Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Deanhopefullboater

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

Featured Posts

1 hour 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.

As @ivan&alice says you start at one of the extremes. Then you measure to the other(s) but don’t count any single linear extent more than once. We are definitely talking about cc’ers and a range can have more than two extremes since canals have junctions.

 

Why this notion that a range has to have a start point? The point about range is that it only has extent. Take @p6rob, he cruises a ring so he not only has no start point and no ends either! He still has a range though.

 

JP

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ange said:

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

you are welcome to visit any time and I will show you all the loos.

 

if you live in the back of a transit van perhaps you would like to show me yours.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

 

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".

 

 

 

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.

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?

I have no problem with CCers who want to cruise the system. 

I have a problem with CMers who just want a place to moor up for as long as possible, with the least amount of inconvenience (and who probably have no interest in the waterways), and as a result continually ask what are the minimum requirements to satisfy the Board.  Those people will find it much more convenient to get a mooring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

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.

nothing wrong with camper vans per se.  A lot wrong with camper vans that never move, that gradually get surrounded with junk, and/or that house folk who are anti-social in their hygiene, toilet habits, and neighbourliness.  They can often be identified by the plaintive note stuck inside the windscreen stating that the engine is broken and they are waiting for parts, or similar. 

The other day my dogs ran into the car park at the local park, having smelled something interesting, and started licking up the 'waste water' that had been discharged from a camper onto the tarmac.  The occupant when challenged said it was clean water!!  With bits of waste food and other washing up detritus.   Dirty b*******d.

1 hour ago, Chris Williams said:

Are they parked over a drain hole ?

assuming your question is serious, they should be aware that grey water (and of course toilet waste) must not be discharged or diverted into the surface water drains.  As you will be aware, some water companies are being fined £millions for doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

they should be aware

Or just don't care.  Like those who pour old engine oil into drains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

nothing wrong with camper vans per se.  A lot wrong with camper vans that never move, that gradually get surrounded with junk,

But they wouldn't be like that on public roads, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Athy said:

But they wouldn't be like that on public roads, surely?

Define 'Public Road' and don't forget the verges.  How about the Double Decker buses which seldom move.

We have a genuine Romany around here, with proper vardo and horse.  Always neat and tidy.

Just the same with boats - some smart and tidy, some floating wrecks surrounded by junk.

junk.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

But they wouldn't be like that on public roads, surely?

you must live a very sheltered life.

 

the junk is always a little distance from the culprit, allowing them to disown any such junk and litter. ............ 'it doesn't really matter 'cos the council will keep the streets clean, won't they ?'    Spongers and vermin - arghhh !!!   :banghead:

Edited by Murflynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

you are welcome to visit any time and I will show you all the loos.

 

if you live in the back of a transit van perhaps you would like to show me yours.  

Not good enough - you've made an assumption based on outward visible signs. We do have a loo in our transit van, but there are no outward signs to the casual observer, who, if they shared your prejudices, might assume we don't have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

can we at least agree that CCers who roam beyond a certain "range" are valid waterways users?

I would certainly agree to that but not that it has to be done continuously as CRT try to imply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Señor Chris said:

I would certainly agree to that but not that it has to be done continuously as CRT try to imply.

 

remind me, what does 'CC' stand for?     :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

remind me, what does 'CC' stand for?     :unsure:

C&RT certainly seem to agree with you - there are of course claims that they cannot 'demand' this, but, it is on their website as of today :

 

If you live on a boat but must stay in one place or area because of your job, your children’s school or because you have long term medical needs, then continuous cruising probably isn’t the best option for you. You’ll need to consider finding a home mooring.

 

To be a continuous cruiser (or boater without a home mooring) the rules say:

  • "Boats without a home mooring must be engaged in genuine navigation throughout the period of the licence". Basically, make the effort, 'in good faith', to navigate around our waterways. You’ll need to continually move from place to place over a total range of 20 miles (32 kms) or more rather than just shuttling back and forth between two or three places. If you can't do this easily, especially where you rely on access to local places such as schools or work, you should find a home mooring
  • "You must not stay moored in the same neighbourhood or locality for more than 14 days". As a rule of thumb, you can stay anywhere on the towpath for up to 14 days – unless there’s a visitor sign with a time limit or you’re near a lock. If you breakdown or can’t move for any reason, get in touch with your local boat licence support officer as soon as possible – our team can help
  • "It is the boater’s responsibility to satisfy the Trust that they meet these requirements". So, make sure you know the rules. Our ‘Guidance for boaters without a home mooring’ explains what is expected from you as a continuous cruiser. You can also read our continuous cruiser FAQs

 

There have been numerous attempts by C&RT / BW to define the requirements but each time thwarted by the threats of, or actual, legal action.

