Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 10:48:16 GMT
The south east waterways are seeing what I can only describe as price fixing on moorings, with £8,500 as the standard starting figure. Some can scoff and suggest I'm paranoid, but price fixing moorings has been rife for the last 4-5 years. CRT and the marinas between them set prices and have no competition or overseers. It's nothing to do with "market forces". I've previously written to local MPs on the issue, and received patronising replies that mean they will do nothing. It is a fit subject for government to review, if the will to do so ever emerges. BW were subjected to 2 reviews by the ‘ Monopolies & Mergers Committee’ (1987 & 1994), which saw some (minor) changes made to management policies. Not that BW were incapable of cynically twisting and side-stepping recommendations. The most outrageous reaction was to the initial criticism of the bonus schemes, which the MMC recommended be abolished. BW accordingly abolished it for the workers, but then implemented it for the bossesl, with the management staff setting their own ‘personal performance targets’ for which they would be rewarded. The most outrageous example was probably that of Bensted (subsequently persuaded to retire with a golden handshake and an OBE). Following public accusations of improper exercise of powers from myself and quite a few others concerned with the London scene, for the year 2008/8 he set himself the goal, amongst a couple of other items) to “ Work with the Marketing and Communications Director to subdue criticism of BWL management by a small group of individuals”. Note the mind-set - to subdue criticism rather than to address it. For that he was rewarded (despite lack of success) with a bonus of £21,250, bringing his total income for the year to £171,510. For the same year Nigel Johnson was awarded £23,800 for reaching his target for drafting new byelaws, even though in sworn evidence in court he revealed little to no knowledge of that which he had evidently left to his staff to do for him. The M&MC was replaced in 1999 by the ‘ Competition Committee’, which was itself closed on April Fool’s Day 2014, and its functions transferred to the ‘ Competition and Markets Authority’. At least the last provides an avenue for anyone to report a perceived problem to them, online – www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problemAs I’ve probably mentioned before, my direct correspondence with a few MP’s (and CEO’s) over the years has shown me that their role seems to be no more than acting as a sponge between the public and TPTB. Basically you just get fobbed off with cleverly formed words. Money seems to be the only thing which talks these days and in a sense, the only thing which really makes people stand up and notice are public demonstrations on the street. Even then the media is manipulated to virtually water canon down the effects of such demonstrations. What worries me, especially with the Brexit debaticle and the increasing public mistrust of politicians on all sides, is that we a have a tightly wound spring about to burst. While our system is still measured purely in monetary terms (stock market etc), and the financial divide created between TPTB and the general public continues to get wider, how long can that spring hold it’s tension?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 11:47:55 GMT
I'm not a inland waterways boater anymore, I used to be and I miss it. I have been entertaining the fantasy of returning to a canal boat home, but sadly thats all it is - a fantasy. But even if it was a realistic option, the current political climate is alarming. CR&T are clearly a bunch of lying underhand bastards with a barely-hidden secondary agenda - get rid of as many liveaboard boats as possible. And the apparent success of 24hr moorings on the Thames policed by a out-sourced company on a contract is only going to go one way. There's too much money to be had in persecuting cc'ers. The NBTA seem to be something of a paper tiger but I read their last newsletter with interest: ******************************************************************** Like most things CRT do, when they want to screw boaters over they tell us that it is us who are requesting the change. So it was when 2 years ago CRT announced it was to start a three stage consultation on the future of boat licensing. CRT claimed that boaters thought that the 20 year old licensing system was unfair and overly complicated. An FOI request showed that no such complaints had been made. The consultation would lead to a simpler, fairer licensing regime which would be cost neutral. Predictably CRT has failed to deliver on the first two of these and for some reason they no longer mention the third. Stage one consisted of telephone conversations with 14 boating organisations. This was an opportunity for the likes of the Residential Boat Owners Association (RBOA) and the Inland Waterways Association (IWA)(not a boating organization) to air their whacky ideas in a forum which gave them credibility; microchips in your licence disc anyone? The second stage was a series of public focus groups in which “around 80 boaters discussed the issues in small representative groups with an independent facilitator.” Yes you read that right: 80 boaters. Interestingly, there was no consensus that the previous system was broken, but there was consensus that the new system should not set boaters against each other while apparently accepting that wide beams should pay more, and that congestion in urban areas was a problem for navigation, mooring and “safety”. Finally there was a boater survey based on what CRT claimed came out of the first 2 stages. The