|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 2, 2018 11:38:44 GMT
Nigel is of the belief that BW/CRT are not empowered to annex towpath-side for private long term paid-for moorings. Perhaps he is right, but it has been custom and practice for many decades without much fuss. As usual, it is a case of CRT are wrong whatever they do. How very tedious. It is not actually a case of CaRT being wrong whatever they do; they are only wrong when they do wrong. It is illuminating to read the analysis of Nigel Johnson respecting use of the towpath for ‘permanent’ moorings dedicated to private paying customers – he makes the valid point [even though justifying the practice] that this is for private benefit, contrary to the charitable public aims of CaRT. So it is not only that they have no legal right to annex public property - administered in trust by them - for private benefit, it is contrary to their function as a charity. Twisted mind that he has, he uses that to justify charging for it, but his apprehension of the underlying legal position is clear enough. Then too, recognition that increased boat numbers is changing the extent to which this 'custom and practice' impacts upon general use, was/is illustrated by the previous policy to reduce such moorings in favour of offside and offline moorings. They and BW were correct to attempt a gradual reversing of the customary practic - even though for practical reasons of public benefit rather than legal. There, you see, they can do the right thing betimes.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 11:52:32 GMT
Nigel is of the belief that BW/CRT are not empowered to annex towpath-side for private long term paid-for moorings. Perhaps he is right, but it has been custom and practice for many decades without much fuss. As usual, it is a case of CRT are wrong whatever they do. How very tedious. It is not actually a case of CaRT being wrong whatever they do; they are only wrong when they do wrong. It is illuminating to read the analysis of Nigel Johnson respecting use of the towpath for ‘permanent’ moorings dedicated to private paying customers – he makes the valid point [even though justifying the practice] that this is for private benefit, contrary to the charitable public aims of CaRT. So it is not only that they have no legal right to annex public property - administered in trust by them - for private benefit, it is contrary to their function as a charity. Twisted mind that he has, he uses that to justify charging for it, but his apprehension of the underlying legal position is clear enough. Then too, recognition that increased boat numbers is changing the extent to which this 'custom and practice' impacts upon general use, was/is illustrated by the previous policy to reduce such moorings in favour of offside and offline moorings. They and BW were correct to attempt a gradual reversing of the customary practic - even though for practical reasons of public benefit rather than legal. There, you see, they can do the right thing betimes. All that said though, any complaints should be about the principle of the annexation of public space for private benefit, not about CRT's attempts to protect the interests of "innocent" people who have paid for a mooring in good faith and find a rogue boat in their paid-for space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 11:56:33 GMT
My reply was typical of someone with more knowledge of the subject than yourself. Suck it up buttercup. In other words, you don’t have anything to say. Not unusual! You really do have a unique habit of making yourself look like thick twunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 12:08:37 GMT
He said, she said.... blah blah... Time to sort this out like real men, rent this and winner takes all. Maybe invite Mr parry down for a turn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 12:14:50 GMT
Noticed these signs springing up on various stretches of towpath 'permit holder only' moorings (Newbold, Ashby).
My only concern is the costs of the signs/contracting out of enforcement, set against the frequency of problems on such moorings.
I've never heard anyone complain that their private mooring had been taken by someone else.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 12:18:53 GMT
Think the one at Lime Kilns on the ashby has been twatted already...
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 2, 2018 12:22:57 GMT
Noticed these signs springing up on various stretches of towpath 'permit holder only' moorings (Newbold, Ashby). My only concern is the costs of the signs/contracting out of enforcement, set against the frequency of problems on such moorings. I've never heard anyone complain that their private mooring had been taken by someone else. Rog your about right Rog, what was the extent of this as a problem? Did it warrant the solution Crt have put in place? Or is it the usual sledgehammer to crack a nut? Why make an arrangement with one of the dogiest private parking companies? Is the £150 aday "fine" legal?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 2, 2018 12:30:58 GMT
In other words, you don’t have anything to say. Not unusual! You really do have a unique habit of making yourself look like thick twunt. In other words, you don’t have anything to say on the subject. A recurring theme!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 12:31:10 GMT
Noticed these signs springing up on various stretches of towpath 'permit holder only' moorings (Newbold, Ashby). My only concern is the costs of the signs/contracting out of enforcement, set against the frequency of problems on such moorings. I've never heard anyone complain that their private mooring had been taken by someone else. Rog CRT, and BW before them always use this silly way of dealing with issues. They struggle to shake off their civil service attitudes. A problem arises, and instead of analysis, they just tax, threaten, or fine. It's easier than looking for a solution. Denise Yelland is a classic example, sitting down trying to reason with her is impossible. She resides in her little box and never peers over the top. Many of them are like this. They are 9-5'ers, simply turning up to fill the pension pot whilst looking forward to early retirement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 12:37:03 GMT
Matty40s on CWDF has put up several photos of lock repairs that have been ineffectual, due to being opened too early, or simple lack of knowledge by contractors with limited waterways knowledge.
