Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 18:36:06 GMT
I really don't think it's a concerted effort or plan to get boaters to take moorings or anything else. I think it's incompetence, coupled with loss of canalside staff (lock keepers, lengthsmen, maintenance workers) and any knowledge of how the canals work. If you can talk personally with staff, they're fine. The trouble is, increasi6ngly they're all in offices and have no comprehension of where you are on the system let alone anything else. Rog Yes that is also a reasonable view. Paranoia can be a bummer sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 30, 2017 18:40:21 GMT
shows an incompetent and failing management team. I wouldn't call £188,000 / year plus bonuses and company car 'failing'. Trebles all round! They are out to get 'the trouble makers'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 18:47:49 GMT
Just cos you suffer from paranoia doesn't mean they aren't out to get you Ask Iconoclast Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 18:55:18 GMT
Imagine this scenario: CRT enforcement officer tells you that if you do not move along sharpish he will issue a fine / notice-for-naughty-people. You say "But the canal is frozen!" He wags his clipboard at you. So, under his beady eye, off you go.... half a mile down the cut you send a sheet of ice sliding into a GRP boat which is holed and promptly glug-glug-glug sinks. The two sleeping/elderly/ill/disabled/unfortunate inhabitants of that boat go down with it and drown. They are dead. Who is responsible for their deaths - you? The enforcement officer who 'made' you move? Higher-up managers in CRT for issuing the officer with his instructions? I would say that the inhabitants of the sunk boat are to blame due to stupid behaviour. To be fair its quite unlikely that someone asleep in a boat on a canal would actually be a risk of drowning if it sunk while moored because generally speaking the bit right beside the towpath is really shallow. Perhaps on a river it would be quite a serious risk.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jan 30, 2017 18:56:04 GMT
Bona fide used for navigation = living on board to absorb and enjoy the british countryside and changing your garden views every two weeks. It's only your view that it isn't bona fide navigation (and more importantly the faceless bureacrats). If C&RT are so certain that the life is illegal, why do they not clarify the matter in court, rather than revoking licences? You obviously don't realise that some of your 'throw away' comments appear to some as condescending, judgemental, and lacking compassion. I hope this isn't your intention. Rog This one is easy Rog why bother going to court and wasting thousands making lawyers rich, when they can look at the legislation see that someone is abusing it and remove the license. The owner then has a choice either move the boat to another water authority, put it on land, or sell it, if they feel ambitious they could go to court against CRT. Now none of this just happens warnings are given so people have a choice its like Clint says do you feel lucky punk? well do you?
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jan 30, 2017 19:08:19 GMT
Johnv, can you identify for me specifically where in the legislation there is any reference to long distance cruising....or indeed any distance cruising. That is exactly my point. This is a dispute about what words mean, and yet C&RT choose not to seek clarification at law. Additionally there simply aren't moorings exactly on the stretches that best suit. Many would happily pay to moor on that stretch, and in winter they can and do. Suddenly it's legal for four months. I have no beef with anyone, I am just expressing an opposing view that I feel is right as much as Telemachus and yourself feel the opposite. They're just a few boat dwellers who find themselves now being persecuted. Rog The issue is that CRT dont make the rules on moorings its the council so it opens up a whole can of worms ie are CRT responsible for peoples housing ? No they are not, I would love to be on the K & A but no moorings and cant afford it means I am in Rotherham! Now if these people want schooling jobs and cheap moorings move to where they are available dont block the waterways so that they just become a housing estate on water
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 19:22:46 GMT
Johnv, can you identify for me specifically where in the legislation there is any reference to long distance cruising....or indeed any distance cruising. That is exactly my point. This is a dispute about what words mean, and yet C&RT choose not to seek clarification at law. Additionally there simply aren't moorings exactly on the stretches that best suit. Many would happily pay to moor on that stretch, and in winter they can and do. Suddenly it's legal for four months. I have no beef with anyone, I am just expressing an opposing view that I feel is right as much as Telemachus and yourself feel the opposite. They're just a few boat dwellers who find themselves now being persecuted. Rog The issue is that CRT dont make the rules on moorings its the council so it opens up a whole can of worms ie are CRT responsible for peoples housing ? No they are not, I would love to be on the K & A but no moorings and cant afford it means I am in Rotherham! Now if these people want schooling jobs and cheap moorings move to where they are available dont block the waterways so that they just become a housing estate on water Despite what you hear by the same usual suspects on CWF, the K&A is not that bad. We have enjoyed the K&A and London canals and always found somewhere to moor. We've certainly never been blocked! The bottom line is try it, then see what you think.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 30, 2017 19:52:25 GMT
One person makes demands on those below them. It's decided to run the enforcement dept more efficiently. It gets computerised, results are required. Someone wrote the software to flag up people "not moving "enough"". The system must be obeyed. Fair for all.
