Jump to content

Continuous Cruising In London With Full Time Job. Can it be done?


Featured Posts

10 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Not "radius". Range is furthest point to furthest point. A radius if 20 miles would imply that furthest points would have to be 40 miles apart. They weren't clear whether this is as the crow flies or as the duck swims (along the canal), but I assume it is as the duck swims.

 

If you move only every fortnight you are moving 26 times a year. If you move only in one direction and aim to range exactly 20 miles in your year, that's 0.77 miles each time. If you round up, you're moving 1 mile at a time and ranging just over 20 miles in a year.

Of course if you turn around, you need to cruise further to make your range.

 

 

My rifle has a 'range' of (say) 5 miles.

If I stand and fire in an Easterly direction the bullet will land 5 miles away in that direction.

If I stand and fire in an Westerly direction the bullet will land 5 miles away in that direction.

 

The range from my starting point is still 5 miles (not 2.5 miles - 5 miles 'diameter')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My rifle has a 'range' of (say) 5 miles.

If I stand and fire in an Easterly direction the bullet will land 5 miles away in that direction.

If I stand and fire in an Westerly direction the bullet will land 5 miles away in that direction.

 

The range from my starting point is still 5 miles (not 2.5 miles - 5 miles 'diameter')

I do hope you don't do this too often!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

I do hope you don't do this too often!

 

 

No, I tend to limit it to about 600 yards (in one direction) with a good backstop, as that is the maximum length of my field.

It is accurate to 1000 yards +, but then it becomes complicated as you have to start taking the coriolis effect into account.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No, I tend to limit it to about 600 yards (in one direction) with a good backstop, as that is the maximum length of my field.

There's no good backstop. It just can't form part of a credible deal! Donald can go Tusk himself.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

 

Oh yes. Range. No doubt what you are saying is correct, however the range from where you are doesn't double by virtue of the fact that you can fire in both directions. If you were to fire in an easterly direction, then walk 5 miles and fire again in an easterly direction, your second bullet would have travelled 10 miles from your starting point, not 20.

Range being the distance between your two most separated points of your pattern seems clear to me, not double this distance. To be clear, are you saying that the email you posted implies that a CCer must have 40 miles between his or her most distant points?

And @Mike the Boilerman, yes I mean as the duck paddles ?

Edited by ivan&alice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Point of Order M'Lud...

 

Ducks don't 'swim', they float on the surface and paddle. Fish swim. 

 

Hope that clarifies things....

 

I float on the surface and do the duck thing - I call that swimming

 

I do the fish thing and people call that sinking. :huh:

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

To be clear, are you saying that the email you posted implies that a CCer must have 40 miles between his or her most distant points?

As I have a mooring and do not need to move to a new 'place' every 14 days', or to even Bona Fide navigate, I don't need to know what C&RTs meaning is.

If I was  CCer I would simply take 'my' range as being a distance from a start point (maybe where the school, parents, work, hospital etc is located).

 

I guess it will take someone to appeal C&RTs decision to revoke their licence on 'insufficient movement grounds' to actually get a legal opinion on the matter.

 

One opinion (before C&RT amended their guidelines to 20 mile range)

 

HHJ Halbert in C&RT vs Mayers :

 

7.22.3
I consider the requirement imposed by CRT that a substantial part of the network is used cannot be justified by relying solely on section 17(3). That section requires “bona fide navigation throughout the period of the licence” not “bona fide navigation throughout the canal network”. The requirement is temporal not geographical. In my view it does NOT follow from:

“Such journey or cruise must take place “throughout the period of the licence”

that it

“therefore requires progression round the network or at least a significant part of it”

7.22.4
If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence “bona fide navigation”. In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat but was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load.

7.22.5
To take an extreme example, in its heyday, the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used  for navigation throughout the period of their operations.

 

However - note the "had a specific reason" to make repeated journeys - (carrying coal for example). 

It is unlikely that the 'specific' reason of moving simply to comply with the law requiring moving would be acceptable as bone-fide (in good faith) navigation.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...It doesn't really seem anyone has any evidence of this boat swapping conspiracy! Posts regularly come up on London boaters Facebook asking if there is a space free in this or that spot and it always gets shouted down as being useless info as by the time the boat wanting it arrives it is likely to be gone. 

When I was in last in Milton keynes I did notice a lot of night time cruising which i thought might be boats swapping moorings. Until I thought about it and realised nowhere in Milton Keynes is so popular to make it worth getting organised to swap moorings at 1am!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Murflynn said:

it would seem that you think that, because at some time in the past canals may have been used in some localities to move 'stuff' over short distances, this would justify a very restricted movement pattern.  

