Leaderboard

Even if her views were in the minority, within the group (and it would seem from Alan's post they are not) would it not be better to remain in the group as an agitant or be replaced with a like minded individual rather than have no representation at all?

Since it's formation has the SE Partnership boating group been specifically tasked by the SE partnership for any specific information. Has it prepared a report specifically for the partnership and is it in the public domain. I keep reading about working with CRT but I didn't think it reported to CRT however as the meetings are held at CRTs offices and the minutes published in CRTs name and on CRTs letterhead I guess we are wrong. Surely it's time for the group to be reformed perhaps be a sub group for NAG at least then it can fit into some form of national umbrella. I have no opinion on whether the group are representative or not , however I am concerned that CRT have been using a small group of boaters who they have selected to help shape a national policy on visitor moorings and I'm pleased to see that there is now a wider engagement on this issue with other boaters, boating groups and trade organisations.

I have been thinking about why there are so many arses involved with boating. Having read your post it would seem that you were the one provoking the reaction. So why feel the nees to write and gloat about it.

No, a good starting point when someone has asked a question is to try to answer it. Or, if you don't know the answer, keep quiet.

As a member of this sub-group, I will add my fuller comments later, but would like the opportunity to discuss with some people the background to why they feel they can no longer support it before fully addressing all the questions people have raised here, (and extensively elsewhere!). As recently as the meeting of the sub-group that took place on Monday, it was my understanding that although one ACC representative, Louise Yeoman, had stood down, another name from the ACC committee had already been put forward as a possible replacement. I understand now from a Facebook posting by "Steve Jay" last night that very recent developments with their dealings with CRT mean this will not now happen, and they now think this boater's sub-group should be disbanded. I would like to talk to Steve about this directly to understand it better. However one further point I would like to make now is that I believe there is no stomach within members of the sub-group generally for the loss of 14 day visitor moorings to see them converted to stay times of 7 or 2 days - I have enormous respect for Louise Yeoman, but whatever is causing her, (or people not actually at the meetings), to feel this, I have not seen it in any of the meetings to date. (One of the hire boat operators continues to make a strong case for this, as he has always done, years before the formation of this sub-group, the South East Visitor Moorings project, or indeed the existence of CRT, rather than BW. He is however receiving no support for this from other sub-group members that I can see.). Incidentally, the latest visitor mooring plan revisions, (discussed again at our sub-group on Monday), relax the stay times throughout the whole of the popular "long pound" at Stoke Bruerne stay times to 7 days in the summer months, falling back to 14 days in winter, something CRT were certainly not prepared to be so accommodating about when some of those now posting here were frantically trying to get CRT to moderate the SEVM proposals. It can be infuriating sometimes trying to stay engaged with CRT, and slowly trying to guide them to what you think are more sensible approaches, particularly when you think you have something in the bag, and they then fiddle with it again afterwards. However I'm slowly seeing signs that the long slow struggle for more pragmatic solutions is actually now paying off.

Hopefully it's just been torpedoed

Joel writes a self reflective blog. He's human like everybody else. He makes mistakes, he cocks up, he has bad days, he can get in a really grumpy mood and when he does somebody else can get the brunt of that. He also has the ability to reflect on that lot, recognise his vulnerabilities, and work out where he went wrong. He also has the ability and the guts to write about that - self identified warts and all. A lot of what happened in that exchange with the guy helping was Joel's own fault but he knows that now. I see no gloating.

I'd suggest the problems have more to do with patterns of use than the rockwool intrinsically. As living beings breathe out moisture-laden air continuously, if there are going to be two adults and three dogs living and cooking in the boat 24/7 it is far more likely a condensation problem will emerge with rockwool than if the boat is used intermittently as a hobby boat, say only on alternate weekends. If this is a hobby boat then I'd say rockwool will present no problem. If you will be living aboard then the risk of problems emerging (even if the previous owner had none) is far higher. MtB (Edit to add a missing word!)

It might well be for you but we are all different. I often stay 14 days in certain areas it gives me time to explore the area and do what I want. For someone like myself who has no car and has to rely on bus's 14 days is ideal. On average I guess I spend 10 days per area so do you recon maybe I should push for 10 day moorings?

no you were a craggy old moaning woman when you first came here

The government gave CRT 15 years to become self-sustaining. There is no point in CRT asking for more funding, but the government could help CRT by bringing the legislation up to date to help CRT deal with those who are exploiting uncertainties and loopholes. We want to see CRT funds used for maintenance and not pursuing those who are trying to play the system.

