Jump to content

Email from cart


bigcol

Featured Posts

15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

You are right in that quite often, narrow boats don't share wide locks especially at quiet times. But sometimes they do. Whereas wide beams can never do so. Thus, as I said, a wide beam will probably use more water resource than the equivalent narrowboat undergoing the same journey, but probably not twice as much.

Your other arguments equally apply to using length as a criteria, and yet you don't seem to be against that or are not proposing one fixed licence cost regardless of length. Why is that?

Well actually I am and you should have been able to gather that from what I've been saying.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Payne said:

I dont understand why CRT want non boaty people to visit the waterways, i dont really see what it brings, they dont spend any money!

They are really pushing this on social media at the minute.

Are the fisher folk non-boaters? They pay for their privilege!
What about all the people who walk the tow paths?
Even what about the cyclists?
What about the non-boat owning volunteers who help maintain and restore canals?

Don't be so introverted.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think CRT have already decided. Those with widebeams will have to pay a little more, those without home moorings will have to pay significantly more. They know that most folk don't have widebeams, and have a home mooring. They also know that people tend to express views on questionnaires that suit themselves, primarily. So, when the changes are made they can say "look, this is what boaters themselves wanted".

And then we'll have hundreds or thousands of people no longer able to afford their chosen lifestyle, exacerbating the existing housing crisis. We'll also have miles of canals without interesting boats and people for others to enjoy. Welcome to the gentrification of the canals.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Surely the corner belongs to multiple pedants, so should be pedants' corner.

I guess it could be a pedantic corner if it wished to differentiate itself from say an alcove, or a simple bend in the wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bigcol said:

Lol. Can you really think they would do that?

may be ring fenced for expenses lol.

seriously I don’t believe CRT could ring fence any money!

what they need is like the National health, make the money they do have go further

at the moment it’s making large profits for ltd and Plc companies.

CRT are already trying to make their money go further. That is why they have reduced their directly employed staff and contracted out more. Whether they police their contractors properly is another matter.

CRT simply do not get enough income to even hold the system in its current state, let alone address the backlog of maintenance.

They can ask the government for more, but won't get any unless wide public opinion wants it.

They can seek other income from property, friends, fishing rights and permission to bury cables under the towpath. Oh but they are already doing that.

They can increase licences from boaters.

I think CRT are between a rock and a hard place at the moment. If they get this "consultation" wrong income from boaters will decrease and the boaters left will suffer.

I hope they can attract lots of "free" uses, walkers, cyclists etc, who when the government funding comes to an end, can kick up enough fuss to persuade the politicians to keep or even increase government funding. I believe increased public funding is the only long viable term solution for the canals.

What is sure is that doing nothing will only result in the condition of the canals  deteriorating even more quickly.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

If I can come back to the every so slightly wider beam GRP cruiser senario again, then several of these boats can share one lock, usually more then the two narrowboats in your scenario. Yet under the new proposals these boats will be charged an extra 25% or 50% of their current fee. Using your argument surely their fees should be less as they can fit more boats in per lock thus using less water per boat?

Boats such as yours are quite short, one can as you say get several into one lock (depends on the lock!) but on the other hand, the base licence price is quite a bit less because of the length. Seems fair to me, although I grant you that I am thinking primarily of canals, where water resource can be an issue. On rivers it is not an issue, and locks tend to be less uniform in size butngenerally bigger. So if you wanted to say that a canal licence should have beam taken in account to some extent, but a rivers-only "licence" shouldn't, I could go along with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Are the fisher folk non-boaters? They pay for their privilege!
What about all the people who walk the tow paths?
Even what about the cyclists?
What about the non-boat owning volunteers who help maintain and restore canals?

Don't be so introverted.

How does that make an introvert?

I quite like sitting in the pub with other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

Yes, you obviously know more about it than I (a nod to the parallel pedants' discussion going on here).  So if I completed the form using that link, is there any way of telling whether it has been accepted? (I've already completed my personal survey.)

The only validation errors I could see where in the "About Yourself" but that was only asking for gender etc. That's not to say there weren't any. I'm surprised there wasn't an error message when the form was loaded from the 'test' link "Sorry you can't use this form without a valid ID" or similar (like when the OP's link was clicked)  or when the form was submitted "Your form submission can't be accepted because..." (or just "Bugger off").  I just got the regular "Thank you for your ....." As I said if it's a flaw the data collected will be next to useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, bigcol said:

 

Like wise

weve been counted as filling in the survey lol

That's because you posted your personal link to the survey on a public internet forum and someone else has filled it in for you.

