Jump to content

Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing


Ray T

Featured Posts

5 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

This FOI request shows that CaRT has received no formal complaints about the structure of boat licencing, the statement they made that it is "  is often cited by boat owners as being complex and out of date"  is yet another lie.

 

 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/plans_to_review_boat_licencing#incoming-960250

 

 

Actually, I did not ask if they had received any formal complaints. I asked  for -

All information recorded during 2016 that supports your assertion that boat owners cite the current licencing system as being complex and out of date.

Whilst that would have included any formal complaints in would also included any other recorded information held.

It seems to me that C&RT did not learn lessons from the South East Visitor Mooring consultation and have attempted to justify this consultation in a similar manner (i.e. they are suggesting that they are holding a consultation to address boater concerns but are unable to provide evidence that those concerns exist).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was absolutely no reason to lie about this, they could have just said we want to change the licencing system because we are the navigation authority. They are compulsive liars, they just can't stop themselves. So now we know this review is starting on a lie, which doesn't bode well for the rest of it.  I hope anyone who is involved in this review brings this matter up. 

 

Nice work Alan, you beat me to it, I put in a similar request after yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

There was absolutely no reason to lie about this, they could have just said we want to change the licencing system because we are the navigation authority. They are compulsive liars, they just can't stop themselves. So now we know this review is starting on a lie, which doesn't bode well for the rest of it.  I hope anyone who is involved in this review brings this matter up. 

 

Nice work Alan, you beat me to it, I put in a similar request after yours.

Such ad hominem slander does little to advance the arguments. By all means assert that, in your view, there is little evidence for a particular claim, or that there is no need for change, but the best way to approach this is to ensure that the overwhelming bulk of responses made to the consultation conform to your view.

Of course, you may also wish to assert that, in your view, there is a covert agenda with which you fundamentally disagree, but it is much better to state what you believe that agenda to be. Otherwise the rest of us will not know and may well take the consultation at its face value.

One of the hardest positions to maintain - and it is sometimes well justified - is that nothing needs to change. In general there is acceptance that in everything in this world there are ways of improving life. Otherwise we would still be living in caves (or worse). What is needed in this matter is an argument that says that no proposed alternative is better than the status quo - in every respect. Reality check - most new ideas tackle specific shortcomings of the status quo and ignore the fact that most things are being dealt with quite well. A new idea has to be tested against what works well not just that which does not.

If you wish to argue for the retention of the status quo, one of the first things you need to do is to tabulate all those matters which you think are right about it and then proceed to admit that which is not so good. The debate then is about balancing the one with the other, factoring the differing uncertainty about how the new will turn out in practice compared with the greater certainty about what already exists.

When someone proposes a new idea (in whatever domain) it does not really help to respond by asking what evidence there is for a change. At least the proposer will see all the benefits of the new and may well be blind to the good that already exists.

What you really need to do is to present an objective assessment of the current licensing arrangements in order to highlight all the successful aspects so that any new idea can be tested (again objectively) against them.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am old and often called cynical, but I prefer pragmatic.  However whenever I have been involved in a 'consultation' between the employer and the workforce to make things 'better' it usually is where the employer has already decided what is to be done, they just want to sell it to the workforce by saying that 'we consulted you, and this is what the majority wanted'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Press release 

21 April 2017 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST INVITES BOATERS TO TAKE PART IN LICENSING CONSULTATION WORKSHOPS 

The Canal & River Trust is inviting boaters to express an interest in being part of the workshops that will form stage two of its three stage national licensing consultation. 

In stage one the independent charity, Involve, which is leading the consultation, interviewed representatives from the main boating organisations to find out their views on how the consultation should work and what it should cover. The conversations have now been completed and the content will form the basis of discussions in a series of boater workshops across the country.

 Workshops will be hosted by Involve at venues across the network. Each workshop will consist of up to 15 boaters representing a range of different interest groups (for example boats with and without home moorings, leisure boaters, residential boaters, narrow and wide beam boaters) and a facilitator from Involve. The aim of the workshops is to help shape stage three of the consultation which will be open to all licence holders. 

