Enforcement - a radical new idea

[mayalld]

Stupid ridiculous idea.

It would drive me off the canals.

I do not earn enough to pay fivefold for a licence.

Perhaps that's what you want Mayalld.

I currently observe the rules of my licence.

 

You don't have to pay fivefold.

 

You simply have to obey the T&Cs (which represent what BW and CRT have long tried to enforce in any case), and pay what you pay now.

 

If you think you would have to pay fivefold, then your statement "I currently observe the rules of my licence" may well be incomplete, and better stated as "By my own interpretation of the rules, I currently observe those rules. By CRT's interpretation I do not"

[MtB]

For several years, bw advocated people cruising small areas. I was told myself in 2009 that if I did Cowley to Denham, I would not have any problems.

People built their lifestyles around what bw were then saying was ok.

Jobs, kids, family ties. I think it was wrong personally, but I can understand how this particular situation developed, because I watched it happen.

 

 

There's not much you say that makes sense but this does.

 

These people have a moral if not legal entitlement to grandfather rights when it comes to being cut some slack in enforcement. It's also a very good reason for CRT focusing their enforcement efforts on newcomers rather than the older, harder cases IMO.

[jenlyn]

 

You don't have to pay fivefold.

 

You simply have to obey the T&Cs (which represent what BW and CRT have long tried to enforce in any case), and pay what you pay now.

 

If you think you would have to pay fivefold, then your statement "I currently observe the rules of my licence" may well be incomplete, and better stated as "By my own interpretation of the rules, I currently observe those rules. By CRT's interpretation I do not"

The very fact that you look to people to obey "your interpretation" of the 95 act is the very reason some of your views are meanigless in my opinion.

You struggle with some of your agenda, because you fail to absorb the facts and issues surrounding the problem.

Until such time as you recognise those issues, your view will always be one of "punishment" rather than compromise.

[bassplayer]

 

The flipside of this applies to you too. What have the revised T+C's done to you affect personally apart from ruffle up some theoretical imagined future of doom ?

 

I

Well it's also true there are those who won't do anything until it's too late. The pressure has resulted in CRT U turning on a few things so it works!

 

I don't want this nation to become a flock of brainless sheep.

[bassplayer]

Mayalld has offered a solution, there's much criticism, but little in the way of alternatives. What do you suggest?

No he hasn't offered a solution. In fact he hasn't come back and explained what problem he has which upsets the enjoyment of his boating experience.

 

Dave says himself that only a tiny few would take up the fivefold licence. By simple logic we would be back to were we are now, Most of us trying to abide and make sense of the rules and guidelines and others taking the P.

 

My suggestion is still the same, stop tinkering and leave things alone. Why do I rarely see people come on here complaining about a bad experience in real life regarding a CM'er or bridge hopper?

 

I think it's because most of us just get on with enjoying the waterways and don't waste time trying to make everyone's else's lives a misery using control freakery, we've got enough of that in the land world thanks.

[matty40s]

 

OK so you have no more to worry about than me. You say Mayalld's idea is stupid so what would you suggest instead?

 

I would suggest that CRT just enforce what they have already - consistently, across the board.

I would also suggest that CRT stop fiddling with stay times all over the system - wasting money on piles of new signage - none of which is enforceable.

 

 

 

The whole point of the scheme is that the higher fee is set at an eye-wateringly high price (and on reflection the 5x multiplier was too low), such that the number of people who would actually choose that path is vanishingly small.

Time and again, when compliance is discussed, and it is suggested that those who don't want to cruise could get a mooring, we hear the response that they would if there were "affordable" moorings.

You simply have to obey the T&Cs (which represent what BW and CRT have long tried to enforce in any case), and pay what you pay now.

If you think you would have to pay fivefold, then your statement "I currently observe the rules of my licence" may well be incomplete, and better stated as "By my own interpretation of the rules, I currently observe those rules. By CRT's interpretation I do not"

 

 

What you are suggesting is that those with lots of money can do what they want - ignore the existing time limits - ignore short stay zones - in fact - moor their boat whenever and however they like - because they have money.

 

and you can bugger off with the bit in red

[Midnight]

No he hasn't offered a solution. In fact he hasn't come back and explained what problem he has which upsets the enjoyment of his boating experience.

 

Dave says himself that only a tiny few would take up the fivefold licence. By simple logic we would be back to were we are now, Most of us trying to abide and make sense of the rules and guidelines and others taking the P.

 

My suggestion is still the same, stop tinkering and leave things alone. Why do I rarely see people come on here complaining about a bad experience in real life regarding a CM'er or bridge hopper?

