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
Gerry underwood

Human waste.

Featured Posts

the law is an ass. 

 

PS : this topic is about disposing of human waste;  what is the law about disposing of waste humans?   ........  and are waste humans among the 8.5 million adults who are not involved in any economic activity according to Priti Patel's statement today?   (that would include senior citizens like me, I presume).

Edited by Murflynn
  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

the law is an ass. 

Isn't that normally applied when there is a law ?

Surely if there is no law it cannot be an Ass (or anything else)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

(snip)
 

This was more explicitly enunciated in  CaRT’s “Overview of statutory framework”, page 6, which acknowledges clearly enough:  –

 

The British Waterways Act 1995 limits to three specific criteria our ability to refuse to licence a boat.”   [my emphasis]

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

 

 

Revoking a licence can only be enabled upon breach of the s.17 conditions, exactly as, admitted by them above, refusing a licence can only be enabled by failure to meet those conditions.

 

In short, where the 1995 Act has expressly limited grounds for refusal/revocation of a licence to 3 specific conditions, then the issue of the licence CANNOT legally be subjected to compliance with anything else.

 

(snip)

 

There is always the "reductio ad absurdum" counter argument. A further (unstated) condition is payment ...  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Iain_S said:

There is always the "reductio ad absurdum" counter argument. A further (unstated) condition is payment ...  :D

Ok, just to continue the discussion :

 

I have met the three legally required conditions, I have paid the relevant amount and you have issued a licence.

You subsequently revoke the licence because you 'catch me' pumping out into the river, but I have still met the 3 conditions and I have already paid.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Ok, just to continue the discussion :

 

I have met the three legally required conditions, I have paid the relevant amount and you have issued a licence.

You subsequently revoke the licence because you 'catch me' pumping out into the river, but I have still met the 3 conditions and I have already paid.

That does raise an interesting point - do they have to refund a cancelled/revoked licence?

 

They have to issue one subject to bss/insurance/mooring declaration but if they then revoke it the day after could they just keep the money? :icecream:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

No it doesn't.

 

Any right minded boater doesn't discharge their sht into the canal, legal niceties or not.

 

 

exactly.   any pillock who thinks it is worthwhile to find legal loopholes allowing it should be named and shamed.

 

it would be nice if folk led by example, and did the right thing just because it is the right thing, instead of challenging the law.

Edited by Murflynn

Share this post


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

exactly.   any pillock who thinks it is worthwhile to find legal loopholes allowing it should be named and shamed.

 

it would be nice if folk led by example, and did the right thing just because it is the right thing, instead of challenging the law.

They are not challenging the law though. The law allows it!!

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

exactly.   any pillock who thinks it is worthwhile to find legal loopholes allowing it should be named and shamed.

 

it would be nice if folk led by example, and did the right thing just because it is the right thing, instead of challenging the law.

No one is trying to find legal loopholes, the thread has remained remarkably 'on topic' and has simply answered the OP's question :

 

"What are the black and white rules on getting rid of human waste. I was talking to a guy that has a macerator toilet and he reckons it goes through the macerator and then out of the boat".  

 

I have seen no "lets do it because we can" and I'm sure that the vast majority of boaters would not entertain the idea of pumping out directly into the canal / river, but, as with CMers, there will always be those who push the boundaries of not only what is 'legal' but what is socially acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone say it was permitted to discharge sewage in a canal?

I don't think it is permitted.

But on certain rivers (and perhaps on certain parts of those rivers) it is permitted by law to discharge sewage from a vessel.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Parahandy said:

We had the same discussion recently over the CRT Distance Guidance for Continuous Cruisers , as long as the Boat moves every fortnight , legally there is nothing they can do 

Might depend on what you mean by 'move'. 

19 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Aren't laws supported in court, and T&C's not necessarily so?

 

 

Contract law can be resolved by the courts, albeit not often as there are usually better ways of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But, legally, they cannot revoke the licence, if they do, then the boater then simply applies for another licence which C&RT have admitted they cannot refuse to issue if you meet the 3-criteria (with the T&Cs not being one of the three)

 

Kindly posted by Nigel Moore 20/7/17

 

The comments by the previous Waterways Ombudsman are very much to the point in this respect – “British Waterways themselves can sometimes interpret legislation in different ways depending on what suits them in a particular case”. [page 16 of her 2010-2011 Report]

 

http://www.waterways-ombudsman.org/media/1016/annualreports201to11final.pdf

 

 

CaRT’s submissions to the Mayor of London’s Report on mooring problems in London contains the accurate admission: “People enjoy the right to put a boat on our waterways, providing that they pay the necessary fee, that the boat meets safety standards and has insurance cover for third party liabilities – and that, unless it is used ‘bona fide’ for navigation throughout the period of consent, it must have a home mooring (somewhere where the boat ‘can lawfully be kept when not being used for navigation’2 ).”

