|
Post by kris on Aug 24, 2016 15:38:14 GMT
dont worry Nick, it won't effect you. Ps if you had read the thread you would see where I've mentioned specific examples. I have read all the thread but I haven't memorised it all. Be nice and just remind me what your specific beefs are to save me wading through 7 pages!
Edit:
Well not being one to hold my breath, I have scanned all 7 pages reading your posts. So you have found that the L&L needs dredging in places and a pound was low and the lock leading into the river is leaking. From that you extrapolate that the end of the canals is nigh. Fine if you want to think that, but I find your case not proven due to the tiny sample size.
they are actually specific examples, which is what you where asking for. It's not that a pound was low, but that a pound is kept low. So as to not fix the leaks, I have to ask for more water every time I want to go through the pound. I can't moor on said pound anymore. I think this is a good example of how the maintenance is being mis managed. Unlike some people I don't talk about things outside of my direct experience.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 24, 2016 15:41:15 GMT
but the issue is if you aint doing owt wrong nothing happens to you [not true by a country mile. Do I really have to quote the on going cases.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 24, 2016 16:17:37 GMT
but the issue is if you aint doing owt wrong nothing happens to you [not true by a country mile. Do I really have to quote the on going cases. Of course it depends on what you mean by "owt wrong". If you mean against the popularist forum interpretation of the law then you're right. But whether that popularist interpretation is one a court would support, we don't really know yet. But it is also interesting to consider the moral aspects. We do this when we, for example, condemn Starbucks or Google for not paying UK tax - they are not acting illegally, but they are acting immorally and that has hurt them. Quite rightly so. so for example if someone manages to find a loophole that means unlike almost everyone else, they don't have to licence their boat. Or they find a means to annex public space for their prolonged and personal use to the exclusion of everyone else, even though in the final analysis it might not be unlawful, it is selfish and inconsiderate and for that, we should condemn them in the same way we do Google and Starbucks. If CRT go out on a limb to try and control those selfish and inconsiderate folk then personally I don't have too much of a problem with it. of course if one acts unselfishly and considerately, these problems don't arise. Perhaps this is why we never seem to have a problem with CRT?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 24, 2016 16:23:01 GMT
I have read all the thread but I haven't memorised it all. Be nice and just remind me what your specific beefs are to save me wading through 7 pages!
Edit:
Well not being one to hold my breath, I have scanned all 7 pages reading your posts. So you have found that the L&L needs dredging in places and a pound was low and the lock leading into the river is leaking. From that you extrapolate that the end of the canals is nigh. Fine if you want to think that, but I find your case not proven due to the tiny sample size.
they are actually specific examples, which is what you where asking for. It's not that a pound was low, but that a pound is kept low. So as to not fix the leaks, I have to ask for more water every time I want to go through the pound. I can't moor on said pound anymore. I think this is a good example of how the maintenance is being mis managed. Unlike some people I don't talk about things outside of my direct experience. Ok so in your specific local patch you have examples of where maintenance is worse than you'd like, or maybe become worse. But since we travel over a wide section of the system I think I have a better "big picture" and yes there are some places where maintenance could be better and things have deteriorated. Equally there are plenty of places that have improved noticably. Overall without being able to analyse it accurately, I'd say the status quo prevails and nothing overall has changed much. But no, we haven't been on the L&L fo a good few years, the closest we've come is the Cheshire ring - and yes Marple locks looked a bit decrepit though also beautiful. That is not to say we shouldn't be concerned for the future as government funding can be cut, but right now I don't see the portents of doom gathering based on what we see out and about on the system.
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Aug 24, 2016 17:05:40 GMT
Far too many likes from me there, Nick. But I agree with all your above.
I, too, don't see any overall degradation in 6 yrs of living aboard, CCing. I see some examples of old lock gates almost knackered, some lock landings collapsing, but I also see improvements in many areas (offside vegetation, occasional dredging, repairs completed by April, etc.
