Very confused over CC rules

[mayalld]

Just a thought. Why don't CRT ask the elusive boats registered owner where his boat is?

 

He's obviously 'on the radar'. Surely,for his own sake he should stop playing games with CRT. All this monitoring 'is' a pain in the posterior but someone thought it necessary to stop long term 'unofficial' moorers at prime spots. There can't be many remaining. But it is a little petty and not very conducive to the nature of a relaxed boating life.

 

I think that this is exactly what they are doing.

 

Or rather they are asking where he has been.

 

Thinking about my neck of the woods, they know where the hotspots are;

 

Bugsworth

Whaley Bridge

Furness Vale

Marple

Poynton

Whitley Green

Gurnett

 

So they monitor them regularly, and the non-movers have moved away.

 

The trouble is that instead of doing what they signed up for (bona fide navigation throughout), they have simply pitched up in other places where the monitoring isn't happening as often.

 

That means that such a boat might have been logged in the same place a month apart, and nowhere else.

 

CRT aren't concluding that they are breaking the rules, simply that they have no evidence of compliance.

 

It is for the boater to show compliance. If CRT data sactually shows compliance, they don't ask for evidence. If it doesn't show compliance, they ask for evidence.

 

Simple

[lampini]

Has anyone used the "GPS Log Lite" app for iphone? I'm just about to test it out for myself. There's a website called geospike.com which will sync with your phone and obviously you can add photos..

 

So if i were to add a photo of my (future!) boat - would it be tagged with gps? Would that constitute proper "evidence" for CRT? Great if it would as it's free!

[Ricco1]

A couple of things here: Yes, the boater 'must satisfy the board'. The process CRT have set up to decide whether a boater gives them satisfaction or not is data logging. Every 2 weeks, on every mile of the network, they say. If this is failing, as seems to be the case, it should be for CRT to establish a new system. If not a new system, they could ask all boats under enforcement to phone them when they move, for example. It would be interesting to see whether a judge considered it reasonable, and legal, for an organisation to assume guilt, the assumption resulting from the failing of their own systems and processes.

 

Secondly: There seem to be places on the system that aren't logged. Perhaps boaters could share this information, enabling others to once again have freedom within their chosen lifestyle. If CRT can't be bothered to check these areas it's reasonable to assume that they don't care about them.

[bassplayer]

 

It is for the boater to show compliance. If CRT data sactually shows compliance, they don't ask for evidence. If it doesn't show compliance, they ask for evidence.

 

Simple

Ok. May I suggest we only moor up on popular VM's to ensure CRT have an accurate record of our movements. There you go. Simple.

 

Sorry hire boaters and day trippers but it's the only way we can stay off the radar.

[Ricco1]

 

I think that this is exactly what they are doing.

 

Or rather they are asking where he has been.

 

Thinking about my neck of the woods, they know where the hotspots are;

 

Bugsworth

Whaley Bridge

Furness Vale

Marple

Poynton

Whitley Green

Gurnett

 

So they monitor them regularly, and the non-movers have moved away.

 

The trouble is that instead of doing what they signed up for (bona fide navigation throughout), they have simply pitched up in other places where the monitoring isn't happening as often.

 

That means that such a boat might have been logged in the same place a month apart, and nowhere else.

 

CRT aren't concluding that they are breaking the rules, simply that they have no evidence of compliance.

 

It is for the boater to show compliance. If CRT data sactually shows compliance, they don't ask for evidence. If it doesn't show compliance, they ask for evidence.

 

Simple

 

But then: the new enforcement regime apparently began because some boats were hogging popular areas, causing resentment from other boaters. These boats have moved on now, to less popular areas, therefore there is no problem any more. The new enforcement process has been a success, there is no need for any further enforcement.

[David Schweizer]

 

I think that this is exactly what they are doing.

 

Or rather they are asking where he has been.

 

Thinking about my neck of the woods, they know where the hotspots are;

 

Bugsworth

Whaley Bridge

Furness Vale

Marple

Poynton

Whitley Green

Gurnett

 

So they monitor them regularly, and the non-movers have moved away.

 

The trouble is that instead of doing what they signed up for (bona fide navigation throughout), they have simply pitched up in other places where the monitoring isn't happening as often.