But the system needs feeding with facts and the lack of those facts seems to be a fuck-up of mahoosive proportions. But the money has been spent, promises made to the boss, job(s) at stake, press on regardless. Empires to be defended so like the NHS the truth never filters through to anyone that would do anything useful, and if they did it would involve professional suicide.
I worked in an empire within a company with mod contracts once. A small dept in a portacabin, we had built up a "slush fund" of millions by interdepartmental over charging and fuckin lying so if a job went wrong we had funds to hide it. This is how life works sadly. Subterfuge and feck knows within institutions and companies is the norm. If you can get away with it... Anyone near the top trying to make sense of it is fucked.
To expect CRT to join itself together and behave sensibly and efficiently is a pipe dream unless they could all be sacked on the same day and start again.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 30, 2017 20:14:07 GMT
If I was ceo of Crt, I'd get a questionnaire together of say 40 questions about the everyday running of a canal. Make all crt staff fill it out. If you get less than 50% your fired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 20:22:06 GMT
If I was ceo of Crt, I'd get a questionnaire together of say 40 questions about the everyday running of a canal. Make all crt staff fill it out. If you get less than 50% your fired. Are you talking about the office and management staff? Most front line CRT employees I've met are pretty knowlegable and helpful. Ah, I see what you mean...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 20:23:26 GMT
If I was ceo of Crt, I'd get a questionnaire together of say 40 questions about the everyday running of a canal. Make all crt staff fill it out. If you get less than 50% your fired. Perhaps that's why the CEO doesn't wish to initiate a questionnaire 😂😂😂 I doubt he would get to 50%.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 30, 2017 20:36:31 GMT
If I was ceo of Crt, I'd get a questionnaire together of say 40 questions about the everyday running of a canal. Make all crt staff fill it out. If you get less than 50% your fired. Perhaps that's why the CEO doesn't wish to initiate a questionnaire 😂😂😂 I doubt he would get to 50%. well that would be a problem for him. It just amazes me how many of the office staff have no idea of the day to day running of the canals. For the record I find the bank staff very helpful and amenable. They are getting dumped on by the managment, even more than the boaters.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 31, 2017 0:51:14 GMT
The enforcement officers are not impersonating the police, most of them are ex police, unfortunately they can't compute the fact that they have no real powers, and they have created proceedures that try to award themselves fake powers over boaters, which has now led them into acting seriously illegally, and ruined their reputation, their recent change of tune when they decided on a strict enforcement policy, chasing people around moorings, and trying to falsify the law to fine overstayers achieved nothing except poisoning any goodwill there was .
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 2, 2017 9:25:45 GMT
Imagine this scenario: CRT enforcement officer tells you that if you do not move along sharpish he will issue a fine / notice-for-naughty-people. You say "But the canal is frozen!" He wags his clipboard at you. So, under his beady eye, off you go.... half a mile down the cut you send a sheet of ice sliding into a GRP boat which is holed and promptly glug-glug-glug sinks. The two sleeping/elderly/ill/disabled/unfortunate inhabitants of that boat go down with it and drown. They are dead. Who is responsible for their deaths - you? The enforcement officer who 'made' you move? Higher-up managers in CRT for issuing the officer with his instructions? In that scenario, I would take a photo of the ice and a photo of the enforcement officer and tell the latter to go fuck himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2017 9:44:26 GMT
In fairness, and this is our 13th winter on board, upto reading Jenlyn's post, I have never heard of BW/C&RT staff telling someone to move off in icy conditions.
They've always been sensible about conditions, and the enforcement I have chatted to have always liked it because it takes any pressure off trying to move people on.
Mind you they're always back on the job immediately there's a thaw.
There are a very few individuals who will find a spot near a tap and seek to spend all winter there, in case of ice. But only the odd one or two in my experience.
That's why I was particularly surprised by Jenlyn's experience. I would imagine it's a first for him too.
Rog
|
|