Boat teleport trials announced to address new Canal and River Trust cruising rules

In response to the latest boating rules from Canal and River Trust, Dr Milkem Drie in association with Professer Denzil Dexter will today start public trials of their new boat teleport system. Dr Drie says:

Our new teleport system is designed to assist boaters deal with the new rules from CRT. Not only does it means you can move your boat to another part of the country at short notice, thereby complying almost instantly with the new requirements for a minimum movement range during each licence period, but this complex system also provides infallible location data down to the nearest molecule. 

Accurate space time location data is an essential part of our design and is available at all times when the unit is active. This data can of course can be provided to CRT should the need arise.

Canal and River Trust extends policy of not trusting its boating customers

I have frequently said that CRT stands for Can't Really Trust'em. 

It seems the feeling is mutual. CRT don't trust the boaters either as reflected not only in the latest moves on Continuous Cruising but also in the parallel terms and conditions changes for boaters with home moorings.

According to CRT, from now on, whenever you move your boat, you have to gather enough evidence to prove to them that you are moving and show how far. If you fail to have such evidence available when challenged you could ultimately have your licence removed.

It's a sad state of affairs that CRT's relationship with it's boating customers has descended to the point where we are all suspect, where we all have to worry about proving that we are not liars, when we are almost routinely assumed guilty unless we prove otherwise every time we move our boats? No wonder that trust between boaters and CRT is all but dead.

Has anyone stood back long enough to think how completely mad this all is?

A case study in how to alienate your customers?

Many people's hopes (including mine) that changes in the Canal and River Trust would lead to better relationships with boaters have been dashed by recent events. Reflecting on CRT's recent attempts to take stronger action against Continuous Cruisers who don't move very far, NABO's open letter to CRT sums up the problems pretty well.

It is difficult to understate how big a failure this episode represents. I think I give no secrets away when I say that colleagues in NABO who have come to Council recently were genuinely determined to try to build bridges with CRT. The presence of new blood, in whom I have great confidence, was a major factor in my feeling able to stand down. Again it is no secret when I suggest that they feel they have been well and truly slapped in the face for their recent efforts.

As a former NABO national officer, the narrative in the open letter comes as no surprise: One sits down in one's own time with CRT/BW, tries to give them constructive advice and feedback on how to implement something difficult and sensitive, taking into account your experience and knowledge of boating and they then do something different, omitting key parts of what you thought you'd just agreed. Seems that the change from BW to CRT has not changed that?

Canal and River Trust's new Continuous Cruising Policy

So the battle lines are being (re-)drawn on the issue of Continuous Cruising. Only time will tell what the full impact of what CRT are proposing will be. But having reflected on these matters for a few days since my last post, things seem to be getting murkier not clearer.

I was struck by the latest from Victor Swift on NBW, suggesting that the NBTA have scored an own goal with the 'admission' that there are many living on boats who are indeed tied to a small area for work, health and/or family commitments. That is not news; As I said in a previous post, British Waterways largely created the present situation by waiving the bye-law limitations on living on boats many years ago.  

However despite the, some would say acerbic, criticism of NBTA from Victor, he then goes on to say something that is much more acute:

Mind you, as I have stated before, if those at CaRT pulled their fingers out and actually stated a distance that must be travelled to avoid having to pay for a permanent mooring, at least the continuous cruisers would know what the rules are.

At the moment, with those at CaRT unable to make a decision one way or t'other, no one knows.

That of course is the elephant in the room, still sat there watching us all! 

Mutton dressed up as lamb

Some of us vainly hoped that Sally Ash's departure might lead to CRT adopting some genuine blue skies thinking about their boating business.

One hope was that CRT might finally abandon the almost annual tinkering ritual when it comes to Boat Licence Terms and Conditions: but apparently not. This time it seems that they are not even bothering with the pretence of doing consultation but are just planning to impose the changes from April come what may (see NABO article, which also links on to a document from CRT on the changes). After due consideration, NABO have described the proposed changes as adopting "an unnecessarily aggressive tone".

Subsequently we also have an old favourite back in the fore with the latest CRT pronouncements on continuous cruising. The nub of this seems to be to formalise a policy of trying to force people to take long term moorings. I suppose at least they are now saying so openly!

Is Canal and River Trust a 'housing authority'?

It is to say the least ironic that many of those presently living on boats owe their 'right' to do so to the same person that many of them (with more than a little good cause) saw as their principle persecutor in recent times! The start of the 'trouble' was one of Sally Ash's first decisions when she was put in charge of boating, to remove the general Licence requirement not to use your boat as a dwelling. That in effect gave blanket permission to all licence holders to live on their boats; Unsurprisingly many have taken up the offer.

When we get into the nitty gritty of residential boating issues, the 'excuse' for in-action frequently wheeled out by BW (and which CRT seem to have adopted), is: 'We are not a housing authority'. The problem is that by waiving one of the byelaws twenty years ago Sally Ash made you so!

It seems to me that many of the subsequent disputes between BW and now CRT and boaters have flowed from that and from Sally's and others' attempts to get that cat back in the bag.

Book Barge row - missing the point?

It's interesting how the media furore around the 'book barge', Word on the Water, has developed. On social media and elsewhere there is much about the 'unfairness' of a higher bidder getting the long term mooring in Paddington. Make of that what you will but given the background to my recent petition to CRT, and the way the allocation of CRT moorings is decided generally, the outcome in this case should come as no big surprise.

Narrowboatworld, never a gentle critic of CRT, acknowledges in its article that the boat has a roving trading permit (clue in the name) and that the current occupation of a berth in Paddington was a temporary arrangement. So it seems inevitable to me that CRT would ask Word on the Water to move on if they didn't make the highest bid.

However more worryingly many of those complaining seem to me to have missed the bigger point. The idea of having a commercial mooring or two in the Paddington area was consulted on with local canal users through the Better Relationships Group (BRG) and CRT have as usual ignored what was said in the consultation process and gone another way.

Petition sent to Canal and River Trust trustees

Just to say thanks to those who have signed the petition so far; As I said to supporters through 38 degrees,  

I am planning to leave the petition open at least until CRT issues its response, so if you have friends or contacts who you think have not signed yet and who would still offer their support please encourage them to do so even though the formal consultation period is over. Any additional pressure we can keep on them to think again in advance of them deciding what to do next must be a good thing.

I have just sent the petition with 442 signatures to CRT with the covering letter reproduced below.

Given what they have said so far and given their general track record when it comes to acting on what boating customers say, I will not hold my breathe about them changing their minds. CRT knows best children.

PS. Spell check just offered the following option for the first time: Cabal and River Trust. I know Google is quite smart at discrening user preferences and learning stuff about you but....!