A new way of looking at the CC issue

[mayalld]

You are living in a looking glass world.

 

I answer Jerry's question (3 times) and you say that?

 

I think you need a lesson in English comprehension. Try reading it again slowly, saying each word aloud. If there's any words you need help with I am happy to point you in the direction of some resources.

 

English is your first language?

 

 

 

I do not interpret anything I simply read you the law, it is to me clear, it is only you who have another agenda that seek to interpret the law in a way that suits your point of view.

 

To me the law is clear and unambiguous (if a little vague).

 

It is clear to me that the vast majority of boaters, under the 1995 Act will require a place where there boat can be lawfully left, if you wish to call this a mooring I am happy to agree that, in the majority of circumstances, it will probably be a mooring though this is not necessarily so - a small but important point in this tortuous debate.

 

This is because of one of those words in the Act you may be having trouble with (it does have more than one syllable) 'throughout'.

 

Your insults are noted.

 

Such a pity that you couldn't put the same amount of effort into answering the question asked.

 

So, to make it easy for you let us pose some examples, and ask, in each case, "Does this boater require a mooring, or other place where a boat can lawfully be kept, or is he engaging in bona fide navigation throughout"

 

1. Alfred lives on board, and is moored halfway between two bridges on the lower pound of the Macclesfield Canal. Every Saturday, he fires up the engine and cruises half a mile to a waterpoint, fills up, and returns back to the same spot on the towpath. Every Two months, he cruises two miles to get his toilet emptied, and to fill up with fuel.
   
2. Bert is moored next to Alfred. On Saturday he too fires up the engine, potters to the water point and fills up. He then goes a mile further on to another rather nice spot that he likes, and moors up there for a week, before doing the same thing in reverse the next Saturday, and joining Alred for a pint and an animated discussion about the fact that Bert thinks Alfred isn't playing by the rules, but that he (Bert) is. Bert too goes along to the boatyard every two months for pumpout and fuel.
   
3. Charlie also starts off moored next to Alfred, and on the first Saturday follows Bert to the second mooring. The following Saturday, having heard that BW think that moving back and forth between two moorings isn't playing the game, he moves another couple of miles to a third mooring, before returning to the first spot a week later. He repeats this pattern throughout the year. As the third mooring is near the boatyard, he tends to pop in there from time to time when he is arriving at or departing from the third mooring. He is very happy with his setup, as it means that he sometimes gets a week with Alfred, sometimes gets a week with Bert, sometimes has a rip-roaring week with them both, and sometimes gets a bit of peace.
   
4. Danny thinks the others aren't particularly good company, so he cruises the stretch from Kidsgrove to Bosley, moving once every week, and taking 4 weeks to move from one end to another, only occassionally seeing the others, at which point he turns round and takes a further 4 weeks to get back. He repeats this cycle throughout the year.
   

British Waterways writes to all four to tell them that they are not satisfied that they are engaged in bona fide navigation, and giving them 28 days to either start to engage in bona fide navigation, or to obtain a mooring.

 

Is BW correct in their view of what our 4 boaters are doing, or are they wrong?

[Chris Pink]

Well at least you are now amusing me rather than insulting me, can i have some little pictures to aid my deliberations please Dave?

 

 

There are several levels on which to approach your question

 

Do I think this constitutes "bona-fide for navigation", do i think this behaviour is right or wrong, and do i think BW should take action?

 

In order no, with the exception of 4 (i don't know how far Kidsgrove to Bosley and can't be arsed to look it up), not my business and yes, if BW think they are in breach then they should take the action you suggest.

 

I see very little distinction in the first 3 examples and would probably agree with you that they were in effect after a permanent mooring, whether they could obtain one (availability), whether they could afford one or whether they were abusing the system is, as I say, none of my business.

 

I would decide whether I objected to their behaviour, not as you seem to, on whether they were 'getting something for nothing' - as I have said before the politics of envy hurts you at least as much as the object of your bile - but on whether they infringe on my enjoyment and use of the canal. And mostly the types of behaviour you describe don't.

