A new way of looking at the CC issue

[Sir Nibble]

This isn't what actually happens, though.

 

BW do take people to court, over mooring issues (they took me) and they do lose (I have a cheque for £950 pounds, to prove it).

 

If you don't move your boat as often as BW would like, they don't revoke your licence, for overstaying (regardless of whether this is their right, they happen to see the folly, in this). Instead, they charge you for the mooring ( I believe one person received a bill for £25 for each day that they overstayed) they will then sue you for that amount.

The gap between what could or should happen and what actually does is always wider than one would expect but this still leaves my perfectly valid question to be addressed.

[Chris Pink]

The gap between what could or should happen and what actually does is always wider than one would expect but this still leaves my perfectly valid question to be addressed.

 

those who do not live aboard and need to leave their boats somewhere for more than 14 days need a place where their vessel may be lawfully left. Those who live aboard and do not feel able to move within the 14 day limit, unless reasonable in the circumstances, will also need a place where their vessel can be lawfully left.

 

Which bit of this answer to your question do you need clarifying?

 

 

As to your strongest man analogy then yes you are....until the time someone challenges you and you have to put up or shut up, the analogy still holding...just.

 

f you don't move your boat as often as BW would like, they don't revoke your licence, for overstaying (regardless of whether this is their right, they happen to see the folly, in this).

 

The current situation seems to be that BW will send you notice (as required by the 1995 Act) that you are in breach of that act you then have 28 days to rectify that breach, if you don't or don't reply they will then revoke your licence.

 

All this is within the letter of the law unlike the fanciful interpretations put forward by some on this topic.

[Sir Nibble]

Which bit of this answer to your question do you need clarifying?

 

 

As to your strongest man analogy then yes you are....until the time someone challenges you and you have to put up or shut up, the analogy still holding...just.

 

 

 

The current situation seems to be that BW will send you notice (as required by the 1995 Act) that you are in breach of that act you then have 28 days to rectify that breach, if you don't or don't reply they will then revoke your licence.

 

All this is within the letter of the law unlike the fanciful interpretations put forward by some on this topic.

Your answer is clear and full, unfortunately it does not seem to address the question I keep asking. You rely on the fact that there is no case law on this subject to continue to insist that remaining within one or two pound counts as a continuous cruise until the judge says otherwise, smoke and mirrors. Having established what you think differentiates the NEEDS of those who do or do not liveaboard, would you care to take a stab at what you believe parliament meant when they framed the legislation.

Start with

do not feel able to move within the 14 day limit

and quote me any law you like where parliament has passed legislation that is voided if those it applies to

do not feel able

to comply.

As to your strongest man analogy then yes you are....until the time someone challenges you and you have to put up or shut up, the analogy still holding...just.

But my question was

would any reasonable person consider I have a case for claiming to be strongest man in the world

whereas you seem to have read "reasonable person" as "person trying desperately to avoid the issue and not demolish their own argument".

So I ask again, who in your view is OBLIGED BY LAW to have a permanent mooring, not for whom is it convenient, or who might quite like it.

[tillergirl]

So just to get back on topic had big discussion with my fellow CCers in the pub last night and we came up with a different version of David's idea.

 

All CCers pay an extra £300 a year (that is the £1 a day less the 60 free tickets)

For this as CCers will now be paying the most all good 24/48 hour and 7 day moorings are reserved for exclusive use of CCers and they can stay for up to 14 days if they so wish. (any non CCer on these moorings will have to pay all CCers on mooring £50 each)

All other moorings can be used by non CCers at £1 a day this money will be collected by the marina by erecting a barrier at the connection point to the system where the boat will be logged out and on return will pay the marina £1 a day for every day they were out, the marina owner will then pay this money to BW.

At this point still not sure what to do about Linear Moorers but have decided we will discuss this on Friday night after a few more drinks.

 

I still don't see why anyone would pay any extras at all!! God forfend you'll all be asking for congestion charges on busy parts of the system next!!

 

What BW should be doing is encouraging freight back onto the system - theres money to be made there and by God they'd damn well have to maintain it then!

 

I can see no reason why anyone thinks they have the right to impose charges on people's personal choices - the choice of actually using the waterways and parking your floating mobile home on it and taking it out once in a blue moon. Whatever anyone thinks there is no fair system to suit everyone.

 

Personally I think CCers should get a discount for actually helping to keep the system open!!

[mayalld]

I still don't see why anyone would pay any extras at all!! God forfend you'll all be asking for congestion charges on busy parts of the system next!!

 

What BW should be doing is encouraging freight back onto the system - theres money to be made there and by God they'd damn well have to maintain it then!

 

I can see no reason why anyone thinks they have the right to impose charges on people's personal choices - the choice of actually using the waterways and parking your floating mobile home on it and taking it out once in a blue moon. Whatever anyone thinks there is no fair system to suit everyone.