I just wish they'd stop cutting the sodding grass wherever I turn up. Nearly as bad as the bleedin' cycling nutters!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Aug 24, 2016 18:12:08 GMT
Personally, I can't understand how anybody could moor in the same place for 14 days, let alone more than 14 days. 14 hours in the same place does my head in!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 24, 2016 19:44:18 GMT
Personally, I can't understand how anybody could moor in the same place for 14 days, let alone more than 14 days. 14 hours in the same place does my head in! You need to learn to slow down and appreciate life We had 9 days in Slaithwaite and it began to feel like 'our home' - and we still have a soft spot for it. I do like to rush around, always have, but I have also learned to slow myself down - that's one reason we're now thinking of doing the Leeds & Liverpool Canal next Summer instead of zooming down to London. We think that, now we have worked hard on our boat and got it up to scratch, it's time to slow down and enjoy boating for what it is. Stopping and soaking in the countryside. Being idle and a bit drunk and writing something. Just sitting in the boat of an evening beside the fire reading a book. You can walk the Pennine Way in 3 weeks but when I do it I want to take two months just ambling along at my own pace, and enjoy being in the tent listening to the owls in the woods, and the wind gusting by when high up on the moors.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 24, 2016 19:59:42 GMT
You'll be doing well foxy to get your boat on the pennine way.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 25, 2016 8:38:52 GMT
Kris if you was the enforcement officer and you saw what Delta did you would think he had taken up residence there. Now me I might wander down to his marina and if I saw his boat there would believe him but its whether he has the time, and how many piss takers he had dealt with that day. As for the rest I aint seeing any evidence up here of problems with our canals and they are under used in comparison to the rest of the system so for the enforcement officer to presume guilt is okay then, because the last few people where, the next person must be guilty. Even a piss taking overstayer with a liscence is a paying customer. Best not even mention Crt, trying to bend the legislation to its own ends. But that's okay because it's to deal with a small percentage of boaters. Kris, Your moan (justifiable) about the actions/attitudes of an enforcement officer are only indicative of the crap training/oversight of them, rather than systematic collapse. Peter is correct in that you might personally understand the EO jumping to conclusions but you are correct in that he should not have gone about his approach to Delta with that attitude. I can't see me getting onto CRT waters this year as I have a lot more of the Great Ouse to cover yet, hopefully next year, I will be heading towards the BCN, as it has been some time since I went that way
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 25, 2016 12:13:25 GMT
so for the enforcement officer to presume guilt is okay then, because the last few people where, the next person must be guilty. Even a piss taking overstayer with a liscence is a paying customer. Best not even mention Crt, trying to bend the legislation to its own ends. But that's okay because it's to deal with a small percentage of boaters. Kris, Your moan (justifiable) about the actions/attitudes of an enforcement officer are only indicative of the crap training/oversight of them, rather than systematic collapse. Peter is correct in that you might personally understand the EO jumping to conclusions but you are correct in that he should not have gone about his approach to Delta with that attitude. I can't see me getting onto CRT waters this year as I have a lot more of the Great Ouse to cover yet, hopefully next year, I will be heading towards the BCN, as it has been some time since I went that way unfortunately the attitude is endemic in Crt's enforcement dept. it comes from the top down in that it is condoned by Richard parry. Don't forget he has signed off on all the on going legal action. So he must have an understanding of the line his enforcement dept is taking. It seems that the attitude "boaters are hassle" is entrenched in certain people within the organisation. Which is a shame because seen in the correct light all boaters are an asset to the trust and ambassadors for the waterways. Even all the younger boaters coming to the water in London. That lots of people yourself included like to moan about. Could be seen as the next generation of customers to contribute to the upkeep of the waterways through paying a liscence fee.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 25, 2016 12:44:14 GMT
dont worry Nick, it won't effect you. Ps if you had read the thread you would see where I've mentioned specific examples. I have read all the thread but I haven't memorised it all. Be nice and just remind me what your specific beefs are to save me wading through 7 pages!
Edit:
Well not being one to hold my breath, I have scanned all 7 pages reading your posts. So you have found that the L&L needs dredging in places and a pound was low and the lock leading into the river is leaking. From that you extrapolate that the end of the canals is nigh. Fine if you want to think that, but I find your case not proven due to the tiny sample size.
