Constant cruising

[Momac]

On 26/02/2019 at 10:21, Arthur Marshall said:

These days there aren't many permanent jobs. 

I think what you mean is there is not the loyalty in the relationship between employers and employees  that there used to be  in the past. 

Some companies may be  beginning to realise they need to treat their staff better to retain them.

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think what you mean is there is not the loyalty in the relationship between employers and employees  that there used to be  in the past. 

Some companies may be  beginning to realise they need to treat their staff better to retain them.

 

 

Perhaps the company I work for isn't the norm anymore but there are a high percentage of staff who have worked there for a good many years. 

 

I have only worked there for 18 years. Some have been there over 50 years!

[Momac]

15 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Some have been there over 50 years!

I guess they  start at a young age in Yorkshire . .......... or keep going far too long.

There are some at my place who have never worked anywhere else and are not exactly in their youth. But I don't think anyone has  ever made it to 50 years .

 

[Iain_S]

On 28/02/2019 at 14:58, doratheexplorer said:

(snip)

There's no such thing as 'bending the rules'.  People are either following the rules or they aren't.

But a boat which moves very little, with the blessing of CaRT, because the owner has terminal cancer, still satsfies the Board, as required by BW Act 1995 S17(3)(c)(ii). Another boater with exactly the same cuising pattern probably won't. Are the "rules" being bent, or not?

 

Is a boater who moves a couple of boat lengths every 14 days bending the rules or breaking them? If the argument that 50 yards away is not the same place is accepted (which I don't, BTW),  then the boater is complying with the relevant law, and CaRT (a.k.a. "the Board") have to be "satisfied".

[Naughty Cal]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I guess they  start at a young age in Yorkshire . .......... or keep going far too long.

There are some at my place who have never worked anywhere else and are not exactly in their youth. But I don't think anyone has  ever made it to 50 years .

 

Not difficult to achieve 50 years at work. Start at 16 and you are only 66 after 50 years in the job.

 

A few will be ready for retirement soon but even then we have some on the books who stay on after retirement and do a bit part time .

[Iain_S]

On 28/02/2019 at 15:24, doratheexplorer said:

 

If CRT aren't satisfied then they'll take action, following warnings.  In that situation my sympathy is much reduced.  As I keep saying, my beef is when CRT ARE satisfied, but other boaters aren't.  Using meaningless phrases like 'bending the rules'.  As I said before, this plays directly into CRT's hands - keep boaters squabbling amongst themselves and they'll never get anywhere, since they'll have no unified voice.

What "satisfies the Board" today may not satisfy them in 5 years time, just as what "satisfied the Board" 10 years ago would not satisfy them today. The "rules", in the form of the published guidance, have gradually got stricter over the years,  because a small minority of boaters bent them, or hit the edges of them.

 

I agree wih you sentiments, though

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

If the argument that 50 yards away is not the same place is accepted (which I don't, BTW),  then the boater is complying with the relevant law, and CaRT (a.k.a. "the Board") have to be "satisfied".

There is a different definition of 'place' depending on having, or not having, a home mooring.

Your definition would be legally acceptable for a HMer, but not for a CCer

 

A judge did comment on the stupidity (my word) of having one word meaning two different things in the same legislation.

 

Definition of ‘Place’

 

Mr Justice Lewis did observe that the word “place” was used both in section 17(3)(c)(i) in the context of a home mooring or other “place” where a boat may be kept, and in section 17(3)(c)(ii) in the context of a boater without a home mooring not remaining in any one “place” for more than 14 days. The Judge commented that usually it was desirable to interpret a word in the same way where it appeared in the same legislation, however, he came to no conclusion about whether the word “place” could be interpreted in the same way here (and indeed spent some time reflecting on the quite different meaning implied).

 

 

Under section17(3)(c)(i) place is a boat shaped and sized 'area of space'.

Under section 17(3)(c)(ii) place is an “area inhabited or frequented by people, as a city, town, a village, a parish, a neighbourhod etc.”

Edited March 1, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Mikexx]

On 28/02/2019 at 14:12, doratheexplorer said:

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

 

I find it disingenuous for CaRT to interpret British Waterways v Davies Judgment to indicate "moving a vessel every 14 days on a 10 mile stretch of canal between Bath and Bradford on Avon was NOT use of the vessel bona fide for navigation".

 

  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/67073/response/174565/attach/2/BW v Davies Sealed Judgment.pdf?cookie_passthrough

says that Davies "moves the boat, usually a mile or two at a time, never remaining at any given mooring for more than 14 days". There was also "overstaying at moorings" and non payment of charges. Irrespective of the 'spirit of navigation' his movement was very limited indeed, plus he had history.

 

This is a very polarised argument and there are three type of people involved.