It was you who brought up the subject of canals intended use, not me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Murflynn said:

you are making great efforts to justify a pattern which is not bona fide navigation for a recreational or residential boater

Now you're just making things up, presumably because you can't answer the point I was making - why do CRT falsely imply that continuous movement is required for bona fide navigation when neither the letter or spirit of the law require it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

……. why do CRT falsely imply that continuous movement is required for bona fide navigation when neither the letter or spirit of the law require it?

 

I don't think that C&RT are (now) saying that at all - since they were forced to retract their "substantial part of the network" guidance they have simply quoted that if certain 'characteristics' are observed that would indicate bona fide navigation they would be unlikely to take enforcement action.

 

See Post #122 for their 'expectations'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

It was you who brought up the subject of canals intended use, not me.

 

:tired:

51 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

Now you're just making things up, presumably because you can't answer the point I was making - why do CRT falsely imply that continuous movement is required for bona fide navigation when neither the letter or spirit of the law require it?

 

:tired:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

7.22.4
If a person who lived permanently on his or her boat had specific reason for making repeated journeys over the same stretch of canal between two points sufficiently far apart to be regarded as different places, it would in my view be purposeful movement by water from one place to another and hence “bona fide navigation”. In the course of argument I used the example of someone who lived on his boat but was also using the vessel commercially to move coal from a mine to an iron foundry only a few miles away and then returning empty for another load.

 

 

However - note the "had a specific reason" to make repeated journeys - (carrying coal for example). 

It is unlikely that the 'specific' reason of moving simply to comply with the law requiring moving would be acceptable as bone-fide (in good faith) navigation.

no doubt some expensive QC would argue that point to distraction, rather like some of the CMers hiding behind their polemic on this thread.

 

 

 

I will always revert to remembering those selfless folk who restored many of our best canals; that seems a reasonable test of issues like this.  They certainly didn't do it to facilitate the provision of convenient housing for some, subject to compliance with 'rules' that will always be disputed by the spongers.   Would they be turning in their graves when they read some of the b******x written by spongers who are trying to define and justify 'minimum requirements' in threads like this?  Just out of interest, what do such folk bring to the party?  Do they do voluntary work to help maintain their favourite part of the network?  In my experience the only thing they are interested in is finding, and then sitting on a convenient place somewhere on the bank of the canal. 

 

We have a similar situation with camper vans and other wheeled residences continuously parked on residential streets and parks in our city, to the detriment of the otherwise pleasant environment and the amenities enjoyed by tax-paying residents.

 

If these situations are the consequence of the so-called 'housing shortage' then so be it, but that does not justify these actions.   On the other hand, I would observe that most of the folk involved do it because they believe that they enjoy the lifestyle, like the hippies of the 60/70's. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

 

We have a similar situation with camper vans and other wheeled residences continuously parked on residential streets and parks in our city, to the detriment of the otherwise pleasant environment and the amenities enjoyed by tax-paying residents.

 

 

There's one on our road. It belongs to the people who live in the house outside which it is usually parked. I don't notice it detracting from the local environment at all. Now if it was a Dacia Duster you might have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

My rifle has a 'range' of (say) 5 miles.

If I stand and fire in an Easterly direction the bullet will land 5 miles away in that direction.

If I stand and fire in an Westerly direction the bullet will land 5 miles away in that direction.

 

The range from my starting point is still 5 miles (not 2.5 miles - 5 miles 'diameter')

But there is no starting point for a cc’er by definition ?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

But there is no starting point for a cc’er by definition ?

Ok - accepting that, where do C&RT use as the 'starting point' for measuring the 'range of 20 miles' ?

 

As I see it, we are not really talking about CCers are we ?

It is pretty obvious where the 'centre of operations' is for the 'problem' boaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Athy said:

There's one on our road. It belongs to the people who live in the house outside which it is usually parked. I don't notice it detracting from the local environment at all. Now if it was a Dacia Duster you might have a point.

I guess you have your tongue in your cheek - the ones I refer to have overnight occupants and no visible toilet and waste water facilities.  Not nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, range is impossible to define as the area you do it in is as relevant as distance covered. Any set of rules has fuzzy edges which can be exploited until someone decides a limit has been exceeded and someone ends up in court. Then you just get another set of fuzzy edges. 

The answer to the original question is "probably". Whether anyone wants to live with the resulting uncertainty depends on the desperation of their situation and their estimation of their chance of not only being made homeless but losing their investment into the bargain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I guess you have your tongue in your cheek - the ones I refer to have overnight occupants and no visible toilet and waste water facilities.  Not nice.

Just because they're not visible doesn't mean they don't have them. Is your loo on display?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

As I have a mooring and do not need to move to a new 'place' every 14 days', or to even Bona Fide navigate, I don't need to know what C&RTs meaning is.

