mayalld

Those who object to being tracked can have a Parliamentary licence at £5k instead. It's all about choice init!

The baton twirlers could just get one of my parliamentary licences, pay the 5 grand and do what they want. The majority of their acolytes would soon realise that there were other options available that cost less, and jump ship.

It is, as you say, very possible. Basically, such a scheme might work (at a technical, legal, level) as follows; The starting point is to consider what "a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left" actually means in practice. Clearly, this phrase includes a mooring that one pays CRT or a private provider for, and equally clearly (keeping in mind the powers of a legal person) CRT's right to charge for such a mooring derives from s43 of the Transport Act 1962. We know that some marina groups offer reciprocal moorings in their other marinas, and it seems obvious that this too meets the criteria. By extension, a body that has a lot of mooring spots (such as CRT) could (for a price) grant permissions to occupy them. Indeed they already do grant just that permission for no fee for casual mooring. So, what you do is offer two kinds of licence; Standard Licence under s17(3)(c)(i) - the clause under which licences are issued to moorers at present. Such licences cost much the same as now, and come with a requirement for some kind of mooring. That could be a traditional mooring, or it could be a roving permit, which sets prices based upon how long you want to moor on particular bits of the system. 28 days on the Macc over the year, free, 56 days, £1000 and so on Parliamentary Licence under s17(3)(c)(ii) - the clause under which CCers are licenced at present. Such licences would cost "a lot of money". So, the right to a CCer licence, and to argue the toss about interpretation would exist, but if you are charging somebody £5k to indulge his barrack room lawyering, then CRT won't care. Real (and not-so-real) CCers would have a range of cruising options available to them, at a price that reflects whether they are really CCing or just bridge hopping, and the shorter the cruising range, the more a licence costs. Moorings are available at a reasonable price. They may not be EXACTLY where the boater wants them to be.

Indeed. Basically, we have an Act that is designed to make lawyers rich by its vagueness. Each person will take a line on it that suits what THEY want it to say. So, the person who wants to remain in a 10 mile stretch for ever will adopt a very literal interpretation of the bits that can be measured directly "without remaining in one place", and ignore the bits that are a question of degree "bona fide for navigation". The person who finds it difficult to get a good mooring whilst on holiday because the same boats shuttle back and forth between the desired spots will concentrate on "satisfies the board" as a view that the law appoints an arbiter of questions of degree. Clearly, neither is wholly right. One cannot say "I have only been moored here for 13 days, I am allowed", and disregard the other words. The other words must bring some function. Equally, "the board" cannot be unreasonable in what it requires to be "satisfied" The reason that this is in the law is very instructive in my view. People lobbied because the way they used the canals made it unreasonable for them to have a home mooring. They were moving all the time to different places. That was accepted. However their argument wasn't that there are loads of free moorings on the bank in the local area, so they would just use those. neither was their argument that they didn't want to pay. I take a view (and it is of course a view that counts for nothing in law) that if your cruising pattern is such that you are permanently within a days travel of a central point, then the argument about it being unreasonable to have a mooring don't apply to you. In the end, CRT do have the option of bringing in an increased charge for CCers. That would be a blunt instrument. The CMers would get a mooring, because trundling back and forth isn't worth it if you have to pay. The genuine CCers would be hit in the pocket, having done nothing to deserve such action.

Of course you can get agreement to cut through the bank. Marinas do it all the time, and pay an annual fee to CRT. Whilst they don't have jurisdiction outside their waters, the Network Access Agreement will specify that boats must be licenced. Little-used canals are still CRT canals unnavigable canals are often still CRT canals Rivers are subject to riparian rights, so no fee to CRT. non-CRT canals are subject to different rules. Lifting Operations over CRT waterways have to be with their consent.

Indeed so. Of course, the prosecution for criminal damage to the banks of their canal would be somewhat irksome, and the fact that they came along the next week and sealed your new arm off from the canal. It has been done before.

True, but nobody actually moors at Romiley. There are a few boats on the top pound of the Macc and PF that do say Romiley, so if the OP is heading that way, will almost certainly pass the owners boat along the way.