The Trust is emailing all current boat licence holders for whom it holds a valid email address with an online link where they can express their interest in taking part in the workshops.  Boaters without access to the internet can contact Customer Services to complete the form for them.  Participants will be randomly selected by Involve from the various interest groups in each location.

 Ian Rogers, customer service and operations director at Canal & River Trust, said: “The first stage of our national licensing consultation has been very productive and I’m pleased at how eager, honest and involved the conversations so far have been.  Now we’re offering every boater the opportunity to potentially take part in the workshops and help shape the wider consultation. We hope boaters dig deeper into the themes introduced by the boating organisations. I'm sure they'll be lively, enlightening discussions that help shape the final stage of consultation for our licensed customers.”  

ENDS  

For further media info please contact:

Jonathan Ludford, Canal & River Trust
m 07747 897783 e jonathan.ludford@canalrivertrust.org.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Such ad hominem slander does little to advance the arguments. By all means assert that, in your view, there is little evidence for a particular claim, or that there is no need for change, but the best way to approach this is to ensure that the overwhelming bulk of responses made to the consultation conform to your view.

Of course, you may also wish to assert that, in your view, there is a covert agenda with which you fundamentally disagree, but it is much better to state what you believe that agenda to be. Otherwise the rest of us will not know and may well take the consultation at its face value.

One of the hardest positions to maintain - and it is sometimes well justified - is that nothing needs to change. In general there is acceptance that in everything in this world there are ways of improving life. Otherwise we would still be living in caves (or worse). What is needed in this matter is an argument that says that no proposed alternative is better than the status quo - in every respect. Reality check - most new ideas tackle specific shortcomings of the status quo and ignore the fact that most things are being dealt with quite well. A new idea has to be tested against what works well not just that which does not.

If you wish to argue for the retention of the status quo, one of the first things you need to do is to tabulate all those matters which you think are right about it and then proceed to admit that which is not so good. The debate then is about balancing the one with the other, factoring the differing uncertainty about how the new will turn out in practice compared with the greater certainty about what already exists.

When someone proposes a new idea (in whatever domain) it does not really help to respond by asking what evidence there is for a change. At least the proposer will see all the benefits of the new and may well be blind to the good that already exists.

What you really need to do is to present an objective assessment of the current licensing arrangements in order to highlight all the successful aspects so that any new idea can be tested (again objectively) against them.

I am not referring to whether there needs to be change or not, I am just pointing out that the implied reason for the review in the trusts press release is false. 

My view is that with the current despicable management, and bent legal department, allowing them to interfere with licencing will not end well for boaters.  We will be better off sticking with the hand we have been dealt, and fund a legal review of the correct interpretation of section 43.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also this BW document online that states they undertook a major review of licencing in 2007, so their claim that it hasn't been reviewed since 1995 is also false.

 

-
ive cut and pasted the relevant section because I can't see how to copy the link.  
             
For information & comment on by Waterway User Groups


Simon Salem, Marketing & Customer Service Director, 5 September 2008


1. BACKGROUND
During 2007 British Waterway undertook an extensive consultation on future boat licence fees. Many
boaters and representative groups contributed to this and many good suggestions were made. The result
was that BW modified its proposals for licence fees in 2008 and asked the independent British Waterways
Advisory Forum (BWAF) to examine each of the suggestions in closer detail.
BW is very grateful to the members of the BWAF Licensing Sub-Group who dedicated many hours to the
subject. By studying the 2007 public consultation responses, analysing data and debating options, they
gained a deep understanding of the challenges involved in determining a ‘fair’ boat licensing system.
The BWAF report was finalised during August 2008 and this paper is BW’s response to that. It is being sent
to all relevant interest groups for their comments and views on the various recommendations.

Edited by Muddy Ditch Rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

There is also this BW document online that states they undertook a major review of licencing in 2007, so their claim that it hasn't been reviewed since 1995 is also false.

 

-
ive cut and pasted the relevant section because I can't see how to copy the link.  
             
