Continuous Cruisers 1 BW Nil

[GUMPY]

If you read the post again you will see that BW are cutting back the branches, but not removing the ones obstructing navigation.

 

Regardless of the ownership of the fallen tree, BW are entitled to remove the obstruction (under a section 9 notice) and recover their expenses, if it was someone elses tree.

 

If YOU read the post again you will see that they are cutting other trees but not the ones concerned!

 

I know they can recover expenses but they prefer to get the landowner to do it.

I have had several discussions with BW about falen trees in my local area and several times they have failed to recover expenses when the landowner has told them to go forth!

 

J

[carlt]

If YOU read the post again you will see that they are cutting other trees but not the ones concerned!

 

I know they can recover expenses but they prefer to get the landowner to do it.

I have had several discussions with BW about falen trees in my local area and several times they have failed to recover expenses when the landowner has told them to go forth!

 

J

They still have\ a legal obligation to maintain the navigation. When I worked as a highways inspector I didn't wait to find out who owned anything obstructing the highway, I got it cleared then set about recovering expenses. BW have the same obligations, under law, but neglect them. Which laws are okay to break then?

[GUMPY]

They still have\ a legal obligation to maintain the navigation. When I worked as a highways inspector I didn't wait to find out who owned anything obstructing the highway, I got it cleared then set about recovering expenses. BW have the same obligations, under law, but neglect them. Which laws are okay to break then?

 

They may have a legal obligation to maintain the canals however there is NO legal right of navigation for us.

All we have is permission, when we have paid a licence, to put our boat on BWs water.

Any rights of navigation ware abolished in the 1968 transport act.

I belive that BW if they wanted could close whole parts of the system and we would have no recorse.

Oh they do that already its called stoppages.

[KenK]

They may have a legal obligation to maintain the canals however there is NO legal right of navigation for us.

All we have is permission, when we have paid a licence, to put our boat on BWs water.

Any rights of navigation ware abolished in the 1968 transport act.

I belive that BW if they wanted could close whole parts of the system and we would have no recorse.

Oh they do that already its called stoppages.

 

British Waterways duties under the 1968 act are as follows

 

 

•Commercial waterways, which must be kept in a condition suitable for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels;

 

•Cruising waterways, which must be kept in a condition suitable for use by cruising craft, that is vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power; and

 

•the Remainder, which must be dealt with in the most economical manner possible, consistent in the case of waterways which are retained with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety.

 

Given the above I doubt whether any section of canal or river could be subject to arbitrary closure as boating must be considered an amenity. The K&A where we are is a remaindered waterway but BW are pretty good at keeping it in a reasonable state of repair.

 

Ken

[Grasshopper]

On the contrary, the request for clarification was unnecessary. Cris chose to declare himself as a ccer, that's good enough for me. He didn't mention continuous mooring.

 

It may be good enough for you but that doesn't mean that it has to be good enough for everyone else. And therefore other people can ask for clarification. It is actually permissable for people to hold opinions different to you.

 

I suppose there are those that automatically think the worst of someone though

 

Surely the request for clarification implies an unwillingness to automatically think the worst rather than the opposite. In fact you're the one who has jumped to an assumption about the poster who asked the question.

 

I think that we can all agree that Chris's actions were admirable. If he truly is a CCer then his defence was merely unneccessary as no one had attacked CCers. In fact I thing the consensus was that CCers are a good thing.

 

But it isn't real CCers that the thread was about.

[Nine of Hearts]

It may be good enough for you but that doesn't mean that it has to be good enough for everyone else. And therefore other people can ask for clarification. It is actually permissable for people to hold opinions different to you.

Surely the request for clarification implies an unwillingness to automatically think the worst rather than the opposite. In fact you're the one who has jumped to an assumption about the poster who asked the question.

 

I think that we can all agree that Chris's actions were admirable. If he truly is a CCer then his defence was merely unneccessary as no one had attacked CCers. In fact I thing the consensus was that CCers are a good thing.

 

But it isn't real CCers that the thread was about.

 

Yes, but in the unlikely instance that the poster in question is indeed a "bridge hopper", they're hardly likely to come out and say, "yes, I'm cheating the system actually, how kind of you to ask", so it is a bit of a pointless enquiry. I think we all got the gist of what they were trying to say.

[tidal]

British Waterways duties under the 1968 act are as follows

 

 

•Commercial waterways, which must be kept in a condition suitable for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels;

 

•Cruising waterways, which must be kept in a condition suitable for use by cruising craft, that is vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power; and

 

•the Remainder, which must be dealt with in the most economical manner possible, consistent in the case of waterways which are retained with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety.