No they don't. They may SAY that they come from the hosting company, but I could say that I'm calling from Buck House.

And you would assert that people insisted upon falling off Marple Aqueduct? Do you have stats on the number of people in the 200 years that it was unfenced? Of those, how many would have been prevented by the fence that has been erected? How many will fall off in the next 200 years as the fence induces people to jump the channel because it is now "safe"

Failed paddle should only take one day

Was still fenced yesterday. Will drive up later!

I understand that I was having my nappy changed

They would pay input VAT at 20% but charge output VAT at 5%, so they should be charging at the 5% rate

Due to circumstances occupying the entire family (my Mother-in-law had a stroke before Christmas, and passed away a month ago), it has been a late start to the boating year for us. Never before has our first trip of the year been in May. But May it was, for the post winter shakedown cruise. My Vetus started first time, and no engine troubles are reported (just a failed shower drain pump for me). Not so for Stepdaughter and Son-in-Law! Last year, he removed the high output alternator, and returned to the original, because it was shredding belts. On start-up, got the tell-tale screech of a slipping belt at anything over tickover. Cured by disconnecting the battery management system and reconnecting after an hour. Permanent fix installed by way of a switch in the magic lead, to stop the BMS deregulating the alternator until the battery has been charged a bit, and the moisture is gone from the belt and pulleys. But I get ahead of myself. Starting was a problem in itself. Turning the key produced lots of thudunk thudunk, but no whirr whirr. In time honoured "take your life into your hands" mode, a big screwdriver was deployed across the back of the solenoid, and lots of whirr whirr ensued. We even avoided accidentally earthing the screwdriver and welding it in situ. So, feeling pleased with self at having diagnosed the issue as the solenoid contacts. Doesn't actually help with engine starting during weekend out (screwdriver too dangerous in hands of Son-in-Law). No chance of a solenoid on Saturday Morning, so thinking caps on, and box of spares out. Spare battery leads and spare isolator switch look just the job, and duly fashioned into temporary contactor. In fitting, use multimeter to discover that main isolators do not isolate starter feed. Battery off and temporary contactor added. Battery back on, and by jove it works! Turn ignition key, insert red key, and engine turns. Works like a dream on Saturday and Sunday. So, this morning, poised at the ready with red key in hand. Turn ignition key, and it turns over without the temporary switch being actuated. Alleluia, the solenoid has been healed, or has it.... Release key, and starter continues to turn. Bugger, the knackered contacts in the solenoid have not only found an electrical path, the have welded themselves on. Mad race to disconnect battery. Thinking cap on REALLY hard now, and eureka moment. If we remove all the positive connection from the feed side of the solenoid, and bolt them all together (including the cable to the temp contactor, the welded solenoid contacts won't matter. It works, the engine starts. So, on return remove solenoid, and marvel at the fact that aftermarket replacements replace about 10 different Lucas Models. What was different about the 10 Lucas solenoids that got them different numbers? So, Auto Electrical Spares say that their "131786 Starter solenoid replaces Lucas TOB128 , 2M113 , M45G" Is also good as a replacement for this 77021. Time will tell. Really hoping that it is internally compatible, so that I can fit it with the plunger from the original solenoid still in place so as to avoid having to unship the actual starter motor. Fun weekend all in all!

Yes, we have had neighbours that were a PITA, but with long term moorers in a marina, they either toe the line, or they are asked to leave, so the problem vanishes, and you end up with neighbours who are fine who stay for many months. A constant stream of airbnb users wouldn't have the same checks and balances, and if the marina I am in allowed it, I would move to a marina that doesn't allow it. You make choices about security risks to YOUR property, but when you airbnb in a marina you are making choices about your neighbours security too, and it isn't just your clients that are at issue. As soon as you start having random people in the marina, strangers don't stand out like a sore thumb any more, and people start to assume that the guy who is looking to break into boats is just one of your airbnb clients. If people seem unenthusiastic, it would be because however good it may be for you, it is bad for your neighbours, and we've all heard the same idea hundreds of times before.