results of this third stage make for some sobering reading and reflect the falsehood of both the homogenous boater community and the democratic nature of this consultation: 58% of respondents rated a length x beam fee system as “fair”, while 61% thought mooring status being a factor on the fee (ie boaters without home mooring should pay more) as a “fair” proposal, hardly surprising when you consider that itinerant boaters are in the minority compared with marina bound leisure boaters. CRT’s previous licensing system couldn’t have been much simpler. You looked up the length of your boat on a chart and it told you how much your licence was. The only differentiation was if you required a standard canal (and river) licence, or a rivers only licence. If you paid in a lump sum on or before the renewal date you got a 10% discount. There were also discounts available for historical and unpowered craft. CRT’s answer to this “overly complicated system” is to add more differentiation, with wide beams paying between 10% and 20% more than narrowboats. Furthermore, the prompt payment discount will be reduced from 10% to 2.5%; it will now be available to boaters paying their licence by monthly direct debit , which seems to be the only potential reduction in what some boaters pay in a list of proposals which will increase what many pay. The introduction of the wide beam surcharge, to be phased in from April 2020, comes from the misguided belief of some boaters and organisations (hello IWA!) that the increase in the number of wide beams is a scourge on the system; in their fantasy world wide beams cause intolerable delays in tunnels and waste water in locks, and are a burden on CRT’s finances; as such it is “unfair” that they should pay the same as a narrowboat of the same length. That they are unable to cruise large parts of the connected system because it is narrow doesn't come into their concept of fairness. It is wide beam owners who will bear the brunt of the new licensing system for the moment, but CRT has reserved the right to examine the possibilities of acting on another of the petty, divisive ideas to find credence in the consultation: congestion charging the metropolitan canals. The new licensing regime has patently failed in its stated aims. It is more complex, not simpler; it is more unfair, not fairer; and CRT are no longer claiming cost neutrality. ******************************************************************* This tells you all you need to know - they ARE out to get you, especially the bit about the disparity of CR&T's public statement about their motivation for changing the licensing tariff and reality as revealed by the FOI request. Ultimately this situation has emerged because there are too many doing it - you have to admit this. When it was just a few nobody cared either way. But the level of cc'ers in London is approaching critical. I cant help but have some sympathy with leisure boaters who cannot moor anywhere. Its their canal too. Those of you who intend to stay had best find a mooring or get used to moving every day. Or start lobbying parliament for a change in liveaboard legal status, because with how things stand at the moment the future seems bleak. Sorry. As around 90% of boaters have a home mooring and many of the other 10% rarely fall foul of CRT’s system around the country, the NBTA represent a small minority. CRT know this and will use divisions in the boating community as a whole to seek their real objective (which I doubt is well being...but could be wrong). However, that doesn’t mean to say that the NBTA have a point and are right to try to get to the bottom of the truth about CRT’s motives. It is a creep which, who knows, could lead to parts of the system being run down and maybe sold off privately If CRT really wanted to improve their public image then they should declare their true motives for the future (I wonder why they don’t?) and be more openly accountable to the public (including boaters) who fund them. I’m afraid Damien’s boaters updates don’t do it for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 11:54:17 GMT
I'm not a inland waterways boater anymore, I used to be and I miss it. I have been entertaining the fantasy of returning to a canal boat home, but sadly thats all it is - a fantasy. But even if it was a realistic option, the current political climate is alarming. CR&T are clearly a bunch of lying underhand bastards with a barely-hidden secondary agenda - get rid of as many liveaboard boats as possible. And the apparent success of 24hr moorings on the Thames policed by a out-sourced company on a contract is only going to go one way. There's too much money to be had in persecuting cc'ers. The NBTA seem to be something of a paper tiger but I read their last newsletter with interest: ******************************************************************** Like most things CRT do, when they want to screw boaters over they tell us that it is us who are requesting the change. So it was when 2 years ago CRT announced it was to start a three stage consultation on the future of boat licensing. CRT claimed that boaters thought that the 20 year old licensing system was unfair and overly complicated. An FOI request showed that no such complaints had been made. The consultation would lead to a simpler, fairer licensing regime which would be cost neutral. Predictably CRT has failed to deliver on the first two of these and for some reason they no longer mention the third. Stage one consisted of telephone conversations with 14 boating organisations. This was an opportunity for the likes of the Residential Boat Owners Association (RBOA) and the Inland Waterways Association (IWA)(not a boating organization) to air