1) Those with a permanent mooring paying between £1,500 and £3,000 per year enjoying hassle free mooring often with electric power and close to amenities. These people look down on those who are willing to move to boat to conform to the 14 day and other rules of navigation. Probably because they see those are bypassing mooring fees.

 

2) CCers who I would expect are a rare breed(?) who move around the UK who enjoy the way of life. I would be tempted to say most are temporary after retirement and return to land based accommodation after a few years.

 

3) Those attempting to conform to the CC rules while actually being based around some employment and shuttle between 3 or more points. They are denigrated by those who can get and afford moorings. Often they are in a circumstance where they cannot afford local housing. [1]

 

My experience is that those who use rules to their advantages do best, whether in business or some other way. We choose to improve our lot, to ask and expect a pay increase, or some other feature that improves our quality of life. Those who disparage this form of behaviour and claim a moral high ground by making noises of the "spirit" of the rules are seen as short-sighted, moaners and a reflection of their own lives. It may be best to consider their own personal objectives, what they are doing and value their own time and quality of life rather than having concern of others.

 

[1] Many years ago I worked away from home, and for a time I slept and fed myself in a van travelling back home at weekends. We were living hand to mouth and there was no way I could afford lodgings in the first month. I'm no longer in that position, yet I have sympathy for those who are now in that situation. Some of us seem keen to forget our own heritage.

[mrsmelly]

29 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Not difficult to achieve 50 years at work. Start at 16 and you are only 66 after 50 years in the job.

 

A few will be ready for retirement soon but even then we have some on the books who stay on after retirement and do a bit part time .

Or start at age 15 cos you could leave school aged 15 fifty years ago.

[matty40s]

15 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

 

 

Is a boater who moves a couple of boat lengths every 14 days bending the rules or breaking them? If the argument that 50 yards away is not the same place is accepted (which I don't, BTW),  then the boater is complying with the relevant law, and CaRT (a.k.a. "the Board") have to be "satisfied".

Strangely enough, we have been watching a scenario similar to this with interest nearby.

A boater initially had a "without a home mooring" licence and moored at 4 spots around a local village within easy walking distance of work for 12-18 months.

Eventually boater was issued with notices and a short term licence situation ensued. Boater was refused a CRT Winter mooring as this would have put enforcement process back to stage 1.

Boater then got a new mooring (a CRT one) in another county. The enforcement process was therefore ended.

However....

The boater now continues to move around the same village - moving around 100 yards in a progressive journey every 2 weeks - and then back to the other side of the village to start again.

There doesn't seem to be anything CRT can do legally other than cancel said boaters mooring permit for non use and abuse.... and start the process again.

[Momac]

32 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Not difficult to achieve 50 years at work. 

On the contrary , I think 50 years working for one employer is quite a remarkable achievement

[mrsmelly]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

On the contrary , I think 50 years working for one employer is quite a remarkable achievement

I reckon its pretty sad but hey we are all different innitt.

[Iain_S]

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

(snip)

Under section17(3)(c)(i) place is a boat shaped and sized 'area of space'.

Under section 17(3)(c)(ii) place is an “area inhabited or frequented by people, as a city, town, a village, a parish, a neighbourhod etc.”

I wouldn't say that was necessarily true for 17(c)(i).  As far as CaRT are concerned, a mooring may be at a marina, but not further specified, so that the "place" is the whole marina, not a specific berth therein.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

I wouldn't say that was necessarily true for 17(c)(i).  As far as CaRT are concerned, a mooring may be at a marina, but not further specified, so that the "place" is the whole marina, not a specific berth therein.

Or on a trailer, or in your garden or ………………………….

 

17)c)(I) IS a boat sized space - a mooring is a mooring - not a whole marina. A mooring could be 'bankside' so, taking your proposal that would mean that the whole of the canal system bank is one-mooring, or one-place.

 

... a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere

[Paul C]

28 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Strangely enough, we have been watching a scenario similar to this with interest nearby.

A boater initially had a "without a home mooring" licence and moored at 4 spots around a local village within easy walking distance of work for 12-18 months.

Eventually boater was issued with notices and a short term licence situation ensued. Boater was refused a CRT Winter mooring as this would have put enforcement process back to stage 1.

Boater then got a new mooring (a CRT one) in another county. The enforcement process was therefore ended.

However....

The boater now continues to move around the same village - moving around 100 yards in a progressive journey every 2 weeks - and then back to the other side of the village to start again.

There doesn't seem to be anything CRT can do legally other than cancel said boaters mooring permit for non use and abuse.... and start the process again.

 

It begs the question "is the boater hurting anyone by the chosen movement pattern". I suspect the answer is "no". Also, the scenario with the home mooring is (technically) legal. It is probably against the (unenforceable) T&Cs, but that's another debate for another day.

