Devils advocate

[scrunch]

Been reading posts on the forum regarding moving section 8s etc,

I personalty at the moment live in a marina boo hiss well according to some.

What do you think C&RT should do about narrow boats who according to them do not move enough, bearing in mind if say C&RT decide not to do anything whatsoever, if you want to leave your boat on the canal or you want to live on a canal its ok, bearing in mind talking to a lot of folk its only the fear of getting section 8 that makes them take a mooring if they could moor on the canal they would.

I feel the real reason C&RT do not want to set a distance is at the moment they can come down on heavily populated areas where there is a problem and move boats, whereas less populated areas C&RT can leave alone until there is a problem a bit of a sweeping statement I know but trying to use as few words as possible.

I am pretty much a live and let live type of person, if I have to travel miles on tick over don't really bother me on a personal level, but do understand why it can be a bit annoying for some.also I tend to moor in the countryside so do not have a problem with visitors moorings always being full, but again can understand why some folks get annoyed.

But this could all change if all of a sudden loads of boats poured out of marinas to take towpath moorings if C&RT did nothing.

 

So my question is how would manage moorers if you where C&RT

[Laurie Booth]

I don't know where C&RT is.

[Ray T]

I don't know where C&RT is.

 

There are some at Hatton and Fazeley.

[Machpoint005]

Who are these devils and what are they advocating?

[Arthur Marshall]

Ah, but I can remember when it was CaRT, and then various people picked on us for not writing C&RT, and now it's CRT. Damn sight easier when it was BW and everything in the garden was rosy.

[scrunch]

Come on I am sure you can do better than picking up grammar, forgot it was a school playground, not to self must try harder, believe it or not was a serious question as I read all the legal experts on here and what people should do or not do, wondered if these same people had a solution that c&rt could use.

Oh and I thought it was still Canal and river trust. I will go and stand in the corner.

[Laurie Booth]

Not grammer me babs

'tis the spealling

[Rich]

Ah, but I can remember when it was CaRT, and then various people picked on us for not writing C&RT, and now it's CRT. Damn sight easier when it was BW and everything in the garden was rosy.

It should be "cart", as in things horses pull. The reason is very simple. C, R, and T are three quite separate syllables and cart is one syllable therefore there is a saving in energy expended, therefore food intake is less, therefore energy required to grow food is less, and so on.

 

Or, should I get out of the marina more?

[NB Lola]

I would think about what they are trying to achieve in terms of income and availability of popular non restricted moorings. CRT need to be transparent, in a simple way. If they want to increase movement they need to demonstrate why, not just say it's the rules. So a publicised impact analysis would help us stakeholders. I suspect one exists for anyone interested in using FOI.

[Ray T]

Come on I am sure you can do better than picking up grammar, forgot it was a school playground, not to self must try harder, believe it or not was a serious question as I read all the legal experts on here and what people should do or not do, wondered if these same people had a solution that c&rt could use.

Oh and I thought it was still Canal and river trust. I will go and stand in the corner.

 

Have a greenie for accepting the humour.

[Machpoint005]

Yes, I was thinking of a Civil Service (alleged) memo from some years ago. A senior civil servant managed to use sufficient self-restraint to write "round objects" in the margin, instead of "balls", where he found some particularly poor wording.

 

The memo eventually found its way back from the Minister, with the query "who is Round, and why does he object?"

[craftycarper]

The problem with the question, is the assumption that we are the only waterway,s users, were as the real issue as I see it, is we are the only paying users of the canals and how do you get the other two third,s of users to chip in for there share as well, thousands of people walk, cycle,canoe,fish, and even horse ride the towpaths, a tiny contribution from some of these groups would alleviate some of the financial burden placed on boaters, but that would represent a more fair and just society,so I won't hold my breath, instead we will just continue being treated like shite and over charged for the Privalidge of being the only ones that are a captive audience and unable to walk away, without giving up boating or sticking to a smaller network of privately owned waters,

[scrunch]

Good point craftycarper but........

If The Trust didn't have to maintain locks in fact everything that has to be spent keeping the waterways navigable, would the lack of license/ mooring money be as same as the spending needed to keep the waterways navigable, obviously some money would be needed for maintenance to keep fishermen and towpath users happy.

[Ssscrudddy]

It should be "cart", as in things horses pull. The reason is very simple. C, R, and T are three quite separate syllables and cart is one syllable therefore there is a saving in energy expended, therefore food intake is less, therefore energy required to grow food is less, and so on.

 

Or, should I get out of the marina more?