 

That means that such a boat might have been logged in the same place a month apart, and nowhere else.

 

CRT aren't concluding that they are breaking the rules, simply that they have no evidence of compliance.

 

It is for the boater to show compliance. If CRT data sactually shows compliance, they don't ask for evidence. If it doesn't show compliance, they ask for evidence.

 

Simple

 

Precisely, and that is what I predicted would happen two years ago when CaRT started to become more pro-active about moving boats which were overstaying. We have noticed, particul;arly this year, that it is no longer that difficult to find a mooring space at the "popular! places, but all the isolated rural places that we like, are becoming increasingly occupied by long term moorers, making finding a space at those places difficult, if not impossible.

 

Eventually CaRT may realise that the mooring pattern of overstayers is changing, and perhaps start monitoring the more isolated locations with greater frequently. Where will they all go then?

 

But then: the new enforcement regime apparently began because some boats were hogging popular areas, causing resentment from other boaters. These boats have moved on now, to less popular areas, therefore there is no problem any more. The new enforcement process has been a success, there is no need for any further enforcement.

 

In who's opinion?

Edited August 21, 2015 by David Schweizer

[Guest]

I am getting more and more confused over C&RT's licencing rules and reading another thread. On the other thread the boater has been told that C&RT can't find him on the water. It seems they issued a 3 month licence because he wasn't cruising enough and now they can't check his cruising pattern because they can't find him. They tell him that if his cruising pattern is ok at the end of his 3 months they will issue a new licence otherwise he must take up a home mooring.

Not too long ago it seems that C&RT were saying that cruising rules are the same for home moorers as it is for CCers. In other words a home moorer still has to cruise and not loiter around.

If this is the case then why do C&RT insist on issuing a 3 month licence unless the boater takes a home mooring. The CCer who is not moving enough would still fall foul even if he had a home mooring.

It does seem the C&RT are not sure what the rules are so they invent something to get round the situation.

If you are confused about cc requirements this is the very last place to seek clarity.

[DHutch]

Surely he just needs to tell its not the moon, hence is not subject to their enforcement:

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/joe-lycett-told-the-best-ever-story-about-parking-fines-on-8-out-of-10-cats-does-countdown

 

 

Daniel

[Ricco1]

 

Precisely, and that is what I predicted would happen two years ago when CaRT started to become more pro-active about moving boats which were overstaying. We have noticed, particul;arly this year, that it is no longer that difficult to find a mooring space at the "popular! places, but all the isolated rural places that we like, are becoming increasingly occupied by long term moorers, making finding a space at those places difficult, if not impossible.

 

Eventually CaRT may realise that the mooring pattern of overstayers is changing, and perhaps start monitoring the more isolated locations with greater frequently. Where will they all go then?

 

In who's opinion?

 

Whose opinion? Common sense I guess. There is a finite amount of towpath, and a reasonably fixed number of boats. All boats have to moor somewhere. If those moving less choose less popular areas that can only be to the benefit of all. If they suddenly decide to cruise around the country, still mooring in less popular areas, it will make no difference whatsoever to anyone's enjoyment of the system.

 

Of course you could always counter this with 'rules are rules'.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Ricco1

[mayalld]

A couple of things here: Yes, the boater 'must satisfy the board'. The process CRT have set up to decide whether a boater gives them satisfaction or not is data logging. Every 2 weeks, on every mile of the network, they say. If this is failing, as seems to be the case, it should be for CRT to establish a new system. If not a new system, they could ask all boats under enforcement to phone them when they move, for example. It would be interesting to see whether a judge considered it reasonable, and legal, for an organisation to assume guilt, the assumption resulting from the failing of their own systems and processes.

 

You say "the process CRT have set up" as if there must be a single process.

 

Data logging is one part of the process.

[Ricco1]

 

You say "the process CRT have set up" as if there must be a single process.

 

Data logging is one part of the process.

 

Yes I should have said: "data logging is the only tool used by CRT to identify boat movements before considering the wider enforcement process"

[jenlyn]

 

 

 

Data logging is one part of the process.

Indeed, and let's face it, a very fundamental part of the process, but it's proving to be pretty useless.

