CRT's new agenda ?

[KarlosMacronius]

You should perhaps read the text I was replying too also.

 

"If the newcomers feel persecuted and leave the cut who will we pass it onto? who will stop it being filled in and turned into flats? of course that might not affect you or even me so why care?"

 

Then my response

 

I should imagine it will be those who have a genuine interest in the waterways and boating, rather then those seeking cheap accommodation

 

Now where does that imply that people who don't know anything about boats can't try it?

 

What it does imply is that those who genuinely do enjoy boats and boating will be the ones who go forward in years to come. Those who look at it soley as a cheap way to live and have little interest in the lifestyle will fall beside the wayside and move on, as we so often see on here.

 

My point is that the two groups are not mutually exclusive. Someone may come to the water solely for cheap living with no interest in anything else related to the canal but then develop an interest/passion for the waterways that would otherwise not have existed.

[mark99]

My point is not largely invalid at all.

My point was looking to the future and aimed at those weekend marina dwellers who go out cruising to the nearest village pub every weekend they get the chance.

....and the real CC-ers who get to Oxford, or Little Venice, or Banbury and find the entire place is now 48 hour moorings due to CRT pint in a pub decision making.

 

Been to all those three this year and only a "weekender" with home mooring

[AndrewIC]

Its mystery to me what their agenda actually is in all of this.

(a) Making money from moorings, and ( a quiet life.

 

I don't believe CRT have any great interest in pursuing boaters through the courts in large numbers in prosecution of a badly drafted and ambiguous piece of legislation. It's a mugs game and costs a lot of money. Nor do I believe they have any great interest in tracking the positions of large numbers of boats, nor with any accuracy. That's also a mugs game, difficult to do without an army of spotters, or significant amounts of technology, and would cost a lot of money.

 

So what's going on? On the one hand, CRT want to make money. On the other hand, they are getting it in the neck from certain quarters about the "problems" caused by a subset of boats. Some of those problems may be real, some imagined, some very localised, but it gives the perfect excuse that "something must be done".

 

I think CRT realise they are stuck with the legislation they have. A new Waterways Act doesn't seem to be on the cards, so they can't abolish that part of the act relied on by "continuous cruisers" (inverted commas only because that term does not appear in the acts). What they can do is make life as difficult as possible for anyone who tries to rely on that legislation, in the hope that all but the hardiest will give in, take the path of least resistance and pay for a mooring, either direct to CRT, or preferably via an operator with an NAA to pay (well, in theory anyway!) That's what the current "enforcement" regime is about, not moving people on, but selling them a mooring, and being seen to do something about the "problems" as a bonus.

 

Incomplete, inaccurate and (according to another thread) increasingly difficult to obtain sighting data is beneficial to wearing those boaters down, as it puts the onus on the boater to do the data gathering, challenge errors, and generally justify their behaviour. So is the gradation of increasingly threatening letters, and some high profile court cases "pour encourager les autres". Are you sure you wouldn't like a nice official mooring instead if all that aggro? Sign here....

 

Of course some people probably think I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist...

[onionbargee]

I did put in my original post a warning about repeating the " tough, the rules are the rules" crap, I was thinking of nicknorman when I put that in. How right I was in hindsight.

[AndrewIC]

Dupe, sorry.

Edited June 16, 2015 by AndrewIC

[MtB]

I think AndrewlC is pretty close to the mark.

 

In one of my (rare) discussions with CRT when I needed to overstay slightly the person I spoke to rather unguardedly said "you didn't really need to call as you have a home mooring. We're not that worried about boats with home moorings", or something along those lines. Took me aback somewhat.

[Tony Dunkley]

I think AndrewlC is pretty close to the mark.

 

In one of my (rare) discussions with CRT when I needed to overstay slightly the person I spoke to rather unguardedly said "you didn't really need to call as you have a home mooring. We're not that worried about boats with home moorings", or something along those lines. Took me aback somewhat.

 

Certainly an interesting remark . . . . was it made by someone in the 'Enforcement Team' or by a telephonist at the Martian call centre ?

