CCing and BW's interpretation of the law

[spacecactus]

I have been reading this website,

 

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/

 

articles on it are suggesting that Britih Waterways guidance on CCing is not in line with the 1995 British Waterways Act.

 

Can I ask what peoples view of this is are?

[alan_fincher]

One of your previous threads started on "continuous cruising" a bit under a year ago ran for close on 200 posts, and ended up closed by the mods.

 

It seems you are ready to try again.

[carlt]

I'm not biting, I'm afraid.

[ymu]

I'll just nab the deckchairs and popcorn concession on this thread first ...

 

 

They're right - they don't match up exactly, but that's largely because the Act requires a lot of interpretation. For example, the way it is written, some claim that those with permanent moorings don't have to follow the same guidelines as CCers. This is clearly not intended by the Act and it's unworkable - people could pick up any one of the cheap unpopular moorings in the country and bridge hop with impunity where they actually want to live. I can't remember which bits the Act does cover and which not - but IIRC it defines a "place" as a village, hamlet, named area of a large town, or a spot in between distant "places, but not what is considered a substantial portion of the network or how soon it is permitted to return to the same "place". In London, the latter is usually "not within a year", in Oxford there are "not within 48 days" notices in places ...

 

If you mean what is considered OK, and what would stand up to legal challenge .... well, I'm gonna get rich from the deckchairs and popcorn.

[Lady Muck]

There are already pages and pages about it on here if you search. My view is that the guidelines are too vague, open to misinterpretation and they are not mentioned in law. BW relies on boaters goodwill and it doesn't work. Boaters might not move around as much as the 'guidelines' say they should but I have seen the boatcheckers out on bikes every week this summer.

 

I have also heard of 'persistent offenders' being refused a new license when they reapply. But we are talking those who never, ever move.

 

I'm very relieved I've got a mooring and very happy that I'm not a London ccer, to be honest, because it is very busy in London, explosion in liveaboards, was quite an eye opener to us, having come through town for the first time in over a year. Widebeams breasted up with widebeams, rows of boats on lock moorings, boats everywhere.

 

Cannot see the current situation staying as it is, but as to when/how/what will happen - who knows? I also heard about the hostility towards ccers from some boatyards - they're not welcome basically, even though BW says they can use the facilities there, the truth is they are told to p*ss off. As BW closes some of their facilities then they're between a rock and a hard place, where are they supposed to dispose of refuse/empty the bog?

 

When there were less boats it didn't matter if boaters moved or not. The amount of boats around us now doesn't bother me, but I'm not a visitor to London looking for a spot to moor.

 

Incidentally I saw my mooring warden last week and she told me that winter moorings will be moved away from the 'honeypot' sites in London. Our pound in Stonebridge will become winter moorings. I don't know where that leaves the cc'ers who don't want winter moorings?

 

ETA why don't you speak to some of these boaters and they will tell you about the grief/the tickets/the complaints that they get. I hear enough about it because plenty of my friends are towpath moorers.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Lady Muck

[spacecactus]

One of your previous threads started on "continuous cruising" a bit under a year ago ran for close on 200 posts, and ended up closed by the mods.

 

It seems you are ready to try again.

 

 

I will never foget the suprise at seeing how much feeling that post brought up, however I didnt realise it when onto this subject. Probally because I got bored reading after after about post 20. But then again it was a long time ago.

 

Either or I think it is a very important subject, which is worth discussion

[ymu]

I will never foget the suprise at seeing how much feeling that post brought up, however I didnt realise it when onto this subject. Probally because I got bored reading after after about post 20. But then again it was a long time ago.

 

Either or I think it is a very important subject, which is worth discussion

Then you really should read beyond post 20 of your original thread ...

[spacecactus]

If you mean what is considered OK, and what would stand up to legal challenge .... well, I'm gonna get rich from the deckchairs and popcorn.

 

 

Has anyone attempted to challege these matters in court??

 

Then you really should read beyond post 20 of your original thread ...

 

 

Well im going to now, having been advised that this old thread explores the issue.

[n.b.Goldie]

Settles down with popcorn and a bottle of good malt whisky.................................

 

IMHO CCing ain't the problem, the problem is CMing, in other words, moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat after moored boat 'till all my cylinders are glazed.

 

Round our way the online CM'ers are numerous, both those pretending to be CCers and legit online moorings, and if one actually moves we assume they have sold the boat.

 

Takes another slug and settles back down again.

[ymu]

Has anyone attempted to challege these matters in court??

Not that I'm aware of, but it'd probably lead to the same sort of legislation that is used against travellers on land, so please don't go trying it. The BW guidelines are perfectly reasonable. If you're getting tickets you're taking the piss or not letting them know when you have a valid reason not to move.

 

My work is based in Oxford, although I work from home a lot, which helps. That gives us a range within reasonable commuting distance from East Birmingham to West London to Keynsham (bit far but we have family there). That's easily three to four years of CCing without upsetting anyone at all.

 

Keep within the spirit of the law and noone will bother you. Take the piss, and you may run into problems.

[alan_fincher]

................to be honest, because it is very busy in London, explosion in liveaboards, was quite an eye opener to us, having come through town for the first time in over a year. Widebeams breasted up with widebeams, rows of boats on lock moorings, boats everywhere.