It's these sort of issues that are the real worry in my view. That C&RT now lack the skills and know-how to even direct contractors accurately, therefore actually wasting the money despite their initial intentions being correct.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 2, 2018 13:00:48 GMT
Noticed these signs springing up on various stretches of towpath 'permit holder only' moorings (Newbold, Ashby). My only concern is the costs of the signs/contracting out of enforcement, set against the frequency of problems on such moorings. I've never heard anyone complain that their private mooring had been taken by someone else. Rog Now I may be wrong but when they are contracted to a car park it is very very rare for them to accept any money for doing so, as they collect so much money from tickets. They may or may not in this case but it would be against their normal practices. I can't see them collecting many £150 unless people just pay up as the terms and conditions allow you to moor there untill asked to remove and then you still get time to do so. After that they could collect their monies. Interestingly. The terms and conditions state and what they are relying on. If for any reason you move your Boat on to the Mooring Site without our permission, or if we permit you to do so in error, notwithstanding that the conditions in condition 3 have not been met, you must remove the Boat from the Mooring Site if we give you a written notice requiring you to remove the Boat from the Mooring Site. 1.5 If you fail to remove the Boat within the period specified in the written notice given to you in accordance with condition 1.4 above, we shall be entitled to: i) remove your Boat from the Mooring Site to such place on The Trust’s Waterways as we deem appropriate, and you consent to us entering on to and/or taking control of the Boat for a temporary period to the extent necessary to carry out our rights under this condition 1.5; ii) charge you Overstay Charges which you will find: (a) at or (b) on prominent notices located at the Mooring Site. You will be liable to pay Overstay Charges, in accordance with this condition 1.5, up to and including the date upon which your Boat is removed from the Mooring by you, or by us.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 2, 2018 13:05:54 GMT
actually if you read that carefully ................. it still doesn't make sense
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 2, 2018 13:10:45 GMT
All that said though, any complaints should be about the principle of the annexation of public space for private benefit, not about CRT's attempts to protect the interests of "innocent" people who have paid for a mooring in good faith and find a rogue boat in their paid-for space. No dispute there from me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 13:12:50 GMT
Matty40s on CWDF has put up several photos of lock repairs that have been ineffectual, due to being opened too early, or simple lack of knowledge by contractors with limited waterways knowledge. It's these sort of issues that are the real worry in my view. That C&RT now lack the skills and know-how to even direct contractors accurately, therefore actually wasting the money despite their initial intentions being correct. Rog All this fuss being made now on issues some of us have been attempting to make people aware of for several years. I note that even flincher is now making noises about the decay in the South, even though he tends to ridicule anyone else making the point. Likewise idiots like Nick Norman who object simply to be the opposite. It's pathetic behaviour, but that's where we are. I get the fact that people tend to turn a blind eye to issues because they simply enjoy just being on a canal, a bit like yourself. I totally get that. However, once in a while, and to continue your enjoyment, you will need to make sure you tell CRT when you feel things are not right. Many voices get results. Don't go believing any of this is about CRT having insufficient funds, that's just bullshit. CRT spend 2.5 million a year on company cars and allowances. Given the number of employees, that is an astronomical amount. Their employees even rate the car allowance as one of the best features of working for CRT. This organisation is all about funding and providing an office environment. Just jobs.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 2, 2018 13:31:18 GMT
I think (Jenlyns post) that one has to be careful to separate office workers and the coal face workers (the few that are left)
Where there are still "proper" lock keepers, they no longer have the autonomy they had of old.
A lock keepers lock was "his" and all the work associated with it was down to him. This meant that they would run and manage the general working according to their perception of priorities. The locks would be greased and painted as needed, the grass would be cut, again as needed and not by some pre-planned time table by a contractor (who doesn't give a toss if he has left it like a plowed field because it was raining or chops down daffodils because he doesn't "see" them)
Now with so much farmed out to "contractors" and the positions of the skilled staff they did have "disappeared" and the few left so disillusioned, it is not surprising that things are going to pot.
The culture of bringing in "expertise" from outside fields is a disaster but seems to be the modern way with business ...... and CRT is (in effect) a business
|
|