NABO stand up to be counted.

[Alan de Enfield]

A question. A number of posters have mentioned CRT breaking promises to the associations (plural) but only NABO has been named. Is it definite proven fact the same thing has been said to all associations concerned with the waterways?

 

 

 

They were all at the same meeting when C&RT announced their plans - here are he attendees :-

 

These are the notes from the meeting held in Milton Keynes on the 19th January 2015 between representatives of the National Boating Associations and CRT.

Present:

Mike Rodd, Mark Tizard – NABO

Les Etheridge, Gren Messham - IWA,

Paul Le Blique - AWCC

Steve Jay – ACC

Richard Parry, Denise Yelland, Debbie Lumb, - C&RT

Plus Vicky Taylor CRT (item 5 only)

Apologies:

Jim Owen, Alan Wildman RBOA

 

A summary of the meeting can be found here :

 

http://www.nabo.org.uk/index.php/reference-section/crt/665-notes-of-boating-organisations-meeting-with-crt-19-jan-2015

 

It seems that either the members of the other organisations are 'happy', or, NABO is the only organisation to truly represent its members and take C&RT to task.

 

I can find nothing from any other organisation questioning C&RTs methods.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

If you care to re-read the NABO response, that is pretty well how I feel about it.

 

The Trust seems to have a real issue about how it communicates with its customers, and this is a very good example of them getting it wrong yet again.

 

Apart from the money wasted in sending this to many boaters who are not, (and have never been), on CRT's radar, they have alienated an awful lot of people who they very much need to actually be their supporters. Many of these are not people looking to take the piss, and, indeed many like me, (and it seems John and others), who tried to be very supportive of CRT are now losing faith that things have any potential to be better than in BW days.

In some ways I would say it is now worse, because CRT openly preach that they want to do better, in a way that BW never even tried to do, but seem incapable of judging how badly wrong they are consistently getting it.

Obviously we each react to things in different ways (as does everyone). The main thrust of NABO's letter is that folk find CRT's letter offensive. Yes there are other more valid (IMO) points in there, but with any such communication it is the main thrust that is remembered and has the impact, buried small nuggets of truth may well be lost. We are each boaters with home moorings (I think?) so neither of us got the letter. If I had, it would not have phased me at all, whereas it seems that if you had, you would have found it offensive, threatening, alienating or whatever. I don't understand that fundamental difference between us.

 

On the cost point, yes it has obviously cost a bit and is a bit of a "blunt instrument" but then again, what is the cost of a single enforcement action against someone whose boat is pretty much worthless? You complain about money spent enforcing, you complain about money spent on publicity aimed at reducing enforcement, surely it is a no-win situation for CRT?

 

As I have said there is no doubt CRT have failings, but I don't see this letter as one of them. I would far rather the attention be on the real failings (some of which NABO mentions, but are lost in the main message) rather than on what seems to me to be a bit of teenage sulkiness because "they" have dared to tell me what might happen if I am a naughty boy.

[mark99]

Yup I'm of the opinion that there is a culture change being attempted to even out and publicise the rules of engagement which, when viewed with through the eyes of "mutuality" could be of long term benefit. Albeit that a few persons' previous self administered honeymoon expectations may be harmed.

Edited March 9, 2015 by mark99

[nicknorman]

They were all at the same meeting when C&RT announced their plans - here are he attendees :-

 

These are the notes from the meeting held in Milton Keynes on the 19th January 2015 between representatives of the National Boating Associations and CRT.

Present:

Mike Rodd, Mark Tizard – NABO

Les Etheridge, Gren Messham - IWA,

Paul Le Blique - AWCC

Steve Jay – ACC

Richard Parry, Denise Yelland, Debbie Lumb, - C&RT

Plus Vicky Taylor CRT (item 5 only)

Apologies:

Jim Owen, Alan Wildman RBOA

 

A summary of the meeting can be found here :

 

http://www.nabo.org.uk/index.php/reference-section/crt/665-notes-of-boating-organisations-meeting-with-crt-19-jan-2015

 

It seems that either the members of the other organisations are 'happy', or, NABO is the only organisation to truly represent its members and take C&RT to task.

 

I can find nothing from any other organisation questioning C&RTs methods.

Does CRT keep and /or publish minutes from these meetings? I not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with NABO's account, but it is of course just their interpretation / recollection of what transpired, and as such not of great value in the event of a dispute.