 

Given the above I doubt whether any section of canal or river could be subject to arbitrary closure as boating must be considered an amenity. The K&A where we are is a remaindered waterway but BW are pretty good at keeping it in a reasonable state of repair.

 

I too doubt that BW would close any sections of the canal system. It would not be in their interests either financialy or from a public perspective.

 

However none of the sections quoted actually require BW to allow navigation on the canals/waterways whatever state they are maintained to.

 

BW have, as far as I can see from the relevant legislation, no duty to allow navigation by any vessel and ultimately they also have SOLE discretion about which craft they will allow to navigate on the system. From this I wouid deduce that their is in fact no "right to navigation" as such. (No doubt one of the more expert on here will correct me if I am wrong)

 

I do not fear closure of the system or even parts of the system, but i do believe that the licensing requirements will be applied ever more stringently as time goes on.

 

Already private marinas are electing to have "steel only" berths, how long before they go for "shiny" boats only?

 

Don't think it will happen?............it is already happening in some coastal marinas. A friend owns an ex MFV, faded but otherwise well maintained. Quote from a south coast marina "We do not feel that your vessel is of the right character to maintain the image we are trying to create in ******* ***** Marina"

 

It can happen on the canals too and an awful lot I have read on another "forum" (spits carefully downwind) indicates that there are some users of the system who would like to see just that.

 

My attitude remains "live and let live" as I want some support when it is my turn to singled out for not conforming.

[carlt]

They may have a legal obligation to maintain the canals however there is NO legal right of navigation for us.

All we have is permission, when we have paid a licence, to put our boat on BWs water.

Any rights of navigation ware abolished in the 1968 transport act.

I belive that BW if they wanted could close whole parts of the system and we would have no recorse.

Oh they do that already its called stoppages.

I think you're confusing ownership of the canals.

 

BW is the govt dept who's delegated responsibility is to manage our waterways. BW doesn't own the waterways, we own BW, every tax payer out there.

[Hairy-Neil]

...... every tax payer out there.

 

Shouldn't that be every voter out there.......

[carlt]

Shouldn't that be every voter out there.......

Well I suppose, strictly speaking, every UK citizen. I have no intention of voting, but I still have joint ownership of the nations publically owned assets.

[GUMPY]

I think you're confusing ownership of the canals.

 

BW is the govt dept who's delegated responsibility is to manage our waterways. BW doesn't own the waterways, we own BW, every tax payer out there.

 

If thats the case then every tax payer should pay a bit more towards the upkeep.

 

You point maybe correct in theory but in practice BW does OWN the canals.

Unless we can get a "waterways party" voted in to parliamant that is the way its going to stay.

 

and as said here

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...st&p=161046

we have no right of navigation so the canals may be maintained but we have no right to use them for navigation.

 

J

[John Orentas]

"Right to navigation" I keep seeing this phrase creeping into various posts, there is no such right and even in the working days of the canals there was no right to navigation either, all the canals were purely commercial enterprises and the companies answered to know one but themselves.. What there was often enshrined the the enabling act of parliament was a clause that the canal must be open to traffic for 365 days per year with sufficient water reserves for a 5 year drought.. That's not the same thing at all.

 

Marina owners do of course have a right to determine what boats are moored on their property, in my own home marina the owner imposes a strict discipline on the standard of craft he allows, after they have deteriorated beyond a certain point he will tell the owner to remove them forthwith.

 

If a 'Live and let live' attitude means that I am to be surrounded by rotting semi sunken hulks then I say some other attitude should prevail. How about 'Look after you boat and your boat will look after you', not very original but it will do for now.

[carlt]

If thats the case then every tax payer should pay a bit more towards the upkeep.

 

You point maybe correct in theory but in practice BW does OWN the canals.

Unless we can get a "waterways party" voted in to parliamant that is the way its going to stay.

 

and as said here

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...st&p=161046

we have no right of navigation so the canals may be maintained but we have no right to use them for navigation.

 

J

In practice BW owns nothing, it is answerable to the govt, which is answerable to the electorate.

 

A change of government would mean a change of policy and practice, which every civil servant must adhere to.

 

It seems strange that the landowners that allow their trees to block our navigation aren't castigated in the same way that the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade call the odd bridge hopper. BW have the same powers to remove 'objects' causing an obstruction to navigation, through a section 9 notice, as boats, under a section 8 notice, but you lot don't start condemning the guilty parties and judging, insulting and castigating them. Couldn't possibly be snobbery could it.