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Combined responses_Part1_0.pdf  [see page 10]

 

 

This was more explicitly enunciated in  CaRT’s “Overview of statutory framework”, page 6, which acknowledges clearly enough:  –

 

The British Waterways Act 1995 limits to three specific criteria our ability to refuse to licence a boat.”   [my emphasis]

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/1127.pdf

 

 

They go on, however, in their submission to the GLA, to inaccurately claim [in effective contradiction of the above quoted public statement] that revocation of the licence with subsequent s.8 removal “is the only sanction available to us in respect of a breach in licence terms.” [page 12 of the GLA Report pack on Responses in the link above] Insofar as any breach of non-statutory terms can naturally have no sanction applicable, this would explain the s.8 process chosen - albeit with no legal justification whatsoever - while any breach of approved byelaws etc contains within the legislation the accompanying legislated sanction – which does NOT include revocation of a licence. If a sanction is not legislated for, then the claimed legal outrage does not exist and such T&C’s are – as acknowledged to Parliament by BW in the debates over the 1990 Bill – mere guidance without the force of law.

 

Revoking a licence can only be enabled upon breach of the s.17 conditions, exactly as, admitted by them above, refusing a licence can only be enabled by failure to meet those conditions.

 

 

 

 

In short, where the 1995 Act has expressly limited grounds for refusal/revocation of a licence to 3 specific conditions, then the issue of the licence CANNOT legally be subjected to compliance with anything else.

 

 

 

 

Where, under byelaw making powers passed on to CaRT by the terms of their Statutory Instrument, conditions of use of the waterways by licensed boats may still be added to, the relevant statutory procedure must be followed – but those, as with existing byelaws, could only govern use of the waterways by licensed boats, they could never be tied to issue or revocation of the licence. Any attempt to portray them as something issue and retention of the licence is subject to, is blatant falsehood.

 

The law quite simply does NOT permit T&C’s to be attached to issue of the licence, therefore the asserted contrary statements and actions are indeed unlawful. When elements of these T&C’s specifically claim to over-ride express statutory protections and prohibitions, the legal affront is all the more objectionable.

 

 

 

Do not lose sight of the fact that use of section xx is subject to court sanction - it them becomes a matter of compliance with the court and not CaRT (or any other navigation authority - although some do have different powers) exercising their powers without restraint. In certain circumstances all that the laws provide is the right for CaRT to make an application to a court, not to take independent action (but other circumstances are different)

16 hours ago, Murflynn said:

the law is an ass. 

 

PS : this topic is about disposing of human waste;  what is the law about disposing of waste humans?   ........  and are waste humans among the 8.5 million adults who are not involved in any economic activity according to Priti Patel's statement today?   (that would include senior citizens like me, I presume).

Yes - it seems that the Home Sec's statement was much of a nonsense as almost all of that 8.5 million are not able, for various reasons, to undertake economic activity or, as with unpaid carers, would cost more to replace than they would earn. Like most things to do with immigration, the statement had more to do with populist impact than scientific realism.

Share this post


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

They are not challenging the law though. The law allows it!!

But they do need to be sure exactly what it is that the law permits, or doe not permit. After the selective quote from the Regulations I did refer to the original and found it exceedingly opaque, even for legislation. The particular problem is that much of it comprises various layers of definitions, none of which have the same meaning as plain English. ie they are 'jargon'. 

 

I could not persuade myself that the claim that some discharges are lawful is borne out in law and it would be very unwise to try ana 'get away with it' without careful consideration.

 

Of course, every year there are plenty of reports of those who have thought that they could dispose of 'stuff' at the dead of night and no-one would know, only to be hauled up in court with a hefty fine. The various authorities have become very skilful at tracking down perpetrators (aka criminals) - this is what had led us to have so very much cleaner waters than 50 years ago. Some of pour first experiences of navigating the lesser used reaches of our network took us through some 'interesting' substances! In my view, all power to those charged with eliminating unlawful discharges - and to tightening the definitions as evidence indicates. There are limits as we all 'discharge' just by existing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without in any way condoning pumping untreated crap from a boat out into a river, before getting too excited about this people should remember that in flood conditions this is exactly what is still done by various sewage works across the UK, hence the current debate about wild swimming on rivers like the Wharfe -- and the amount of river pollution from this is far higher than that from a few boats. Of course the right solution is for the sewage works to stop doing this, but until this happens discharge from a few boats will be tiny in comparison.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


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

Did anyone say it was permitted to discharge sewage in a canal?

I don't think it is permitted.

Yes they did, have a read of the thread.

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

exactly.   any pillock who thinks it is worthwhile to find legal loopholes allowing it should be named and shamed.

 

it would be nice if folk led by example, and did the right thing just because it is the right thing, instead of challenging the law.

This thread has been an exercise in education on the current regulations. I don't think anyone has condoned the idea of putting waste into the canal.  However, yes if you choose to do so there's no law against it (assuming no local bye-laws). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Might depend on what you mean by 'move'. 

Contract law can be resolved by the courts, albeit not often as there are usually better ways of doing so.

I spoke to the Lady who does the enforcing in Milton Keynes which for some time now is recognised as a distinct Area complete with its own designated Enforcement Officer . In conversation with me she said that they have a 1km rule , which is effectively useless as it isn't enshrined in Law and only you know about it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Parahandy said:

I spoke to the Lady who does the enforcing in Milton Keynes which for some time now is recognised as a distinct Area complete with its own designated Enforcement Officer . In conversation with me she said that they have a 1km rule , which is effectively useless as it isn't enshrined in Law and only you know about it .

