Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Nope.

 

If you think that is a personal insult I would say you need to grow some.

<sigh> if you're looking for yet another wind-up argument, I'm not going to give you the pleasure.

 

Yet again I made the mistaken assumption that you had sensible things to say, and took you off the naughty step. Within a few posts we're back to square one, so back in your box you go...

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

But it is patrolled by (by all accounts) a Barsteward on a moped!

But only a Bar steward if you don't follow the rules. I have met him, he came and introduced himself to me, completely non aggressive and helpful. Not what I was expecting

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

<sigh> if you're looking for yet another wind-up argument, I'm not going to give you the pleasure.

 

Yet again I made the mistaken assumption that you had sensible things to say, and took you off the naughty step. Within a few posts we're back to square one, so back in your box you go...

 

Ian, I couldn't care less, your use of the term 'naughty step' marks you out for exactly what you are. I won't say what that is because that really would be a personal insult.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

nah, go on, go on go on 

 

go on go on go on

go on go on go on

 

..go on

 

(I can find the clip to suit)

[MtB]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

<sigh> if you're looking for yet another wind-up argument, I'm not going to give you the pleasure.

 

Yet again I made the mistaken assumption that you had sensible things to say, and took you off the naughty step. Within a few posts we're back to square one, so back in your box you go...

 

Quite. Just don't feed the troll. You'll never teach it to behave. It gets off on your reactions.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Goliath said:

nah, go on, go on go on 

 

go on go on go on

go on go on go on

 

..go on

 

(I can find the clip to suit)

 

Tempted but not worth getting a warning for.

 

I just find this whole naughty step concept highly amusing and very childish, especially the rapidity and frequency with which some of us go on it and off it again.

 

He seems to think it is somehow some sort of privilege that we arent on it.

 

 

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Quite. Just don't feed the troll. You'll never teach it to behave. It gets off on your reactions.

 

 

Oh look whos popped up....

 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by M_JG

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

10 minutes ago, M_JG said:

Tempted but not worth getting a warning for.

Yea it is,

Always. 
 

Test the waters 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Goliath

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

And I've just admitted that I could well have been wrong saying that due to later laws, something which some people on here would *never* do... 😉

 

 

It's also what Nigel Moore said and it's what Alan said, so maybe you should argue with them... 😉

.

The problem is with you is that you spout stuff, pretending to know all, and then when someone or several finally point out your errors, you feign "oh, Ok, corrected", and then carry on spouting the same.

Trump has made a career out of it, so has Boris and most of his cabinet, it doesnt mean it's acceptable, sensible, or the new right way of doing things. 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The problem is with you is that you spout stuff, pretending to know all, and then when someone or several finally point out your errors, you feign "oh, Ok, corrected", and then carry on spouting the same.

Trump has made a career out of it, so has Boris and most of his cabinet, it doesnt mean it's acceptable, sensible, or the new right way of doing things. 

Of course it's much better to be right first time.

 

If you're not, the next best thing is to admit you were wrong.

 

And telling deliberate porkies is the lowest form of debate.

 

Except for ad hominem attacks, like you and M_JG keep using to try and get a reaction.

 

Agreed? 😉

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Of course it's much better to be right first time.

 

If you're not, the next best thing is to admit you were wrong.

 

And telling deliberate porkies is the lowest form of debate.

 

Except for ad hominem attacks, like you and M_JG keep using to get a reaction.

 

Agreed? 😉

 

Like I said to you the other night (my IanD naughty step status was unclear at that point so you may have missed it) if I was you I would have a think about why you sometimes get the responses you do.

[matty40s]

Not ad hominem, I tend to avoid or not come back to threads you are involved with any more as it is tediously, repetitiously,  monotonously boring.

I re-ignited this thread due to new news, tou have posted it into submission again.

The sooner your boat is finished and you actually get out there the better.

[Jerra]

6 hours ago, IanD said:

Though of course Peel have a much smaller length of canal to deal with, with a lot fewer moorings, and much more freedom about what they do to enforce it than toothless/cash-strapped/red-tape-entangled CART... 😉

I would suggest CRT could manage with 20 checkers.

