Natalie Graham

It would be nice to think, though, that courtesy and respect worked both ways and that a new or infrequent poster would be given a bit of leeway until they find their feet on the forum, rather than anyone who doesn't meet the standards of a few vociferous individuals becoming the object of criticism and ridicule.

At last, someone with a genuine planning concern:

Yes, Leicestershire is where the boat people first make landfall from Vietnam. There used to be lots of travelers turn up round that part of the world at harvest time, very welcome they were too. There was a camp at the roadside last time I was down there so you might have been right. It had a couple of proper horse-drawn living vans too. This objections page is fun. I like this one, especially the bit about the hire boaters.

Isn't technology wonderful?

Fuel polisher? Sounds like the ultimate accessory for the shiny boat owner.

It is one I posted on an earlier thread http://www.canalworl...ndpost&p=604685 and is from Hansard on, I think, the second reading of the Bill for the 1995 Waterways Act. I'll try and find it again and add the link.

They are certainly contrary to the spirit of the legislation and also to the assurance given to Parliament by the promotor of the 1995 Act Quote I emphasise that nothing in the Bill alters the general rule that boats are free to moor against a towpath in any one place for up to 14 days except where that would cause a navigational hazard. Restrictions are necessary in the interests of securing safety and preventing congestion. They will apply only at permanent mooring sites, at water points and at certain popular sites which have special conditions, such as time limits to be fair to all users. Those will be clearly signposted. If the 1962 Transport Act really does give BW such wide-ranging powers to basically do what they want, why do they keep having to have new legislation every few years?

You might have provided links to save us all looking for them.

Here though http://www.leics.gov..._icebreaker.htm we have a view which says that the waves caused by the rocking were what broke up the ice.

Here's an even more radical idea: Everyone buys a licence charged according to the length of their boat which entitles them to unlimited use of their boat on the canals for a year, but if they need to leave it tied up for a period of, say, more than a fortnight, they have to have a mooring where it can be left. Innovative, I know, but it might just work. If we had a BW board made up of CC'ers then I hope that it would operate a policy based on what the relevant legislation actually says rather than what BW's lawyers think they can get away while still leaving sufficient doubt to deter a legal challenge.

They were ice-breakers. Pulled by team of horses while a gang of men rocked them from side to side with the help of a bar down the centre of the boat. Hence their propensity to rock when you step on board. Either that or they were small refrigerated boats that followed the "Gin Palaces" around, usually in the company of a tonic water tanker. (Why do typos only appear just as you press "submit"?)

Won't it be moving on after 14 days?

Terrorists don't need to plant bombs to cause disruption to life in the UK. Just talk about it and the security services do the rest.

I think you might be right, I haven't had any either although they have sent me emails in the past. Bet they don't send us a Christmas card either.

While your likely definition of continuous cruiser was lifted from the Act, BW's wasn't. Their one involves such things as being engaged in a continuous progressive journey around all, or a significant part of, the system and not returning to the same area within a period of time. Concepts which do not appear in any legislation. I agree with you that the legislation appears quite clear. If you aren't using your boat for a period of more than 14 days you must have a mooring for it. Very straightforward. That is until BW start adding restrictions over and above what the legislation sets out. That is the issue, that BW have coined the term continuous cruiser and defined what constitutes continuous cruising and then maintain that is what the Act requires. There is no doubt that if you follow BW's continuous cruising guidelines you would be complying with the legislation. To borrow the infamous lime green boat rule analogy, it is like the law saying you must have an area on the side of four feet by two feet painted lime green and BW issuing guidelines saying that you should paint your entire boat lime green. Clearly doing that would comply with the legislation, but painting your entire boat is not what the legislation requires. The issue is that you could also be complying with the legislation but not complying with BW's guidelines. BW are saying "this is what we say you must do to comply with the legislation" when in fact theirs is but one view of how to comply with the legislation. For example, someone with a boat in say, Braunston was to set off for London, sets off every morning at 9am, travels until 5pm and moors for the night, then upon reaching London, stops for a couple for days before he turns around and heads back for Braunston, and then continues to repeat this trip. I would contend that he is within what is required by the legislation, namely that he is using his boat bona fide for navigation without stopping for more than 14 days in any one place. However he would not meet BW's requirements for continuous cruisers. On the other hand, someone who moors up to the towpath for a fortnight, before firing up his engine, travelling for a day, and mooring up again for another two weeks, but who moves on in the same direction without retracing his route would constitute a continuous cruiser. Yet it could easily be argued that someone who only travels the bare minimum to satisfy BW's guidelines is less involved, "bona fide", in navigation than the person in the first example.

However, the sponsor of the British Waterways Act 1995, Mr Robert Jones MP did not seem to share this view. In Parliament on May 17, 1993 he gave this assurance: If BW already had powers to set mooring limits as they see fit, why would Parliament be debating whether new legislation introduced such powers?

Or ... why didn't parliament see fit to include it when they passed the 1995 Act? Interesting point that.

Now go to the next lines where it says "Head of Legal, British Waterways." It is so good to have an independent source on these matters, isn't it? That letter contains the point which could be the basis of any legal challenge to BW's interpretation of the law, viz. No, Ms. Lewis, it doesn't. It doesn't mention continuous cruisers at all. The concept of continuous cruisers exists nowhere in law, so far as I am aware. Continuous cruisers are a concept entirely of BW's own invention and merely represent their notion of one interpretation of fulfilling the obligations to have a place where the boat can lawfully be kept or to be engaged in "bona fide navigation without remaining in one place for more than 14 days."