Very confused over CC rules

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

to issue a 3 month license - but if you get 3 or more requests for information you would probably either be taking the pi55, pushing the limits or very, very unlucky.

 

edited cos it didn't make sense to me either

 

edited cos still ambiguous

Or like me spending time off CART waters or maybe spending a lot of time on L&L where I was not logged for 3 months

[Midnight]

Or like me spending time off CART waters or maybe spending a lot of time on L&L where I was not logged for 3 months

 

OK that too but unlucky to get an enquiry if you've been off CaRT waters (OK you may get one saying they haven't logged you if you are already in enforcement customer care).

 

If you spent a lot of time on the L&L not being logged in the same place then you couldn't really complain (I'm not suggesting you did) and IMO staying put for awhile in no-man's land isn't a great problem. Thinking back to Dean's recent issue, maybe CaRT don't worry too much about that either as they didn't bother logging him, or your good self it seems, when not in a popular mooring place.

 

I have no issue with CCers' or even CMer's providing they don't take the pi55 (must find a better expression for that) and to be honest I think CaRT have shown themselves to be pretty reasonable in these matters too.

 

Before the usual crew start labelling me I'm no big fan of CaRT but try to be fair minded in these things.

[cotswoldsman]

 

OK that too but unlucky to get an enquiry if you've been off CaRT waters (OK you may get one saying they haven't logged you if you are already in enforcement customer care).

 

If you spent a lot of time on the L&L not being logged in the same place then you couldn't really complain (I'm not suggesting you did) and IMO staying put for awhile in no-man's land isn't a great problem. Thinking back to Dean's recent issue, maybe CaRT don't worry too much about that either as they didn't bother logging him, or your good self it seems, when not in a popular mooring place.

 

I have no issue with CCers' or even CMer's providing they don't take the pi55 (must find a better expression for that) and to be honest I think CaRT have shown themselves to be pretty reasonable in these matters too.

 

Before the usual crew start labelling me I'm no big fan of CaRT but try to be fair minded in these things.

I try to be fair minded about cart but it can be difficult. Just for the record I am compliant about 14 days but not so on empty 48 hour moorings. My problem.is that cart are making a simple matter of enforcement into a very complicated process. While they work on this complicated process boaters that should never hear from enforcement are getting caught for no reason. If they concentrated on the boats that never move and then move up from there it would be far better

[Midnight]

I try to be fair minded about cart but it can be difficult. Just for the record I am compliant about 14 days but not so on empty 48 hour moorings. My problem.is that cart are making a simple matter of enforcement into a very complicated process. While they work on this complicated process boaters that should never hear from enforcement are getting caught for no reason. If they concentrated on the boats that never move and then move up from there it would be far better

 

 

Well I have to agree there. What would really help is if someone or some organisation could suggest an effective alternative to the current flawed system that would be acceptable to all concerned - "I have a dream" now who said that?

[MtB]

I try to be fair minded about cart but it can be difficult. Just for the record I am compliant about 14 days but not so on empty 48 hour moorings. My problem.is that cart are making a simple matter of enforcement into a very complicated process. While they work on this complicated process boaters that should never hear from enforcement are getting caught for no reason. If they concentrated on the boats that never move and then move up from there it would be far better

 

 

Now you've piqued my interest. I think that's the first time I've ever read you accept there is a problem in the first place that needs enforcement.

 

What would your proposal for 'simple' enforcement be, please? I can;t think of anything simple myself, given the truly dreadful wording of the law underpinning it all.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

Well I have to agree there. What would really help is if someone or some organisation could suggest an effective alternative to the current flawed system that would be acceptable to all concerned - "I have a dream" now who said that?

Yes the system.is flawed mainly because enforcement is flawed. I would like to understand from cart what there objective is and then work backwards from there. Ah well I will just sit and watch as cart continue to go round in circles inventing stuff to do while I watch those boaters on Rufford Arm continue to be ignored as the system falls to pieces

[Midnight]

 

 

Now you've piqued my interest. I think that's the first time I've ever read you accept there is a problem in the first place that needs enforcement.

 

What would your proposal for 'simple' enforcement be, please? I can;t think of anything simple myself, given the truly dreadful wording of the law underpinning it all.