 

My thinking goes like this.

 

10 towpath miles a day on a bike isn't too onerous (OK some days it will be less but some days more).  That means in a fortnight a checker could cover 100 miles.

 

How many checkers do they currently have?  Does anybody know?

[IanD]

55 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I would suggest CRT could manage with 20 checkers.

 

My thinking goes like this.

 

10 towpath miles a day on a bike isn't too onerous (OK some days it will be less but some days more).  That means in a fortnight a checker could cover 100 miles.

 

How many checkers do they currently have?  Does anybody know?

The problem is that if you want to effectively enforce a 14-day rule you need checkers passing each boat a lot more often than this.

 

Then the next problem is what to do about offenders, which takes more people to compile the data and send out warnings, then repeat warnings, then threaten to not renew a license, then deal with the protests that they weren't breaking the rules, then start the process of removing a boat if it gets that far, then fending off appeals, then arranging for police/cranes/council workers...

 

Checking is the small part of the problem, effective enforcement is a much bigger one without which checking is useless. If CART only have to do this over a small part of the network -- 5% or 100 miles was my handwaving guess -- then it all becomes many times easier and cheaper, and changes it from unworkable to workable...

 

57 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Not ad hominem, I tend to avoid or not come back to threads you are involved with any more as it is tediously, repetitiously,  monotonously boring.

I re-ignited this thread due to new news, tou have posted it into submission again.

The sooner your boat is finished and you actually get out there the better.

If you don't think your posts (and M_JGs) are ad hominem attacks, I suggest you look the term up a dictionary and then re-read your last few posts... 🙂

Edited July 7, 2023 by IanD

[matty40s]

I dont attack people, I just point out why they are either wrong, or not worth engaging with.

 

The very idiotic/non enforcable mechanism of enforcement you suggest in the middle of your last post just backs up all the other posters who suggest you are a cheese short of a TUC biscuit.

 

 

Checking is the small part of the problem, effective enforcement is a much bigger one without which checking is useless. If CART only have to do this over a small part of the network -- 5% or 100 miles was my handwaving guess -- then it all becomes many times easier and cheaper, and changes it from unworkable to workable..

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

The problem is that if you want to effectively enforce a 14-day rule you need checkers passing each boat a lot more often than this.

 

Then the next problem is what to do about offenders, which takes more people to compile the data and send out warnings, then repeat warnings, then threaten to not renew a license, then deal with the protests that they weren't breaking the rules, then start the process of removing a boat if it gets that far, then fending off appeals, then arranging for police/cranes/council workers...

 

Checking is the small part of the problem, effective enforcement is a much bigger one without which checking is useless. If CART only have to do this over a small part of the network -- 5% or 100 miles was my handwaving guess -- then it all becomes many times easier and cheaper, and changes it from unworkable to workable...

 

If you don't think your posts (and M_JGs) are ad hominem attacks, I suggest you look the term up a dictionary and then re-read your last few posts... 🙂

 

Are you still banging on?

 

Strewth..

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

I would suggest CRT could manage with 20 checkers.

 

My thinking goes like this.

 

10 towpath miles a day on a bike isn't too onerous (OK some days it will be less but some days more).  That means in a fortnight a checker could cover 100 miles.

 

How many checkers do they currently have?  Does anybody know?

CRT already say that their checkers cover every but if the system in each two week period. If the K and A is to go by then they have rather more than 10 across the network.

 

The problem lies in what they can do with the data. At the moment the focus seems to be on movemenfceznfe s that then allows them to refuse a licence or, more usually, only use a 6 month one. This can be done without a court order, I believe. If a failure to move (enough) continyex then court action us needed. But this is expensive in time and money,  both very limited. Hence only the most egregious cases are followed up. The number if known unauthorised failures to comply is very much larger than court actions taken. These factors are widely known,  if often mythlogised, and folk act accordingly. 