 

You, Dave, need a permanent mooring to comply with the act, Jerry needs a permanent mooring to comply with the Act. I don't need a permanent mooring to comply with the act and have never had any objection or notice from BW. Three real world examples that mean a hell of a lot more than your Alice in Wonderland fantasies.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Chris Pink

[charles123]

An alternative would be a GPS chip located on all boats that cant be removed. The boat is therefore tracked electronically and rules are set up that will target the continuous cruisers that dont cruise and those that overstayvisitor mooring etc. Realistic penalty charges are recorded and added to the next years licence. Those that abuse the system are the ones that pay most

Annual licence fees are reduced for everyone to compensate. GPS tracking has been around for years and is not expensive. The important thing to keep costs down is to automate as far as possible thus employing less people.

 

The above wont of course happen any time soon as the set up costs and practicallity of tagging every boat would be very difficult

 

Charles

[carlt]

Last chance, put up or shut up, who under the law does require a mooring.

 

Be aware that whenever this subject is raised, so will this question, answer or concede.

I thought I already answered it. No'one, under the law, requires a mooring, some, due to personal circumstances, require one.

 

An alternative would be a GPS chip located on all boats that cant be removed. The boat is therefore tracked electronically and rules are set up that will target the continuous cruisers that dont cruise and those that overstayvisitor mooring etc. Realistic penalty charges are recorded and added to the next years licence. Those that abuse the system are the ones that pay most

Annual licence fees are reduced for everyone to compensate. GPS tracking has been around for years and is not expensive. The important thing to keep costs down is to automate as far as possible thus employing less people.

 

The above wont of course happen any time soon as the set up costs and practicallity of tagging every boat would be very difficult

 

Charles

What about boats who use other authorities waters or are trailable, or are owned by people who don't really want to be tagged like criminals (not necessarily in that order).

[charles123]

I thought I already answered it. No'one, under the law, requires a mooring, some, due to personal circumstances, require one.

 

 

What about boats who use other authorities waters or are trailable, or are owned by people who don't really want to be tagged like criminals (not necessarily in that order).

 

Carl you are already being tracked if they want to, RFID on clothing for example

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

 

 

Charles

[tillergirl]

This is all getting above my head...............

 

Now let me see............. I choose to genuinely CC. You choose to have a home mooring at an extra cost of £1k+. Ok you work so you only use your bost 5/6 weeks and an odd weekend a year so you need to park your boat somewhere. I don't work having taken early retirement now the kids have flown the nest (and so has the OH) but you think its fair that we should have to contribute an extra wad of cash just because I choose not to keep my boat moored up but to get out and cruise the system?

 

Oh and BTW I ring BW up in July and pay for a winter mooring from November to March at the commensurate cost indicated by BW. So where the justice in that then? Does this mean I end up paying more than you do? Errm yes I think it does. because I got a gold licence so I can cruise anywhere I choose, I use more diesel than you becauce for 7-8 months of the year I'm on the move, and the in the winter cos I'm still living on the boat I have to heat it, then of course there leccy up hook (if I'm lucky) and pump out costs to name but a couple of things.

 

 

In any case I reckon its a safe bet than BW probably know who the boat owners are who abuse the system. At least , mayalld, BW are trying to come up with a "fair" system.

 

edited to take out a catty remark

Edited November 28, 2008 by tillergirl

[grahoom]

Carl you are already being tracked if they want to, RFID on clothing for example

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

 

 

Charles

 

Charles,

 

RFID only works at very short range, so only works if the receiver is in close proximity.

 

I don't believe I have any RFID chips in my clothing.

[carlt]

Carl you are already being tracked if they want to, RFID on clothing for example

That would be the "two wrongs do make a right" argument.

 

Just because your privacy is already being invaded doesn't make it okay to invade it a bit more.

[mayalld]

Do I think this constitutes "bona-fide for navigation", do i think this behaviour is right or wrong, and do i think BW should take action?

 

In order no, with the exception of 4 (i don't know how far Kidsgrove to Bosley and can't be arsed to look it up), not my business and yes, if BW think they are in breach then they should take the action you suggest.

 

I see very little distinction in the first 3 examples and would probably agree with you that they were in effect after a permanent mooring, whether they could obtain one (availability), whether they could afford one or whether they were abusing the system is, as I say, none of my business.

 

The question that needed to be answered in each case was clearly stated. "is this boat engaging in bona fide navigation.

 

Kidsgrove to Bosley is about 10 miles.

 

The examples were pitched as they were to test how far you believe that people can take the piss.

Example 1 moves every seven days for a short while, and returns to the same spot. It could be argued that he doesn't remain in the same place for 14 days (glad to see that you didn't argue this one)

Example 2 is a classic bridgehopper, swapping between two moorings, and I believe pretty much everybody would accept that this isn't continuous cruising.

