast majority of boaters have a home mooring. Of the boaters who claim to cc the greatest majority comply and travel all over the place. There are just a few who extract the urine and they always will people in all walks of life do it if they are that kind of person.

That doesn't match the figures- according to those quoted in the OP, 66% of those registered with no home mooring have a cruising range of less than 20km per year.

 

I know many CCers who do it according to the initial definition and who do make a journey around the system- and I wish I could do so myself. But there's also a lot of boats that move very little- in the stretch between Braunston and Gayton junction, which I travelled four times last year, I saw quite a lot of boats in much the same places at Easter and in October. And, in London, I can recognise quite a few of the boats.

 

I think the point is that the majority of those registered without a home mooring move their boats much less than the minority.

 

But should they all change their habits, or should CRT look at changing the legislation to suit a clear need that isn't being addressed by the current extremes?

[nicknorman]

Nick the facts are that the vast majority of boaters have a home mooring. Of the boaters who claim to cc the greatest majority comply and travel all over the place. There are just a few who extract the urine and they always will people in all walks of life do it if they are that kind of person. It is also true that most boaters are not on this or any other forum I know that the majority in fact vast majority of my boating friends never do forums or blogs etc. I do like the term " Farcebook " uttered by one of the " Ususal suspects " though I completely agree with that term and Twatter

 

Tim

Yes, totally agree with all of that.

[churchward]

If NABO's members feel strongly about the issue then it is a good thing that their organisation has spoken out and is representing them. It is what any organisation like this is for. I haven't seen anything similar from ACC on the matter as yet.

 

Personally I agree with many others in that I think it is mostly a non-issue. However, I think CRT have not communicated the changes well and I would like to see the issues with tracking being taken notice of, explained and if necessary rectified.

Edited March 9, 2015 by churchward

[Sabcat]

That doesn't match the figures- according to those quoted in the OP, 66% of those registered with no home mooring have a cruising range of less than 20km per year.

 

I know many CCers who do it according to the initial definition and who do make a journey around the system- and I wish I could do so myself. But there's also a lot of boats that move very little- in the stretch between Braunston and Gayton junction, which I travelled four times last year, I saw quite a lot of boats in much the same places at Easter and in October. And, in London, I can recognise quite a few of the boats.

 

I think the point is that the majority of those registered without a home mooring move their boats much less than the minority.

 

But should they all change their habits, or should CRT look at changing the legislation to suit a clear need that isn't being addressed by the current extremes?

 

Of these boats that you recognise as not moving, how many were causing you or anyone else a problem?

[eggpie]

NABO's wider point is that they were wilfully misled by CRT. At the meeting, CRT presented a plan, which NABO approved. Richard and Denise are minuted as agreeing that CRT would perform specific actions.

 

CRT then changed the plan, failed to perform the tasks they agreed to, and did whatever they wanted.

 

There's a real,consistent pattern of behaviour from CRT again here, of saying one thing and doing another, of meaningless consultation with the associations, and NABO should be commended for drawing attention to that behaviour. Even if you think the letter is acceptable, what's the point of misrepresenting it to the associations? Why gain their support for one action, then do something else? Why waste everyone's time?

 

Of course CRT's data collection system is bollocks. That's not contentious. Its been apparent to everyone for years. It matters more now not only because its the basis for CRT's dramatic claims of mass non-movement, but also (more importantly) for enforcement. How much more time and money are they going to waste pursuing people needlessly? How much stress will be caused for people who are cruising correctly, but are unable to prove their movements adequately? CRT's stated strategy is to target the worst offenders, but how can they target those offenders without adequate, robust data of a kind that will hold up in court?

 

Plenty of CCers know that the letter probably won't affect them. And some people will pretend its "only the CMers" that are affected. Yes, some genuine CM'ers (if thats a thing) will probably be caught by this. But due to shoddy data collection and some vaguely worded threats, CRT have also scared a lot of boaters who shouldn't be worried , people who aren't causing any harm, people who might not even know there's a problem until their license is affected. That's what NABO are rightfully concerned about. They gave their support to clear and consistent enforcement. This isnt it.

Edited March 9, 2015 by eggpie

[alan_fincher]

 

Rather a silly suggestion that CRT should only contact the offenders and rely on the towpath telegraph to get the news out to the rest. WHY?

 

What possible purpose is served by CRT not telling people (other than giving NABO something to complain about, or allowing others to put a spin on what is expected)

 

How about the costs of posting a large number of letters to those for whom it is not relevant?

[kris88]

I agree with you nick, there are a minority of boaters who take the piss, some are cc'ers some are boaters with home moorings. The response of CRT to this minority is a complete overeaction. (Sledge hammer to crack a nut.) The sentiments of boaters directly effected by this are real. I applaud NABO for challenging CRT on this policy, they are representing there members.

If I have to abide by the 1995 waterways act, so do CRT.