 

CRT held two meetings with boating user groups on 22nd September and 3rd November 2014 in which it tried to persuade the groups to agree a minimum distance that boaters without home moorings must travel every three months and over their licence year to avoid enforcement action.

 

In 2011, BW re-wrote the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers to remove the words “the law requires a genuine progressive journey (a cruise) around the network or a significant part of it” as a result of the judgement in British Waterways (BW) v Davies. The guidance was renamed Guidance for Boaters Without a Home Mooring.

 

In 2003, British Waterways tried to introduce the Draft Moorings Code or Lock Miles Rules, which would have required continuous cruisers to travel at least 120 different lock-miles every three months without using the same stretch twice. This draconian proposal was dropped by British Waterways following the threat of legal action by a boating user group and in 2004 the Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers was published instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Murflynn said:

I have no problem with CCers who want to cruise the system. 

I have a problem with CMers who just want a place to moor up for as long as possible, with the least amount of inconvenience (and who probably have no interest in the waterways), and as a result continually ask what are the minimum requirements to satisfy the Board.  Those people will find it much more convenient to get a mooring.

What is your problem with such CMers?

 

Is it the annoying questions about the minimum requirements? (Which you are free to not answer)

 

Is it that they have no interest in the waterways? (Which may or may not be the case)

 

16 hours ago, Murflynn said:

A lot wrong with camper vans that never move, that gradually get surrounded with junk, and/or that house folk who are anti-social in their hygiene, toilet habits, and neighbourliness.  They can often be identified by the plaintive note stuck inside the windscreen stating that the engine is broken and they are waiting for parts, or similar.

15 hours ago, Chris Williams said:

Or just don't care.  Like those who pour old engine oil into drains.

Is it, then, not that you have a problem with CCers, CMers or even CCMers, but actually simply that you have a problem with people improperly dispose of refuse and grey/black water and who have a poor attitude toward other waterway users?

 

What is the real problem(s) with CMers?


If we identify the root of the issue, then it can be more easily tackled. For example, perhaps no one should be allowed to keep anything on the towpath and rangers should issue fines. Or perhaps we should confront such people in a friendly way and ask them to please not leave their junk on the towpath. Or perhaps we organise more canalside litter picks. The amount of trash on the towpath and surrounds is certainly something I want to do more to remedy.

 

I don't think it is fair to blanket blame CCers for the actions of a few. (given as @Athy points out there is no such thing as a CC license, perhaps we should call them BWAMs - boaters without a mooring? I'm loving the acronyms 😂).

It feels to me that some want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by either outlawing CCing or making the restrictions so much tighter that they would not be possible for many to follow.

 

Selfish, maybe, but I feel that any restrictions that would make my current lifestyle impossible would not be reasonable, because I am not trying to remain in range of a particular location - indeed I want to see as much of the network as possible. Due to time, money and other interests, I am simply doing it at a much slower pace than some of the marathon CCers on the forum. It seems unreasonable (and counterproductive, in terms of lock wear and water use) to insist that a bona fide CCer CC much, much faster than they otherwise would want to.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

What is your problem with such CMers?

Just a 'couple' of suggestions that have been mentioned over the years.

 

1) CMering is against the law - if someone drives through a village at 50mph (breaking the law) is that 'all right' ?

 

2) If CMers (alleged 'boats without a home mooring') are allowed just to moor up anywhere for as long as they want, why should other boaters go to the expense of paying £x,000's for a mooring when it is obviously not required ?

 

3) CMers can block visitors moorings making them unavailable for visitors (which is what they are intended for)

 

 

You asked previously what my definition would be - personally I'd 'vote' for BW's suggestion as being indicative of being a CCer 

It may be a little excessive but it could be a starting point for negotiation - but 'it is not within their powers to do it'.