 

Personally I think CCers should get a discount for actually helping to keep the system open!!

1. In respect of most of the system, there is no way on earth that there is money to be made from freight.
   
2. I'm confused. Whenever people accuse CCers of causing more wear and tear, claims are made that in actual fact their use of the system is modest compared with leisure boaters. Then suddenly, they are helping to keep the system open. How do they do that if they use it less than the leisure boaters?
   
3. 
   

[tillergirl]

1. In respect of most of the system, there is no way on earth that there is money to be made from freight.
   
2. I'm confused. Whenever people accuse CCers of causing more wear and tear, claims are made that in actual fact their use of the system is modest compared with leisure boaters. Then suddenly, they are helping to keep the system open. How do they do that if they use it less than the leisure boaters?
   
3. 
   

 

 

Somewhere along the way mayalld you lost your sense of humour but if you want to see the result in summer of a little used waterway have a trip on the Chesterfield - it needs more traffic to help to keep the weeds at bay.................

Edited November 27, 2008 by tillergirl

[mayalld]

Somewhere along the way mayalld you lost your sense of humour

 

Not at all.

 

Whether you were being serious or not, there are people who actually make these claims in all seriousness.

[tillergirl]

Not at all.

 

Whether you were being serious or not, there are people who actually make these claims in all seriousness.

 

As was I

 

Whatever we may or may nor like at the end of the day its not up to us BW will make the decision. True we live in the enlightened West where democtracy is supposed to be the watchword and we can spout all we want, petition all we want but in the end whatever the decision the only choice we have is to either pay up or not

 

Bit like the new roadtax system - we choose not to buy brand new cars (for our own reasons) therefore we've had to accept that we will pay more roadtax.

[stickleback]

." Now you have a stab at it, if the "continuous cruisers" who confine their continuous cruise to one or two pounds don't need a mooring, who does? this is the question I am still waiting for an answer to, but to answer it would blow away the smokescreen wouldn't it."

 

And there we have a very good point.

Edited November 27, 2008 by stickleback

[Rogerh]

." Now you have a stab at it, if the "continuous cruisers" who confine their continuous cruise to one or two pounds don't need a mooring, who does? this is the question I am still waiting for an answer to, but to answer it would blow away the smokescreen wouldn't it."

 

And there we have a very good point.

 

I personally do not consider those people to be CCing (or have I missed the point somewhere)

[Chris Pink]

So I ask again, who in your view is OBLIGED BY LAW to have a permanent mooring, not for whom is it convenient, or who might quite like it.

 

 

I am not sure what you are getting at but to treat your question literally as a starting point;

 

If you do not use your boat bona fide for navigation then you must have a place where said boat can be lawfully left.

[mayalld]

I am not sure what you are getting at but to treat your question literally as a starting point;

 

If you do not use your boat bona fide for navigation then you must have a place where said boat can be lawfully left.

 

Would you care to take a stab at defining "bona fide navigation" (given that you don't like BW's definition).

[Smelly]

It would be interesting to set a judge about "bona fide navigation" to see what he/she has to say. Does it have to be "around they system", " progressive" or anything other than not staying in one place I'd challenge a lot of people who would call our arsing about on the Worcester and Birmingham/North Stratford anything other than "bona fide navigation" as we do a hell of a lot more miles than a lot of people I know who call themselves boaters and all in the spirit of "navigation" well, and coal and diesel.

[carlt]

Would you care to take a stab at defining "bona fide navigation" (given that you don't like BW's definition).

Is a Cross Channel ferry, plodding the same 21 miles of water, day in, day out, practising "bona fide navigation"?

[grahoom]

from the Oxford Dictionary.

 

navigation

 

• noun 1 the process or activity of navigating. 2 the passage of ships.

 

— DERIVATIVES navigational adjective.

 

Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary

 

 

navigate

 

• verb 1 plan and direct the route or course of a ship, aircraft, or other form of transport. 2 sail or travel over. 3 guide (a vessel or vehicle) over a specified route.

 

— ORIGIN Latin navigare ‘to sail’.

 

if the 3rd definition of navigate is used, and the specified route is the entire system then would BW's interpretation be the correct one?

[Chris Pink]

Would you care to take a stab at defining "bona fide navigation" (given that you don't like BW's definition).

 

Well i quite like this one;

 

navigation, n. The action or practice of travelling on water in a ship or other vessel;

 

from the OED

 

although this...

 

b. A piece of seamanship. Obs. rare 1.

 

1817 J. MILL Hist. Brit. India II. IV. iii. 101 He returned..by a very able navigation against a contrary monsoon.

 

...appeals, gives a bit of scope for "nice bit o' navigation mate"

 

and this;

 

5. trans. To transport (goods) by water. Also intr., of goods: to be transported by water. Obs.