Regards kris

Edited March 9, 2015 by kris88

[nicknorman]

Of these boats that you recognise as not moving, how many were causing you or anyone else a problem?

When they are permanently moored at all the good spots such as just about every bridge with access to the outside word, they cause a problem for anyone actually wanting to use their boat for cruising, and needs a nightstop/shopping etc. If folk are CMed out in the sticks miles from infrastructure then it probably isn't an issue in moderation, but unfortunately that is not the pattern of a significant proportion of the pisstakers.

 

It boils down to whether you want the canals to be used as a housing estate, or for navigation. Whilst in moderation both can coexist, in extremit they can't and we have already hit "extremis" in some areas. Don't worry, NC is well down the "desirable CM location" list!

[alan_fincher]

Still do not why people are anti IWA and pro NABO

 

(Assuming a word like "understand" has gone missing after your first two....)

 

They both have a very different stance, so I don't understand why you can't understand that people may feel they can align to one, and be turned off by the other.

 

I joined NABO with some reservations a few years back, but I think they have improved enormously of late.

[jenlyn]

When they are permanently moored at all the good spots such as just about every bridge with access to the outside word, they cause a problem for anyone actually wanting to use their boat for cruising, and needs a nightstop/shopping etc. If folk are CMed out in the sticks miles from infrastructure then it probably isn't an issue in moderation, but unfortunately that is not the pattern of a significant proportion of the pisstakers.

It boils down to whether you want the canals to be used as a housing estate, or for navigation. Whilst in moderation both can coexist, in extremit they can't and we have already hit "extremis" in some areas. Don't worry, NC is well down the "desirable CM location" list!

If I am brutally honest, I think that the canals will become some sort of an affordable housing solution in the future.

I am not saying I agree with it, but I see it happening.

 

Edited for gobbledegook

Edited March 9, 2015 by jenlyn

[alan_fincher]

I can only think it is a massive smokescreen whipped up by those who know they are taking the piss, presumably hoping to put CRT on the back foot so they can continue to take the piss for a bit longer.

 

Well I'm unhappy with it, and as someone who has home moorings and boated maybe 1,400 miles last year from North to South of the country, I'd like to know in what way I'm "taking the piss".

[alan_fincher]

Seems a few here expect to be able to do as they wish and let the majority cover the costs of keeping our waterways usable.

 

Ian.

 

Can you explain succinctly to me, without getting into the rights and wrongs of their behaviour, how making a CC-er move more in any way makes them contribute more to keeping the waterways useable. They pay the same whether they cruise over a 20 mile range or a 200 mile range. I would suggest that you could fairly argue that if forced towards the higher number they are causing more strain on the infrastructure.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Well I'm unhappy with it, and as someone who has home moorings and boated maybe 1,400 miles last year from North to South of the country, I'd like to know in what way I'm "taking the piss".

I am also unhappy with it and find it quite amusing to be called a piss taker having cruised from Gloucester to Wigan via maybe 100 miles on BCN all this while attending to family matters. But then I am also aware that Nick does not have much of a clue on what goes on outside his own little world. I know many ccers who have done many more miles thane who also object.

What does also concern me is it seems Parry made a promise/commitment to the associations and did not carry it out. Maybe to busy doing a pub crawl to sort out some more 48 hour moorings

Edited March 9, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[nicknorman]

... there are a minority of boaters who take the piss, some are cc'ers some are boaters with home moorings.

Certainly true.

[Sabcat]

When they are permanently moored at all the good spots such as just about every bridge with access to the outside word, they cause a problem for anyone actually wanting to use their boat for cruising, and needs a nightstop/shopping etc. If folk are CMed out in the sticks miles from infrastructure then it probably isn't an issue in moderation, but unfortunately that is not the pattern of a significant proportion of the pisstakers.

 

It boils down to whether you want the canals to be used as a housing estate, or for navigation. Whilst in moderation both can coexist, in extremit they can't and we have already hit "extremis" in some areas. Don't worry, NC is well down the "desirable CM location" list!

 

I doubt you're talking about the boats I asked about on account of it not being you who saw them. Which boats do you recognise as CMers in your cruising pattern Nick, you know, the ones that are there month in, month out and how many of them are causing you a problem? Actual boats, not some hypothetical invention.

[churchward]

I am also unhappy with it and find it quite amusing to be called a piss taker having cruised from Gloucester to Wigan via maybe 100 miles on BCN all this while attending to family matters. But then I am also aware that Nick does not have much of a clue on what goes on outside his own little world. I know many ccers who have done many more miles thane who also object.

What does also concern me is it seems Parry made a promise/commitment to the associations and did not carry it out. Maybe to busy doing a pub crawl to sort out some more 48 hour moorings

How does the above comment square with you previous comment below about the CRT view of minimum distance?

 

 

I think it is good that CRT have now indicated a minimum distance and I must say it is a very generous minimum distance and IMO anyone who finds that distance difficult would get no sympathy from me