[magpie patrick]

16 hours ago, IanD said:

 

And I've just admitted that I could well have been wrong saying that due to later laws, something which some people on here would *never* do... 😉

 

It *is* angels dancing on pin heads, or pedantry if you want to call it that -- CART can charge different license fees for different boats and boaters, and whether this is called a "CC surcharge" or a "home moorer discount" is only of interest to lawyers (and some CWDF posters), because the end effect on what boaters pay is exactly the same.

 

Do you agree?

 

It's also what Nigel Moore said and it's what Alan said, so maybe you should argue with them... 😉

 

The comment about parking was to try and show that dividing up the mooring rules/length of stay by location is just what parking does, there's no reason a similar solution shouldn't work on the canals, and it would lead to far better enforcement in honeypot areas than the current system. All CART would have to do is keep the exiting (and enshrined in law) 14-day CC rule in honeypot areas, but waive it elsewhere -- the law says that they can't refuse a license for a valid CCer, but AFAIK it doesn't say the 14-day rule has to apply everywhere (and need checking/enforcement), for example "out in the sticks".

 

If you disagree, please explain why this is wrong instead of stooping to personal insults.

 

What I said was not a personal insult, it is the real world of holding a debate. Given your genuine expertise in other areas I would half expect you will have been an expert witness in your field, as I have been in mine. The fact you didn't know that the law requires CRT to grant a licence to someone with no home mooring, and this is so fundamental to the argument, means I wonder if anything else you say on the matter of moorings can be trusted or whether it's based on the same lack of understanding and information. The relevance of the expert witness role is that if, as I imagine you have, you have ever been in that role then you will understand that saying something so obviously wrong you have undermined your own credibility - then that is a cardinal sin, because one has discredited everything else one says.

 

On the 14 day rule, again read the relevant section - British Waterways Act 1995, Sec. 17 (3)(c)(ii) (quoting from Iain S's post)

17 hours ago, Iain_S said:

bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances

 

The 14 rule DOES apply everywhere  unless "such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances" is invoked - until tested in the courts it's for CRT to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. Whilst CRT have (in my direct experience) accepted mechanical failure (six weeks at Great Haywood) and snow (three weeks at All Cannings) on the basis the first makes movement impractical and the second unsafe, CRT are well aware of the risk of declaring "it's not that busy" as being a reasonable circumstance - they have accepted that moving the boat may be impractical or unsafe, but not that moving the boat is unnecessary.  

 

And that's what you are not getting - you can (in my career I frequently have) dance on the head of a pin with regards to the law, but both sides can do it - I had an awful lot of respect for Nigel Moore, and miss him greatly from these debates, but the argument he made (and I tentatively agree with it) has never been tested. It amounts to that CRT could put the overall licence fee up and then offer a discount for home moorings. However, like so many things if they actually did this it could be tested in court, and if they put the basic cost up so much that it became that de facto CC licences were not available, or even that someone could claim that was the effect, then it almost certainly would be tested with the risk that the courts could decide that "This can not have been what parliament intended" - given the expense of the litigation, the long drawn out process, and the uncertainty of the outcome, they're not going to try it - a premium, yes, a large one - no. CRT are not just fettered by the law, but by what is worth a court battle to get there.  

 

And incidentally there were boaters with no home mooring prior to 1995 - that was how this started, boaters finding that the 1995 act would mean they had to have a home mooring when previously they had not, and lobbying for the now well known section 17(3) (c)

[David Mack]

14 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

And incidentally there were boaters with no home mooring prior to 1995 - that was how this started, boaters finding that the 1995 act would mean they had to have a home mooring when previously they had not, and lobbying for the now well known section 17(3) (c)

Exactly. Prior to the 1995 Act there was no requirement for any boat to have a home mooring, a concept that was unnecessary when virtually all boats only earned their keep if they were on the move carrying cargo.

