A CC supporter on You Tube

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

It is not statutory authority.

 

Off out, excuse me.

 

 

 

True. It doesn't need to be though - the marina can simply say "bye" to the non-compliant boater. Its backed by an agreement of T&Cs, which comes under civil law though.

[Arthur Marshall]

Just don't...

3 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I tried, honest, but simply couldn’t stick it. 
Is there a particular bit I could watch without having to do the whole lot 👍

I wouldn't bother. I did try, I really did, but ten seconds was enough.

[Barneyp]

37 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Just don't...

I wouldn't bother. I did try, I really did, but ten seconds was enough.

I kept it on for nearly 2 minutes, but I wasn't actually listening so that probably doesn't count.

[Jerra]

46 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Just don't...

I wouldn't bother. I did try, I really did, but ten seconds was enough.

I am pleased it wasn't just me.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Just don't...

I wouldn't bother. I did try, I really did, but ten seconds was enough.

 

 

I decided not to click as the OP was too lazy to say anything at all about it. So I was not sold on clicking it!

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

I read it as ACC (association of continuous cruisers) supporter on youtube. Possible erroneous space. 

 

I wouldn't watch it. 

[David Mack]

13 hours ago, Boaty Jo said:

Richard Vobes here

A one-time member of the forum I think, although he hasn't visited for a decade.

https://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/profile/17638-vobes/

 

[Mike Todd]

6 hours ago, frangar said:

In my most recent direct dealing sorting out an EoG mooring Ive actually found them incredibly helpful and organised...much more so than say estate agents or solicitors....I really couldn't fault them....yes they aren't perfect in some things...blue signs for one and towpath improvements over navigation but in my personal contact I have to say I was impressed.

CaRT  do not prioritise topaths over navigation. They facilitate tgd dreams of others, especially those with money to pay for it.

 

In any case, towpaths are essential to boosting, even if fir much of a journey you do not need them. Given that living aboard is currently consented, try living with the state of towpaths outside your front door (or whatever). Equally, try going back to the state they were in when we first boated (1960s)

6 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

OK, here we go. Beyond the land boundary, the notion of the water belonging to CRT is a myth. And secondly, moorers pay an access fee.

 

 

I thought it was not so much who owns the water, even that which falls on your garden, but that CaRT have the right to charge for its use. 

[frangar]

29 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

CaRT  do not prioritise topaths over navigation. They facilitate tgd dreams of others, especially those with money to pay for it.

 

In any case, towpaths are essential to boosting, even if fir much of a journey you do not need them. Given that living aboard is currently consented, try living with the state of towpaths outside your front door (or whatever). Equally, try going back to the state they were in when we first boated (1960s)

I thought it was not so much who owns the water, even that which falls on your garden, but that CaRT have the right to charge for its use. 

As a liveaboard who cruises a lot when possible I want a towpath I can safely moor up along....so not one thats been turned into a cycle superhighway and made Billiard table smooth for cyclists to try and go as fast as possible making it dangerous to step foot off ones boat....id also like some infrastructure such as rings put into place so I can moor securely when many thousands have been spent improving the towpath but doing nothing for the boater.

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

 

 

In any case, towpaths are essential to boating, even if for much of a journey you do not need them. 

 

I find this an interesting question to consider. 

 

It is actually perfectly feasible to go Boating and never set foot or tie the Boat to a towpath other than within 100 yards of moveable structures such as locks and bridges. 

 

The only true function of a towpath for someone with a Boat in the absence of horses is to provide a mooring. There is no other use for this.

 

You could say someone might walk or cycle along it but anyone else can do this it does not require a Boat to be part of the equation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Towpaths are a very interesting land use case. Obviously sustrans is onto it as they are intent on ribbon application of hard surface for wheeled vehicles. 

 

 

[Tacet]

7 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

OK, here we go. Beyond the land boundary, the notion of the water belonging to CRT is a myth. And secondly, moorers pay an access fee.

 

 

Why has this injustice not been mentioned before now?

[Mike Todd]

21 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

I find this an interesting question to consider. 

 

It is actually perfectly feasible to go Boating and never set foot or tie the Boat to a towpath other than within 100 yards of moveable structures such as locks and bridges. 

 

The only true function of a towpath for someone with a Boat in the absence of horses is to provide a mooring. There is no other use for this.

 

You could say someone might walk or cycle along it but anyone else can do this it does not require a Boat to be part of the equation. 

 

 

 

 

 

Towpaths are a very interesting land use case. Obviously sustrans is onto it as they are intent on ribbon application of hard surface for wheeled vehicles. 

 

 

I was countering the implication that the hard surfaced towpaths are funded by CaRT (and hence by boaters, if only as a result of less in the pot for canal maintenance).

 

But I also had in mind that when a boater moors, quite often they need/wish to walk to somewhere else. In areas where a high proportion of moorers are liveaboards then they will use the towpath regularly to get to and from work and a bicycle can chew up a non-hard surface quite quickly.

[magnetman]

45 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 In areas where a high proportion of moorers are liveaboards then they will use the towpath regularly to get to and from work and a bicycle can chew up a non-hard surface quite quickly.

 

Yes it can. 

 

More questions being asked about the land use. 

 

 

 

Towing paths are land. Canals are also land upon which someone at one stage decided to put some water. 

 

The most complex conflicts between humans always come down to land. Its very basic. 

 

Canal towpaths are land belonging to the navigation authority / the public / the Trust.

 

Someone needs to sort this out. 

 

 

The point is that the use of the towpath is where the land use question arises. This is the beginning. If one allows the towpaths to be annexed by people intent on traveling using wheeled vehicles then they will simply claim more land over time and eventually put the canal itself at risk. 