They did warn about this in the email:  "This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

That's because you posted your personal link to the survey on a public internet forum and someone else has filled it in for you.

They did warn about this in the email:  "This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message."

Yes undoubtedly the case but then even more concerning that a form submission after using the link without an ID parameter doesn't cause an error message. Having said that, it's easy to solve as the ID will no doubt link the data to a CaRT account. Data without an account/ID field would presumably be ignored

Edited by Midnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BruceinSanity said:

I've accidentally found another coding flaw. Last night, after reading the front page, I clicked the Save and Continue Later button, instead of Next (I was half way through a Ferret at the time). The next page said that I would be sent a new link to continue, but it didn't show up so I clicked the original email link again and got back to the beginning.

Filled in the survey and, guess what, this morning another link arrived so I've just done a second survey on behalf of SWMBO who joint owns the boat anyway. I agree, proper validation will pick up that two surveys have been done from the same email address but we'll probably never know.

Hmmmm this isn't looking looking good. I just used the 'test' link to access the form clicked the save and continue link and hey-presto an email arrives with a new link and different parameter UID (unique id). I haven't filled out in (Athy please note) the new form but it's tempting just to see what happens. I think I should alert CaRT, but presumably they read this forum.

Edited by Midnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 11:09, nicknorman said:

And it works both ways - our visit to Bristol floating harbour was great - but expensive. And when the harbourmaster asked for my opinion on our visit, I told him as much. He said that people who visit from lumpy water think it's cheap, people who visit from the ditches think it's expensive (those weren't his exact words!). With hindsight I wish I had said that this is probably because a 59' narrowboat is a fairly normal and mid-priced boat. A 59' yacht is huge, much more expensive and thus if one considers the cost of the mooring fee as a proportion of the approximate cost of the boat, narrowboaters get a raw deal.

 

There is a big difference in the cost of mooring a lumpy water boat. When we did our Scotland - Med trip (3 years liveaboard) EVERY mooring cost an overnight fee ranging between £20-£120 per night with very few below £30 - and that was 8 years ago for a 40ft sailing yacht. It is no surprise that Bristol harbour charge high rates as that is the market price for lumpy water mooring. If I was on a sailing yacht I would not baulk at £30 for a night there. We probably spent best part of £4-5K per year on mooring fees.

Someone commented after Nick's post that the CRT charges have nothing to do with mooring fees. I think there is a link - as EVERYWHERE we park on the cut is free. A lumpy water boat has no license fee but pays the private organisations that provide mooring (not anchoring) facilities. That is the cost of using a lumpy water boat. On the cut, we pay our £1000 per year and dont get charged every time we turn up at a visitor mooring (thank goodness). The CRT could use the lumpy water boat model and not charge a license fee but charge £30 per night for parking on the VMs. I am very glad they dont as it would really penalise an active boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

There is a big difference in the cost of mooring a lumpy water boat. When we did our Scotland - Med trip (3 years liveaboard) EVERY mooring cost an overnight fee ranging between £20-£120 per night with very few below £30 - and that was 8 years ago for a 40ft sailing yacht. It is no surprise that Bristol harbour charge high rates as that is the market price for lumpy water mooring. If I was on a sailing yacht I would not baulk at £30 for a night there. We probably spent best part of £4-5K per year on mooring fees.

Someone commented after Nick's post that the CRT charges have nothing to do with mooring fees. I think there is a link - as EVERYWHERE we park on the cut is free. A lumpy water boat has no license fee but pays the private organisations that provide mooring (not anchoring) facilities. That is the cost of using a lumpy water boat. On the cut, we pay our £1000 per year and dont get charged every time we turn up at a visitor mooring (thank goodness). The CRT could use the lumpy water boat model and not charge a license fee but charge £30 per night for parking on the VMs. I am very glad they dont as it would really penalise an active boat.

On that basis no one should have to pay for a long term mooring on top of their licence fee, trouble is they do.

Keith 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 12:08, BruceinSanity said:

I've accidentally found another coding flaw. Last night, after reading the front page, I clicked the Save and Continue Later button, instead of Next (I was half way through a Ferret at the time). The next page said that I would be sent a new link to continue, but it didn't show up so I clicked the original email link again and got back to the beginning.

Filled in the survey and, guess what, this morning another link arrived so I've just done a second survey on behalf of SWMBO who joint owns the boat anyway. I agree, proper validation will pick up that two surveys have been done from the same email address but we'll probably never know.

