PaulR

In reply to a post regards a possibility of the authorities using s61 CJPOA 1994 you asserted that; "That section relates pretty specifically to encampment on dry land though, although it could conceivably be stretched to apply." Perhaps my reasoning for questioning your use of the term 'dry land' wasn't as clear as it could be? I hoped that I had made clear that I thought your use was superfluous. Simply the act didn't relate "pretty specifically" to one particular type of land but all land covered by the act and therefore, in my opinion, s61 was applicable and appropriate if all the conditions in the act had been satisfied. Bearing in mind the contentious issues regarding the navigating authorities and the well documented arguments on what constitutes 'navigation' on this forum and elsewhere it appeared to me that your introduction of PRN and s79(2) Thames Conservancy Act 1932 might be a little bit of obfuscation which, as a favourite tactic of the legal profession, I am sure you have seen and had dealings with before. I can be overly suspicious sometimes and if I was in this case then, my apologies for seeing something when there was nothing there.

Whilst taking your point about the right of navigation along the River Thames and, more specfically, "a right to anchor moor or remain stationary for a reasonable time in the ordinary course of pleasure navigation" I'm not sure how they equate to the circumstances? If these boaters had been navigating along the Thames and had decided to stop mid-stream, anchor or cast mooring lines for 'a reasonable time' I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be discussing the matter here as it it unlikely to have had a mention in the local press and, if called, the police would have struggled to supply the officers let alone their own boat on so short notice. The fact that Thames Water had their enforcement team present tends to suggest that these boats had be in situ for awhile. The thought that Thames Water and the police have squads on standby ready to mobilise and move on any "pleasure boaters" who have had the misfortune to moor up against Thames Water property for their lunch is beyond belief. I think your introduction of the rights of navigation (especially the example you presented) is a red herring, put there to trick the unwary: The article posted by the OP was never about restricting the right of way of boats along the River Thames. I think you are mistaken if you honestly believe that "No such public easements apply either in statute or common law to land NOT covered in water". What about public rights of way across private land? A public footpath through someone's garden wouldn't be of much use if the public weren't permitted to move along it. However just because this footpath exists and a members of the public have a right of free passage along it's length, I'm not convinced it gives the user the right to stop in the garden for more than a short break to catch breath, tie up shoe laces, etc i.e. a "reasonable time". To erect a tent and stay overnight might be pushing it a bit.

I'm just a little curious about your repeated use of the phrase 'dry land' and where this comes from? There seems to be many references both in statute and case law to 'land' but not 'dry land'. I believe that the accepted defintion of 'land' in the Criminal courts is that the same as in the Law of Property Act 1925, and I was taught that, 'land' includes land covered with water: Have I missed something? Whilst it would be true to say that S61 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is 'usually' used for occupation on so called 'dry land' simply because any sort of dwelling, temporary or otherwise, is more easily constructed on terra firma. However if a group of people who meet the conditions in the act, were to build tree houses in trees, they would still be liable. Should these trees be planted in a bog or lake on the land with the base of their trunks underwater, then again it's not very hard to imagine that the act still applies. If this is the case then what difference does it make whether these dwellings are above the lake but in boats or other dwellings in the middle of the lake? I would contest, none. In this case with the River Thames, it's probable that the land owner has Riparian Rights and owns the land up to the centre of the river bed. If these people were in boats, which are directly against the bank and attached to the bank or are away and attached to the river bed, they occupy that owner's land, and if the conditions set in S61 are met, then they are liable under the act and would have to move when asked by the police or face arrest and possible prosecution. Of course all this is pure conjecture as the only people who know what happened and why are those in possession of the full facts, i.e. the people on the boats, their legal reps, Reading Council, the police etc. I'd be very suprised if they all decide to make contributions here so we could all make ours minds up after hearing their side(s) of the story. In regards to 'Civil Trespass' the police still have a common law duty to prevent a breach of the peace and assist owners eject trespassers where the owners are not physically capable of doing it themselves. (this does not include 'Criminal Trespass' such as 'squatters', 'raves', etc) (Edited because I can't spell 'difference' correctly this time in the morning)

Not according to North Northamptonshire Development Corporation; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8548647.stm http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/North-Londonshire.html It seems, they think they're part of the SE

It's definately an 'urban myth' and not helped by the tabloid press who regularily obscure the faces of children in their photographs to 'protect the child'. There is no law in the UK which prevents anyone taking photographs of children in public or in private. Where the confusion may arise from is s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and s.160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which makes it an offence to make or distribute indecent images of children. A couple of 'helpful' links, one from the Torygraph; There is no law against photographing children and this one from the CPS; S 1 Protection of Children Act 1978 HTH

Pretty sure I know your 'Margaret of Middlewich', have spoken to her and she is happy for you to have her mobile no. as a contact. Only problem is that I'm not happy to post the number on an open board, and for you to make or receive PMs you'll need a post count of at least 5, (if that's wrong one of the regulars will let you know.) The only other alternative is for you to contact Nantwich Canal Centre and ask in the shop if they have a contact for her. As well as painting, she makes curtains for boats. Hope this helps?

We have a Dometic Vacuflush system on our boat comprising of a VacuFlush 5000 toilet http://www.dometicsanitation.com/productpages.asp?pid=19 and a VacuFlush 2500 Series Cassette Vacuum Tank http://www.dometicsanitation.com/productpages.asp?pid=82 It's a nice set up and we are very happy with it. One thing though, you must keep the toilet bowl seal clean as any leaks will cause the vacuum pump to trigger, most likely in the middle of the night. As for being 'New', Lee Sanitation mention our exact set up in one of their news items dated 08/07/2004

Vermiculite Any Garden Centre or decent Nursery will sell it

It's symptomatic of this current government who unfortunately feel they have to try and exercise control over people's private lives. Even if the the evidence was conclusive, (one, at the most two accidents in 7 years involving the types user they want to regulate could hardly be considered a risk to the general public that needs controlling), there is nothing to say that the proposed legislation, as written, is suitable or even enforcable. As Biggles has stated, there's no evidence that the blood/alcohol limit for the drivers of motor vehicles which travel up to speeds of 70 mph on our roads is appropriate, nor does it appear that the government has conducted any studies to look for a suitable higher level. Even if they introduce the legislation who will administer the checks; maybe they will make all BW staff PCSOs so that they can detain the individual until the police arrive?

Dave, as you ask, below is a link to the result of a FOIA request which I believe covers this. However before I post the link, because one person appears to be unable to distinguish between facts and opinions, I have to add that it's there for information only. The reader will have to choose/not choose as an individual how much weight they give to the information. I am not expressing an opinion. Link

Evidentially more relevant to the debate than this; Do you have problems with comprehension? Feel free to correct me, but where in any of the previous two posts do I advocate interference from the State that could be close to being described as 'nanny state twaddle'? Or are you now reduced to just resorting to mindless, childish insults?

Link I wonder if Douglas Henderson used to say the same? No doubt there are the families of 51 people who wish they had. However as I said I have mixed feelings about any proposed legislation as I am a firm believer that the State should only interfere when it is clear that there is a clear risk to the public. If you choose to drink and can keep in control then fine. However if you drink more than you can handle and then go out and operate what would be classed anywhere else as 'heavy machinery', even at 4mph, the you should be expected to face the consequences. Paul

Alcohol related accidents/injuries reported to MAIB 1991 - 2005 I have mixed feelings about this piece of legislation and am not on the "no alcohol side"of this debate. The figures speak for themselves, alcohol IS a contributory factor in SOME boating accident and/or injuries. To what extent and how much the State should intervene, is a matter of individual opinion. Paul