 

I suppose CRT could decide they're the guinea pig to "test" the legality of the T&Cs but its probably too costly and too risky for them. Better to leave it untested; or wait for a case where its a clear contravention of T&Cs AND is hurting other(s) (boaters) BUT is technically legal except for the T&Cs.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

It begs the question "is the boater hurting anyone by the chosen movement pattern". I suspect the answer is "no". Also, the scenario with the home mooring is (technically) legal. It is probably against the (unenforceable) T&Cs, but that's another debate for another day.

 

I suppose CRT could decide they're the guinea pig to "test" the legality of the T&Cs but its probably too costly and too risky for them. Better to leave it untested; or wait for a case where its a clear contravention of T&Cs AND is hurting other(s) (boaters) BUT is technically legal except for the T&Cs.

C&RT Vs Mayers

 

HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'

 

He went onto say :

 

A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

[Tacet]

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT Vs Mayers

 

HHJ Halbert also stated that any requirement by CaRT to use a substantial part of the canal network was not justified by Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 because the requirement to use the boat for bona fide navigation is 'temporal not geographical'

 

He went onto say :

 

A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused.

 

The Act requires "the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel" as one of its options.  Whilst the obiter comment is that a home mooring need not never be used, the absence of any use over a long period could be one indication that the vessel cannot be reasonably kept at the mooring. 

Obviously it depends on the facts and circumstances but, in extremis, one was to arrange a home mooring in Sydney Harbour, you shouldn't be too surprised if the Board took the view that it was not a reasonable place to keep a boat for the purposes of the Act.

[Arthur Marshall]

And even then Halbert weaselled out of saying anything useful by the bit about them being different places, as usual undefined. And if I recall, this judgement isn't binding on anyone else, so it's not a very useful quote. It is, however legally accurate, essentially nonsense. I suspect that he was trying to point this out, rather than argue it was a useful interpretation. 

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Tacet said:

The Act requires "the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel" as one of its options.  Whilst the obiter comment is that a home mooring need not never be used, the absence of any use over a long period could be one indication that the vessel cannot be reasonably kept at the mooring. 

Obviously it depends on the facts and circumstances but, in extremis, one was to arrange a home mooring in Sydney Harbour, you shouldn't be too surprised if the Board took the view that it was not a reasonable place to keep a boat for the purposes of the Act.

I have a place where my boat can be reasonably kept' in my yard at home.

The space is always available and it could 'lawfully be kept there' - why would you suggest that me not using it means it could not be reasonably kept there ?

 

The Act specifically states "...may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere..."

Edited March 1, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have a place where my boat can be reasonably kept' in my yard at home.

The space is always available and it could 'lawfully be kept there' - why would you suggest that me not using it means it could not be reasonably kept there ?

 

The Act specifically states "...may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere..."

Do you know one single household in the UK where someone has an uncluttered, empty garage, with nothing in it?

[Arthur Marshall]

23 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Do you know one single household in the UK where someone has an uncluttered, empty garage, with nothing in it?

Got two cars in mine. I claim my five pounds ... No I can't, I'm not single. 

[Mikexx]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Got two cars in mine. I claim my five pounds ... No I can't, I'm not single. 

You are in just the one household?

 

Isn't that still a 'single household'?

 

Now if there were two independent families living there it would be called a 'dual' or 'multiple' household! ?

[Paul C]

43 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 with nothing in it?

 

17 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Got two cars in mine. 

Can't fit 2 cars and a boat into a double garage! The £5 is still safe in my piggy bank.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

It begs the question "is the boater hurting anyone by the chosen movement pattern". I suspect the answer is "no". Also, the scenario with the home mooring is (technically) legal. It is probably against the (unenforceable) T&Cs, but that's another debate for another day.

 

I suppose CRT could decide they're the guinea pig to "test" the legality of the T&Cs but its probably too costly and too risky for them. Better to leave it untested; or wait for a case where its a clear contravention of T&Cs AND is hurting other(s) (boaters) BUT is technically legal except for the T&Cs.

"Hurt" isn't necessarily direct. I have moored alongside liveaboards on low income who pay for a home mooring because they know they cannot truly satisfy the requirements of the law for a boat without a home mooring. I think they can be classified as being "hurt" by anyone who moors in the same locality for over 14 days without permission.

 

As for place? Places have names. Just ask a few non-boating members of the public passing on the towpath where you are moored. Then after you move do the same again and if you get the same answer then you're still in the same place.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

8 hours ago, Paul C said:

Do you know one single household in the UK where someone has an uncluttered, empty garage, with nothing in it?

What has a garage got to do with it ?

 

I (and 1000's of others) have kept boats on trailers at out homes.

I now have a 'yard' big enough to store several 'full-size' narrow boats should I wish to.

 

Even 25+ years ago I kept 2 boats at home.