 

Yes the system.is flawed mainly because enforcement is flawed. I would like to understand from cart what there objective is and then work backwards from there. Ah well I will just sit and watch as cart continue to go round in circles inventing stuff to do while I watch those boaters on Rufford Arm continue to be ignored as the system falls to pieces

 

The law is pretty basic isn't it? CCers move every 14 days (or less) to some other place (?) T&C's say home moorers do the same if not at home.

Isn't that what CaRT are trying to achieve? Given nobody seems to come up with a better system maybe this not-so-good one is all there is for now. I expect CaRT will tinker round the edges trying to make it work but will never succeed.

 

I would like to see same effort put into maintenance and inspection to minimise the Ruffords of the past few years. I would also like to see a CaRT who puts boating first - which is what I thought a Navigation Authority did.

 

 

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

The law is pretty basic isn't it? CCers move every 14 days (or less) to some other place (?) T&C's say home moorers do the same if not at home.

Isn't that what CaRT are trying to achieve? Given nobody seems to come up with a better system maybe this not-so-good one is all there is for now. I expect CaRT will tinker round the edges trying to make it work but will never succeed.

 

I would like to see same effort put into maintenance and inspection to minimise the Ruffords of the past few years. I would also like to see a CaRT who puts boating first - which is what I thought a Navigation Authority did.

 

 

I will take a wild guess here 95% of boaters are compliant or near enough to make no difference yet 75% of cart's time and meetings is taken up by the obsession on the 5% while the other 95% are ignored along with the system

[Midnight]

I will take a wild guess here 95% of boaters are compliant or near enough to make no difference yet 75% of cart's time and meetings is taken up by the obsession on the 5% while the other 95% are ignored along with the system

 

Probably correct overall but IMO this concentration on enforcement (or customer care) stems from the problems in London and south where there does seem to be a few more than 5%.

 

I have no evidence to base that assumption on other than what I read and see on various media. Others on here know better than me.

 

To suggest CaRT concentrate only on problem areas would probably get me flogged on here.

 

Nor do I subscribe to the "I pay for a mooring so you should too" brigade I have several friends who CC in a small area some who have fallen on hard times but manage to avoid "customer care".

[cotswoldsman]

 

Probably correct overall but IMO this concentration on enforcement (or customer care) stems from the problems in London and south where there does seem to be a few more than 5%.

 

I have no evidence to base that assumption on other than what I read and see on various media. Others on here know better than me.

 

To suggest CaRT concentrate only on problem areas would probably get me flogged on here.

 

Nor do I subscribe to the "I pay for a mooring so you should too" brigade I have several friends who CC in a small area some who have fallen on hard times but manage to avoid "customer care".

Concentrate your recourses where to problem is. Not on areas like the Rochdale Canal where there is no major problem

[Midnight]

Concentrate your recourses where to problem is. Not on areas like the Rochdale Canal where there is no major problem

100% agree

[mayalld]

So three inadequate logging data means it is ok to take away a licence?

Do we have a single example of a boater who has been challenged, and has advised CRT of their actual acceptable cruising pattern, but CRT have NOT accepted this?

[bassplayer]

Do we have a single example of a boater who has been challenged, and has advised CRT of their actual acceptable cruising pattern, but CRT have NOT accepted this?

I doubt it but then again if it wasn't for those who have directly confronted Parry about the subject there could be quite a few by now. At least some of us talk to the organ grinder rather than spout rubbish on a forum .

 

Sorry Dave but this is getting tedious now and I'm in one of those rant fest days..

[Tuscan]

While they work on this complicated process boaters that should never hear from enforcement are getting caught for no reason. If they concentrated on the boats that never move and then move up from there it would be far better

Totally agree indeed that's what I recall was the original intention but I'm assuming that this got lost from one power point presentation to the next.

[MtB]

Do we have a single example of a boater who has been challenged, and has advised CRT of their actual acceptable cruising pattern, but CRT have NOT accepted this?

 

 

Yes we do, that boater on the southern Oxford who came here complaining of CRT harassment about a year ago. She claimed she told CRT she was cruising Oxford to Aynho regularly but CRT asked for evidence, suggesting photos. The thread ran on for dozens of pages IIRC.

 

Word on the towpath was that she hardly moved anywhere, although I used to see her boat in various places so definitely not a militant CMer. Then it was up for sale and not seen it for ages.