 

The same people that tut tut at someone, for whatever reason, not displaying their licence are perfectly happy to discuss jolly ruses for evading the forthcoming diesel tax hike.

 

One of you even suggested lying and knocking an imaginary 5 feet off the length of someone's boat, in another thread, surely condoning the breaking of H&S laws.

 

I smell the distinct odour of snobbery and hypocrisy.

[GUMPY]

In practice BW owns nothing, it is answerable to the govt, which is answerable to the electorate.

 

A change of government would mean a change of policy and practice, which every civil servant must adhere to.

 

It seems strange that the landowners that allow their trees to block our navigation aren't castigated in the same way that the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade call the odd bridge hopper. BW have the same powers to remove 'objects' causing an obstruction to navigation, through a section 9 notice, as boats, under a section 8 notice, but you lot don't start condemning the guilty parties and judging, insulting and castigating them. Couldn't possibly be snobbery could it.

 

The same people that tut tut at someone, for whatever reason, not displaying their licence are perfectly happy to discuss jolly ruses for evading the forthcoming diesel tax hike.

 

One of you even suggested lying and knocking an imaginary 5 feet off the length of someone's boat, in another thread, surely condoning the breaking of H&S laws.

 

I smell the distinct odour of snobbery and hypocrisy.

 

Not at all

A change of govenment will mean no change as well we know (1), unless we get "The Waterways Party" elected and I dont see one of them on the horizon.

 

If I wasnt concerned about the trees blocking the waterway why would I have been chasing BW about it? It can be quite difficult to identify landowners if the property hasnt changed hands in years and is not on the land registry, I have tried looking for moorings.

 

What jolly ruses? tell me more, Me I am going to use heating oil for the heating and Bio diesel for the engine ( same as I use in my car) no tax evasion there.

 

 

J

 

(1) apart from a major sell off of assets if one party gets in.

[tidal]

If a 'Live and let live' attitude means that I am to be surrounded by rotting semi sunken hulks then I say some other attitude should prevail. How about 'Look after you boat and your boat will look after you', not very original but it will do for now.

 

an attitude I would actually agree with in general principles (with exceptions suitable to special cases)

 

However, the point I was trying to make was more general. A boat may not be the prettiest to look at but may still be both perfectly sound and safe. Are these detrimental to the image of canal boating? There seem to be a few who would say yes especially a certain vocal minority.

 

Some of them aren't too keen on GRP or wooden boats, (or Springers for that matter )

 

Are the canals and waterways to become a cosy little community of little bright and shiny metal boxes, most of which rarely travel more than a few miles? With even ex-working boats being tolerated for "heritage" purposes only?

 

The "all steel" marinas have already spotted this trend and, sensible business people that they are they are getting ahead of the game. Where will it stop do you think?

 

Will it stop?

[carlt]

Not at all

A change of govenment will mean no change as well we know (1), unless we get "The Waterways Party" elected and I dont see one of them on the horizon.

Well having now been boating for four Prime ministerial terms I can say I've noticed changes in attitudes, and policy, with each of them (and expect more, this time) the same goes for ministerial shuffles too.

[GUMPY]

Well having now been boating for four Prime ministerial terms I can say I've noticed changes in attitudes, and policy, with each of them (and expect more, this time) the same goes for ministerial shuffles too.

 

I would say it has more to do with who is the boss at BW. certainly worse under this one and no change of govenment.

 

 

J

[smileypete]

If a 'Live and let live' attitude means that I am to be surrounded by rotting semi sunken hulks then I say some other attitude should prevail. How about 'Look after you boat and your boat will look after you', not very original but it will do for now.

 

I prefer a bit of variety, a few rotting hulks, a few shiny boats, a few working boats etc etc.

 

Some young people, some old people, some families, even some like JohnO

 

cheers,

Pete.

[seaandland]

I think that you will find that the reason the BW wont cut them back is that when they are on the offside it is the landowners job to do it.

If BW do it then the landowner refuses to pay then BW are out of pocket.

 

All back down to money again.

 

 

SO WRONG SIR, in 7 years i have never known any land owner to cut up or remove a fallen tree where i work, that has fallen in the canal even offside.

[magnetman]

Is this because BW own a portion of land beside the canal in the same way as 'net(try to make it)work rail own land by the railway so it's their job to cut the trees down.