Thanks to everyone for your support & suggestions but I feel the need to point out to Martin, in the dog house, that I never asked or initially suggested any problems with food hygiene or their facilities other than the ones I have recently highlighted. I have not seen inside either boat other than on photos he has taken & posted on Facebook & have no intention of, as even if these people had the last glass of water on planet earth & only wanted a penny for it they would not get a penny from me as I do not support bullies of any nature. My point was that there are no beds in the coffee boat bean butty as they like to call it, so where does he sleep in there, floor, seating? It is of no real concern to me I will never eat there, but others do. Yes I agree there are always two sides to every story but unfortunately myself & the other boats nearby have had to fight tooth & nail to get our side heard & acknowledged through their lies & deceit. Can I just point out that I & the other boaters involved spend 90% of our time on our boats at these moorings & encounter these people on a daily basis, & I & many other of the females involved have been targeted & intimidated by mr Milson on a regular basis & now he is targeting the more vulnerable, or so he thought until the police got involved yet again! This couple have been kicked off or seen off of numerous moorings previous to Bramwith, including Rotherham, Doncaster town centre & strawberry island for their anti-social actions & I do not feel that one cup of coffee & a piece of cake for an hour on a sunny weekend afternoon makes time for a good judgment of character. It's easy to put on a smile & a false character for a short space of time for a customer who's willing to pay an extortionate price for a coffee & a slice of cake you have just bought at sainsburys. Propaganda whispered initially into willing ears on brief encounters has led many people throughout history to believe false accounts of what really happened for the believers to eventually have their eyes opened wide having spent time with or around the initial whisperer, who has since become the shouter, the bully & the fear maker & actually gets a lick out of creating that fear & intimidation. Hitler is a prime example & look at where that got everyone.

I am in full agreement with you Sas, some of his ideas have been great and idealistic to us narrowboaters but have not got anywhere. Doodlebug, if you are reading this keep going with your ideas and sometime you will crack a good one which could really help us !!!!

Ohh! I almost forgot. Another part of the idea was that when people are planning their boats, it can be hard to visualise how the interior will look. Will it look to narrow? will it be easy to pass one another in corridors? I was thinking of doing a 'design consultancy' where people having their boat built can come to me and I draw out their plans to the exact specification they give, and then using the software I can create a photorealistic picture of the insides of the boat. And they can virtually walk around inside. Not something that will be for experienced boaters who know what they want, but more for people just coming into boating.

It is mildly surprising that people are so unquestioningly damning former BW towpath staff for their advice on acceptable boat movements, when there is nothing to suggest that they were doing anything other than more accurately interpreting the law than the present personnel’s predilictions/objectives dictate. It is also mildly surprising that some confusion is apparent as to what the "Problem" is, for which the RMP was seen as a solution. If the movement pattern once considered acceptable was in fact, due to increasing localised numbers, creating unacceptable congestion leading to extreme difficulty in visiting boats having any chance of mooring near the town centre, then how were the RMP’s addressing that problem? In actual fact, the “Problem” appears to have been rather, one of falling under threat of s.8’s due to changing goalposts. In that case, paying for RMP’s could only ever have been a solution to that particular problem only – i.e. removal of the threat of seizure. Insofar as that was all that it consisted of, it was no more than a protection racket, leaving any genuine managerial problem due to congestion, not only intact but more entrenched. As I said previously, if boaters were content to cough up for peace of mind, then it was no one else’s business to denounce them, but it would remain a protection racket nonetheless. As to legalities – there could be nothing illegal in the RMP’s per se [permitting as they would have, the previously acceptable cruising pattern to continue], only in the extraction of a fee for doing so. But as that was always going to be a matter of mutual consent, it could concern no-one else. CaRT were right, however, to shy away from the scheme for the reasons discoverable within the obfuscatory verbiage of their announcement.