If I was  CCer I would simply take 'my' range as being a distance from a start point (maybe where the school, parents, work, hospital etc is located). 

 

I guess it will take someone to appeal C&RTs decision to revoke their licence on 'insufficient movement grounds' to actually get a legal opinion on the matter.

 

Indeed, as a CCer who has "ranged" around 50 miles in the last 9 months I also don't need to know (my interpretation of range being the duck-paddle distance from the two most distant points). In fact, I'd hazard to say that the point of the vagueness of CaRT's rules are that "if you have to ask, it's not enough".

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Ok - accepting that, where do C&RT use as the 'starting point' for measuring the 'range of 20 miles' ?

 

As I see it, we are not really talking about CCers are we ?

It is pretty obvious where the 'centre of operations' is for the 'problem' boaters.

Two points, the furthest apart over the course of the year. It only makes sense. Are we not talking about CCers? What's your definition of CCers and how does it differ from CaRT's minimum guidelines? How far must a CCer travel before you'd consider them a genuine, valid, bona fide waterway user?

 

Genuine question. This is a discussion, it's not intended to be personal. The OP asked whether it is possible to CC and work a full time job in London.

20 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

rather like some of the CMers hiding behind their polemic on this thread.

This sounds rather personal to me. Since I suppose I'm one of these CMers, I'll try to defend the position.

I neither have nor want a base (a start point), and I want to cruise the network at my own pace within the spirit and letter of the rules laid down by CaRT and the interpretation of them as seen by the legal system. I do not want to be selfish in this, and I'd really like to find some common ground to avoid the conflict between CMers, CCers and PMers. I'd rather like if all waterways users, especially boaters, could come together and love one another.

 

I agree that CCMers (coordinated continuous moorers) are reprehensible, but can we at least agree that CCers who roam beyond a certain "range" are valid waterways users?

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Two points, the furthest apart over the course of the year.

I can accept that.

 

4 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

What's your definition of CCers and how does it differ from CaRT's minimum guidelines?

Whatever I suggest as MY minimum will be shouted down as 'that's not what the law says' - however, MY suggested minimum would be considerably greater than that suggested by C&RT.

 

5 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

This is a discussion, it's not intended to be personal. The OP asked whether it is possible to CC and work a full time job in London.

Depending on the definition of 'London' (the 'square mile', within the M25 etc etc), and depending on what is considered to be 'CCing', I would answer 'possibly'

 

London Waterways (Excluding the Thames)

 

Bow Back Rivers 

Grand Union Canal (Southern part) 

Hertford Union Canal

The Lee Navigation 

Limehouse Cut 

London Docklands 

Regent's Canal 

River Roding 

 

If one were to cruise all of these - yes you'd be CCing, If you were simply going 3km up & down the Limehouse Cut, no you wouldn't,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Whatever I suggest as MY minimum will be shouted down as 'that's not what the law says' - however, MY suggested minimum would be considerably greater than that suggested by C&RT.

What would the number be? I won't shout it down.

 

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If one were to cruise all of these - yes you'd be CCing, If you were simply going 3km up & down the Limehouse Cut, no you wouldn't,

The M25 is around 33 miles in diameter. So can we suggest 33 miles as the range you'd like to see CaRT adopt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

I guess you have your tongue in your cheek - the ones I refer to have overnight occupants and no visible toilet and waste water facilities.  Not nice.

Slightly. But camper vans, or motor homes, or what you will, are not inherently ugly, unless you think of them as the road-going equivalent of "fat boats"! By the nature of the vehicle, one would expect it to have overnight occupants, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

 

Since I suppose I'm one of these CMers, I'll try to defend the position.
 

From the account which you have given of the pattern of your life on board so far, I really don't think that you need to.

 

I would mention, however, that you have several times referred to a "C.C. licence". There is no such thing. It's just called a "licence". Moorings are dealt with by a separate department of CART.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

What would the number be? I won't shout it down.

 

The M25 is around 33 miles in diameter. So can we suggest 33 miles as the range you'd like to see CaRT adopt?

No, but 99 others will.

 

Bona fide navigation is (to quote a learned friend) is temporal and not geographic, if you are having to stay around a point, (for work, or whatever) your reason for moving is simply to comply with the 'law', given the choice 'you' (not necessarily YOU) would probably prefer to not move and have an easy life.

In my opinion : Those that have no geographical tie to an area can CC, those that have a geographical tie cannot - If one is prepared to cruise (lets say) 50 miles and commute into town then they could CC.

 

This of course is not what the law states and hence the thousands of threads and millions of words on the subject.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.