With the rise of leisure boating, most boaters chose to take a fixed mooring when the boat was not in use. But over time BWB became concerned about the number of boats just left moored to the towpath without any formal arrangement, and so in the Bill which became the '95 Act, proposed that all boats should be required to have a home mooring as a condition of the licence. However a few people, mainly retired or of independent means, spent long periods aboard, moving regularly and never staying long in one place, and taking short term paid moorings when the boat was left for longer periods. They argued that theirs was a legitimate use of the waterways, that they had no need of a home mooring, and should not be required to pay for one. Argument went on for a time while other aspects of the Bill were debated. Quite late in the day BW realised the unresolved issue could endanger passage of the Act, and so the current wording of 17(c)(3) was agreed as a bit of a last minute fudge, without anyone really considering that the imprecision regarding 'place' or 'reasonable in the circumstances' or any consideration of how far a boat should move between stays in one 'place', would in due course facilitate the growth of 'continuous moorers' or 'dumpers'.

[Ronaldo47]

These days, Hansard can be consulted to clarify Parliament's intentions where the wording of a statute is imprecise.

[Paul C]

43 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

..................... the courts could decide that "This can not have been what parliament intended" - .....................

 

It could be argued too, that the 'problem' of CMers stretching the letter of the law was never given due consideration anyway, so the use of licence fee to dissuade the practice is an unintended solution to an unimagined problem. And also, my understanding is the wording is vague - deliberately - to allow for flexibility in the situation of a disparate group of boaters and circumstances. Not that it was rushed through, or ill-considered. Its just that it was 1995 (or before), and now we're in 2023. In a perfect world, new legislation could/would be brought in to properly focus on the problem, whatever it actually even is. But that's unlikely.

 

1 minute ago, Ronaldo47 said:

These days, Hansard can be consulted to clarify Parliament's intentions where the wording of a statute is imprecise.

 

Its rare and certainly can't be relied upon as your defence or approach in court, to do this. There is a lot of weight to the wording of the actual law as is. To be relying on Hansard consultations for a novel or unusual interpretation of the law, is getting a bit "Freeman of the Land" in its argument.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

 

What I said was not a personal insult, it is the real world of holding a debate. Given your genuine expertise in other areas I would half expect you will have been an expert witness in your field, as I have been in mine. The fact you didn't know that the law requires CRT to grant a licence to someone with no home mooring, and this is so fundamental to the argument, means I wonder if anything else you say on the matter of moorings can be trusted or whether it's based on the same lack of understanding and information. The relevance of the expert witness role is that if, as I imagine you have, you have ever been in that role then you will understand that saying something so obviously wrong you have undermined your own credibility - then that is a cardinal sin, because one has discredited everything else one says.

 

On the 14 day rule, again read the relevant section - British Waterways Act 1995, Sec. 17 (3)(c)(ii) (quoting from Iain S's post)

 

The 14 rule DOES apply everywhere  unless "such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances" is invoked - until tested in the courts it's for CRT to decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. Whilst CRT have (in my direct experience) accepted mechanical failure (six weeks at Great Haywood) and snow (three weeks at All Cannings) on the basis the first makes movement impractical and the second unsafe, CRT are well aware of the risk of declaring "it's not that busy" as being a reasonable circumstance - they have accepted that moving the boat may be impractical or unsafe, but not that moving the boat is unnecessary.  

 

And that's what you are not getting - you can (in my career I frequently have) dance on the head of a pin with regards to the law, but both sides can do it - I had an awful lot of respect for Nigel Moore, and miss him greatly from these debates, but the argument he made (and I tentatively agree with it) has never been tested. It amounts to that CRT could put the overall licence fee up and then offer a discount for home moorings. However, like so many things if they actually did this it could be tested in court, and if they put the basic cost up so much that it became that de facto CC licences were not available, or even that someone could claim that was the effect, then it almost certainly would be tested with the risk that the courts could decide that "This can not have been what parliament intended" - given the expense of the litigation, the long drawn out process, and the uncertainty of the outcome, they're not going to try it - a premium, yes, a large one - no. CRT are not just fettered by the law, but by what is worth a court battle to get there.  