I hope the OPs post was well meaning and I will take it in that way. However, I see no duty for CRT to do as suggested. There are many things we like to do but over time we have to stop doing due to age, circumstances or a combination of events. An example is driving a car many of us may learn to drive in our late teens or early twenties and go on to drive for 50 years or so. Then the day comes when we have to admit it is no longer viable to continue and we have to accept that chapter of life is over. The same will be for boating be that living aboard or leisure boating. It is not a day I will look forward to but at some point it will happen hopefully in the more distant future.

I totally agree. I made a point of not reading "Angry Boater" before, because the very title made me feel I did not want to read it. However a lot of people seemed to think the previous posting was fine reading, so I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and read this one. It's not often I disagree with some who have posted in support here, but this is one blog I'll not be bothering with again. It seems to me that the person you are getting "angry" about has done nothing wrong at all, other than point out what you don't appear to have worked out for yourself up until that point(!) If the nuance is supposed to be that you are actually taking a poke at yourself, rather than him, that's not how it comes across to me. Sorry!

Sad really to see repeated through this thread reference being made to old people choosing to live aboard when that is not the question which is simply old boaters, the posters who are castigating old people for living aboard cannot seem to comprehend it is just about older or less able boaters, not live aboards. I'm out of this because I for one have my whole life offered an assisting hand in all parts of life not just boating to anyone who looks like they need a bit of help and shall remain so. I do not subscribe to the idea that everybody is on their own and could never pass by a stranger who needed a bit of help in anyway whatsoever. Phil

Oh,don't get me wrong,,most of us has been in a situation that has involved being behind someone who isn't quite as quick either in mind or body taking 3 times as long to do a particular thing wether in the highstreet or the waterway. But as a customer,they have as much of a right,as another customer. But I do think that if someone is charging for a service or facilities that are used by paying customers, Then they should provide for the Whole Range of Expected Customers. That's why they have got Highchairs in Cafes, extending seatbelts on Plains,Disability Toilets and have Large Print bank statements . After all would you stop managing your personal finances if you suddenly became visually impaired or Blind. Or would you thank other people or business if they made YOUR life just that bit easier for just that bit longer.

We all have to Start Boating somewhere,,& We all have to Stop somewhere,,if other people's Kindness & Manners can prolong the stopping bit,then that got to be good in my book. It's the same comparison as giving up ones seat,or holding a door open or carrying a bag up some stairs for someone. If Cart or whoever can make a gesture to make it easier for someone who has probably been a customer for years anyway to remain on the water another year, I think that's great.

When I bought my 1st house I got a demand for a TV licence. I wrote back saying I didnt have a TV. I kept getting demands & threats of court action if I didnt buy a TV licence, they ignored all my letters saying I didnt have one. Eventually a bloke from a detector van knocked on the door claiming that he had detected me watching TV. BS I said, because I didnt have a TV, I invited him in & proved I didnt have a TV, & I insisted that he write it down in front of me. Well they did take me to court for not having a TV licence, & lost, but still they kept sending demands & threatening court action unless I bought a TV licence. Eventually I took them to court for harrassment & they lost, that's when they finally stopped trying to get me to buy a TV licence. Fast forward 20 years, I bought a computer monitor from PC world, & very soon after I got a demand for a TV licence, claiming I had bought a TV from Dixons. 3 times I wrote to them telling them this but they took no notice & kept sending demands to buy a TV licence & threats of court action if I didnt. In the end I got a solicitor friend to write to them pointing out that it was a matter of public record that I didnt have a TV in the past when their own employees confirmed this, & that they had already lost in court in the past when they ignored this fact, & that they had been convicted of harrassment for ignoring these facts, & if they didnt stop then they would face legal action I heard no more after that.

Everything we do affects wildlife but the canals are far cleaner than they used to be despite far more people using them. I have grave concerns about the obsession with "bag it and bin it" of everything that is perceived to be unpleasant as I have had professional dealings with land-fills and their leachates in the past and seeing the localised damage that concentrating potentially hazardous substances can cause. Nature is a pretty good self-healer as long as we don't throw vast quantities of crap at it, all in one place. My order of preference for disposal is: Down the side of the (wooden) boat if it's leaking; in potholes in the towpath if there are any; in the hedge if available; straight in the cut. I never send stuff to landfill if at all possible and I would rather trust my own disposal methods than trust the authorities and their pretty empty "recycling" policies.