 

I think it's because most of us just get on with enjoying the waterways and don't waste time trying to make everyone's else's lives a misery using control freakery, we've got enough of that in the land world thanks.

 

Then the problems is some areas will just keep getting worse - that's not a solution that's a defence of those who don't comply. What would be acceptable to both sides?

[b0atman]

Just wait until the local councils start getting more involved some CMers are already creating unrest with the local populace .

Councils can soon introduce local By-laws.this will the spread rapidly throughout the system and CRT will let it happen.

The abuse has gone on long enough and in my mind to some degree has accelerated because of tightening up of licence evasion whereby boats which are now legal have moved in from the sticks.

[mayalld]

 

 

What you are suggesting is that those with lots of money can do what they want - ignore the existing time limits - ignore short stay zones - in fact - moor their boat whenever and however they like - because they have money.

 

and you can bugger off with the bit in red

 

OK, in reverse order...

 

If you already obey the rules by CRT's interpretation of them, then you will have no difficulty whatsoever with a restricted licence.

 

And I'm not suggesting that those with lots of money can do as they want. I am suggesting that the legal framework that exists for the licence that CRT is OBLIGED to offer isn't fit for purpose.

 

As such, they should offer that licence only at a high cost, to discourage take-up and offer an alternative licence at a reasonable cost that comes with the conditions.

 

A full price licence (for the 7 people who choose them) wouldn't be carte blanche to overstay. It would simply be a scaling back of enforcement to (effectively) what NBTA say is enforceable.

[mrsmelly]

 

I don't want this nation to become a flock of brainless sheep.

 

Far too late mate. We have been EU members and hence Sheep for too many years already.

 

Tim

[gaggle]

OK perhaps I should, and I accept your points because I don't usually get involved in these discussions. What I am trying to understand is what would be acceptable to those who these new T&C's are aimed at. Mayalld has offered a solution, there's much criticism, but little in the way of alternatives. What do you suggest?

Show how daves master plan will free up visitor mooring that are supposedly full up with people who have no home mooring , facility moorings are full also we are told and lock landings are hard to use because of people with no home moorings, how is dave plan going to solve the problem or is it an entirely different problem he is sorting out

[matty40s]

 

 

A full price licence (for the 7 people who choose them) wouldn't be carte blanche to overstay. It would simply be a scaling back of enforcement to (effectively) what NBTA say is enforceable.

Thereby admitting that is all they are legally allowed to enforce..........

[bassplayer]

 

Far too late mate. We have been EU members and hence Sheep for too many years already.

 

Tim

What do you mean? Baa...

[mayalld]

No he hasn't offered a solution. In fact he hasn't come back and explained what problem he has which upsets the enjoyment of his boating experience.

 

Dave says himself that only a tiny few would take up the fivefold licence. By simple logic we would be back to were we are now, Most of us trying to abide and make sense of the rules and guidelines and others taking the P.

 

 

 

I have little doubt that there would still be some who do just that.

 

However, we wouldn't be right back where we are now.

 

The difference would be that those who were taking the P would no longer have the fallback of "I am complying with the Act, and you cannot compel me to do more than comply with the Act [as I interpret it]". They were presented with a choice "Standard Licence which is pure BW Act 1995" or "Restricted Licence with additional conditions". They made a choice.

Thereby admitting that is all they are legally allowed to enforce..........

 

In your opinion.

 

In mine, they simply admit that enforcing beyond that point is not cost-effective.

[MisterDave]

 

Time and again, when compliance is discussed, and it is suggested that those who don't want to cruise could get a mooring, we hear the response that they would if there were "affordable" moorings.

 

 

Surely the answer then is to solve the perceived problem and make affordable moorings available, not to turn the problem into an intractable one by making lack of mooring equally unaffordable.

 

I'm starting to think that the answer is to stop charging for linear moorings altogether, make them free, increase license fees a little for all canal users to pay for it. If it costs the same to have a mooring as it does to not have a mooring then the financial "excuse" would be removed and the only reason for cm'ing would be lack of moorings available in a geographic area.

[Delta9]

 

Far too late mate. We have been EU members and hence Sheep for too many years already.

 

Tim

Give it a rest Tim, this thread has nothing to do with the EU...

[bassplayer]

 

Then the problems is some areas will just keep getting worse - that's not a solution that's a defence of those who don't comply. What would be acceptable to both sides?

Sorry, which problems. What problems are directly affecting you? I keep asking Dave this but he seems more interested in trying to create solutions for problems which don't exist.