 

In 2003, British Waterways tried to introduce the Draft Moorings Code or Lock Miles Rules, which would have required continuous cruisers to travel at least 120 different lock-miles every three months without using the same stretch twice.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Chris Williams said:

Define 'Public Road' and don't forget the verges.

junk.JPG

Whatever your definition, that isn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Athy said:

Whatever your definition, that isn't one.

I think that the definition of a 'Public Highway' is one where the Public have access and are not required to pay an entry fee.

Even on 'byways' that can be used by vehicles they are required to have MOT, Tax & insurance, a 'byway' is simply an unmade road.

 

Is the towpath a public highway ?

Some tow-paths are public rights of way and some are simply 'permissive' paths.

Be interesting to see documentation showing which ones are which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

What is the real problem(s) with CMers?

 

 

The real problem reveals itself if you think about what happens if you make CMing permissible.

 

If there were no requirement to keep moving, large numbers of boaters would grab themselves a boat-length of towpath and stay put forever. Marinas would go out of business as 50% of their customers elect to move out and moor for free. The canals would become linear boat parks and the banks colonised with sheds, gardens etc. with a public right of way to walk through them. Some would be kept prettily, many would become tips and eyesores but the nature of the towpaths would change substantially.

 

I think there is general agreement amongst boaters who like to move and also the general public that this would be a Bad Thing. What are YOUR views on whether this would be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? Would you do it if you could?

 

There is an argument supported by many would-be CMers is that yes it WOULD be a Good Thing as it would help alleviate the housing crisis by making it easier and cheaper and more attractive to live on a boat.

 

Anyway there you are. THAT is the root of why boats need to be made to keep moving. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Correct a nonsense sentence
  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

1) CMering is against the law - if someone drives through a village at 50mph (breaking the law) is that 'all right' ?

Earlier you insisted we don't talk about the law because in your view the law isn't strict enough, and any bringing of the law into it wouldn't be sufficient to deal with The Problem. But if you want to talk about the law - then lets restrict the discussion to people who are cruising 0.77 miles every 2 weeks on the dot in one direction, then after 20 miles / 26 moves / 1 year, they turn around and go back again. I fully agree that people who are not following at least this very minimum interpretation of CaRT's rules should be removed from the waterways, as does CaRT, who does indeed refuse to renew their licenses. Everyone else is just within the minimum of the law. So your first argument against CMing is invalid.

 

As an aside, personally I don't care much for the law. Driving through villages at 50mph is wrong primarily because it is dangerous and antisocial for the people who live there. That's the reason there is a law against it. I'm looking for the reason we want laws against CMing.

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

2) If CMers (alleged 'boats without a home mooring') are allowed just to moor up anywhere for as long as they want, why should other boaters go to the expense of paying £x,000's for a mooring when it is obviously not required ?

They are all free to choose not to! I presume they want to pay for a mooring because they like having a base, shore hookups, permanent neighbours, and not to have to follow the CC rules? CMers aren't allowed to "moor up anywhere for as long as they want", though - they are allowed to moor up to 14 days along specified areas of towpath. So this point is also neither here nor there.

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

3) CMers can block visitors moorings making them unavailable for visitors (which is what they are intended for)

This is an important one, of course, and what I always thought was the main reason for the disagreements between CCers and PMers. In response though, CCers are also valid visitors, provided they are following the rules. I personally haven't ever had a major problem finding moorings, perhaps not in the exact area I wanted but that is just a factor of how congested the waterways are - a separate issue. Not CCer's "fault" as long as they are following your point 1).

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You asked previously what my definition would be - personally I'd 'vote' for BW's suggestion as being indicative of being a CCer 

It may be a little excessive but it could be a starting point for negotiation - but 'it is not within their powers to do it'. 

 

In 2003, British Waterways tried to introduce the Draft Moorings Code or Lock Miles Rules, which would have required continuous cruisers to travel at least 120 different lock-miles every three months without using the same stretch twice.

So you'd vote to effectively banish CCers from the system? The vast majority of boaters don't do 480 miles a year, and I doubt there'd be water left in the locks if they did.

(What is a "lock-mile" by the way?)

 

I'm still really struggling to understand what your problem is with, for example, my pattern. I obey the law. I don't drop litter or keep my crud on the bank. I don't visit the same spots twice. It looks like I'll do maybe 200 miles this year, ranging maybe 80 miles. Is it simply that you don't think I'm paying enough towards the upkeep of the waterways?

