Constant cruising

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I get that, but some people seem to think they should be moving far more than the guidelines say.  Those lot at the IWA included.

I am sure somebody will correct my failing memory but I seem to remember that the concept of not having a home mooring was introduced after lobbying by those who were genuinely travelling round the system.

 

Put that together with the unfashionable "spirit of the licence" and there might be the reason.

[doratheexplorer]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

I am sure somebody will correct my failing memory but I seem to remember that the concept of not having a home mooring was introduced after lobbying by those who were genuinely travelling round the system.

 

Put that together with the unfashionable "spirit of the licence" and there might be the reason.

That may be true but the guidelines, the waterways act and the licence T&Cs don't say anything about travelling round the system.  I'm told the the CRT guidelines used to say something about it but they had to change it, because it was balls!

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

That may be true but the guidelines, the waterways act and the licence T&Cs don't say anything about travelling round the system.  I'm told the the CRT guidelines used to say something about it but they had to change it, because it was balls!

As I said the "spirit" has gone with everyone trying for what they can get.   However I can see (even if others don't) that if what I seem to remember is correct, there will be a certain percentage of boaters who would like things not to have changed.

 

That will be those who still operate by the spirit of laws/regulations rather than by nitpicking and looking for the lowest level they have to conform to.

[doratheexplorer]

If it were true that the intention that we either have a mooring or travelled all over the system, then the waterways act would have said that.  It doesn't.  All this stuff about the spirit of the act is a red herring.  There's no spirit of the act.  You are either on the right side of it or you aren't.  Simple.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

If it were true that the intention that we either have a mooring or travelled all over the system, then the waterways act would have said that.  It doesn't.  All this stuff about the spirit of the act is a red herring.  There's no spirit of the act.  You are either on the right side of it or you aren't.  Simple.

To me that is a bit like saying it is OK to drive everywhere within a 30 mph limit at 29.75 mph.   Legal but not within the spirit of the law and not sensible much of the time.

 

I can see the defence in court "but I was only doing 29.999 mph when I ran the cyclist down".

[RLWP]

6 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

If it were true that the intention that we either have a mooring or travelled all over the system, then the waterways act would have said that.  It doesn't.  All this stuff about the spirit of the act is a red herring.  There's no spirit of the act.  You are either on the right side of it or you aren't.  Simple.

The act couldn't have said either of those things, it was written for different times

 

Richard

[Tony Brooks]

And was there not a court case that resulted in the judgement that the boat must making a continuous journey or some such. That suggest that A-B-A or even A-B-C-B-A would be  against the ruling because the intention is not to be making a journey.

[bizzard]

I know of a CB'er, ''Constant Boozer'' spends most of his time moored opposite Wetherspoons in Stortford town centre.

[Murflynn]

similar problems with folk that live in camper vans.  OK if it's in a quiet corner of a wood where it bothers nobody, but a line of campers in a residential street or in a city park is not in the spirit of a road fund licence.  God knows how they manage toileting, but it can't be very neighbourly.

[doratheexplorer]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

To me that is a bit like saying it is OK to drive everywhere within a 30 mph limit at 29.75 mph.   Legal but not within the spirit of the law and not sensible much of the time.

 

I can see the defence in court "but I was only doing 29.999 mph when I ran the cyclist down".

It isn't because there are other laws regarding dangerous driving etc.

1 hour ago, RLWP said:

The act couldn't have said either of those things, it was written for different times

 

Richard

Which things?

23 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

similar problems with folk that live in camper vans.  OK if it's in a quiet corner of a wood where it bothers nobody, but a line of campers in a residential street or in a city park is not in the spirit of a road fund licence.  God knows how they manage toileting, but it can't be very neighbourly.

Again, there are other laws regarding sanitation, odour nuisance etc.  so no good as an analogy.

[Jerra]

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

It isn't because there are other laws regarding dangerous driving etc.

The point being sensible people don't just operate by the letter of the law they operate by the spirit.   "Oh I think the 30 mph limit is to keep people safe and I don't think 30 is safe in these conditions.   I will slow down".  They don't say, the law permits speeds up to 30 so I will do 30, which is in effect what those who try to get away with the minimum in cruising are doing.

 

I know those who find not taking the spirit (or what I think was the intention of the law) will find this totally unacceptable, but if they really consider things, they may, just may, begin to realise why a proportion of boaters find trying to bend the rules unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

[RLWP]

2 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

If it were true that the intention that we either have a mooring or travelled all over the system, then the waterways act would have said that.  It doesn't.  All this stuff about the spirit of the act is a red herring.  There's no spirit of the act.  You are either on the right side of it or you aren't.  Simple.