And now there's more, the Continue link arrived this morning, 48 hours after I accidentally asked for it. CRT claim this has been contracted  out to an online survey specialist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2017 at 11:53, rusty69 said:

Perhaps lock/miles per year would be a fairer system :)

Or PAYG, insert a fiver at each lock. 

That would discourage people from cruising at all - very welcome to the continuous moorers though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was disturbed to receive the NABO Council email outlining what appears to reveal a lack of honesty and candidness on CRT's part in producing this latest consultation:

Quote

... Canal and River Trust have spent considerable time and expense getting to this stage yet in our view have now effectively ignored the majority view. CRT have in this consultation posed questions intimating that these have the support of the two earlier stages and of the Navigation Advisory Group (NAG L&M) where boaters views were requested. This is not the case.

At the specially convened meeting of NAG and the boaters representatives (Mark Tizard and Alison Tuck from NABO attended) we were advised that after getting the views of the boating organisations (stage 1) and the boaters workshops (stage 2) the only common themes emerging were the approval to change the way licensing was charged from length to area and to review discounts generally (keeping the prompt payment discount). We understood that this basically was likely to form the core of the questions to be asked. There was a majority view that there should just be one license charge (regardless of whether a boater had a home mooring or not) and it was agreed that licencing cost should not be used to address congestion but that this was the function of enforcement. Despite being rejected at stage 1&2 this was brought up again at the special NAG meeting and again rejected unanimously.

Despite this we note with dismay that CRT have chosen to be divisive and have included questions that suggest that the boaters should pay a different fee dependant upon whether they have a home mooring or not, see questions 24,25 and 26. NABO's view is that there should be one license fee for use of the waterways under CRT's control and would urge members to vote accordingly. In addition we note that CRT in question 24 is suggesting a new license with increased fee (in our view potentially illegal unless there is a new act of parliament) for boats that wish to remain in one area. This is in our view a function of creating a sustainable mix of towpath, short and long term moorings supported by enforcement.

It's hard for me to work out how much guile is involved in CRT's attitude, how much naiveté, and how much corporate mis-communication. Certainly it is often the case when talking (over the phone or via email) with CRT office staff many clearly do not understand simple things about boats and boating. CRT staff on the towpath are usually wary and keen to avoid contact with boaters if at all possible. Volunteers are often wonderful and helpful. Is it high level management that simply overrides so much of what is organised, worked through and agreed at middle and lower management levels?  
Edited by Jim Batty
  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/10/2017 at 23:40, Jerra said:

CRT would appear to be damned if they do and damned if the don't!

I can imagine the howls there would be if they didn't have a consultation (even if the consultation is ignored).

 

I think people naively imagine the results of consultations will form and shape CRT policies. If this were to happen I don't think there would so much howling and damning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the consultation will be the foundation for their revised licensing system, but I do feel they will take views into account and probably adjust them as well, though we will never know as they are unlikely to say "this is what we were  going to do, but as a result of the consultation, this is".  However, having attended one of the stage 2 sessions, where only those invited said they wanted to attend and still only half turned up, so I doubt a significant proportion of boaters are actually that bothered, though they may be if the new arrangement disadvantages them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cuthound said:

In my experience consultations undertaken by large organisations are used to find out opinion and allow the organisation to produce a strategy to change people's opinions, rather than modify the intended proposal.

Often true, and it then allows them to say 'that this is what most decided they wanted so don't blame us'.   But interestingly one can rarely find anyone that admits it is what they wanted............

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Often true, and it then allows them to say 'that this is what most decided they wanted so don't blame us'.   But interestingly one can rarely find anyone that admits it is what they wanted............

Exactly, 

if companies contract these consultations out, they can and properly do make sure the contractor comes up with the right result lol

hasnt the government been caught out lately with ALTOS ?

 

col

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think people naively imagine the results of consultations will form and shape CRT policies. If this were to happen I don't think there would so much howling and damning.

In my experience consultations are never binding and the chances of getting a workable consensus from them slim.

Couple that with the fact that each individual thinks they have the answer and what they need/want is the only way to go and a consultation with as diverse a group as boaters isn't going to produce what the vociferous expect.

Equally we the public have not got the overall picture, we think we have but we don't.  CRT have to keep the government onside and make the canals all things to all people if they are to keep wringing money pout of the public coffers.

Result as I said damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to them ripping all those thin canals up and making them into proper canals like we have up nawth! It's only fair if they want me to pay more for my license, that they should give me use of all the waterways not a third like I currently have. I know narrowboaters will have to take a couple of years off from cruising but it's a small price to pay for a fairer system....?..........

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.