 

is the most relevent to inland waterways

 

now that wasn't too complicated, was it?

Edited November 27, 2008 by Chris Pink

[cotswoldsman]

Would you care to take a stab at defining "bona fide navigation" (given that you don't like BW's definition).

More interesting is to define "bona fide" in this contect.

 

The dictionary gives bona fide as "Made or carried out in good faith; sincere:"

[Sir Nibble]

Well i quite like this one;

 

navigation, n. The action or practice of travelling on water in a ship or other vessel;

 

from the OED

 

although this...

 

b. A piece of seamanship. Obs. rare 1.

 

1817 J. MILL Hist. Brit. India II. IV. iii. 101 He returned..by a very able navigation against a contrary monsoon.

 

...appeals, gives a bit of scope for "nice bit o' navigation mate"

 

and this;

 

5. trans. To transport (goods) by water. Also intr., of goods: to be transported by water. Obs.

 

is the most relevent to inland waterways

 

now that wasn't too complicated, was it?

Still my question remains unanswered. For the sake of argument I concede that people living in one or two pounds are indeed engaged in bona fide navigation. Now in that case, who under the law needs a mooring. I do not expect an answer because there is no answer that can be given that does not imply that either the continuous moorers are in breach of the law, know they are and the doubt allowed by an absence of case law is a fiction. Or that no one needs a mooring to comply with the law.

Answer the question: who DOES need a mooring, or accept that this is checkmate and your argument has fallen into dust.

[carlt]

Still my question remains unanswered. For the sake of argument I concede that people living in one or two pounds are indeed engaged in bona fide navigation. Now in that case, who under the law needs a mooring. I do not expect an answer because there is no answer that can be given that does not imply that either the continuous moorers are in breach of the law, know they are and the doubt allowed by an absence of case law is a fiction. Or that no one needs a mooring to comply with the law.

Answer the question: who DOES need a mooring, or accept that this is checkmate and your argument has fallen into dust.

Nobody, as far as the law is concerned, needs a mooring but there needs to be some flexibility on both sides.

 

I'm not sure if designated 24h,48h or 14 day moorings (and rubbish/water/ elsan points) are protected by law (can't be bothered to look it up) but if they're not they should be and that law should be effectively enforced by BW patrol officers, not snitch-lines.

 

I recall a long retired whitecap telling me "If I can't see 'em from a bridgehole, they're not there." which effectively meant "Stay out of popular spots, keep your head down and I'll approve your licence application.". This attitude, whilst probably not approved of by many, got some revenue in, kept visitor moorings free and licence discs in windows.

[gaggle]

Well alan has said he does NEED a mooring because he has to work for a living.

Given that bona fide navigation is now accepted as between two pounds , can he now come out of the marina and stop paying the imaginary extra money to bw.

He would be within the law and he would save some money , but would he leave the marina and forsake the extra,s it provided him with.

[Sir Nibble]

All of this is very pragmatic and demonstrated proper use of discretion. What I am challenging here is the bizarre idea that the large number of continuous moorers living a settled life in one pound are indeed engaged in bona fide navigation and BW are going beyond the law in challenging this.

The law states that you MUST have a permanent mooring unless engaged in bona fide navigation. That is what parliament have stated, and passed into law. The argument is that travelling a couple of miles once a week for fuel, pump out and water then returning to the same spot counts as bona fide navigation. whether this accurately reflects the intention of parliament when the law was passed has not yet been tested in case law and that percieved uncertainty is the smoke screen that some would hide behind. We could argue for ever whether that is the case so I have chosen to approach from a different direction and instead of arguing a definition of who doesn't need a mooring simply asking for a definition of who does.

No answer has been forthcoming and I therefore conclude that the boot being on the other foot the guidelines as published remain unchallenged BY REASONABLE ARGUMENT.

 

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.

[Chris Pink]

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

 

You do.

 

for a fuller answer see post #161

 

for a yet fuller answer see post #141

 

If you take me off your 'ignore' list you'll be able to see them.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Chris Pink

[mayalld]

You do.

 

for a fuller answer see post #161

 

for a yet fuller answer see post #141

 

If you take me off your 'ignore' list you'll be able to see them.

 

Your inability to answer the question is noted.

 

You accuse BW of misinterpreting the words, yet you seem incapable of providig your own interpretation.

 

Is this, just possibly, because your interpretation would mean that nobody actually has to have a mooring, and that such an interpretation clearly cannot have been Parliament's intention.

[gaggle]

.

 

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

Require ,want ,need ,must have . ? .

[Chris Pink]

Your inability to answer the question is noted.

 

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?

 

You accuse BW of misinterpreting the words, yet you seem incapable of providig your own interpretation.

 

Is this, just possibly, because your interpretation would mean that nobody actually has to have a mooring, and that such an interpretation clearly cannot have been Parliament's intention.

 

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'.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Chris Pink