Allan(nb Albert)

I'm sure Well-B is turning in his grave ...

Calcutt have always been good in this respect. Kate boats also, even if it meant sending a member of staff to the Calcutt flight. The other hire boat companies in the area have the problem of boats having a choice of four "first locks" rather than two. Seem to remember one of the larger hire boat companies asking for volunteers to assist hirers on the first day. However, this initiative never really got off the ground.

I was told all I do is spreadsheet.

As I recall, respondents were asked to propose up to five "issues" and chose from generic solutions. It is not very clear from the report what proportion proposed each issue so I have made a quick and dirty spreadsheet -

The concept of "place" does not exist for a HM'er because the law is silent on the matter.

Nigel seems to be suggesting that those without a home mooring can stay in one place for 14 days or longer, if reasonable (1995 Act), whilst those with a home mooring are subject to the whim of the navigation authority in this regard.

Technically, the 14 day rule is not law. British Waterways tried but failed to get restriction powers into the 1995 Act. Boaters without a home mooring may remain in one place for 14 days or longer if reasonable under the circumstances. No such restriction applies to boats with a home mooring. Although CRT claims such powers in its Terms and Conditions, it is probable that they do not exist. In any case, they can not be enforced because the 1995 Act limits the circumstances under which licences can be refused or revoked. As I have said before, what is reasonable can only be decided in a court of law.

Regarding my earlier assertion that only about 10% of consultation respondents supporting legislative change and a slightly higher number non legislative change. I have gone back to check the figures in Section 3 of the report. The reason this is important is that the TOR expect the Commission to make recommendations regarding legislative reform and non legislative reform. Purpose of review (from TOR) Expected output (from TOR) Looking at section 3.1 of the report - 6417 Section 3.2 - favoured solutions gives Section 3.2 does not make it clear if the 24% and 27% (and other figures given) relate to the 2,253 (48%) who mentioned issues or the 4,678 (100%) who responded to the survey. However Section 3.3 does make it clear that is 24% and 27% of those mentioning issues (thus the calculations are 48% x 24% and 48% x 27%) The bottom line is - Please note that in revisiting the above to check my understanding and provide exact figures, I have discovered an error in the report that potentially renders many figure inaccurate. I have reported it to the Commission. ***** Update *****. The error in the report is that CT give the number of respondents as 4,678 whilst Appendix 2 suggests that the figure is much higher at 6,417. This is due to a badly worded question which has allowed respondents to declare up to two "primary relationships" with the Trust. What seems to have happened is that about 25% of boaters have also declared a "primary relationship" of "towpath users" bumping the figures up. As far as I can tell most calculations in the report are based number of respondents rather than "primary relationships".

It would perhaps be fairer to say that those that responded to the survey were generally supportive of the position of those without a home mooring. ... and the Mr Man appears to have been quite open about weighting. I'm sure that if the Commission thought it would have been helpful, then it would have been put in at the draft report stage

Are you George Muddie MP by any chance? From 1993 Select Committee papers -

The Commission set up to review a future framework for boat licensing has now published a report of its online survey - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/m_xW4P-PKnQQD99OtEm6Ng/CbEVxw2MUitcbuX6nmQckywXGg4n78cCL2kmXL0dCoo/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/0197e502-c09b-78ba-b50b-046aac63d3e5.pdf Much of the report deals with matters outside the strict scope of the Commissions terms of reference. What is left appears to be supportive of of boats without a home mooring.

Some years ago, at a lock open day on the Hatton flight, I commented on the poor state of one of the remaining bump boards and asked if it would be replaced. I was told that it would be removed as these boards were no longer needed. The reason given was that boats are now under 70 foot ...

I understand that CRT's head office is to be renamed "Cool Pilot" to make use of some signs found in the basement.

Where the term "satisfy the Board" is used in the British Waterways 1995 Act, it refers to the British Waterways Board and now its successor Canal & River Trust. It is not referring BW's Board of Directors or CRT's Board of Trustees. Whilst some legislation was changed from "British Waterways Board" to "Canal & River Trust" this was not done for the various BW Acts. Like it or not, parliament decided that British Waterways and its successors could not be trusted with the power of discretion in this matter. There is no law on CCing. It was an invention of BW. That aside, you may be very disappointed. CRT have already failed once in bringing about legislative change.

You may be well acquainted with the County Court system but perhaps not with the way it is currently used by CRT. CRT does not attempt to use the County Court to agree that a boat has not, in fact, been "used bona fide for navigation" thus giving the boater the opportunity to defend the action. Instead, it refuses to re-licence the boat on the basis that it is not satisfied that it will be "used bona fide for navigation". If the boat is not removed from its waterways and is used as a home it takes action using the Part 8 procedure (which assumes that the action will be undefended as the boat being unlicenced is a matter of fact). It asks the court for a declaration and injunction confirming that it has the power to remove the boat under Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. Needless to say, the papers filed with the court do not say that CRT has refused to licence the boat and why ...