That rule exists across the whole system: They've divided the whole system into lengths and the rule they enforce is that you must shuffle from one km to a different km every 14 days (at least) and that you must have a total end to end of 32 of these kms in your 12 month period.

 

Though the rule isn't law, it does seem to keep folks moving about

 

This is off topic, sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most laws, and compliance thereof (in the UK at least), can be accommodated on both sides by following the principle of "don't take the piss". A phrase that is particularly appropriate in this case.

 

I'm sure we've all come across the "You can't do that to me, I've got rights!" brigade. Usually they are the ones who ignore everyone else's 'right' to a peaceful environment, and make for lousy neighbours.

 

I can remember a BW/York council/boaters meeting where someone was vociferously arguing for his rights to cruise and moor anywhere in York, based on some ancient right of navigation bylaw for citizens of York. He was heartily shut down by the council rep saying "We have a bylaw saying that citizens of York can shoot Scotsmen found inside the City Walls, but we don't enforce that one!".

 

The occasional use of a sea toilet in miles of canal will not be a problem. Constant use - major issue. Everyone does it? Major problem.

Some sea toilets on 50 miles of a flowing river? Not a problem. Hundreds of liveaboard boaters doing it on a nearly stagnant river? Major problem.

We all know what is reasonable.

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, IanD said:

Without in any way condoning pumping untreated crap from a boat out into a river, before getting too excited about this people should remember that in flood conditions this is exactly what is still done by various sewage works across the UK, hence the current debate about wild swimming on rivers like the Wharfe -- and the amount of river pollution from this is far higher than that from a few boats. Of course the right solution is for the sewage works to stop doing this, but until this happens discharge from a few boats will be tiny in comparison.

Like here on the Thames https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39352755

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IanD said:

Without in any way condoning pumping untreated crap from a boat out into a river, before getting too excited about this people should remember that in flood conditions this is exactly what is still done by various sewage works across the UK, hence the current debate about wild swimming on rivers like the Wharfe -- and the amount of river pollution from this is far higher than that from a few boats. Of course the right solution is for the sewage works to stop doing this, but until this happens discharge from a few boats will be tiny in comparison.

Stopping sewerage plants overflowing into adjacent watercourses would mean spending untold millions on extra storage facilities at the each of the plants which for the majority of the year will remain empty.  I somehow can't see that happening anytime soon!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Stopping sewerage plants overflowing into adjacent watercourses would mean spending untold millions on extra storage facilities at the each of the plants which for the majority of the year will remain empty.  I somehow can't see that happening anytime soon!!

Neither can I, unless they're legally forced to do it -- which is why there's resistance to the Wharfe being declared as a river suitable for wild swimming. But unless this is fixed, worrying about sea toilets in boats on rivers is pretty much a pointless exercise, take the log out of your own eye... 😉

 

Canals are a different kettle of fish entirely, there is no overflow sewage discharge into them and water flow is negligible compared to any river, so the impact of a boat toilet is much worse and not hidden by other sources of crap -- discharge of black water should certainly be illegal in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Canals are a different kettle of fish entirely, there is no overflow sewage discharge into them ….

C&RT will actually licence the discharge of sewage into the canals subject to :

 

 "".... where there is adequate treatment, evidence of a treatment plant maintenance schedule and adequate dilution will applications be considered.....

 

Discharges into the Waterway may require consent from the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. The Promoter will be responsible for obtaining any necessary permit and providing proof to the Works Engineer that this has been done. It must not be presumed that Environment Agency consent confers Trust consent. "

 

Which is basically what sewage works do, the problem is in times of excess water and the treatment plant overflows and raw sewage escapes from the system.

 

A River, not a Canal, but :

 

Around 39 million tonnes of sewage flow into the Thames every year. A massive, new sewer is being built to fix that – but is it enough?

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sewage-environment-climate-change-london

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it enough?

 

Almost certainly not.

 

London and other major cities have a major problem with old combined sewerage systems where the foul and surface water are mixed together. In times of heavy rainfall they are easily overwhelmed and the systems have to overflow somewhere.

 

More modern systems separate the surface water and foul water flows and send less to be treated at the treatment works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT will actually licence the discharge of sewage into the canals subject to :

 

 "".... where there is adequate treatment, evidence of a treatment plant maintenance schedule and adequate dilution will applications be considered.....

 

Discharges into the Waterway may require consent from the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. The Promoter will be responsible for obtaining any necessary permit and providing proof to the Works Engineer that this has been done. It must not be presumed that Environment Agency consent confers Trust consent. "

 

Which is basically what sewage works do, the problem is in times of excess water and the treatment plant overflows and raw sewage escapes from the system.

 

A River, not a Canal, but :

 

Around 39 million tonnes of sewage flow into the Thames every year. A massive, new sewer is being built to fix that – but is it enough?

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sewage-environment-climate-change-london

So no untreated sewage discharge into canals then, which is what I said...

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.