|
Post by kris on Aug 23, 2016 19:16:55 GMT
The published accounts leave a lot to be desired, I was talking to a much more qualified than myself boater, about the accounts. They couldn't believe how vague crt are about where their earnings come from and how they are spent. One thing is certain it would be cheaper to maintain, if it wasn't maintained for the navigation of boats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 19:27:07 GMT
The published accounts leave a lot to be desired, I was talking to a much more qualified than myself boater, about the accounts. They couldn't believe how vague crt are about where their earnings come from and how they are spent. One thing is certain it would be cheaper to maintain, if it wasn't maintained for the navigation of boats. Vague is mild. They go out of their way to hide what they don't want known. They make mi5 look like amateurs. I was once told how much CRT gets from the cable companies who pay a yearly lease for the use of the towpath. It was a staggering amount. I have never been able to discover if it is in fact what they recieve, mainly because they make no specific mention of it in their accounts. I even asked John Dodwell, and suggested the amount. He couldn't, or wouldn't supply a figure, but went very red faced when I suggested mine. (probably wandered how the fuck I had got the info).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 23, 2016 20:04:07 GMT
So anyway because a small percentage of boaters take the piss. We all have to give up on any future for the waterways? That's what I'm supposed to take away from this thread is it? No. How do you come to that conclusion? My conclusion is that those who stick to the rules and actually want to cruise have no problem. Loafer is an example of a live aboard CCer in that category. Only those who are the actual piss takers - those who have declared that they will use their boats bona fide for cruising, and yet expend a lot of effort in trying to cruise as little as possible, are the ones having problems. And rightly so since, as Jenlyn pointed out earlier, the canals were, and in my opinion should remain, primarily as a transport network. Those who see the canals as a cheap housing solution and have no desire to actually explore the system are using the system for the wrong purposes (IMO) and CRT are right to try to discourage this type of usage. In the same way that we would want the highways agency to discourage hordes of residential caravans to be parked on the hard shoulders / sides of roads.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 23, 2016 20:06:47 GMT
I think we can all agree that the piss takers are in a minority, so why is the future of the waterways being determined by them? Or to put it another way why is Crt's plan for the future of the waterways basicly a knee jerk reaction to a small minority of boaters? . Crt figure that getting rid of cc will enable them to shut down large parts of the system, leaving only the most popular and easily managed routes to deal with. CRT's simple but effective answer, is to not maintain the areas they would prefer us not to use Steve you have recently been talking some sense but this is just hallucination. Do you have any evidence to support your wild claims? Either way, whatever you are on could I have some please? - it seems fantastic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 20:13:36 GMT
. Crt figure that getting rid of cc will enable them to shut down large parts of the system, leaving only the most popular and easily managed routes to deal with. CRT's simple but effective answer, is to not maintain the areas they would prefer us not to use Steve you have recently been talking some sense but this is just hallucination. Do you have any evidence to support your wild claims? Either way, whatever you are on could I have some please? - it seems fantastic! Although I will take great pleasure in telling you I told you so, it will be a heavy heart and anger at people like yourself for letting it happen that will stick in my gut.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 23, 2016 20:18:52 GMT
This 'piss taker continuous cruiser' thing isn't black and white. OK there are a number of boaters who move very little. It's probably fair to say that many or most of these are now under enforcement.
This is what I do: October to January I still move every 2 weeks but within a small range, maybe 10 miles. January to March I either put my boat in a marina or buy a towpath permit. March to October I go off cruising. Not to the other end of the country but maybe a range of 50 miles.
I stay in one area over autumn/ winter because I like to be there. The fishing is good and as I ride a motorbike, it's not too far to go to see family and friends. In any case, very often I couldn't go much further because of stoppages.
