|
Crt
Apr 3, 2016 20:18:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Apr 3, 2016 20:18:59 GMT
II'm beginning to believe that Crt is a property company disguised as a charity? They are selling off so much property, I thought ithe idea of the trust was to protect the waterways, not to sell them off to greedy developers. It's actually easier for them to sell stuff now, than when it was BW. (There's less oversight.) Okay if we accept they have some property that something needs to happen to, why aren't they developing it themselves and making the profit?
Regards kris
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Crt
Apr 7, 2016 11:30:20 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 11:30:20 GMT
They lack experience in all things property related. They are relying heavily on the future of the canals being a theme park. Some will scoff at that, but it's where we are heading.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Crt
Apr 7, 2016 12:03:08 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 12:03:08 GMT
I guess the Question is what kind of theme is it going to be based on, Nature,Outdoor Pursuits,Floating Housing Estate,I don't believe they have any vision or idea whatsoever.Its a bit like Branson and the railways, a national asset has been handed over to a bunch of middle class careerists. and nasty and mean spirited ones as well. I wonder about the fit for purpose aspect of both licensing and enforcement and can I say that I don't want miles of boats that never move.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 7, 2016 12:21:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Delta9 on Apr 7, 2016 12:21:38 GMT
I'm thinking something like the 'small world' attraction at Disney land. Animatronic boatmen loading boats with coal and cheesey music playing, while the boats of american tourists travel along attached to underwater chains.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 7, 2016 19:28:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Apr 7, 2016 19:28:17 GMT
They lack experience in all things property related. They are relying heavily on the future of the canals being a theme park. Some will scoff at that, but it's where we are heading. I think what your saying is true, it seems their first step is too clear the canals of the nuisance element. Make it compulsory to have a mooring. Then charge £25 a day when you away from your mooring. The question as far as I can see is what do we do about it? Regards kris
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 7, 2016 19:39:54 GMT
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 7, 2016 19:39:54 GMT
What the hell is going on with the stern of that boat???
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 7, 2016 20:15:20 GMT
Delta9 likes this
Post by Higgs on Apr 7, 2016 20:15:20 GMT
People (boaters) should think seriously about how the NAA manipulates marinas and in turn manipulates the moorers. A marina is a neutral ground, as far any direct statutory powers CRT have to enforce boaters to have a licence. But, a licence is revenue, and the only thing that forces that upon boaters is a marina's Terms and Conditions. CRT does apply its statutory powers as the NAA contract on the marinas.
A piece of private land with a lake doesn't become CRT property by the existence of a channel that connects that lake to the canal, by the NAA or, a connection fee. The piece of private land may have a Ransom strip at its border or bank with the canal. A perfectly reasonable permission has been gained to cross that strip by the existence of the NAA and the connection fee. It is not a piece of legislation that also transfers the power of CRT into the private area.
CRT uses legislation that gives it permission to draw up a contract such as the NAA with the marina operators. In creating that contract it has also effectively given a third party pseudo powers of enforcement.
The upshot of it all is that it leaves boaters without any power to choose the canal or not; there is only one choice. Without the option of saying to CRT that you wish to remain in a marina without paying for a licence, CRT have removed any objections to them, they can do almost anything, because you're going to pay and have no say. If you had a choice, CRT would have to listen or lose revenue. I cannot see any other way of boaters making a difference other than to have some leverage and choice. Boaters have to get rid of CRT's silly idea that marinas are an extension of the canal.
CRT will stop forcing boats into marinas, they'll want them out on the canal. Boaters will want to go out on the canal if it's not too expensive and the maintenance is there.