 

And incidentally there were boaters with no home mooring prior to 1995 - that was how this started, boaters finding that the 1995 act would mean they had to have a home mooring when previously they had not, and lobbying for the now well known section 17(3) (c)

 

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing with you about the law -- I was wrong, you knew better and were right. OK? Can we stop the character assasination right here before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon?

 

If you think getting one thing wrong undermines everything someone says then there's no point debating with you -- do you really want me to search through the CWDF archives and find something you said wrong (because I bet you did at some point...), and then say that this means that your posts on this subject are therefore discredited? Everyone makes mistakes -- unless you're claiming that you're perfect... 😉

 

I now have a clearer understanding of the law (so thank you for that...), and still think it's possible to come up with a better system than we have now. I'll try and explain -- and if I'm wrong please point out where, but let's keep the discussion away from personal motivations/reputations and stick to the facts... 🙂

 

There are two separate but linked things going on here, one is license conditions -- especially for CCers/CMers -- and the second is where mooring is permitted and for how long.

 

The CC exemption was introduced for what seemed good reasons at the time, so that those who roamed around the system were not forced to find and pay for a home mooring that they never used. The test for this -- "satisfying the board" -- was the 14-day rule about moving between several different places (not just ping-ponging back and forth) over a significant range, but nothing defining the exact terms was ever put into law, it was deliberately left woolly, presumably with the idea that the rules could be changed.

 

If a boat claims to be CCing but isn't -- doesn't "satisfy the board" -- then CART can refuse to renew their license, and then start the long and drawn-out enforcement proceedings leading to boat removal.

 

This worked fine until the last 20 years or so -- maybe more so since the 2008 financial crisis and stupid housing costs -- as more and more people decided to use the canals as a cheap place to live, move as little as possible, and stay near work or school. This was specifically excluded by the CART CC rules but then under "think of the children" pressure from the NBTA and others they were unwise enough to come up with an unofficial rule that effectively endorsed this for families with children, but not others -- yes this is discrimination but it's not illegal.

 

The result in popular areas like London and the Western K&A has been an increasing number of "CMers", end-to-end (or double-moored) boats (and more and more wideboats) with many overstaying as long as they can and moving as little as possible -- if it all -- including on visitor moorings, which has made such areas difficult to access for the "real CCers" (or any other boaters like hirers) for who the "CC exemption" was intended in the first place. Meanwhile out in the sticks where there are hardly any boats "real CCers" (not the "honeypot-squatters") still have to follow the 14-day rule -- which is seen as unfair, what's the point in moving? -- and CART still has to check that they do, which takes staff and money.

 

CART checking and monitoring of boat locations doesn't work very well, partly because it has to cover the whole 2000 mile system, and enforcement is ineffective, so the CC rules are widely flouted by CMers.

 

Am I right so far?

 

Meanwhile CART is cash-strapped and needs to find ways of getting more money, and one of these is via the license fee. I'm pretty sure they also want to do something to stop the growth of CMers who are clogging up honeypots, and probably also discourage wideboats by making them more expensive -- because these are very popular with almost-never-moving-CMers since they offer a lot more space for only a little more money. This is what the "license fee consultation" was all about. A lot of the problems can be traced back to the CCing rule which has encouraged CMers, which was not the original intention but has ended up that way, and the cost of monitoring and enforcing this over the whole canal system -- which is why the consultation also mentions the possibility of a "CC surcharge" to recoup these costs.

 

Agreed?

 

So what can CART do to get more money and discourage CMers, and restore the CC exemption back to something like its original purpose?

 

One proposal was a "CC surcharge" -- which might have to be labelled as a "home mooring discount" to stay within the law, but the effect is the same. IIRC the very old PDF (which was shot down in flames) suggested 2.5x the fee (+150%), more recently 2x has been suggested (+100%) -- these could mean (for example) doubling the license fee compared to today but offering a 50% "home mooring discount", which would keep the license fee unchanged for those with home moorings but double it for CCers and CMers. River-only fees would stay at 60% of canal+river, as now.