For information & comment on by Waterway User Groups


Simon Salem, Marketing & Customer Service Director, 5 September 2008


1. BACKGROUND
During 2007 British Waterway undertook an extensive consultation on future boat licence fees. Many
boaters and representative groups contributed to this and many good suggestions were made. The result
was that BW modified its proposals for licence fees in 2008 and asked the independent British Waterways
Advisory Forum (BWAF) to examine each of the suggestions in closer detail.
BW is very grateful to the members of the BWAF Licensing Sub-Group who dedicated many hours to the
subject. By studying the 2007 public consultation responses, analysing data and debating options, they
gained a deep understanding of the challenges involved in determining a ‘fair’ boat licensing system.
The BWAF report was finalised during August 2008 and this paper is BW’s response to that. It is being sent
to all relevant interest groups for their comments and views on the various recommendations.

I could never be a liar - you need a very good memory to tell lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cuthound said:

10 years between reviews doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

After all, the usage of the waterways has changed a lot in that time. 

... but C&RT claim the licensing system has remained largely unchanged for two decades not one decade.

The fact is that aspects of the licencing system have been reviewed five times since 2007- that's an average of two years between reviews.

If, as the trust claim, the licencing system has remained largely unchanged it is because, following consultation, it has been decided that major change is not justified ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2017 at 17:33, Chewbacka said:

I am old and often called cynical, but I prefer pragmatic.  However whenever I have been involved in a 'consultation' between the employer and the workforce to make things 'better' it usually is where the employer has already decided what is to be done, they just want to sell it to the workforce by saying that 'we consulted you, and this is what the majority wanted'.

 

You would think so , although it was made clear at the outset that this was not the case.by the recently departed Mike Grimes and the manager running the exercise from CRTs perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

The first of these 'consultation' meetings was held in Leeds last week. I did put my name down for a place as we have a rather wide historic boat and are watching this consultation closely. Didn't get a place unfortunately but a friend on a neighboring boat did and we discussed opinions before he went. Apparently of the places allocated and confirmed, only 6 people turned up, one of which had traveled all the way from London. There were a couple of business boaters and a couple of CCers among the 6. My friend did inquire as to why the attendance was so low if 15 places had been allocated and whether, like the gentleman from London, people maybe had too far to travel (Not sure why they would confirm their places if this was the case, but hey <_< ). The company holding the meeting said they would look into this before the next meeting was held elsewhere in the country. 

Overall it appeared to be a general throwing around of ideas as to what might or might not work licencing wise in the future. The general consensus was that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' but all ideas would be forwarded to C&RT as part of the consultation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Sweeny Todd said:

The first of these 'consultation' meetings was held in Leeds last week. I did put my name down for a place as we have a rather wide historic boat and are watching this consultation closely. Didn't get a place unfortunately but a friend on a neighboring boat did and we discussed opinions before he went. Apparently of the places allocated and confirmed, only 6 people turned up, one of which had traveled all the way from London. There were a couple of business boaters and a couple of CCers among the 6. My friend did inquire as to why the attendance was so low if 15 places had been allocated and whether, like the gentleman from London, people maybe had too far to travel (Not sure why they would confirm their places if this was the case, but hey <_< ). The company holding the meeting said they would look into this before the next meeting was held elsewhere in the country. 

Overall it appeared to be a general throwing around of ideas as to what might or might not work licencing wise in the future. The general consensus was that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' but all ideas would be forwarded to C&RT as part of the consultation.

Perhaps the 'no-shows' did not think it worthwhile attending bearing in mind the reasons given by C&RT for the consultation ...

Not sure the general consensus will go down too well either!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/05/2017 at 15:17, Sweeny Todd said:

The general consensus was that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' 

This would be also my view.  The reasons CRT have given in the blurb they sent out on the phase 2 invites don't seem very strong or even relevant on some points.

I'm also very concerned about the amount of money being spent on this attempt to divide boaters (especially as we are paying for it). 

So what is this problem which apparently needs fixing and who is behind it? 

Personally I believe this is an attempt to reduce the number of liveaboards/CC'ers on the cut by pricing them out of the water.  

Another aspect of this is that I don't see why those who choose to make full use of their licence should be penalised by a handful of those who choose not to most of the year round. Maybe it's an envy thing.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.