|
Post by loafer on May 5, 2016 21:51:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on May 5, 2016 22:16:51 GMT
"Our local team were prepared to provide a temporary Authorised Overstay, which allowed us to concentrate on sorting the health issues out without stressing about how the long the boat was being moored at a particular location."
How very kind of the "enforcement" team to "authorise" their stay "allowing" them to concentrate on the health issues...
Maybe we should praise them for allowing us to eat and drink too?
|
|
|
Post by loafer on May 5, 2016 22:29:26 GMT
Just maybe. As far as I know, it is very easy to stay on friendly terms with CRT. I have no experience of having done things any other way, I'm afraid. Maybe that's due to my institutionalised, sir-saluting, rule-following background in a major national company who didn't really care who you were. I, like many others of my age, am 60. I know many 60-year olds who think like me, which is along the lines of: 'If you don't like the rules of the game, take yer bat 'ome. Otherwise, get on the case and change the rules'.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on May 5, 2016 22:48:06 GMT
I'm fine with staying on friendly terms with them if they know their place and understand what they do and don't have authority on. We don't need their "authorisation" to overstay when we are too ill to move on, just like we don't need their permission to take a shit in the morning.
The rules of the game are fine as they are. We are allowed to overstay if needed. If CRT don't like this it is them that should take home their bat or try to change the rules. What they shouldn't do is make up their own rules and attempt to enforce them, or pretend to have authority over matters that they do not.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 5, 2016 23:25:24 GMT
The boater in question has just been conned into believing Glyn Bumford can decide if boaters can use their statutory right to overstay or not without reference to a court.
Exactly what I said would happen in the other thread on this matter, or was trying to.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 6, 2016 8:38:22 GMT
I think what you have to remember about Crt is that there are a lot of decent people who work for them. The ones who care about the waterways are getting shit on by the managment as much as livaboard boaters. The average member of bank staff has seen their working conditions deteriate since it became a "charity." I even include some EO in this, but not the jobsworth little hitlers who seem to think they are above the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 13:26:01 GMT
The boater in question has just been conned into believing Glyn Bumford can decide if boaters can use their statutory right to overstay or not without reference to a court. Exactly what I said would happen in the other thread on this matter, or was trying to. The gullible will always be conned sadly,which is why we want to start to get organised.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 7, 2016 13:55:22 GMT
Sorry but on this issue I am firmly in the same camp as Loafer. Sure, you are entitled to stay longer if it is necessary, that doesn't mean that you don't have to advise and justify that to CRT. If you have a genuine reason to stay, why not just make things easy for them and yourself by letting them know the details. It seems to me (and everyone I have spoken to who has been fair with CRT) they will be very fair and helpful. It looks as if the only people who get hassle are the ones that either didn't keep them informed or whose grounds are a bit flakey.
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on May 7, 2016 14:06:40 GMT
Sorry but on this issue I am firmly in the same camp as Loafer. Sure, you are entitled to stay longer if it is necessary, that doesn't mean that you don't have to advise and justify that to CRT. If you have a genuine reason to stay, why not just make things easy for them and yourself by letting them know the details. It seems to me (and everyone I have spoken to who has been fair with CRT) they will be very fair and helpful. It looks as if the only people who get hassle are the ones that either didn't keep them informed or whose grounds are a bit flakey.
The only people who are privy to your medical history is your GP and yourself. If CRT want medical specifics, give CRT your GP's number and tell them to call it and see how far they get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 14:31:02 GMT
Sorry but on this issue I am firmly in the same camp as Loafer. Sure, you are entitled to stay longer if it is necessary, that doesn't mean that you don't have to advise and justify that to CRT. If you have a genuine reason to stay, why not just make things easy for them and yourself by letting them know the details. It seems to me (and everyone I have spoken to who has been fair with CRT) they will be very fair and helpful. It looks as if the only people who get hassle are the ones that either didn't keep them informed or whose grounds are a bit flakey. Some seem to think Crt allowing you to overstay for health reasons etc, is a "privilege. Even Crt thinks this. Well it is bloody well not. Its a right, enshrined in law. Whilst I am all for being fair, and informing Crt of the circumstances, they have no bloody right to know the ins and outs of a medical condition, (as some EO's seem to think they are). It's bollox, and I wouldn't even trust Crt with such information. They behave like 9 yr olds with this stuff, they are far from competent, and cannot be trusted with sensitive information. I've met a few, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them. They are self centred idiots.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 7, 2016 14:38:47 GMT
Sorry but on this issue I am firmly in the same camp as Loafer. Sure, you are entitled to stay longer if it is necessary, that doesn't mean that you don't have to advise and justify that to CRT. If you have a genuine reason to stay, why not just make things easy for them and yourself by letting them know the details. It seems to me (and everyone I have spoken to who has been fair with CRT) they will be very fair and helpful. It looks as if the only people who get hassle are the ones that either didn't keep them informed or whose grounds are a bit flakey.