 

This could be seen as being unfair on "real CCers" since their fees double. One of the justifications for this put forward by CART is the extra costs of checking and enforcing the CC rules -- so is there a way to help out "real CCers"?

 

Why not stop CC-rule-checking outside popular honeypot areas (e.g towns/cities/junctions), so boats can stay where they want for as long as they want "out in the sticks"? The apocalyptic "the canals will be overrun with boats" prediction is unlikely to come true, because not that many boaters -- and very few CMers -- want to moor out in the middle of nowhere with no facilities, they almost all want to moor near civilisation.

 

Can you see any legal reasons why this cannot be done? (assuming the logistics can be worked out)

 

The disadvantage is that it does go completely against CARTs policy on online/EOG moorings because boats can then moor anywhere "out in the sticks" -- but is this really such a big problem, given the size of the system and the small number of boats who would do this? (and they'll still be paying 2x the fee of boats with a home mooring -- a farm mooring would be cheaper). If the CCers already spend a lot of their time moored in remote spots the number of boats moored there doesn't even change, it just means they don't have to artificially shuffle round every 14 days.

 

The advantage is that all the checking/enforcement which is currently spread around 2000 miles of canals can be focused on the much smaller (100 miles?) of "honeypot areas", so it should be much more effective.

 

It might also be possible to offer "real CCers" a discount, but make them have to provide the proof of movement instead of using CART checkers -- for example, regular geotagged photos from a phone registered to the license holder. These could even be checked using software instead of real people. Yes a smartphone is needed, but these are dirt cheap nowadays -- and if you don't want one, you don't get the discount... 😉

 

I'm not saying these ideas don't have disadvantages because there is no perfect solution, but it seem to me that this would put the canals in a considerably better place than they are today.

 

Any genuine criticism of why they can't/won't work is fine by me, I'm not claiming to know everything about all this -- but it would be nice to keep any debate factual rather than descending into accusations and abuse... 😉

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[Guest]

Jesus wept....

 

I'm going to ring Finesse and tell them to get a move on with Ian's boat....

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

17 minutes ago, M_JG said:

Jesus wept....

 

I'm going to ring Finesse and tell them to get a move on with Ian's boat....

The way the water situation and stoppages are going he won’t be moving far anyway and what I’m seeing is he won’t find any decent visitor moorings as they’re all full with CMers.

  So maybe he would be best just getting it craned straight to his Marina.

Edited July 8, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

The way the water situation and stoppages are going he won’t be moving far anyway and what I’m seeing is he won’t find any decent visitor moorings as they’re all full with CMers.

  So maybe he would be best just getting it craned straight to his Marina.

Don't think I haven't considered it... 😉

 

P.S. Not surprised to see the provocative quote from our resident troll, ignoring my pleas to not do this -- maybe he finds reading anything longer than a few lines and thinking about it just *too* difficult... 😞

Edited July 8, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

The test for this -- "satisfying the board" -- was the 14-day rule about moving between several different places (not just ping-ponging back and forth) over a significant range, but nothing defining the exact terms was ever put into law, it was deliberately left woolly, presumably with the idea that the rules could be changed.

The law only says you must not stay in one 'place' more than 14 days (or such longer period...). It says nothing about travelling to several different places or over a significant range. BW/CRT did try to impose a requirement to travel extensively over the network (or words to that effect) in their Guidelines for CCers, but this failed a legal challenge - the court held that it was not a reasonable interpretation of the Board's obligation to be satisfied, and so looser less prescriptive guidelines had to be written. This effectively means that only the most egregious breaches of the requirements can have action taken against them, and all the 'grey' cases are allowed to continue unhindered.

And so the requirement to navigate throughout the period with stays not exceeding 14 days (I.e. periods of movement would be relatively long and most stays would probably be short and only a few would be the full 14 days duration) has become transformed to a position where all that is required is that every stay can be 14 days duration and the travel between each stay can be less than an hour.