 

58 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

Which things?

Boats didn't have moorings, or travel all over the system so the act couldn't say anything about them

 

Richard

Edited February 28, 2019 by RLWP

[doratheexplorer]

19 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The point being sensible people don't just operate by the letter of the law they operate by the spirit.   "Oh I think the 30 mph limit is to keep people safe and I don't think 30 is safe in these conditions.   I will slow down".  They don't say, the law permits speeds up to 30 so I will do 30, which is in effect what those who try to get away with the minimum in cruising are doing.

 

I know those who find not taking the spirit (or what I think was the intention of the law) will find this totally unacceptable, but if they really consider things, they may, just may, begin to realise why a proportion of boaters find trying to bend the rules unacceptable.

 

 

 

 

The point is, if our legal system considered that people keeping to the 'spirit' of the law were sufficient, then the speed limit would be sufficient, and there would be no need for other laws on dangerous driving, driving without due care etc...

 

The fact is, the law recognises the potential harm caused by dangerous driving so, it deals with it.  Cruising about within a fairly small area harms nobody, so there's no other legislation to deal with it.  So the spirit of the law, or of the licence is a myth.  It's just people wanting everybody to agree with them.

.

8 minutes ago, RLWP said:

 

Boats didn't have moorings, or travel all over the system so the act couldn't say anything about them

 

Richard

In 1995?

[RLWP]

15 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

In 1995?

 

And what changed in the 1995 act? The basic act dates from 1962

 

Before we go any further, this is going the way this conversation usually does. In my opinion, the act isn't fit for purpose for today's waterways. It is ambiguous and doesn't reflect modern usage. As far as I can remember, there isn't enough case law based on the act to provide useful interpretation. And what is really needed is a new act of parliament

 

Richard

Edited February 28, 2019 by RLWP

[Jerra]

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The point is, if our legal system considered that people keeping to the 'spirit' of the law were sufficient, then the speed limit would be sufficient, and there would be no need for other laws on dangerous driving, driving without due care etc...

 

The fact is, the law recognises the potential harm caused by dangerous driving so, it deals with it.  Cruising about within a fairly small area harms nobody, so there's no other legislation to deal with it.  So the spirit of the law, or of the licence is a myth.  It's just people wanting everybody to agree with them.

You don't  seem to be allowing for the fact that road traffic law is much easier to get proposed and passed through parliament than waterways law.

 

As has been pointed out the law was written for a different time when people weren't trying/wanting to live on the canal and hang around in one place.  It didn't need to deal with was as yet not a problem.   I suspect nobody had their crystal ball to hand to see how there would develop this group of boaters who were nit picking about thew law and try to circumvent it at every opportunity.

 

s I said previously I accept that those who want "sail as close to the wind as possible" will never accept the spirit or intention of the move do not require home moorings.  Eventually there will be new waterways laws and I strongly suspect there will be much pressure by CRT (or their successors) to either require a mooring or defined much stricter parameters in the law about CCing.

 

All because so many are unprepared to work to the spirit of the law for everybody's good.

[system 4-50]

The primary "law" is that everbody should behave in a sensible way, observing the needs of others.  The primary enforcement of that law is the conscience of each of us and peer pressure. The legal law is secondary and is there to advise what is sensible behaviour.  The police and judiciary are there to encourage adherence to the primary law with the guidance of the legal law, but they cannot hope to enforce that behaviour without the support of the conscience of each of us and peer pressure.  The entire system depends on  most of us behaving sensibly without coercion. (Otherwise you would need a police state.)  Thus the "spirit of the law" does exist and is fundamental.

The legal law is couched in English which is very imprecise in what is meant for any particular set of words, and is additionally built by a poor quality system whose principle good feature is that it is allegedly democratic rather than precise.  The legislation relating to canals appears to be particularly imprecise and incomplete, so the question is, do we observe the legal law which is very imperfect or the spirit of the law which is not defined?  The traditional British way is to observe the imperfect legal way until the exploitation of the loopholes has caused major and inevitable  problems which can't be corrected because of the massive investment in the mess. Those of us with an immediate survival problem will be happy with this but those of us free to consider the long term will not as it means that we are no more capable of managing our affairs sensibly than stone-age societies.

[doratheexplorer]

15 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You don't  seem to be allowing for the fact that road traffic law is much easier to get proposed and passed through parliament than waterways law.

 

As has been pointed out the law was written for a different time when people weren't trying/wanting to live on the canal and hang around in one place.  It didn't need to deal with was as yet not a problem.   I suspect nobody had their crystal ball to hand to see how there would develop this group of boaters who were nit picking about thew law and try to circumvent it at every opportunity.