Nick, unless the EO has evidence to the standards required by a criminal court the EO should never assume any level of guilt nor assume that because a boat is seen at point A at 1pm on day one and at the same point on day four or seventeen at 1pm that the boat has been there all of the time 24/7. Rather he should when approaching the owner assume nothing as all he knows is the boat was there at 1pm on day one and at 1pm on another day. Hence the approach should be of an enquiring nature with no suggestions of accusations. Assume nothing EO
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 25, 2016 12:56:07 GMT
[not true by a country mile. Do I really have to quote the on going cases. Of course it depends on what you mean by "owt wrong". If you mean against the popularist forum interpretation of the law then you're right. But whether that popularist interpretation is one a court would support, we don't really know yet. But it is also interesting to consider the moral aspects. We do this when we, for example, condemn Starbucks or Google for not paying UK tax - they are not acting illegally, but they are acting immorally and that has hurt them. Quite rightly so. so for example if someone manages to find a loophole that means unlike almost everyone else, they don't have to licence their boat. Or they find a means to annex public space for their prolonged and personal use to the exclusion of everyone else, even though in the final analysis it might not be unlawful, it is selfish and inconsiderate and for that, we should condemn them in the same way we do Google and Starbucks. If CRT go out on a limb to try and control those selfish and inconsiderate folk then personally I don't have too much of a problem with it. of course if one acts unselfishly and considerately, these problems don't arise. Perhaps this is why we never seem to have a problem with CRT? English law rarely takes into account selfishness etc. It is aimed at telling people what they cannot do and if there is not a law, statue or relate, the whatever it is can be done. For example home moorers unlike CCers have no law that says they may only moor for 14 days, unless you know of a statue, bylaw etc that states such.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Aug 25, 2016 14:56:12 GMT
I have read all the thread but I haven't memorised it all. Be nice and just remind me what your specific beefs are to save me wading through 7 pages!
Edit:
Well not being one to hold my breath, I have scanned all 7 pages reading your posts. So you have found that the L&L needs dredging in places and a pound was low and the lock leading into the river is leaking. From that you extrapolate that the end of the canals is nigh. Fine if you want to think that, but I find your case not proven due to the tiny sample size.
Nick, unless the EO has evidence to the standards required by a criminal court the EO should never assume any level of guilt nor assume that because a boat is seen at point A at 1pm on day one and at the same point on day four or seventeen at 1pm that the boat has been there all of the time 24/7. Rather he should when approaching the owner assume nothing as all he knows is the boat was there at 1pm on day one and at 1pm on another day. Hence the approach should be of an enquiring nature with no suggestions of accusations. Assume nothing EO Assume. That's yet another word! In an ideal world you're right, however in the real world if the EO passes by at 14:00 every day and the boat is always there with no-one on board, you are suggesting that he should camp out and keep it under continuous 24 hr observation to ensure it doesn't return to its home mooring overnight, before issuing an enforcement notice. Ain't going to happen! Anyway although I've never seen one, I believe an enforcement notice says something along the lines of "we believe that..." Or "it appears that... " giving you the chance to put your side. How else could it reasonably be organised?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 25, 2016 15:13:18 GMT
I 'believe' Wombles are making pancakes on Neptune in which they are using Tesco's own brand strawberry jam instead of Hartley's.
It 'appears' that they got to Neptune on the stolen narrowboat that nobody has been able to locate. That would explain its disappearance.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Aug 25, 2016 15:22:34 GMT
Nick, unless the EO has evidence to the standards required by a criminal court the EO should never assume any level of guilt nor assume that because a boat is seen at point A at 1pm on day one and at the same point on day four or seventeen at 1pm that the boat has been there all of the time 24/7. Rather he should when approaching the owner assume nothing as all he knows is the boat was there at 1pm on day one and at 1pm on another day. Hence the approach should be of an enquiring nature with no suggestions of accusations. Assume nothing EO Assume. That's yet another word! In an ideal world you're right, however in the real world if the EO passes by at 14:00 every day and the boat is always there with no-one on board, you are suggesting that he should camp out and keep it under continuous 24 hr observation to ensure it doesn't return to its home mooring overnight, before issuing an enforcement notice. Ain't going to happen! Anyway although I've never seen one, I believe an enforcement notice says something along the lines of "we believe that..." Or "it appears that... " giving you the chance to put your side. How else could it reasonably be organised? Like you I have never seen an notice of the type they put on a boat. I am loath to call it an Enforcement notice because if it is call that there is an implied assumption of guilt on CRT's part, rather than say an enquiry notice say. If it says anything about moving on etc then CRT are assuming guilt I would suggest. If an EO is going to launch into some form of detriment act against the customer then I would suggest that he is going to need much better evidence than saying it was there at 2pm yesterday and 2pm today therefore it must have been there overnight. That is not the case at all and is easily debuted by someone with a home mooring an hour's cruising or so away. I did once have an EO grumble at me that I had overstayed at the Stoke Bruene disabled Moorings. I hadn't, so I asked for proof. He had none, if he had even a basic photo of the boat it would have shown it had been move, 1st occasion I was heading south, second I was heading north on the return trip. He got quite shirty until I said get your manager to ring me and see you in court. Manager apologised.
|
|