Do I qualify as a 'piss taker', a 'semi piss taker', or 'genuine cruiser'?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 23, 2016 20:19:22 GMT
So anyway because a small percentage of boaters take the piss. We all have to give up on any future for the waterways? That's what I'm supposed to take away from this thread is it? No. How do you come to that conclusion? My conclusion is that those who stick to the rules and actually want to cruise have no problem. Loafer is an example of a live aboard CCer in that category. Only those who are the actual piss takers - those who have declared that they will use their boats bona fide for cruising, and yet expend a lot of effort in trying to cruise as little as possible, are the ones having problems. And rightly so since, as Jenlyn pointed out earlier, the canals were, and in my opinion should remain, primarily as a transport network. Those who see the canals as a cheap housing solution and have no desire to actually explore the system are using the system for the wrong purposes (IMO) and CRT are right to try to discourage this type of usage. In the same way that we would want the highways agency to discourage hordes of residential caravans to be parked on the hard shoulders / sides of roads. so what about the 20% reduction in maintenance in the first 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 23, 2016 21:04:02 GMT
As I have said before our canals ooop nawth seem to be in better condition than ever I had 3 weeks out went to castleford no hassle all locks worked went to Thorne all locks worked Back to Rotherham everything worked. Until CRT took over that wasnt the case I would have had at least 10 hours of stoppages on the journey. I can only report what I see and the changes like Vol Lockies CRT lockies helping me through 3 lift bridges [he was off shift and going home] We have got boaters taking the piss up here and they are being caught and told to mend their ways. I can also say the canals have been busier than I have seen for years which is great, we have one commercial still running wish there were more but one is better than none! I dont mind being lumped together with Nick and John 2 of us live on boats and use them Nick wants to live on his boat and really uses it so we must see things different to you Steve and Kris. Sorry if you dont agree but I dont give a flying fuck to be honest what you think!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 23, 2016 21:21:20 GMT
No. How do you come to that conclusion? My conclusion is that those who stick to the rules and actually want to cruise have no problem. Loafer is an example of a live aboard CCer in that category. Only those who are the actual piss takers - those who have declared that they will use their boats bona fide for cruising, and yet expend a lot of effort in trying to cruise as little as possible, are the ones having problems. And rightly so since, as Jenlyn pointed out earlier, the canals were, and in my opinion should remain, primarily as a transport network. Those who see the canals as a cheap housing solution and have no desire to actually explore the system are using the system for the wrong purposes (IMO) and CRT are right to try to discourage this type of usage. In the same way that we would want the highways agency to discourage hordes of residential caravans to be parked on the hard shoulders / sides of roads. so what about the 20% reduction in maintenance in the first 15 years. Of course it would be better if there weren't a 20% reduction in maintenance FUNDS in the first 15 years, but then again we are expecting the taxpayer to fund our train set and so we can't be too surprised if there is a bit of a squeeze. I don't think it was CRT's desire to reduce maintenance funding by 20%, rather it was the government's will forced on them. And we should remember that funding doesn't necessarily translate into work. A 20% reduction in funding, with that funding spent more efficiently, might result in no reduction in useful maintenance. That said I have no idea whether CRT is more efficient than BW, both seem fairly wasteful in some respects, but generally a long established and bloated quango will be less efficient than a new leaner quango, due to all the baggage.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Aug 23, 2016 21:24:20 GMT
So anyway because a small percentage of boaters take the piss. We all have to give up on any future for the waterways? That's what I'm supposed to take away from this thread is it? No. How do you come to that conclusion? My conclusion is that those who stick to the rules and actually want to cruise have no problem. Loafer is an example of a live aboard CCer in that category. Only those who are the actual piss takers - those who have declared that they will use their boats bona fide for cruising, and yet expend a lot of effort in trying to cruise as little as possible, are the ones having problems. I'm not a CCer, I have a home mooring, and last year I got a warning of enforcement. I had been going to work on my boat two or three days per week. There were some moorings right outside where I was working which was about a mile and a half from my mooring. On the days I used the boat to go to work I moored up about midday an left about 8pm. I did this two or three days per week for two months before I got a note on my boat threatening enforcement. When I spoke to the enforcement chap he insisted I had been moored there for 5 weeks. I had never even stopped one night there...
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 23, 2016 21:38:52 GMT
No. How do you come to that conclusion? My conclusion is that those who stick to the rules and actually want to cruise have no problem. Loafer is an example of a live aboard CCer in that category. Only those who are the actual piss takers - those who have declared that they will use their boats bona fide for cruising, and yet expend a lot of effort in trying to cruise as little as possible, are the ones having problems. I'm not a CCer, I have a home mooring, and last year I got a warning of enforcement. I had been going to work on my boat two or three days per week. There were some moorings right outside where I was working which was about a mile and a half from my mooring. On the days I used the boat to go to work I moored up about midday an left about 8pm. I did this two or three days per week for two months before I got a note on my boat threatening enforcement. When I spoke to the enforcement chap he insisted I had been moored there for 5 weeks. I had never even stopped one night there... what was the outcome to this?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 23, 2016 21:50:10 GMT