 

CRT can create more official paid moorings in so called problem spots like London. What an opportunity to generate more revenue. Those on the bread line can get benefits to help pay for it.

 

I'll say it again. There will always be a few P takers, there always have been and the system has not become a ghetto. That's because very few people are prepared to live on a boat. Try asking your friends and family, I have. Even those on the breadline would probably prefer a nice council flat over a small cramped boat without instant access to some utilities.

 

Why should all of our freedom be restricted by a few control freaks using lame excuses to justify their aim. I say take up train spotting and leave us alone.

[NigelMoore]

Just wait until the local councils start getting more involved some CMers are already creating unrest with the local populace .

Councils can soon introduce local By-laws.this will the spread rapidly throughout the system and CRT will let it happen.

 

 

The local Councils cannot control mooring along the banks per se; they can only control use of the boats while on any mooring – as in whether use is made for residential or commercial purposes.

 

They can make byelaws for controlling use of their own banks of course, but I seriously doubt that there will be many instances where they do own those, other than on rivers that run alongside ‘common land’ and parks etc.

[matty40s]

Give it a rest Tim, this thread has nothing to do with the EU...

 

I see you MrSmelly radar alert alarm is working today....

[Paul C]

 

 

I'm starting to think that the answer is to stop charging for linear moorings altogether, make them free, increase license fees a little for all canal users to pay for it. If it costs the same to have a mooring as it does to not have a mooring then the financial "excuse" would be removed and the only reason for cm'ing would be lack of moorings available in a geographic area.

 

Ouch! That's going to be some revenue loss, and therefore (I assume you want it to be cost-neutral for CRT) quite a hike in licence fees. Additionally, I think your point could only be valid for unserviced towpath side moorings. Any other linear mooring might additionally (as well as the mooring itself) offer services such as:

 

Rings to tie onto

Local car parking

Water

Rubbish disposal

Electricity

Offside/secure arrangements

 

BUT also, would this free mooring be anywhere in the country? There is such a massive differential in cost of moorings between London and the least desirable/most affordable areas, that to even it out nationwide would be very unfair (and lead to massive issues of congestion within the hotspots). If it were somehow made regional, then it might just work out.

[Higgs]

 

I have little doubt that there would still be some who do just that.

 

However, we wouldn't be right back where we are now.

 

The difference would be that those who were taking the P would no longer have the fallback of "I am complying with the Act, and you cannot compel me to do more than comply with the Act [as I interpret it]". They were presented with a choice "Standard Licence which is pure BW Act 1995" or "Restricted Licence with additional conditions". They made a choice.

 

In your opinion.

 

In mine, they simply admit that enforcing beyond that point is not cost-effective.

 

 

And where would CRT's legal right be to invent another class of licence? If the current legal framework, as you say, isn't fit for purpose, isn't it still all they will have? Being "back where we are now" is likely to be the position.

[matty40s]

CRT , like BW before them, and like Mayalld, think that radical new ideas, think tank sessions, changing the T&C, altering mooring times, arranging solar eclipses to tie in with licence renewals etc are necessary to move forward.

They aren't.

It is a management trait of organisations with too many managers, they have to be seen to be managing, justifying their own positions. I know, I was there for 30 years - and walked away as in the end it was a stultifying experience.

 

Use what you have already CRT, enforce it properly, fairly and consistently.

 

If there needs to be a regionalised solution for London Central, then so be it, but work with boaters (all boaters) to ensure it is workable, harmonious with the local residents, and adds value and diversity to the Canal experience in the capital.

[MtB]

If there needs to be a regionalised solution for London Central, then so be it, but work with boaters (all boaters) to ensure it is workable, harmonious with the local residents, and adds value and diversity to the Canal experience in the capital.

 

 

Blimey, can I have some of what you've been smoking this morning please, Matty?

[Marco_mark]

Blimey, can I have some of what you've been smoking this morning please, Matty?

You run your boilers on laughing gas mr joker ?

[captain birdseye]

 

.

 

I'm starting to think that the answer is to stop charging for linear moorings altogether, make them free, increase license fees a little for all canal users to pay for it. If it costs the same to have a mooring as it does to not have a mooring then the financial "excuse" would be removed and the only reason for cm'ing would be lack of moorings available in a geographic area.

If you mean non towpath linear moorings. What about the income to the landowner, only a percentage of the fee goes to CaRT. If you are talking about towpath. they are free anyway, but only for 14 days. Or do you mean permenant towpath moorings. If Cart offered these for free that would be deemed unfair competition by the marina and non towpath mooring owners surely.