The only people who are privy to your medical history is your GP and yourself. If CRT want medical specifics, give CRT your GP's number and tell them to call it and see how far they get.
That is an unbalanced statement. The only people who are privy to your medical history without your permission is your GP and yourself There are many situations where you are required to make medical facts known, where if you fail to do so, you will not be able to obtain services or assistance to which you would otherwise be entitled. Bloody Hell ! try buying an annuity for a start. ........or come to that travel insurance ! I'm all for insisting on genuine rights but get some sort of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on May 7, 2016 15:38:15 GMT
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm wondering, what does the relevant Act say about this? Is this one of those you have to "satisfy the authority..." kind of things?
I think everyone is right about this. On the one hand, we live in a regulated society, with much of that regulation to our benefit. We have to accept a certain amount of bureaucracy, our lives will be easier if we accept the bureaucracy rather than fight it. Why make life miserable for bureaucrats who are mere civil servants trying to do their jobs? Unless you're a raging anarchist, there's not much can be found wrong with this sentiment, it's just a fact of life.
On the other hand you have those who oppose the creeping authoritarianism within CRT because they fear where it is headed. They too are correct. The fact is, these are the people who protect our liberties because they do sound the alarm.
It seems you all are mainly in disagreement about the process more than anything else. To begin with a stay is "authorized, or it is not - that's just a simple fact. Even if the stay is authorized by legislation, as it appears D9 et al argue, it's still "authorized" - the point being you can contest CRT thinking they are the ones doing the authorizing, but you shouldn't get hung up on the term authorized. In fact, you should embrace it because the medical stays you refer to are authorized, by legislation. But you also have take into account that CRT has to enforce mooring regulations lest your entire canal system turn into one big housing estate.
A simple solution would be for boaters to be able to just print some kind of plaque to put in a window if they are overstaying for medical reasons. The CRT EO's could update central records and, if a pattern of possible abuse was spotted, EO's could be directed to request more information by the central office, but otherwise they would just have to respect the plaque. The big problem with this, as far as I can see, is that a plaque in the window might be a big invitation to thieves.
Interesting debate. Good luck with solving your problems!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 7, 2016 16:49:46 GMT
I don't have a dog in this fight, what a great saying !!!!
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 7, 2016 17:00:50 GMT
The legislation is extremely vaigue in places, like this one, but that's not really the honest boaters problem, its up to CRT to prove the boater has no valid reason to overstay, not the other way round, the legal process required to do that is a good way to ensure CRT have some evidence, and are sure enough to take it to court, rather than the opinion of an EO who has a grudge. But we never made the law, CRT has to abide by it or seek to change it, they can't decide its not in their favour and override it. CRT management can't bear not being in control of everything, and the boater having these kind of rights is an anathema to their way of thinking.
Maybe Parliament was thinking there was no need to micro manage boaters just pottering around the picturesque canals, and the boater and BW/ CRT were skipping through the daisies hand in hand, and perfectly able to cope with being flexible and relaxed over mooring time limits, they never envisaged CRT would be managed by people who don't give a shit about boats or boaters lives.
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on May 8, 2016 10:12:07 GMT
That is an unbalanced statement. The only people who are privy to your medical history without your permission is your GP and yourself There are many situations where you are required to make medical facts known, where if you fail to do so, you will not be able to obtain services or assistance to which you would otherwise be entitled. Bloody Hell ! try buying an annuity for a start. ........or come to that travel insurance ! I'm all for insisting on genuine rights but get some sort of perspective.
But, not CRT. No medical questionnaire was ever sent to me before my licence application could be processed.
|
|