Example 3 with 3 moorings seems to be the point at which some real world cases start to occur, with people believing that a rotation of three mooring spots is enough to satisfy the rules.

Example 4 takes this up to 4 moorings along a 10 mile section. Is this markedly different from the 3 mooring scenario?

 

You don't like BW's definition of Bona fide navigation, so what is YOUR definition?

[carlt]

You don't like BW's definition of Bona fide navigation, so what is YOUR definition?

Just because people don't give the answer you like, doesn't mean they haven't given an answer.

[tillergirl]

Do you know you should all listen to yourselves!!

 

"You're not playing with my toys cos they cost more than yours!!" Like children!!

 

Thats about what it all boils down to - that some of you spend more money than others. And because you do you want to spoil it for people who don't, because they don't see their boat as a luxury item but as a place to live. Oh maybe we can take this a stage further and start making travellers pay for using the roads more than we do - not going to happen is it?

 

It obviously bothers you Mayalld but then its not up to you to resolve any "issues" its up to BW.

 

Funny when I was born in the 50's I thought I was born into a free democratic society. I fear that I wasn't and that the class system still abounds!!

 

Perspective - the issue is with continous moorers - apart from that there is no issue.

 

I have no issue with anything or anyone - the system always catches up with those who abuse it - eventually.

[mayalld]

Just because people don't give the answer you like, doesn't mean they haven't given an answer.

 

They may have given an answer. If it is an answer that appears vague and unworkable, I can always ask for a clarification.

[Chris Pink]

The question that needed to be answered in each case was clearly stated. "is this boat engaging in bona fide navigation.

 

Kidsgrove to Bosley is about 10 miles.

 

The examples were pitched as they were to test how far you believe that people can take the piss.

Example 1 moves every seven days for a short while, and returns to the same spot. It could be argued that he doesn't remain in the same place for 14 days (glad to see that you didn't argue this one)

Example 2 is a classic bridgehopper, swapping between two moorings, and I believe pretty much everybody would accept that this isn't continuous cruising.

Example 3 with 3 moorings seems to be the point at which some real world cases start to occur, with people believing that a rotation of three mooring spots is enough to satisfy the rules.

Example 4 takes this up to 4 moorings along a 10 mile section. Is this markedly different from the 3 mooring scenario?

 

You don't like BW's definition of Bona fide navigation, so what is YOUR definition?

 

Your 4 examples are not 'real world' enough for me and i don't think a test along the lines of 'exactly how many furlongs should i move' is valid.

 

I have defined navigation for you with the aid of the OED (no pictures sorry Dave, try saying the words aloud) bona fide means genuinely as you probably knew. I don't even think the concept of distance is as much of a indicator of navigating as others - Ratty's in Wind in the Willows does it for me.

 

I would accept any dialogue with BW that goes along the lines of "we don't think you are using your boat bona fide for navigation" - and at least we are starting to use this term in this discussion rather than the pejorative 'continuous cruiser'. I will not enter into any dialogue that goes "we don't think you are continuously cruising" because the authority I accept, the law, does not require that I answer this question.

 

The most cogent argument for my position I have ever heard is that Parliament, with its legal advisors and debate formulated the law as it is stated. If they had wanted to use the phrase "continuous cruiser" or "progressive journey" i am sure that is what they would have done.

 

According to your examples someone who used their boat to haul coal from point A to B once a week would not be using it 'bona fide for navigation' which is patently absurd. Do you have an issue with the various coal boats that use the same part of the system to ply their trade?

 

Tillergirl's point above cuts through all the crap you have spouted and your pathetic attempts to use rhetorical argument to trip me up will never alter that.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

Tillergirl's point above cuts through all the crap you have spouted and your pathetic attempts to use rhetorical argument to trip me up will never alter that.

 

In a month or so, the new year will be upon us.

 

May I suggest that a resolution, on your part, to respond to others without flinging abuse would be appropriate.

[OptedOut]

Yep, Tillergirl sums it up really.

[Chris Pink]

In a month or so, the new year will be upon us.

 

May I suggest that a resolution, on your part, to respond to others without flinging abuse would be appropriate.

 

 

Well I find your patronising tone just as offensive as you find my words.