[Tuscan]

Does CRT keep and /or publish minutes from these meetings? I not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong with NABO's account, but it is of course just their interpretation / recollection of what transpired, and as such not of great value in the event of a dispute.

These are CRTs notes as agreed by those present

[nicknorman]

These are CRTs notes as agreed by those present

In that case I think it would be helpful if it said that. Otherwise it just looks like NABO's take on the meeting.

[dmr]

Well this letter has certainly caused a lot of excitement.

We got one by email and I thought "great stuff, better than wasting money on postage", but sadly the next day we got another in the post.

First, it was absolutely correct that CaRT sent this letter to every CC'er so stop been silly about this!

If they had sent it to only some then there would have been something to complain about. Where would they have put the dividing line?

Every boater getting the letter would feel really singled out and threatened. Even worse they would have had to send the letter to those who were just about ok but with a small reduction in movement would be slipping into danger, how would these boaters have felt????? Seriously victimised and probably spending (wasting) money on solicitors.

I needed this letter (at least if I didn't keep myself informed about this stuff). We are high milage CCers but we push our luck a bit in the winter and do adopt a rather unusual cruising pattern that might bring us to the attention of CaRT, so now we need to think just a little more and keep slightly better records just in case!

and second, .... it was very very clumsy and CaRT deserve the telling off they are getting. The opening paragraph should have clearly stated that it was going to All boaters to inform them of changes in the enforcemet procedures, with no implication of guilt!

 

............Dave

[MtB]

 

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

 

Red herring.

 

The geezers mugging the Little Old Lady across the street are not causing me a problem either, but I still object to their behaviour.

 

MtB

[nicknorman]

The opening paragraph should have clearly stated that it was going to All boaters to inform them of changes in the enforcemet procedures, with no implication of guilt!

 

............Dave

The way I read it, that is pretty much what it did do. It certainly points out that most CCers are compliant. OK it doesn't spell out that there is no implication of guilt, but it certainly is implied. The flip side of your point is that if you spell things out too clearly and simplistically, you get accused of being patronising.

[Sabcat]

 

Red herring.

 

The geezers mugging the Little Old Lady across the street are not causing me a problem either, but I still object to their behaviour.

 

MtB

 

I think the old lady across the street would come under the "anyone else", nice try though.

[Jerra]

 

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

CRT can't leave boats until they are causing people a problem for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly by the time there are large (ish) numbers causing people problems it will be too late to try and take control of the situation. The screaming about them trying to enforce after years of lack enforcement shows the problem there would be.

 

Second if they only took action against those who are causing a problem people would start screaming about CRT not being consistent. (Hang on haven't I heard that accusation somewhere already tonight). Also I am not sure it is morally justifiable to take enforcement action against some problem boaters and not take action against others doing exactly the same thing but in an area where it isn't causing a problem CRT would be open to even more criticism.

[Sabcat]

CRT can't leave boats until they are causing people a problem for a number of reasons.

 

Firstly by the time there are large (ish) numbers causing people problems it will be too late to try and take control of the situation. The screaming about them trying to enforce after years of lack enforcement shows the problem there would be.

 

Second if they only took action against those who are causing a problem people would start screaming about CRT not being consistent. (Hang on haven't I heard that accusation somewhere already tonight). Also I am not sure it is morally justifiable to take enforcement action against some problem boaters and not take action against others doing exactly the same thing but in an area where it isn't causing a problem CRT would be open to even more criticism.

 

So, on the one hand you're saying that CRT are right in their approach and on the other you're saying that London (where I'm led to believe it's a huge problem) it's already too late?

[dmr]

The way I read it, that is pretty much what it did do. It certainly points out that most CCers are compliant. OK it doesn't spell out that there is no implication of guilt, but it certainly is implied. The flip side of your point is that if you spell things out too clearly and simplistically, you get accused of being patronising.

 

Its a difficult one. A lot of boaters have got very upset by this letter (or maybe they are just playing silly games, I think some on this forum are!).

I think a sentence "We are sending this letter to all CC'ers to explain........blah blah blah" would have been good, but then hindsight is always a good thing.

I do appreciate your sentiment, far too many communications from CaRT (such as boaters update) do feel that they view their customers as somewhere between a 4 year old and the very lower end of the Sun readership!