A fail in this, relates to fails through the process as a whole.

[mayalld]

 

Whose opinion? Common sense I guess. There is a finite amount of towpath, and a reasonably fixed number of boats. All boats have to moor somewhere.

 

 

Your argument falls apart, because one of its core assumptions is wrong.

 

All boats may have to moor "somewhere", but not all boats have to moor to the public towpath all the time.

 

A significant number of boats have home moorings, which means that they are only actually mooring to the towpath for a part of the time.

 

Let us go back to why most boats have a home mooring.

 

In essence, it is because if everybody who decided that they disdn't fancy paying for a mooring decided to just moor to the towpath (even if they did it out in the sticks), there would be an awful lot of boats moored to the towpath. It simply isn't workable.

 

So, we have rules that say (effectively) "you have to have a home mooring, unless your cruising pattern is such that you couldn't use a home mooring"

 

Then we get the chancers, who say "well, I don't want to pay for a mooring, but I don't want to cruise. I'm moored here out of the way not causing a problem for anybody"

 

Where is the problem with that?

 

The problem is that this only works if most of the people who would rather not pay for a mooring actually do pay for a mooring.

 

The CMer out in the sticks is only not causing a problem because other people obey the same rules he exempts himself from.

[Ricco1]

[Tony Dunkley]

What is very clear is that the greatest confusion exists within C&RT itself.

They have so completely lost sight of the purpose of enforcement that it has become something that is now being exercised in the hope that the targeted victim will provide them with sufficient self damning evidence for them to refuse a Licence for a boat that they haven't seen breaking any rules, and the whereabouts of which are a complete mystery to them.

Were the consequences of this not so potentially serious for the targeted victim, then it would be laughable. Only in the crazy world of C&RT can being inconspicuous and unseen land you in so much trouble.

However this is no joke, and we cannot ignore the fact that the C&RT wished for, and intended, outcome of this is that someone will lose their home and property in the complete absence of any provable wrongdoing.

A disturbing number of members of this Forum seem to find this wholly acceptable.

[David Schweizer]

 

Whose opinion? Common sense I guess. There is a finite amount of towpath, and a reasonably fixed number of boats. All boats have to moor somewhere. If those moving less choose less popular areas that can only be to the benefit of all. If they suddenly decide to cruise around the country, still mooring in less popular areas, it will make no difference whatsoever to anyone's enjoyment of the system.

 

Of course you could always counter this with 'rules are rules'.

 

The problem is the definition "less popular", less popular with whom? Hirers,probably, and people wanting to stop near a town or pub. However, for many, isolated rural places are very poular with those who enjoy the open countryside. At one time it was comparatively easy to find an overnight mooring in such locations, but this is becomeing increasingly more difficult,as they become more routinely occupied by long term moorers,

 

For example, five years ago it was possible to find a an overnight mooring at a many open country locations between Napton Junction and Braunston, but nowadays the number of places have been limited to just one, which is beyond reasonable walking distance from a road bridge. Ironicly it is now much easier to get a space on the 14 day moorings in Braunston (if that is what you want!!)

Edited August 21, 2015 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

 

For example, five years ago it was possible to find a an overnight mooring at a many open country locations between Napton Junction and Braunston, but nowadays the number of places have been limited to just one, which is beyond reasonable walking distance from a road bridge. Ironicly it is now much easier to get a space on the 14 day moorings in Braunston (if that is what you want!!)

What an utter load of rubbish! That is so annoying seeing this drivel.

I have done that route 4 times this year, the only problems I had mooring, were from bad vegetation management, and silted canal. Boats were hardly noticeable.

It's exactly this sort of wild spurious junk uttered by the likes of you that helps muddy the waters.

What a disgusting statement!

[bassplayer]

 

The problem is the definition "less popular", less popular with whom? Hirers,probably, and people wanting to stop near a town or pub. However, for many, isolated rural places are very poular with those who enjoy the open countryside. At one time it was comparatively easy to find an overnight mooring in such locations, but this is becomeing increasingly more difficult,as they become more routinely occupied by long term moorers,

 

For example, five years ago it was possible to find a an overnight mooring at a many open country locations between Napton Junction and Braunston, but nowadays the number of places have been limited to just one, which is beyond reasonable walking distance from a road bridge. Ironicly it is now much easier to get a space on the 14 day moorings in Braunston (if that is what you want!!)