 

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

is that if there were no requirement to keep moving, large numbers of boaters would grab themselves a boat-length of towpath and stay put forever. Marinas would go out of business as 50% of their customers elect to move out and moor for free. The canals would become linear boat parks and the banks colonised with sheds, gardens etc. with a public right of way to walk through them. Some would be kept prettily, many would become tips and eyesores but the nature of the towpaths would change substantially.

 

I think there is general agreement amongst boaters who like to move and also the general public that this would be a Bad Thing. What are YOUR views on whether this would be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? Would you do it if you could?

I think it would be a very Bad Thing if we abolished the requirements entirely. I don't think anyone here is for reducing the CC requirements. There is however a lot of animosity towards CCers under the current rules that I'm trying to get to the root of. There are also a lot of proposals to increase the requirements that I want to hear justification for, including @Alan de Enfield's vote to increase it twenty four fold.

 

Would I do what? Permanently moor on one spot on the towpath? That doesn't appeal to me at all. I like to move. If there were no rules, I would not change my behaviour one bit. Moving a few miles or more every week or two is pretty much perfect for me. Doing 480 miles a year, however, would not be feasible for me and if I were to try, I'd imagine boating would become a chore instead of a joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Would I do what? Permanently moor on one spot on the towpath?

 

Yes, that was what I was asking. You seemed to be telegraphing in your posts disapproval of the current rules and questioning them, which gives the impression you are seeking the boundaries and ways to argue for less moving. I think with your questions you are just seeking to understand, but that is how it comes across. 

 

5 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

There is however a lot of animosity towards CCers under the current rules that I'm trying to get to the root of.

 

Ah I see. The animosity is rooted in the fact that boaters whose goal is ever less movement refer to themselves as CCers, not CMers, so people who are not especially accurate in their use of language assume anyone who says they CC is aiming to move ever less, hence to animosity to CCers in general. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/07/2019 at 09:28, ivan&alice said:

I don't think that coordinated CMing is impossible, I just think it is unlikely and unnecessary to ensure a mooring, and it doesn't fit with what I've personally observed. There are many things that are possible that don't happen. The premise is that a significant enough portion of the boaters in London are doing coordinated CMing that it changes the character of boating in London. I'm not claiming that it doesn't happen at all, just that it doesn't happen at nearly the scale boaters who avoid London entirely are claiming.

Like @Dave123 says, these are different issues. There are many occassions where such a boat moving service would be legitimate. Does CCing imply that you can never be off your boat? Indeed I myself had a boat sitter when we went on holiday, who moved our boat and stayed on it to ensure security. Though having a permanent arrangement where you have someone move your boat so you can live undisturbed by any actual BOATING is pretty ridiculous. The comments on that "boater"'s facebook post are mostly of disgust, I doubt this is an acceptable or common thing that people do long term in London. Clearly it happens, but I don't think this person represents anywhere near the majority of CCers.

 

I'm a little confused by this. When you say "a certain range" what do you mean? What, in your view, is an acceptable cruising pattern, or an acceptable range and how does it differ from the common interpretation of CaRT's acceptable cruising pattern?

 

You mention that you "regret the many extra restrictions and stricter enforcement". Are you saying that you'd like to occassionally cruise less than the stipulated minimum? Or simply that you regret that CaRT has to waste money monitoring this?

 

As I understand it, CCers are expected to move at least a mile every fortnight, which works out to be at least 26 miles a year. If all boaters are moving randomly (i.e. not coordinating) I'm not sure that this is a small enough range to form a "thriving community". So really any thriving community is likely to be in breach of their licenses.

 

Personally I think the current rules are sufficient and reasonable to allow boaters fair access to the waterways, and if anything, CaRT should come down harder on those that don't follow them. I also regret that people don't follow the rules and that we have to waste our license money policing them, but it's not fair to blame CCers in general for this rather than the ones who don't abide by the simple and minimal rules.

In the not so distant past, those continuous cruising managed to stay under the radar and not attract unwanted attention without the need for a ruling. For some this area was smaller than others, with enforcement officers aware of those needing a little more understanding. The arrival of vast numbers of new boaters in the mid to late 2000's changed this relaxed culture almost overnight, that is not to say all new boaters were responsible for the changes but a significant number became intransigent, and picked a favourite bridge or boozer and refused to move until forced to. London being what it is attracted larger numbers, hence more problems.