[kris88]

Nick my own personal circumstances have no bearing on what is happening nationally.

It doesn't stop the fact that we are rapidly sleep walking into a " linear theme park." Boaters like yourself, you have enjoyed the waterways have a duty to help protect them for future generations to enjoy. The " I'm alright jack" attitude you display on a regular basis is you running away from your responsibilities.

 

Plenty of posts on here that disagree with you. Maybe you should have gone to Specsavers?

As for this comment, what a well thought out educated argument you put forward. Are you 6 or 60 ?

 

Regards kris

[MtB]

It doesn't stop the fact that we are rapidly sleep walking into a " linear theme park." Boaters like yourself, you have enjoyed the waterways have a duty to help protect them for future generations to enjoy. The " I'm alright jack" attitude you display on a regular basis is you running away from your responsibilities.

 

 

The whole point of the policy of turning the waterways into a linear theme park IS to protect them for future generations. You should be supporting this policy as increased usage is the only way the canals will survive.

 

Sound to me as though you want to exclude anyone not using them for boating. Or do I have that wrong?

[jenlyn]

 

 

The whole point of the policy of turning the waterways into a linear theme park IS to protect them for future generations. You should be supporting this policy as increased usage is the only way the canals will survive.

 

Sound to me as though you want to exclude anyone not using them for boating. Or do I have that wrong?

Does not look like he is saying that from where I am sitting.

[larkshall]

Alas Mike you are right. Methinks though there ought to be a better way.

[MtB]

Alas Mike you are right. Methinks though there ought to be a better way.

 

 

What do you reckon it is?

[nicknorman]

Nick my own personal circumstances have no bearing on what is happening nationally.

It doesn't stop the fact that we are rapidly sleep walking into a " linear theme park." Boaters like yourself, you have enjoyed the waterways have a duty to help protect them for future generations to enjoy. The " I'm alright jack" attitude you display on a regular basis is you running away from your responsibilities.

 

As for this comment, what a well thought out educated argument you put forward. Are you 6 or 60 ?

Regards kris

I don't have anything against you personally, and doubt whether your "personal circumstances" are in any way anti-social due to your location. My point is that it does seem that when you look closely at those who are making the most noise about the current situation, they often turn out to be those who could be regarded as "taking the piss" by not complying with the spirit of the legislation and/or the deal they signed up to when they took out the licence. The vast majority of leisure boaters or people who live on their boats and cruise the system (what I would call "genuine continuous cruisers" - and let's not have another argument about that!) never have a problem. The problems mostly seem to arise from people who want to live on their boat, without a mooring, and whilst staying in a smallish area typically due to work commitments etc.

 

It is these people who are faced with a change of regime and, I agree, attempts by CRT to control them which are questionably legal. However the alternative of no control over liveaboard CMers results in concentrations of permanently moored boats in areas that are very nice to live and work in and/or where accommodation is very expensive. This means the clogging up of popular areas such that visiting boaters are reluctant to venture there. It boils down to whether you want to have the canals as a historical transport system with freedom to roam and stop a while, or whether you want some areas to become choked linear housing estates where "navigation" is not countenanced. Personally I want the former, but that is not the same as a "linear theme park".

 

In you case, you have had some pretty light-handed interventions from CRT and have fully exploited their reluctance to enforce, so I am really not sure what it is you are so upset about.

 

Nick, aged 6.

Edited June 16, 2015 by nicknorman

[homer2911]

 

 

What do you reckon it is?

 

C&RT to scrap all mooring fees, except of course for the 'home' moorings that they control, and increase everyone's licence fee to make up the resultant shortfall. Voila! No need to spend time and resources counting up the miles that the CC'ers are travelling. At a stroke, Continuous Moorers, Marina dwellers, and genuine CC'ers alike are paying a fair share of the costs of running the waterways. Overcome the linear housing estates problem with rigidly enforced overstay limits.