 

..........Dave

[Cloudinspector]

Read to the end of page 1 then decided to go and watch some paint dry

Red herring.

 

The geezers mugging the Little Old Lady across the street are not causing me a problem either, but I still object to their behaviour.

 

MtB

Well said that man

[StarUKKiwi]

Just lately I have been seriously considering joining a national boaters' association, looking at websites, reading historical stuff etc, but have yet to decide which.

 

This letter has given me a good shove in NABO's direction.

Me too and ACC

[StarUKKiwi]

Yup

 

That about sums it up. Speaking as a ccer for the majority of the last 26 years and at present again a ccer the letter worried me not. CART so far have done a good job. I can only see cmers finding the letter threatening.

 

Tim

 

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.

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.

Speaking as a cc, and one who has taken offence, yes I realise this doesn't affect me, but when I get my log and discover they have only logged me in a few places and will base the renewal of my licence on that; then yes I have a problem.

I and many others do not have a problem with the distance; we do have a problem with the data used.

[Gordias]

Two consecutive paragraphs from those meeting notes:

the current information relating to boaters without a home mooring are:

16 % of c.5,400 CC-ers were recorded cruising within a range of <5 kms, and 66% in a range of <20 kms. DY stated these were top line figures that were still being verified – they include some boats licensed later in the year - but they were likely to be a reasonable indication of the numbers with a very limited range of movement.

 

RP and DY agreed that the Trust should develop a clear response to the question ‘how far should I travel to comply?’, and this is being drafted.

 

 

• NABO's intentions may be good, but their interpretation is misleading: they changed "within a range of X km" to "move less than X km"
• CaRT don't seem to have promised to specify minimum distances after all. Whatever they said must have come right after the information about "ranges of movement" and they didn't promise to specific minimum distances, they promised an answer to a specific question.

 

Is there anyone here who was actually at the meeting, and can remember clearly what was actually said?

 

• Were the CaRT representatives asked about the meaning of "range of movement"? If not, why not? Did they actually say something else (e.g. minimum distance (**)? Was the meaning of "range of movement" obvious to everyone at the meeting?
• What was the context of the question "how far should I travel to comply?" Was it asked immediately after CaRT provided information about "range of travel"? Did CaRT say they would provide a number, or did they indicate they don't believe a specific number is appropriate to determine if someone is conforming to the law?

 

**

Note that CaRT's measurement process can't accurately measure distance traveled, even for a boat in a "hotspot", but they can draw some conclusions from the "extreme points" at which they have noted a given boat's location. With enough observations, even with only one per day, they can draw some conclusions about "range"

 

And a reminder: if people demand that CaRT accurately measure the distance they move, they're asking for something like the "GPS solution". It's a "beware what you wish/ask for" situation. The best solution is for the boater to manually log their own location (perhaps using a mobile app) often enough to satisfy CaRT and the law. Similarly for "anyone could fake their log": the least intrusive requirements and technical tooling will come about through negotiation - more intrusive requirements and tooling are only likely to be forced on "good boaters" if other people try to cheat the system.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Gordias

[adam1uk]

Speaking as a cc, and one who has taken offence, yes I realise this doesn't affect me, but when I get my log and discover they have only logged me in a few places and will base the renewal of my licence on that; then yes I have a problem.

I and many others do not have a problem with the distance; we do have a problem with the data used.

 

But when you think about it, you've only been given details of the times when you *were* logged (on the Macc, I think you said). Have you asked them how many times in the year they logged that canal? If you knew that, you'd also know how many times you *weren't* logged there -- and therefore must have been somewhere else (including non-CRT waters where you wouldn't be logged anyway).

[madcat]

Before I wade into this thread I'd better state where I'm coming from. I have a mooring and strong ties to the area where my mooring is. I have in the past had no home mooring and have been doing a bit of shuffling while looking for one. I've lived on boats before I was married and I think I understand how vulnerable a boater could feel when receiving such communications from CRT .

 

Getting communications right is not easy . The letter has landed and caused upset and reaction and there is a pressing need to move on from here and sort things out.

The data gathering proces is showing up as flawed and unreliable and there is a lack of confidence in the enforcement process among a wide variety of boaters . This needs addressing as well.