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Apr 7, 2016 21:23:39 GMT
People (boaters) should think seriously about how the NAA manipulates marinas and in turn manipulates the moorers. A marina is a neutral ground, as far any direct statutory powers CRT have to enforce boaters to have a licence. But, a licence is revenue, and the only thing that forces that upon boaters is a marina's Terms and Conditions. CRT does apply its statutory powers as the NAA contract on the marinas. A piece of private land with a lake doesn't become CRT property by the existence of a channel that connects that lake to the canal, by the NAA or, a connection fee. The piece of private land may have a Ransom strip at its border or bank with the canal. A perfectly reasonable permission has been gained to cross that strip by the existence of the NAA and the connection fee. It is not a piece of legislation that also transfers the power of CRT into the private area. CRT uses legislation that gives it permission to draw up a contract such as the NAA with the marina operators. In creating that contract it has also effectively given a third party pseudo powers of enforcement. The upshot of it all is that it leaves boaters without any power to choose the canal or not; there is only one choice. Without the option of saying to CRT that you wish to remain in a marina without paying for a licence, CRT have removed any objections to them, they can do almost anything, because you're going to pay and have no say. If you had a choice, CRT would have to listen or lose revenue. I cannot see any other way of boaters making a difference other than to have some leverage and choice. Boaters have to get rid of CRT's silly idea that marinas are an extension of the canal. CRT will stop forcing boats into marinas, they'll want them out on the canal. Boaters will want to go out on the canal if it's not too expensive and the maintenance is there. I'm not sure any of that last sentence is true. CRT aren't forcing boats into marinas, as far as our experience is concerned. I don't think they really care if there are boats on the canal or not. Surely 'boaters' want to go out on the canal, which is why they bought a canal boat, innit? The only way to get the appropriate maintenance is to charge a suitable fee for its use. I once read that statistics are not to be trusted. Any survey, on any subject, ONLY includes the opinions of those who like to take part in surveys! Likewise, these canal forums are only a very small percentage of boaters, most of them having better things to do than to sit glued to a screen all day!
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 4:52:22 GMT
Post by Higgs on Apr 8, 2016 4:52:22 GMT
People (boaters) should think seriously about how the NAA manipulates marinas and in turn manipulates the moorers. A marina is a neutral ground, as far any direct statutory powers CRT have to enforce boaters to have a licence. But, a licence is revenue, and the only thing that forces that upon boaters is a marina's Terms and Conditions. CRT does apply its statutory powers as the NAA contract on the marinas. A piece of private land with a lake doesn't become CRT property by the existence of a channel that connects that lake to the canal, by the NAA or, a connection fee. The piece of private land may have a Ransom strip at its border or bank with the canal. A perfectly reasonable permission has been gained to cross that strip by the existence of the NAA and the connection fee. It is not a piece of legislation that also transfers the power of CRT into the private area. CRT uses legislation that gives it permission to draw up a contract such as the NAA with the marina operators. In creating that contract it has also effectively given a third party pseudo powers of enforcement. The upshot of it all is that it leaves boaters without any power to choose the canal or not; there is only one choice. Without the option of saying to CRT that you wish to remain in a marina without paying for a licence, CRT have removed any objections to them, they can do almost anything, because you're going to pay and have no say. If you had a choice, CRT would have to listen or lose revenue. I cannot see any other way of boaters making a difference other than to have some leverage and choice. Boaters have to get rid of CRT's silly idea that marinas are an extension of the canal. CRT will stop forcing boats into marinas, they'll want them out on the canal. Boaters will want to go out on the canal if it's not too expensive and the maintenance is there. I'm not sure any of that last sentence is true. CRT aren't forcing boats into marinas, as far as our experience is concerned. I don't think they really care if there are boats on the canal or not. Surely 'boaters' want to go out on the canal, which is why they bought a canal boat, innit? The only way to get the appropriate maintenance is to charge a suitable fee for its use. I once read that statistics are not to be trusted. Any survey, on any subject, ONLY includes the opinions of those who like to take part in surveys! Likewise, these canal forums are only a very small percentage of boaters, most of them having better things to do than to sit glued to a screen all day! Have read your post and will reply when I get home from work.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 14:52:20 GMT
Delta9 likes this
Post by Higgs on Apr 8, 2016 14:52:20 GMT
CRT will stop forcing boats into marinas, they'll want them out on the canal. Boaters will want to go out on the canal if it's not too expensive and the maintenance is there. I'm not sure any of that last sentence is true. CRT aren't forcing boats into marinas, as far as our experience is concerned. I don't think they really care if there are boats on the canal or not. Surely 'boaters' want to go out on the canal, which is why they bought a canal boat, innit? The only way to get the appropriate maintenance is to charge a suitable fee for its use. I once read that statistics are not to be trusted. Any survey, on any subject, ONLY includes the opinions of those who like to take part in surveys! Likewise, these canal forums are only a very small percentage of boaters, most of them having better things to do than to sit glued to a screen all day!