Edited June 16, 2015 by homer2911

[Dave_P]

There's a rather large elephant in the room here. Andrew alluded to it earlier. The tired old cm'er v cc'er arguments help with a 'divide and rule agenda' but don't help much in any way that matters.

 

The elephant is the yawning chasm in CRTs financial projections over the next few years. CRT need more money. Recruiting 'friends' has largely been a failure. Ramping up enforcement with a view to increasing revenue from fines or mooring fees is another strategy. I have my concerns about the changes in approach but overall, I just hope some money is found from somewhere or this issue will end up affecting each and every boater. There are worrying times ahead and throwing muck around at other boaters who live differently to you really doesn't help.

 

Sorry to get political, but if you're a boater who claims to care about our waterways and you voted tory, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Who's to blame? Well, lots of people:

 

• BW for allowing an unsustainable enforcement culture to grow.
• CRT for attempting to over-step their legal powers.
• Non-compliant cc'ers for forcing CRT's hand.
• Some marina boaters who have allowed CRT to feel empowered to over-step their powers.
• The government who have failed to recognise the value of the waterways to our country and the wider community, and removed state funding as part of an ideological drive towards austerity.
• Shoosmiths for being a bunch of parasitical lawyers.
• Me, for not helping fill the funding gap by becoming a 'friend'.

[dmr]

The people of Birmingham and the Black country have a funny accent but otherwise do talk a lot of sense!

And a lot of people, not just boaters, should be ashamed for voting Tory!

 

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

[cuthound]

Ramping up enforcement with a view to increasing revenue from fines or mooring fees is another strategy.

Not much of a revenue generating strategy if it forces everyone to comply with the posted time limits

 

Edited to put the square bracket back that it had accidentally deleted.

Edited June 16, 2015 by cuthound

[Dave_P]

Not much of a revenue generating strategy if it forces everyone to comply with the posted time limits

 

Edited to put the square bracket back that it had accidentally deleted.

Do you think that's what will happen? More likely, surely, is that some will comply, some will find moorings and some will get fined.

 

Having said that, CRT do have a long track record of poor strategies...

The people of Birmingham and the Black country have a funny accent but otherwise do talk a lot of sense!

And a lot of people, not just boaters, should be ashamed for voting Tory!

 

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

If that was for me, then thanks - I think! Although I'm a born and raised cockerney who's been moonlighting as a midlander for the last 15 years...when I'm 'back daan saarf' I get told i sound like a brummie now though...

Edited June 16, 2015 by Dave_P

[cuthound]

Do you think that's what will happen? More likely, surely, is that some will comply, some will find moorings and some will get fined.

I agree, but if it happens and compared to the present, CRT will consider it a successful strategy, as it will have reduced the number of overstayers.

[churchward]

 

There's a rather large elephant in the room here. Andrew alluded to it earlier. The tired old cm'er v cc'er arguments help with a 'divide and rule agenda' but don't help much in any way that matters.

 

The elephant is the yawning chasm in CRTs financial projections over the next few years. CRT need more money. Recruiting 'friends' has largely been a failure. Ramping up enforcement with a view to increasing revenue from fines or mooring fees is another strategy. I have my concerns about the changes in approach but overall, I just hope some money is found from somewhere or this issue will end up affecting each and every boater. There are worrying times ahead and throwing muck around at other boaters who live differently to you really doesn't help.

 

Sorry to get political, but if you're a boater who claims to care about our waterways and you voted tory, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Who's to blame? Well, lots of people:

 

• BW for allowing an unsustainable enforcement culture to grow.
• CRT for attempting to over-step their legal powers.
• Non-compliant cc'ers for forcing CRT's hand.
• Some marina boaters who have allowed CRT to feel empowered to over-step their powers.
• The government who have failed to recognise the value of the waterways to our country and the wider community, and removed state funding as part of an ideological drive towards austerity.
• Shoosmiths for being a bunch of parasitical lawyers.
• Me, for not helping fill the funding gap by becoming a 'friend'.

 

All good points I think but even though I didn't vote Tory I am not convinced that makes much difference. I don't think any of the other parties Labour or Liberal would be any more interested in changing the way CRT (or whatever inland waterway organisation is created) is funded.