 

While all eyes are on this one issue the serious problem of maintaining the system is not going away. I'd rather the money spent on postage was used to fix a busted lock gate or repair a broken paddle .

I did hear some good news at the AGm of the Historic Boat Club, it seems that CRT have done a record amount of dredging last year which has to be good.

Time to be getting on with fixing things me thinks .

[Jerra]

 

So, on the one hand you're saying that CRT are right in their approach and on the other you're saying that London (where I'm led to believe it's a huge problem) it's already too late?

Where have I said that?

 

London (to mention one place which seems to cause concern to some) is becoming a problem. If CRT leave things until large areas of the country have similar problems it will be too late to try to regain control. Right have you got that point?

 

It is unfair and inconsistent (something CRT are getting complained about in other threads) to apply one level of enforcement in London and not to the rest of the country. Is that point clear enough?

 

This reminder letter is just that a reminder to all who might be/have in the past/have the opportunity to/be tempted to/have a license which would make some think it was possible etc that a problem is arising in some areas. To be fair they are reminding everybody in all areas that they are going to try to be consistent and what criteria they will be applying.

 

Has that spelled out my position clearly enough for you to not misinterpret what I have said?

[jenlyn]

Is there anyone here who was actually at the meeting, and can remember clearly what was actually said?

.

Oh dear, all that, and you've not even read the thread have you?

[RLWP]

Is there anyone here who was actually at the meeting, and can remember clearly what was actually said?

 

Yes - Steve Jenkin, Jenlyn on this forum, AKA Steve Jay. It's in the minutes published above:

 

Steve Jay – ACC

 

 

Richard

[kris88]

Oh dear, all that, and you've not even read the thread have you?

Yes but he managed to get his gps hobby horse in though.

Regards kris

[mayalld]

 

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.

 

That is not, of course, the only way that non-compliant boaters can go.

 

We are told that 16% of boaters registered as CCers move within a range of less than 5km.

 

With enforcement, how many of them will actually start to move and how many will take a mooring?

 

For those with a range of 5-20km, same question.

 

At present, there are (say) 5,000 CCers. CRT state that 16% move in a sub-5km range, and that 50% move in a 5-20km range.

 

Let us assume that CRT's figures are skewed by logging issues, and that HALF of the boaters they have as sub-5km are actually 5-20km, and that half of those recorded as 5-20km actually move more than that.

 

That gives us;

 

8% sub-5km

33% 5-20km

59% 20km+

 

Realistically, what proportion of the sub-5km boaters are going to start to comply, and what proportion are going to take a mooring?

 

For the 5-20km cohort, again what proportion will comply and what proportion will take a mooring.

 

I am going to take a punt that half of the sub-5km boaters will abandon CCing and take a mooring, and that a third of the 5-20 km cohort will do so, leaving us with;

 

4 + 22 + 59 = 85% moving in a 20km range

 

4 + 11 = 15% taking a mooring.

 

That is 750 boats no longer occupying public mooring space, and paying a mooring fee part of which goes to CRT coffers.

[jenlyn]

That is not, of course, the only way that non-compliant boaters can go.

 

We are told that 16% of boaters registered as CCers move within a range of less than 5km.

 

With enforcement, how many of them will actually start to move and how many will take a mooring?

 

For those with a range of 5-20km, same question.

 

At present, there are (say) 5,000 CCers. CRT state that 16% move in a sub-5km range, and that 50% move in a 5-20km range.

 

Let us assume that CRT's figures are skewed by logging issues, and that HALF of the boaters they have as sub-5km are actually 5-20km, and that half of those recorded as 5-20km actually move more than that.

 

That gives us;

 

8% sub-5km

33% 5-20km

59% 20km+

 

Realistically, what proportion of the sub-5km boaters are going to start to comply, and what proportion are going to take a mooring?

 

For the 5-20km cohort, again what proportion will comply and what proportion will take a mooring.

 

I am going to take a punt that half of the sub-5km boaters will abandon CCing and take a mooring, and that a third of the 5-20 km cohort will do so, leaving us with;

 

4 + 22 + 59 = 85% moving in a 20km range

 

4 + 11 = 15% taking a mooring.

 

That is 750 boats no longer occupying public mooring space, and paying a mooring fee part of which goes to CRT coffers.

The problem I see there, is the fact that there are not 750 moorings available in the area where the majority of these boats are.