their whacky ideas in a forum which gave them credibility; microchips in your licence disc anyone? The second stage was a series of public focus groups in which “around 80 boaters discussed the issues in small representative groups with an independent facilitator.” Yes you read that right: 80 boaters. Interestingly, there was no consensus that the previous system was broken, but there was consensus that the new system should not set boaters against each other while apparently accepting that wide beams should pay more, and that congestion in urban areas was a problem for navigation, mooring and “safety”. Finally there was a boater survey based on what CRT claimed came out of the first 2 stages. The results of this third stage make for some sobering reading and reflect the falsehood of both the homogenous boater community and the democratic nature of this consultation: 58% of respondents rated a length x beam fee system as “fair”, while 61% thought mooring status being a factor on the fee (ie boaters without home mooring should pay more) as a “fair” proposal, hardly surprising when you consider that itinerant boaters are in the minority compared with marina bound leisure boaters. CRT’s previous licensing system couldn’t have been much simpler. You looked up the length of your boat on a chart and it told you how much your licence was. The only differentiation was if you required a standard canal (and river) licence, or a rivers only licence. If you paid in a lump sum on or before the renewal date you got a 10% discount. There were also discounts available for historical and unpowered craft. CRT’s answer to this “overly complicated system” is to add more differentiation, with wide beams paying between 10% and 20% more than narrowboats. Furthermore, the prompt payment discount will be reduced from 10% to 2.5%; it will now be available to boaters paying their licence by monthly direct debit , which seems to be the only potential reduction in what some boaters pay in a list of proposals which will increase what many pay. The introduction of the wide beam surcharge, to be phased in from April 2020, comes from the misguided belief of some boaters and organisations (hello IWA!) that the increase in the number of wide beams is a scourge on the system; in their fantasy world wide beams cause intolerable delays in tunnels and waste water in locks, and are a burden on CRT’s finances; as such it is “unfair” that they should pay the same as a narrowboat of the same length. That they are unable to cruise large parts of the connected system because it is narrow doesn't come into their concept of fairness. It is wide beam owners who will bear the brunt of the new licensing system for the moment, but CRT has reserved the right to examine the possibilities of acting on another of the petty, divisive ideas to find credence in the consultation: congestion charging the metropolitan canals. The new licensing regime has patently failed in its stated aims. It is more complex, not simpler; it is more unfair, not fairer; and CRT are no longer claiming cost neutrality. ******************************************************************* This tells you all you need to know - they ARE out to get you, especially the bit about the disparity of CR&T's public statement about their motivation for changing the licensing tariff and reality as revealed by the FOI request. Ultimately this situation has emerged because there are too many doing it - you have to admit this. When it was just a few nobody cared either way. But the level of cc'ers in London is approaching critical. I cant help but have some sympathy with leisure boaters who cannot moor anywhere. Its their canal too. Those of you who intend to stay had best find a mooring or get used to moving every day. Or start lobbying parliament for a change in liveaboard legal status, because with how things stand at the moment the future seems bleak. Sorry. As around 90% of boaters have a home mooring and many of the other 10% rarely fall foul of CRT’s system around the country, the NBTA represent a small minority. CRT know this and will use divisions in the boating community as a whole to seek their real objective (which I doubt is well being...but could be wrong). However, that doesn’t mean to say that the NBTA have a point and are right to try to get to the bottom of the truth about CRT’s motives. It is a creep which, who knows, could lead to parts of the system being run down and maybe sold off privately If CRT really wanted to improve their public image then they should declare their true motives for the future (I wonder why they don’t?) and be more openly accountable to the public (including boaters) who fund them. I’m afraid Damien’s boaters updates don’t do it for me. 90%?? Not sure about that. I've no idea where you got that figure from, but it's way out. There are well over 8000 boats registered as with no home mooring.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 18, 2019 12:00:50 GMT
Very interesting. - I'll read later. Barbecue-grilling going on in the garden here.... scorching hot day... been looking at boats for my daughter and her boyfriend and kids... their new place right next to the sea, with hundreds of islands to visit/camp on. Little motor boat for them could be good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 12:03:50 GMT