 

I do agree though that funding is or should be a key issue for everyone who cares about the waterways. Whatever government is in power needs to be convinced that a grant is required ongoing for the finances to add up and it really is the only way that everyone who may potentially use the waterways helps to fairly fund it in some way.

Edited June 16, 2015 by churchward

[Dave_P]

I agree, but if it happens and compared to the present, CRT will consider it a successful strategy, as it will have reduced the number of overstayers.

I would expect that the success of the strategy will only be judged on whether it helps to fill CRTs coffers. Targetting overstayers is a means to an end, not an end in itself. This has been discussed ad infinitum on here.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Dave_P

[Dave_P]

All good points I think but even though I didn't vote Tory I am not convinced that makes much difference. I don't think any of the other parties Labour or Liberal would be any more interested in changing the way CRT (or whatever inland waterway organisation is created) is funded.

 

I do agree though that funding is or should be a key issue for everyone who cares about the waterways. Whatever government is in power needs to be convinced that a grant is required ongoing for the finances to add up and it really is the only way that everyone who may potentially use the waterways helps to fairly fund it in some way.

I don't remember any labour government off-loading the responisibilties of British Waterways to a charity? As to what a possible future labour government might do, that depends to a fair extent on who the new leader might be. A genuine labour man or woman might well embark on a programme of re-nationalisation. CRT might well be on that list.

[bassplayer]

...by not complying with the spirit of the legislation and/or the deal they signed up to when they took out the licence.

 

....The problems mostly seem to arise from people who want to live on their boat, without a mooring, and whilst staying in a smallish area typically due to work commitments etc.

 

Same old rhetoric...I noticed you avoided answering my questions in my previous post (Post 9). You've also swept past the point that CRT have moved the goal posts since many of us bought a boat to live on and/or travel in.

 

What commitments do you think are reasonable to qualify as a 'proper CC'er'? Have no friends or family?

 

How far do you need to go to qualify as 'exploring and enjoying the system'?

 

I doubt any criteria for being a CC'er would satisfy you because you're simply jealous of our life style. It's like listening to a stuck record...

[Dave Clinton]

 

There's a rather large elephant in the room here. Andrew alluded to it earlier. The tired old cm'er v cc'er arguments help with a 'divide and rule agenda' but don't help much in any way that matters.

 

The elephant is the yawning chasm in CRTs financial projections over the next few years. CRT need more money. Recruiting 'friends' has largely been a failure. Ramping up enforcement with a view to increasing revenue from fines or mooring fees is another strategy. I have my concerns about the changes in approach but overall, I just hope some money is found from somewhere or this issue will end up affecting each and every boater. There are worrying times ahead and throwing muck around at other boaters who live differently to you really doesn't help.

 

Sorry to get political, but if you're a boater who claims to care about our waterways and you voted tory, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Who's to blame? Well, lots of people:

 

• BW for allowing an unsustainable enforcement culture to grow.
• CRT for attempting to over-step their legal powers.
• Non-compliant cc'ers for forcing CRT's hand.
• Some marina boaters who have allowed CRT to feel empowered to over-step their powers.
• The government who have failed to recognise the value of the waterways to our country and the wider community, and removed state funding as part of an ideological drive towards austerity.
• Shoosmiths for being a bunch of parasitical lawyers.
• Me, for not helping fill the funding gap by becoming a 'friend'.

 

 

 

You've forgotten the immensely influential and powerful leisure business lobby James Wyvern, APCO et al for whom Dame Sally Ash works and used her position to push their interests. They should not be underestimated.

 

And how about the IWA with their inflammatory rhetoric?

[bassplayer]

You've forgotten the immensely influential and powerful leisure business lobby James Wyvern, APCO et al for whom Dame Sally Ash works and used her position to push their interests. They should not be underestimated.

 

And how about the IWA with their inflammatory rhetoric?

Yes, it seems they were both in bed with RP...I mean in a purely political sense of course....