 

But in deference to your hurt feelings I shall rephrase;

 

Tillergirl's point above cuts through all the specious arguments you have put forward and your transparent attempts to use rhetorical argument to trip me up will never alter that.

 

Better?

Edited November 28, 2008 by Chris Pink

[Marc Harris]

Do you know you should all listen to yourselves!!

 

"You're not playing with my toys cos they cost more than yours!!" Like children!!

 

Thats about what it all boils down to - that some of you spend more money than others. And because you do you want to spoil it for people who don't, because they don't see their boat as a luxury item but as a place to live. Oh maybe we can take this a stage further and start making travellers pay for using the roads more than we do - not going to happen is it?

 

It obviously bothers you Mayalld but then its not up to you to resolve any "issues" its up to BW.

 

Funny when I was born in the 50's I thought I was born into a free democratic society. I fear that I wasn't and that the class system still abounds!!

 

Perspective - the issue is with continous moorers - apart from that there is no issue.

 

I have no issue with anything or anyone - the system always catches up with those who abuse it - eventually.

 

Someone buy this woman a pint! :lol:

 

Well said.

[mayalld]

Well I find your patronising tone just as offensive as you find my words.

 

But in deference to your hurt feelings I shall rephrase;

 

Tillergirl's point above cuts through all the specious arguments you have put forward and your transparent attempts to use rhetorical argument to trip me up will never alter that.

 

Better?

 

My feelings are not hurt, and I wouldn't wish you to divert your energies from working out what the answer is.

[Sir Nibble]

Carl, you say no one is obliged by law to have a home mooring. May I refer you to the waterways act where just such a requirement is laid down.

Chris, you have NOT answered the question, nor come close, you have danced around the issue having realised that you are faced with a choice between answers that would portray you as either stupid or wrong.

Whenever this subject reappers I shall ressurect the question, until then the inescapable conclusion is that the continuous moorers are in breach of the law. Whether or not it is a just law is another debate.

I rest my case, so far unapposed.

[carlt]

Carl, you say no one is obliged by law to have a home mooring. May I refer you to the waterways act where just such a requirement is laid down.

No one is obliged to have a home mooring, if they fullfill the conditions of the licence.

 

Come to think of it...no one is obliged to have a boat.

 

I rest my case, so far unapposed.

Just because you refuse to recognise an opposing argument doesn't make you the winner of the debate.

 

Are you now sat, in front of the screen, with your fingers in your ears going "lah, lah, lah..I can't hear you, therefore I'm right!."

Edited November 28, 2008 by carlt

[Denis R]

According to your examples someone who used their boat to haul coal from point A to B once a week would not be using it 'bona fide for navigation' which is patently absurd. Do you have an issue with the various coal boats that use the same part of the system to ply their trade?

I don't as they're not trading on a continuous cruising licence or pretending they're continuous cruisers. They have a commercial licence which in my view entitles them to come and go as they please.

[Chris Pink]

Chris, you have NOT answered the question, nor come close, you have danced around the issue having realised that you are faced with a choice between answers that would portray you as either stupid or wrong.

 

Well I know that you are not a stupid man so I assume you mean I have not answered your question with the answer you want.

 

I have answered you time and again and I have no intention of repeating myself once more.

 

As Carl says, do not mix up my not giving you the answer you want with not answering at all.

 

I don't as they're not trading on a continuous cruising licence or pretending they're continuous cruisers. They have a commercial licence which in my view entitles them to come and go as they please.

 

So where in the 1995 Act is provision made for this?

[Denis R]

So where in the 1995 Act is provision made for this?

Absolutely no idea Chris. Just in my mind I put commercial activity in a totally different pigeon hole to continuous cruisers, moorers, snoozers, marina moorers, on-line moorers and non boat owning aspirants.

[tillergirl]

My feelings are not hurt, and I wouldn't wish you to divert your energies from working out what the answer is.

 

Ignoring my posts don't make me go away Surely its not our place to work the answer out that is up to BW and I suspect they will do a better job than you - and thanks I'll have a pint of Black Sheep please.

[mayalld]

Ignoring my posts don't make me go away Surely its not our place to work the answer out that is up to BW and I suspect they will do a better job than you - and thanks I'll have a pint of Black Sheep please.

 

Please feel free to have what you like.

 

However, posts that tell me that it isn't my place to look at and propose answers will be ignored.

 

Surely it isn't your place to tell me whether I can look at this.