[mayalld]

I doubt it but then again if it wasn't for those who have directly confronted Parry about the subject there could be quite a few by now. At least some of us talk to the organ grinder rather than spout rubbish on a forum .

 

Sorry Dave but this is getting tedious now and I'm in one of those rant fest days..

 

So I see.

 

The fact is that you can't give a single example of it happening.

 

You can grandstand that if you hadn't confronted somebody it would have happened, but you have exactly zero evidence of that claim.

[mayalld]

 

 

Yes we do, that boater on the southern Oxford who came here complaining of CRT harassment about a year ago. She claimed she told CRT she was cruising Oxford to Aynho regularly but CRT asked for evidence, suggesting photos. The thread ran on for dozens of pages IIRC.

 

Word on the towpath was that she hardly moved anywhere, although I used to see her boat in various places so definitely not a militant CMer. Then it was up for sale and not seen it for ages.

 

I recall the case.

 

It appears that her claim as to where she was cruising and the word on the towpath as to where she was cruising are at odds with each other!

 

Perhaps that is why CRT asked for evidence, because they knew that there wouldn't be any.

 

As I see it, the process is (or perhaps should be);

• Does CRT sighting data show compliance? If yes, accept that movement is OK, and stop.
• Ask boater to supplement CRT data with details of their movements.
• If boater data indicates sufficient movement, and is consistent with CRT observations of the boat, AND observations at the claimed locations, accept that movement is OK, and stop.
• If boater data is inconsistent with CRT data (i.e. boater claims to have been in one location, when CRT have observed them elsewhere at that time, or boater claims to have been somewhere, but that location was logged by CRT that day and the boat wasn't logged), ask boater for evidence.

[bassplayer]

 

So I see.

 

The fact is that you can't give a single example of it happening.

 

You can grandstand that if you hadn't confronted somebody it would have happened, but you have exactly zero evidence of that claim.

There is plenty of evidence on here that lots of boaters are unhappy with CRT's T&C's and handling of data. Maybe that has escaped you.

 

It's good that some people try to prevent problems before they start surely. Prevention is better than a cure. Some people seem to like inventing a cure for something which isn't a problem!

[Murflynn]

There is plenty of evidence on here that lots of boaters are unhappy with CRT's T&C's ............

do you mean they don't like the obligations they are required to meet - like having to Continuously Cruise?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

There is plenty of evidence on here that lots of boaters are unhappy with CRT's T&C's and handling of data. Maybe that has escaped you.

It's good that some people try to prevent problems before they start surely. Prevention is better than a cure. Some people seem to like inventing a cure for something which isn't a problem!

It's perhaps just one example of why boaters feel the CaRT does not respect them.

[carlt]

I was off to the Farne Islands today but it's raining so I will try to spend as much time in Barter Books as my youngest will allow instead.

[John V]

It's perhaps just one example of why boaters feel the CaRT does not respect them.

 

Hmmmm ! sometimes it might be an example of boaters who don't respect the system

[bassplayer]

do you mean they don't like the obligations they are required to meet - like having to Continuously Cruise?

No, I mean creating rules whuch are not backed up by law. I'm sure there will be those who don't agree with the law too (that might be harder to justify but not necessarily always wrong).

[mayalld]

There is plenty of evidence on here that lots of boaters are unhappy with CRT's T&C's and handling of data. Maybe that has escaped you.

 

It's good that some people try to prevent problems before they start surely. Prevention is better than a cure. Some people seem to like inventing a cure for something which isn't a problem!

 

Yes, I can see that some people are unhappy.

 

I can also see that in many cases, the people who are unhappiest are the same people who want to not obey the rules.

 

They aren't simply unhappy about the data collection and being asked for their own data. That is more a proxy for their unhappiness

 

They are actually unhappy that the rules are being enforced, and their lack of joy is because they are well aware that if CRT have a workable solution to actually knowing whether they cruise or not, enforcement of the rules they want to go away will be possible.

[bassplayer]

 

Hmmmm ! sometimes it might be an example of boaters who don't respect the system

Goes without saying really. If you upset people they lose respect.

 

I suppose this leads onto who started it? Was it CM'ers or was it a desire by a few individuals to use them as an excuse to cleanse the waterways of 'undesirables'.

 

BTW, I don't have an answer.