 

It is essential for use of this part of the land to be clear. It currently isn't clear "that damn cyclist ran over my cat" type of arguments. 

 

 

 

What is happening with NBTA and Sustrans is basically a question being asked about the use of this land. 

 

I'm not sure if anyone is answering that question. 

[Higgs]

On 31/12/2023 at 13:39, Paul C said:

True. It doesn't need to be though - the marina can simply say "bye" to the non-compliant boater. Its backed by an agreement of T&Cs, which comes under civil law though.

 

 You support the right to manipulate the law.

 

So it's expected that CCers are going to be hit with a surcharge for supposedly using the system more than home moorers. How should CRT adjust the licence payments for people who don't use any of the canal, and are moored on private property? CRT find some other way to find something in its favour; the ability to hold people and business to ransom. And people like you support that.

 

 

And, considering the numbers of CCers to home moorers, I think it is very unlikely that home moorers use the system less. They'll be swarming out of the marinas in clement weather, loading on to the system their use of it.

 

 

 

 

 

On 31/12/2023 at 19:18, Mike Todd said:

 

I thought it was not so much who owns the water, even that which falls on your garden, but that CaRT have the right to charge for its use. 

 

 

They do, they charge an access fee. But the water is no generated by CRT, it's managed over the areas it is responsible for. And a licence fee is chargeable for the use of that system it is responsible for. The water in a marina is not water on the canal system that CRT have statutory powers over. Marina moorers will therefore not incur a licence fee liability under statutory conditions.

 

Marinas are also willing to cause this expense to marina moorers, because the cost of being forced to buy a licence, that isn't necessary, is borne by the marina moorer; in order to provide a business opportunity for the marina. Marinas have signed away moorers' rights. There now has to be no legal reason for needing a licence, due to the marina signing away moorers' rights to legal protection, so that the marina can gain the right to profit from it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by Higgs

[LadyG]

On 31/12/2023 at 12:42, Higgs said:

 

There has been a precedent set for considering the amount of use people make of the canal. In my opinion, if they want to go down that route, there are people in marinas that never use the canal, and are not on CRT property, who pay. I don't see how the argument can stop with CCers.

 

 

I'm sure that you are aware that the CRT operate within the law of the UK, you may not like it,but you should just give up if it causes you so much grief. Buy a nice four bed house in Surrey, no problem.

[Higgs]

9 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I'm sure that you are aware that the CRT operate within the law of the UK, you may not like it,but you should just give up if it causes you so much grief. Buy a nice four bed house in Surrey, no problem.

 

They are following the law. They've come to a business arrangement with the marinas. But neither the marina, or CRT, can claim to have the statutory right in law, to demand a licence fee payment, according to the law. This business arrangement has nothing to do with moorers..., apart from creating a poor position for the moorers.

 

 

Edited January 2 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

They are following the law. They've come to a business arrangement with the marinas. But neither the marina, or CRT, can claim to have the statutory right in law, to demand a licence fee payment, according to the law. 

 

 

The point is, surely, that you don't have a statutory right not to pay it! If it's legal, tough.

[Higgs]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

The point is, surely, that you don't have a statutory right not to pay it! If it's legal, tough.

 

It isn't legal, unless you are out on the cut.

 

 

[Paul C]

Statutory Rights......All sounds a bit "Freeman of the Land" to me.

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Statutory Rights......All sounds a bit "Freeman of the Land" to me.

 

The law provides conditions for its application. What conditions, pertaining to the need for a licence, are present in a private place?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by Higgs

[Paul C]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

How should CRT adjust the licence payments for people who don't use any of the canal, .............................................

 

I think it is very unlikely that home moorers use the system less. They'll be swarming out of the marinas in clement weather, ..................

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said it yourself. Those with home moorings in a marina, rather than "not using any of the canal", according to you will use the system more. You need to make your mind up if they use it less or more than CCers.

[frangar]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

The law provides conditions for its application. What conditions, pertaining to the need for a licence, are present in a private place. 

 

 

 

 

So I ask again. What apart from prattling on here are you doing about it? Have you tried to get voted on the council of CRT? Have you put in a formal complaint? Have you raised it with the waterways ombudsman? 
 

What would you propose to raise funds to cover any shortfall? How do you think CRT should be funded?

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The law provides conditions for its application. What conditions, pertaining to the need for a licence, are present in a private place. 

 

 

 

 

The contract a home moorer enters into a contract with the marina (the terms and conditions). These are enforceable, if needs be in a Civil Court.

[Higgs]

Just now, Paul C said:

The contract a home moorer enters into a contract with the marina (the terms and conditions). These are enforceable, if needs be in a Civil Court.

 

As you must be well aware by now, the conditions a marina sets for its operation are not the powers given to CRT for its operational legality. The legislature have given power to CRT, but not to the marina. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, frangar said:

What would you propose to raise funds to cover any shortfall? How do you think CRT should be funded?

 

If the government can back out of it, I don't care. But if you want the law pertaining to licences to matter, you shouldn't also allow CRT to abuse its position.

 

 

[Paul C]

The main issue here is that you don't understand the law and how it applies - but its okay because its actually all theoretical, because you yourself are not in the position of mooring in a marina but not using the canal. I believe you're a CCer, thus are on the canals 24/7/365? Even if you are in the position, you haven't started any action to challenge it (and because you're not, you're a 3rd party to others' concerns so irrelevant in the eyes on the law). So all it amounts to, is theoretical posts on an internet forum. And its been shown that when posters challenge the position and words you use (for example, you like to repeat the "abuse" word) your arguments quickly crumble.