I'm not a inland waterways boater anymore, I used to be and I miss it. I have been entertaining the fantasy of returning to a canal boat home, but sadly thats all it is - a fantasy. But even if it was a realistic option, the current political climate is alarming. CR&T are clearly a bunch of lying underhand bastards with a barely-hidden secondary agenda - get rid of as many liveaboard boats as possible. And the apparent success of 24hr moorings on the Thames policed by a out-sourced company on a contract is only going to go one way. There's too much money to be had in persecuting cc'ers. The NBTA seem to be something of a paper tiger but I read their last newsletter with interest: ******************************************************************** Like most things CRT do, when they want to screw boaters over they tell us that it is us who are requesting the change. So it was when 2 years ago CRT announced it was to start a three stage consultation on the future of boat licensing. CRT claimed that boaters thought that the 20 year old licensing system was unfair and overly complicated. An FOI request showed that no such complaints had been made. The consultation would lead to a simpler, fairer licensing regime which would be cost neutral. Predictably CRT has failed to deliver on the first two of these and for some reason they no longer mention the third. Stage one consisted of telephone conversations with 14 boating organisations. This was an opportunity for the likes of the Residential Boat Owners Association (RBOA) and the Inland Waterways Association (IWA)(not a boating organization) to air their whacky ideas in a forum which gave them credibility; microchips in your licence disc anyone? The second stage was a series of public focus groups in which “around 80 boaters discussed the issues in small representative groups with an independent facilitator.” Yes you read that right: 80 boaters. Interestingly, there was no consensus that the previous system was broken, but there was consensus that the new system should not set boaters against each other while apparently accepting that wide beams should pay more, and that congestion in urban areas was a problem for navigation, mooring and “safety”. Finally there was a boater survey based on what CRT claimed came out of the first 2 stages. The results of this third stage make for some sobering reading and reflect the falsehood of both the homogenous boater community and the democratic nature of this consultation: 58% of respondents rated a length x beam fee system as “fair”, while 61% thought mooring status being a factor on the fee (ie boaters without home mooring should pay more) as a “fair” proposal, hardly surprising when you consider that itinerant boaters are in the minority compared with marina bound leisure boaters. CRT’s previous licensing system couldn’t have been much simpler. You looked up the length of your boat on a chart and it told you how much your licence was. The only differentiation was if you required a standard canal (and river) licence, or a rivers only licence. If you paid in a lump sum on or before the renewal date you got a 10% discount. There were also discounts available for historical and unpowered craft. CRT’s answer to this “overly complicated system” is to add more differentiation, with wide beams paying between 10% and 20% more than narrowboats. Furthermore, the prompt payment discount will be reduced from 10% to 2.5%; it will now be available to boaters paying their licence by monthly direct debit , which seems to be the only potential reduction in what some boaters pay in a list of proposals which will increase what many pay. The introduction of the wide beam surcharge, to be phased in from April 2020, comes from the misguided belief of some boaters and organisations (hello IWA!) that the increase in the number of wide beams is a scourge on the system; in their fantasy world wide beams cause intolerable delays in tunnels and waste water in locks, and are a burden on CRT’s finances; as such it is “unfair” that they should pay the same as a narrowboat of the same length. That they are unable to cruise large parts of the connected system because it is narrow doesn't come into their concept of fairness. It is wide beam owners who will bear the brunt of the new licensing system for the moment, but CRT has reserved the right to examine the possibilities of acting on another of the petty, divisive ideas to find credence in the consultation: congestion charging the metropolitan canals. The new licensing regime has patently failed in its stated aims. It is more complex, not simpler; it is more unfair, not fairer; and CRT are no longer claiming cost neutrality. ******************************************************************* This tells you all you need to know - they ARE out to get you, especially the bit about the disparity of CR&T's public statement about their motivation for changing the licensing tariff and reality as revealed by the FOI request. Ultimately this situation has emerged because there are too many doing it - you have to admit this. When it was just a few nobody cared either way. But the level of cc'ers in London is approaching critical. I cant help but have some sympathy with leisure boaters who cannot moor anywhere. Its their canal too. Those of you who intend to stay had best find a mooring or get used to moving every day. Or start lobbying parliament for a change in liveaboard legal status, because with how things stand at the moment the future seems bleak. Sorry. As around 90% of boaters have a home mooring and many of the other 10% rarely fall foul of CRT’s system around the country, the NBTA represent a small minority. CRT know this and will use divisions in the boating community as a whole to seek their real objective (which I doubt is well being...but could be wrong). However, that doesn’t mean to say that the NBTA have a point and are right to try to get to the bottom of the truth about CRT’s motives. It is a creep which, who knows, could lead to parts of the system being run down and maybe sold off privately If CRT really wanted to improve their public image then they should declare their true motives for the future (I wonder why they don’t?) and be more openly accountable to the public (including boaters) who fund them. I’m afraid Damien’s boaters updates don’t do it for me. Damian Kemp and debbie friggey should have been ousted a long time ago, but hang on for dear life to their employment. Both survive solely by employment regulations. Both are in my view useless and probably unemployable elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 12:58:13 GMT