No. How do you come to that conclusion? My conclusion is that those who stick to the rules and actually want to cruise have no problem. Loafer is an example of a live aboard CCer in that category. Only those who are the actual piss takers - those who have declared that they will use their boats bona fide for cruising, and yet expend a lot of effort in trying to cruise as little as possible, are the ones having problems. I'm not a CCer, I have a home mooring, and last year I got a warning of enforcement. I had been going to work on my boat two or three days per week. There were some moorings right outside where I was working which was about a mile and a half from my mooring. On the days I used the boat to go to work I moored up about midday an left about 8pm. I did this two or three days per week for two months before I got a note on my boat threatening enforcement. When I spoke to the enforcement chap he insisted I had been moored there for 5 weeks. I had never even stopped one night there... This is annoying however look at it from the EO's point of view - and let's for a moment forget that the law doesn't control your mooring duration away from your home mooring - as far as he can tell you are taking the piss by mooring in one spot for 5 weeks. He is just doing a job, probably works 9-5 or whatever, doesn't cover the location daily, and you are never on the boat when he passes by, so he doesn't have too much option to have a chat with you, he only has the option of the formal notice. However it would presumably have a contact number for you to phone to clear things up - did you contact him? Your situation seems unusual but it's interesting from a moral point of view: let's say the moorings you mention are VMs in an area when they are in short supply, maybe 24 hr moorings. You arrive at midday when the over-nighters have left. You stay until 8pm with several boats arriving in the afternoon / early evening unable to use your space. After you have left at 8pm no further boats come by looking for a mooring - they have all wanted to find somewhere to stop hours ago. So the space in practice is unusable for an overnight stop. I'd say this is borderline pisstaking. On the other hand if it's just general towpath mooring in an area not in high demand, it wouldnt be affecting anyone else and it should just be a matter of explaining your usage pattern to the EO. What was the actual outcome? On the subject of whether CRT are empowered to control the towpath mooring of someone who as a home mooring, well as I said they probably aren't. On the other hand it is for the general good of all other canal users that an individual can't get a cheap mooring in some out of the way place, and use that as an excuse to permanently position their boat in some public-space honeypot location in high demand, such as central London.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Aug 23, 2016 21:57:00 GMT
I'm not a CCer, I have a home mooring, and last year I got a warning of enforcement. I had been going to work on my boat two or three days per week. There were some moorings right outside where I was working which was about a mile and a half from my mooring. On the days I used the boat to go to work I moored up about midday an left about 8pm. I did this two or three days per week for two months before I got a note on my boat threatening enforcement. When I spoke to the enforcement chap he insisted I had been moored there for 5 weeks. I had never even stopped one night there... what was the outcome to this? Not a lot in the end. I was quite rude to the enforcement chap who refused to believe my explanation and by that point I had moved jobs and never moored there again. It was just a bit frustrating as I knew I had done nothing against the rules and they were being bastards and insisted I had done something I hadn't.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Aug 23, 2016 22:01:57 GMT
I'm not a CCer, I have a home mooring, and last year I got a warning of enforcement. I had been going to work on my boat two or three days per week. There were some moorings right outside where I was working which was about a mile and a half from my mooring. On the days I used the boat to go to work I moored up about midday an left about 8pm. I did this two or three days per week for two months before I got a note on my boat threatening enforcement. When I spoke to the enforcement chap he insisted I had been moored there for 5 weeks. I had never even stopped one night there... This is annoying however look at it from the EO's point of view - and let's for a moment forget that the law doesn't control your mooring duration away from your home mooring - as far as he can tell you are taking the piss by mooring in one spot for 5 weeks. He is just doing a job, probably works 9-5 or whatever, doesn't cover the location daily, and you are never on the boat when he passes by, so he doesn't have too much option to have a chat with you, he only has the option of the formal notice. However it would presumably have a contact number for you to phone to clear things up - did you contact him? Your situation seems unusual but it's interesting from a moral point of view: let's say the moorings you mention are VMs in an area when they are in short supply, maybe 24 hr moorings. You arrive at midday when the over-nighters have left. You stay until 8pm with several boats arriving in the afternoon / early evening unable to use your space. After you have left at 8pm no further boats come by looking for a mooring - they have all wanted to find somewhere to stop hours ago. So the space in practice is unusable for an overnight stop. I'd say this is borderline pisstaking. On the other hand if it's just general towpath mooring in an area not in high demand, it wouldnt be affecting anyone else and it should just be a matter of explaining your usage pattern to the EO. What was the actual outcome? On the subject of whether CRT are empowered to control the towpath mooring of someone who as a home mooring, well as I said they probably aren't. On the other hand it is for the general good of all other canal users that an individual can't get a cheap mooring in some out of the way place, and use that as an excuse to permanently position their boat in some public-space honeypot location in high demand, such as central London. See above for the outcome. What made it annoying was that I did speak to the enforcement officer and explain but he refused to believe me. There were both 14 day moorings and 48hr ones outside my work and I always stayed on the 14 day ones. There was always space there, any time of day, not a super popular spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 22:04:20 GMT
what was the outcome to this? Not a lot in the end. I was quite rude to the enforcement chap who refused to believe my explanation and by that point I had moved jobs and never moored there again. It was just a bit frustrating as I knew I had done nothing against the rules and they were being bastards and insisted I had done something I hadn't. My dealings with some eo's have done nothing other than show there utter lack of people communication skills. Their approach can immediately get someone's back up, and I have seen normally quiet unobtrusive folk lose it. Making accusations rather than approaching the situation with some pragmatism. On the other hand, the pay is shit for what they do, and I suppose you get what you pay for. It's a part time position now, and favours retired police officers who are merely looking to bump their pension a bit.
|
|