I too use CaRT. 2 reasons, firstly they are a public authority & need to be challenged just cuz. Also they didnt think it through when they came up with the name, & now dont like CaRT so all the more reasont for calling them that.

Besides, like Rich said, Cart is quicker & easier to say than see are tea, & trying to say see ampersand are tea is just too much hassle

[Rich]

& trying to say see ampersand are tea is just too much hassle

[Arthur Marshall]

If the waterways are genuinely a national resource, then they should be properly funded through taxation. Specific charges are justified for users who use part of the facilities more than others, which is why boaters pay a fair bit and fisherpersons pay a bit. Dogwalkers and cyclists ought to have their part funded through tax, as they probably make up the majority of the users and it would be impractical to licence them (pity, though). (Motorcyclists on the towpath should just be shot and tipped into the canal to feed the fish, but I must stress that is only my personal opinion and, obviously, not something I would do myself. Ever. Honest.)

So, if the bulk of users are non-boaters, the bulk of support should be via tax. It probably is, too, but i can't be bothered to look it up - someone on here will know.

[Machpoint005]

If the waterways are genuinely a national resource, then they should be properly funded through taxation. Specific charges are justified for users who use part of the facilities more than others, which is why boaters pay a fair bit and fisherpersons pay a bit. Dogwalkers and cyclists ought to have their part funded through tax, as they probably make up the majority of the users and it would be impractical to licence them (pity, though). (Motorcyclists on the towpath should just be shot and tipped into the canal to feed the fish, but I must stress that is only my personal opinion and, obviously, not something I would do myself. Ever. Honest.)

So, if the bulk of users are non-boaters, the bulk of support should be via tax. It probably is, too, but i can't be bothered to look it up - someone on here will know.

^^ What he said.

[Burgiesburnin]

Come on I am sure you can do better than picking up grammar, forgot it was a school playground, not to self must try harder, believe it or not was a serious question as I read all the legal experts on here and what people should do or not do, wondered if these same people had a solution that c&rt could use.Oh and I thought it was still Canal and river trust. I will go and stand in the corner.

There was a time a couple of years ago when a lot of posts started with an apology.

I thought that the site had moved on but a few people might have forgotten how unpleasant the site was at that time.

I'll take your post as I find it and its value is not lessened by any aspect of its structure.

Thanks for you post. Made me think and consider.

[NigelMoore]

If the waterways are genuinely a national resource, then they should be properly funded through taxation.

 

That is how it should be, was always the only plausible justification for nationalisation in the first place, and as you say, the only natural and fair means whereby all beneficiaries of the priceless national asset can contribute their fair share.

 

The waterways in modern times have contributed [and continue to do so] hugely towards the nation’s economy [by way of tourism etc] in ways that make it otherwise impossible to pay back via levies upon individual users other than boaters.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with fadetoscarlet – unloading what government saw as a burden on the public purse was - and will continue to be for some years, as was made clear by Evans and Benyon – an all but irrecoverable blow to the future of the infrastructure with absolutely no proper justification in terms of alleviating the perceived public fiscal burden. I do not believe that, as a catalyst for financial benefit for society as a whole [let alone the amenity value], the waterways could possibly have been properly considered such a burden – rather the opposite.

[NigelMoore]

So my question is how would manage moorers if you where C&RT

 

I thought I had rather done this to death over the years, but you manage genuine mooring problems by dealing with them under s.18 of the 1995 Act.

 

If a moored boat is causing no obstruction nor impediment to either navigation or towpath users, and is presenting no risk of danger to persons or property, then no administrative ‘problem’ exists, to be managed; if it is, the section applies.

 

The County Court at least, has already long determined [Taylor v BWB, BM013306, 2001] that boats overstaying at designated visitor moorings, for example, constitute an obstruction for the purposes of s.18, whereas no such clarification would seem necessary for blocking access to the more [?] obvious public facilities such as waterpoints, sanitary stations etc.

 

I would also foresee no problem in applying the section to instances where long-term encampment elsewhere along the towpath in isolated areas occurred. Even though causing no real immediate problem, it would be advisable to prevent future attempts at establishing prescriptive rights [however legally impossible in my view] for CaRT to advise them to move elsewhere, and if not complied with simply tow them away.

[mrsmelly]

I hate Marinas and avoid them whenever possible but for me that is not always possible. I would rather end to end boats on the canal than be stuck in a marine, tickover is fast enough for me anyway or I would buy a proper boat and have it on lumpy water. There are many opinions on this and non of them can be categoricaly completely in the right. It takes all kinds.

 

Tim