That stretch is lovely. Loads of places to moor up overnight on piling if you don't like pins. Mooring near a pub, or access to your car, maybe not.

 

I suppose it depends what floats your boat.

[jenlyn]

That stretch is lovely. Loads of places to moor up overnight on piling if you don't like pins. Mooring near a pub, or access to your car, maybe not.

 

I suppose it depends what floats your boat.

In this case, I doubt it floats outside of his marina, at least for the last 5 years anyway.

When I travelled through the area last week, I only came across three, moored in the whole stretch.

Some just like to stretch the truth I think.

[Tuscan]

The major problem we have in mooring in remote areas is lack of depth and overgrown vegetation it is rarely other boats.

[valrene9600]

The bit I don't quite get is....

 

If he hasn't been recorded much in the past 3 months, wouldn't that in itself suggest that he has indeed been moving about.

 

Yes, I appreciate the boat may not even be on CRT waters and maybe that is why they haven't much data collected on it, but if that's the case then they have no worries of movement anyway.

 

For example, I asked for a record of our sightings in Feb and they sent me the info they had from the previous 6 months. It showed very few sightings for Aug - Nov. Now during that period we were moving regularly every 3 - 5 days, then from Dec - Feb there were quite regular sightings, but during that period of time we were moving every 10 - 14 days.

 

So I took that as implying the more frequently you move the less you are sighted. Hence, I don't understand why they seem concerned about not having enough data to make a decision about renewing his license. Even if they only have one or two records for the 3 months, if he's not been sighted in the same location than surly that would mean he's been moving.

 

I do find it quite confusing myself.

I would like to know if sightings are recorded if the boat is MOVING.

If not then a boat moving frequently will be less likely to be moored when a boat checker comes by.

Boats should be recorded moving or not in my opinion. It leads to more accurate records.

[bassplayer]

The major problem we have in mooring in remote areas is lack of depth and overgrown vegetation it is rarely other boats.

That's when you utilse your plank. Having said that there were a few spots on the Ashby I wasn't even sure I was going to navigate through because of depth..

[valrene9600]

The problem is the definition "less popular", less popular with whom? Hirers,probably, and people wanting to stop near a town or pub. However, for many, isolated rural places are very poular with those who enjoy the open countryside. At one time it was comparatively easy to find an overnight mooring in such locations, but this is becomeing increasingly more difficult,as they become more routinely occupied by long term moorers,

 

For example, five years ago it was possible to find a an overnight mooring at a many open country locations between Napton Junction and Braunston, but nowadays the number of places have been limited to just one, which is beyond reasonable walking distance from a road bridge. Ironicly it is now much easier to get a space on the 14 day moorings in Braunston (if that is what you want!!)

Not quite sure what your saying. There are stacks of places to moor betwee napton and Braunston. Do you mean near road bridge for cars to be parked. If so yes one bridge comes to mind that is always full of boats but it's not really a visitor hotspot.

How often do you pass this area?

Edited August 21, 2015 by valrene9600

[David Schweizer]

Not quite sure what your saying. There are stacks of places to moor betwee napton and Braunston. Do you mean near road bridge for cars to be parked. If so yes one bridge comes to mind that is always full of boats but it's not really a visitor hotspot.

How often do you pass this area?

 

Frequently. Our mooring is at Napton Junction, how often do you pass through?

 

That stretch is lovely. Loads of places to moor up overnight on piling if you don't like pins. Mooring near a pub, or access to your car, maybe not.

 

I suppose it depends what floats your boat.

 

Yes I agree, and there is usually plenty of space, but when we passed through a few weeks ago, the only place with any space was Woolfhampcote.

[bassplayer]

 

Frequently. Our mooring is at Napton Junction, how often do you pass through?

 

 

Yes I agree, and there is usually plenty of space, but when we passed through a few weeks ago, the only place with any space was Woolfhampcote.

Sounds like the the same sample rate as CRT use in enforcement to me...