 I disagree with the premise that rules are sufficient/reasonable, on the basis that why should the majority be unable to moor for longer than 24-48 hours in places previously freely available and have licences restricted when travelling upwards of 30 miles in a month because of the actions of the self interested? I do agree that those abusing the system should have the book thrown at them, but unfortunately BW then Crt both failed to deal with this, both through being over zealous with the wrong people and a generally confused response. An example of this would be the section eight yard at Hanwell, they would spend years and large sums of money pursuing someone and finally seize the boat. This would then be taken to Hanwell and immediately offered for sale, very often within weeks the same craft would back on the enforcement radar. A common sense approach would have these ageing, dilapidated craft broken up.

 

The term lock mile is that it is accepted that a lock equates to one mile of travelling. 

Edited by BWM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

they are allowed to moor up to 14 days along specified areas of towpath. 

As I understand the situation 14 days isn't enshrined in law.   If this is the case I can see a time when CRT (or their successor) decides one way to solve the problem of people trying to hang around in one area is to reduce the allowed time.  Having to move, say every two days would I think deter many and at the same time would be extremely detrimental to the rest of the boating population whether with a mooring or not.

 

To me another reason why CMing is a problem.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jerra said:

As I understand the situation 14 days isn't enshrined in law.

 

My understanding is that is IS. 

 

Stops of up to 14 days are permissible in law for boats navigating bona fide through the period of the licence, IIRC. 

 

Boats stopping for 14 days then navigating for an hour, then stopping 14 days ad infinitum does not constitute using a boat bona fide for navigation in my opinion, but seems to in the eyes of CRT. Fortunately it is not my opinion that counts!

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

So you'd vote to effectively banish CCers from the system? The vast majority of boaters don't do 480 miles a year, and I doubt there'd be water left in the locks if they did.

(What is a "lock-mile" by the way?)

Before suggesting that they would need to travel 480 lock-miles, it may be worth finding out what a lock-mile is.

For example

The 'London Ring' is 44 miles in length, but is 69 Lock-Miles

The 'Birmingham ring' is 76 miles in length but is 155 lock miles.

 

42 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Earlier you insisted we don't talk about the law because in your view the law isn't strict enough, and any bringing of the law into it wouldn't be sufficient to deal with The Problem. But if you want to talk about the law - then lets restrict the discussion to people who are cruising 0.77 miles every 2 weeks on the dot in one direction, then after 20 miles / 26 moves / 1 year, they turn around and go back again.

I think you are getting yourself in a bit of a 'knot'.

I did not say the Law was not strict enough, I suggested that C&RTs interpretation (which at the end of the day is the one that matters) is not strict enough.

But as we well know it is guidelines issued by the navigation Authority - it is NOT law.

23 minutes ago, Jerra said:

As I understand the situation 14 days isn't enshrined in law.   If this is the case I can see a time when CRT (or their successor) decides one way to solve the problem of people trying to hang around in one area is to reduce the allowed time.  Having to move, say every two days would I think deter many and at the same time would be extremely detrimental to the rest of the boating population whether with a mooring or not.

 

To me another reason why CMing is a problem.

The 14 days 'mooring allowance' is enshrined in law for 'boats WITHOUT a home mooring', it is not enshrined in law for boats WITH a home mooring.

 

Boats WITH a home mooring are NOT required to "move to a new place every 14 days and Bona-Fide navigate etc etc……………"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Murflynn said:

remind me, what does 'CC' stand for?     :unsure:

It clearly means different things to different people. All I am really saying is that you should learn more about it and form your own opinion rather than going off on one based solely on what CRT tell you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Señor Chris said:

It clearly means different things to different people. All I am really saying is that you should learn more about it and form your own opinion rather than going off on one based solely on what CRT tell you.

 

That is all very true, but as the 'competent authority' they have the 'deciding opinion' unless you take them to court.

 

I had a problem with a Police Firearms Manager 'interpreting the law' when his position was to 'apply the law'. I disagreed with his interpretation and with 'professional help' proved him wrong. He was moved on shortly after.

 

If you strongly disagree with C&RTs interpretation, take some action and get a 'professionals' (court ?) answer.

Share this post


Link to post
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.