As around 90% of boaters have a home mooring and many of the other 10% rarely fall foul of CRT’s system around the country, the NBTA represent a small minority. CRT know this and will use divisions in the boating community as a whole to seek their real objective (which I doubt is well being...but could be wrong). However, that doesn’t mean to say that the NBTA have a point and are right to try to get to the bottom of the truth about CRT’s motives. It is a creep which, who knows, could lead to parts of the system being run down and maybe sold off privately If CRT really wanted to improve their public image then they should declare their true motives for the future (I wonder why they don’t?) and be more openly accountable to the public (including boaters) who fund them. I’m afraid Damien’s boaters updates don’t do it for me. 90%?? Not sure about that. I've no idea where you got that figure from, but it's way out. There are well over 8000 boats registered as with no home mooring. Well if it is more like 20-25% that’s a good thing for us. The figure was one which someone quoted to me a long time ago, so it’s probably wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 7:27:09 GMT
According to the resident news reader on the other channel it seems the NBTA are about to take on CRT legally over the caravan boat affair
I have a bad feeling about this. It looks like another extreme case being used in an attempt to enforce law which the vast majority are happy being left vague. (i.e “bona fide”).
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 31, 2019 7:37:46 GMT
I bet CRT are shakin' in their wellies.
The NBTA still haven't explained Andrzei's situation clearly, and have said nothing about what happened to him and his floating shed.
The NBTA are poor in communication.
Also... I met a man who mentioned that woman on Youtube who didn't believe in diesel engines because they are dirty. She had a bike put on her back deck so she could pedal her narrowboat the few yards to the water tap at Bradford-upon-Avon (or thereabouts). Then she sold her boat, and bought a new van with a diesel engine in it! The man who told me this said he'd have respected her if she'd took the van's dirty diesel engine out and installed another bicycle to 'drive' the van. Another NBTA hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jul 31, 2019 7:44:55 GMT
According to the resident news reader on the other channel it seems the NBTA are about to take on CRT legally over the caravan boat affair I have a bad feeling about this. It looks like another extreme case being used in an attempt to enforce law which the vast majority are happy being left vague. (i.e “bona fide”). What the fuck are you going on about?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 31, 2019 7:49:01 GMT
Here she is at 00.40 - "why would you want to pollute a beautiful valley with a diesel engine?" she says - then (allegedly) flogs her tatty old boat and buys a van with a polluting diesel engine in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 7:49:17 GMT
I bet CRT are shakin' in their wellies. The NBTA still haven't explained Andrzei's situation clearly, and have said nothing about what happened to him and his floating shed. The NBTA are poor in communication. Also... I met a man who mentioned that woman on Youtube who didn't believe in diesel engines because they are dirty. She had a bike put on her back deck so she could pedal her narrowboat the few yards to the water tap at Bradford-upon-Avon (or thereabouts). Then she sold her boat, and bought a new van with a diesel engine in it! The man who told me this said he'd have respected her if she'd took the van's dirty diesel engine out and installed another bicycle to 'drive' the van. Another NBTA hypocrite. I just hope members of the NBTA and CRT management can see all possible outcomes of such court action. I think public sympathy to their causes will be the key in the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 7:51:34 GMT
I know exactly what @bassplayer is on about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 7:55:28 GMT
According to the resident news reader on the other channel it seems the NBTA are about to take on CRT legally over the caravan boat affair I have a bad feeling about this. It looks like another extreme case being used in an attempt to enforce law which the vast majority are happy being left vague. (i.e “bona fide”). What the fuck are you going on about? Kris this is not just a platform for us to shout at everyone. it’s a discussion forum. What do you think will be the outcome? I’m beggining to wonder if you are a bully, the very thing you think CRT are.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 31, 2019 7:55:47 GMT
What are the NBTA taking CRT to court for, in the case of Andrzei? I think CRT should look between their fingers when appropriate, but when the 'green off-grid licence-dodgin' hippies' leave junk and rubbish and full Elsan cassettes all over the towpath, then I'd say they need 'house training'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2019 7:57:07 GMT
Or get a sledge hammer from somewhere and crack some nuts.
|
|