I own a boat and no law of the land says I have to boat. Why people buy boats is not really anyone's business, apart from the buyer. It is not true that all boat owners will always want to use the canal. I agree that a fee should be charged for its use. I don't agree that a marina is a canal or that a marina moorer is under any legal pressure to pay for a licence. As a marina moorer, I believe my moral obligation to pay for a resource that I use is met by the connection fee element of my mooring fee. Having a licence doesn't give me any added value in the marina. All facilities in the marina are paid for in my mooring fee.
The general public do not feel any obligation to pay for the maintenance of the canal. I am a member of the general public, with a boat . The boat is my responsibility, the canal is CRT's. CRT, I presume, don't feel any responsibility for the maintenance of my boat. If they wanted to use my boat, I might feel obliged to charge them for wear and tear.
"glued to a screen all day". You're making a moral judgement. Some people aren't very mobile and boating isn't everything.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 15:54:54 GMT
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 8, 2016 15:54:54 GMT
"The general public do not feel any obligation to pay for the maintenance of the canal."
They probably don't feel any obligation to pay for the waste of National Health services going towards those who lead reckless lives - drinking and smoking their bodies into terrible shape. Yet, they are forced to stump up. I forgot to mention those inconsiderate people who go ski-ing and break their ankles.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 16:36:03 GMT
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 8, 2016 16:36:03 GMT
CRT should pay us to use the canals, we are part of the attraction. I bet Lewis Hamilton doesn't have to pay to drive round Silverstone.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 16:49:57 GMT
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 8, 2016 16:49:57 GMT
Haha! Next time I'm being gongoozled as I edge into locks (such as at Foxton / Bingley 5-Rise) I shall have to get the Witch to go round with a hat saying she's collecting to keep the waterways alive. And then we'll have a jolly old evening in a pub! I will make sure to tell the gongoozlers that one DRIVES a narrowboat and PARKS it up for the night.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 18:04:18 GMT
Post by Higgs on Apr 8, 2016 18:04:18 GMT
"The only way to get the appropriate maintenance is to charge a suitable fee for its use." I would say that some of Britain's tax money should go into the canal system, as it is part of Britain's framework and heritage, and attracts foreign tourists. Hell - we have to pay for people who smoke fags and give themselves - cough! cough! - lung cancer. What we pay (850 Euros) for our CRT licence for a 40-foot narrowboat is the equivalent of almost 3 weeks wages for me as a bus driver - is that a reasonable proportion? The canals are a very strange phenomenon - yesterday's technology with which the very rich want to play with. A bit like steam engines. I see the canals as an asset to the country, and something that should be promoted with pride. When I say pride, I mean pride given by us modern-age lot - those whose husbands died digging the tunnels and who were not compensated fairly were probably rather bitter about the private canal companies and their greed, and not proud at all.
The canals are partly financed by a government grant aid. The grant is one reason that so much emphasis is being placed on providing a publicly focused canal environment. And, one reason the boaters have little clout is they are obliged to pay, by fair means or foul. Even though boats aren't on official CRT property, CRT seem to think they deserve a free meal. While boaters are obliged to pay (by the T&C's of a marina) what they are not legally obliged to pay, CRT will have no incentive to pay attention to boaters or the state of the canals.
As they say, there's no such thing as a free meal ticket. That applies to CRT, too. CRT will have plenty of incentive to please, if they are placed in the situation of losing revenue, when boaters have the more legitimate claim to choice than CRT have to expect a licence fee from those that are in private marinas; those who may or may not choose to use the canal, who may or may not choose to boat this year or next year.
|
|
|
Crt
Apr 8, 2016 18:38:25 GMT
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 8, 2016 18:38:25 GMT
Having said this, we actually feel quite at home in Sowerby Bridge and we have taken very much to 'Yorkshire folk'. I like Yorkshire, and Yorkshire folk too, I spend a fair bit of time there in the truck. Never been there in the boat yet, but I am sure I will. I think it was Bill Bryson who said about Yorkshiremen "If you ever want to know what your shortcomings are, you won't find more helpful people anywhere".
|
|