 

s I said previously I accept that those who want "sail as close to the wind as possible" will never accept the spirit or intention of the move do not require home moorings.  Eventually there will be new waterways laws and I strongly suspect there will be much pressure by CRT (or their successors) to either require a mooring or defined much stricter parameters in the law about CCing.

 

All because so many are unprepared to work to the spirit of the law for everybody's good.

 

I'm still waiting to here what harm is being done by people who follow the guidance and no more.  It feels like a divide and rule situation.  If a boater is clearly failing to meet the requirements, then fair enough, have a go at them; but to snipe away online about boaters who DO follow the rules but not to the specific approval of self-appointed moral artibers, well that's pretty poor in my opinion.  As boaters, 99% of the time we all want the same things. We'd be far more likely to get those things if we combine out voices, than spend our time critisizing each other.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

I'm still waiting to here what harm is being done by people who follow the guidance and no more.  It feels like a divide and rule situation.  If a boater is clearly failing to meet the requirements, then fair enough, have a go at them; but to snipe away online about boaters who DO follow the rules but not to the specific approval of self-appointed moral artibers, well that's pretty poor in my opinion.  As boaters, 99% of the time we all want the same things. We'd be far more likely to get those things if we combine out voices, than spend our time critisizing each other.

You clearly haven't been reading what I have written clearly enough.   Reread it and you will notice all I am trying to do is to explain to those, like yourself who can't understand why a proportion of boaters feel differently.

 

No sniping, that is merely an emotive response from yourself because you think a) I am getting at you or somebody and b) your failure to take the time to notice I was trying to explain why some boaters feel differently to yourself.

 

With regard to harm (just my opinion) CRT must think there is some harm or they wouldn't be chasing people who they feel aren't moving enough.   I also know many who feel the situation in London is entirely due to people trying to avoid the spirit of the law.

 

However as I have said a number of times I know those who do try to get away with the minimum they can will never accept the view of the section of boaters I have been trying to explain to you.

 

You can keep protesting as much as you wish, all I have done is explain why some boaters feel as they do.  The fact you can't understand why they do is completely immaterial.

[RLWP]

6 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

I'm still waiting to here what harm is being done by people who follow the guidance and no more. 

 

You won't find the waterways act supports or refutes this

 

The rest of your post I agree with completely, with the proviso that "If a boater is clearly failing to meet the requirements" is very hard to be sure about. What a passing boater sees and what any arrangement between the moored boat and CRT is can be very different, Casual judgment can often be wrong

 

Richard

[doratheexplorer]

23 minutes ago, Jerra said:

You clearly haven't been reading what I have written clearly enough.   Reread it and you will notice all I am trying to do is to explain to those, like yourself who can't understand why a proportion of boaters feel differently.

 

No sniping, that is merely an emotive response from yourself because you think a) I am getting at you or somebody and b) your failure to take the time to notice I was trying to explain why some boaters feel differently to yourself.

 

With regard to harm (just my opinion) CRT must think there is some harm or they wouldn't be chasing people who they feel aren't moving enough.   I also know many who feel the situation in London is entirely due to people trying to avoid the spirit of the law.

 

However as I have said a number of times I know those who do try to get away with the minimum they can will never accept the view of the section of boaters I have been trying to explain to you.

 

You can keep protesting as much as you wish, all I have done is explain why some boaters feel as they do.  The fact you can't understand why they do is completely immaterial.

Seems like it's you who isn't reading clearly.  I'm not talking about people who are being chased by CRT.  I'm talking about people who CRT have no problem with, but boaters still think it ok to critisize.  We have people on this thread saying nonsense about not being able to cc with a permanent job.  Others clearly thinking you should be cruising all over the country.  I stand by what I've said.

[Chris Williams]

I seem to remember that way back in early BWB days, the only way to officially live aboard a boat was to have a commercial licence and a working boat.  Anyone else (including me) was bending the rules.

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

I get that, but some people seem to think they should be moving far more than the guidelines say.  Those lot at the IWA included.

And what do the guidelines say apart from satisfy the board

[doratheexplorer]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

And what do the guidelines say apart from satisfy the board

You're confusing the guidelines with the waterways act

[doratheexplorer]

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/633-guidance-for-boaters-without-a-home-mooring.pdf?v=09041e

[CompairHolman]

The minimum requirements of the licence are still the licence, and the owner is fully entitled legally and morally to do that. 

 

The " spirit of the licence " is just someone's arbitrary opinion of what someone else should be doing. The people who have these opinions complain about others but don't even know the circumstances, a boat in my area has only moved a few miles in the last year, the owner has terminal cancer, so before you complain about others find out the circumstances or just mind your own business.