jenlyn

Some of CRT's eo's are still suggesting cruising "areas", and I predict next year will see another statement along the lines of "we have problems in the area of xxxxxxxx, and are therefore implementing some new guidelines". Another year, same old tactics. I am totally amazed that people don't see it, or don't wish too.

Been waiting for that :-D. Yeh, everything I have stated can be found in the search function of this forum. Go seek.

A pity his enforcement team had their own ideas.

Just one other little fact. CRT last year (after a certain tv programme) stated publicly that they had no issues on the K&A that were causing problems with overstaying etc. I would suggest that most of the waterway issues relating to overstaying, discussed on this forum, are in fact developed by certain members of this forum, then exagerated profusely to extend the discussion (waffle). Even some at CRT now recognise that.

I am sure. CRT even admitted it publicly, albeit blaming BW, who of course was run by the same people who run CRT.

The rules have changed. That's the problem. A lot of these folk were told specifically by BW and then CRT on what was expected of them. Two to three boroughs was the normal advice. People adapted their lives to this, jobs, schools etc. Then everything changed. Lets not be hasty in blaming the boat owner, CRT, and BW before them were, and are just as guilty.

I did look at buying one of these at the time I had the boat there. It was all pretty much above board and perfectly legal according to the solicitor I used. Again, this looks like EA trying to change legislation through the courts. Likewise, this is CRT's intention, and in my opinion, not good practice. It's all getting rather stupid, and costly.

I had a boat at that marina for a couple of years. Was this guy in one of the floating caravans?

Am just refreshing the topic of the thread :-)

The tide is turning. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36015697

Greenie for saying it as it is.

Sometimes I am thankful that I am generally unsociable. I don't think I could handle all the responsibilities some of you seem to be burdened with.

I'm pretty certain he's talking about the "carry on trusts" interpretation.

I'll pm it to you if I find it. There was a bit of an uproar at the time. Its not on CRT website, I looked, because I can't remember the name of the boat, but would if I saw it.

I did have a copy of a court order served on a boat a few years ago, or should I say the owner of the boat. It went along the lines of he could not licence a boat on bw waters again. I've searched everywhere to find it. I think it may be on my old laptop. I'll have another go tomorrow.

Sometimes, I'm reminded of the saying "it's like pulling teeth" when these threads come up.

Well, as usual, we had to go around all the roundabouts, but hey, we got there in the end.

Good job you ain't a judge.

Customer.services@canalrivertrust.org.uk

The original post gave the relevant information to form an opinion on where it stood in law. If you stood in front of a judge for having no licence, he will only be interested in the facts. Who you are, and all the other twaddle on this thread would have no bearing on the judge with regard the law set before him. In the laws eyes, the criteria to apply for a licence has been fulfilled, CRT and some on here are looking for a get out clause that does not exist.

It does not really matter what the history is, the post relates to the law as it stands. Some seem to be ignoring that fact, in the rush to not answer the original post. You being one of them. It's simple enough, the law covers it, and CRT are abusing it. Whatever went before, is not relevant.

I don't think he states they would, rather they "have the ability to".

Enforcement officers can, and do just that. It's they that have to stand before the break and explain the reason for doing so.

That is a very well reasoned post. Have a virtual greenie.

If you reread his first post, he states that he had provided a mooring.