I refuse to get drawn in on the original post.

 

And I'm normally quite relaxed on this topic.

 

However in my view the 4 or so boats that had been left permanently moored on the only available lock landings for the Tottenham locks should be taken unconditionally to a crusher, and scrapped with great publicity, as a warning to others that it really is taking the piss one step too far.

 

Fine if you want to live on a boat, and hardly ever move, but don't make it bloody dangerous for those of us who actually want to go boating.

 

Selfish bastards - I don't care what your excuse is. There are literally hundreds of other places to moor nearby. Maybe not quite as convenient to your "couldn't give a toss about anybody else" needs, but what you are doing really is extracting the urine.

[Lady Muck]

I refuse to get drawn in on the original post.

 

And I'm normally quite relaxed on this topic.

 

However in my view the 4 or so boats that had been left permanently moored on the only available lock landings for the Tottenham locks should be taken unconditionally to a crusher, and scrapped with great publicity, as a warning to others that it really is taking the piss one step too far.

 

I'm with you on this Alan.

 

If you are reading this , to the four selfish boaters, the world does not revolve around you. Did you know that someone drowned there a year or two ago? With a six foot drop from bankside to water, (iron pilings, concrete, barely any ladders and raw sewage to boot), if you fall in there, it is nigh on impossible to get out.

 

By mooring on those particular lock moorings, you may be putting others lives at risk, especially those not so nimble as you.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Lady Muck

[Tim]

I refuse to get drawn in on the original post.

 

And I'm normally quite relaxed on this topic.

 

However in my view the 4 or so boats that had been left permanently moored on the only available lock landings for the Tottenham locks should be taken unconditionally to a crusher, and scrapped with great publicity, as a warning to others that it really is taking the piss one step too far.

 

Fine if you want to live on a boat, and hardly ever move, but don't make it bloody dangerous for those of us who actually want to go boating.

 

Selfish bastards - I don't care what your excuse is. There are literally hundreds of other places to moor nearby. Maybe not quite as convenient to your "couldn't give a toss about anybody else" needs, but what you are doing really is extracting the urine.

 

Me too, moor as long as you like where it doesn't get in the way of boats who actually want to cruise the system. Another vote here for the boat crusher.

[MrCJ]

why dont BW take them away they could sell them and put the money to some good use instead of the boats being a danger were they are.

 

I am sure if they did start removing boats from moorings that they shouldnt be at others would take notice and move their boats unless they ok with loosing their boat.

[Lady Muck]

why dont BW take them away they could sell them and put the money to some good use instead of the boats being a danger were they are.

 

I am sure if they did start removing boats from moorings that they shouldnt be at others would take notice and move their boats unless they ok with loosing their boat.

 

 

I guess it's the old 'lack of funds' argument. I do wish that BW would take more direct action against boats that make things dangerous for other boaters. They have been there about a month, I reckon, they were probably ticketed last Monday when eveyone else was, but they were still there when we left the 'Nam on Wednesday (a week after Alan went past them).

 

When we went up to Hertford in May with mum, there was another dangerously moored boat, a wooden cabin cruiser, taking up the entire lock mooring at Lock 1. As it's a high bankside, with a really evil bit of twisted piling and some subsidence at the end of the lock mooring, it wasn't easy to get off. Selfish boat did not have gunwhales, so you couldn't hop on via that either. I managed but only because we have a tug deck (I perfomed a death leap off the bowlocker), but the boat behind us did not, they became stuck accross the navigation, it was impossible to drop someone off the rear of the boat onto the teeny space the selfish boater had left.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Lady Muck

[ymu]

I would think there are grounds for other boaters to take direct action in circumstances like that, providing the boat(s) can be safely bow/stern-hauled to a suitable spot. Or, preferably, towed by boat to an unsuitable spot.

[PhilR]

I don't think this problem will be addressed until BW bite the bullet and accept that they are a navigation authority and not ............. (you know what I mean)....

[Smelly]

Has anyone attempted to challege these matters in court?

 

not yet but I've a feeling the interpretations will be academic for a while yet; the process itself is not Europe friendly...

 

Not that I'm aware of, but it'd probably lead to the same sort of legislation that is used against travellers on land, so please don't go trying it.

 

I doubt that; unless ccers create the kind of press that we travellers/ravers/tree dwellers did during the 90s why waste parliamentary time on them?

 

Also where any judicial dispute is confined to a court that holds no precedent it's a bit complex.

 

Re the London debacle. It tickled me that the blue meanies are waving around a decision utilising (I think) S19 BWA 95, ie obstructions, to support their policing the moorings strategy, yet fail to actually act under said statutory authority to move those boats from Tottenham lock. Has anyone instigated the complaint procedure?

[Chris Pink]

I guess it's the old 'lack of funds' argument. I do wish that BW would take more direct action against boats that make things dangerous for other boaters. They have been there about a month, I reckon, they were probably ticketed last Monday when eveyone else was, but they were still there when we left the 'Nam on Wednesday (a week after Alan went past them).

 

When we went up to Hertford in May with mum, there was another dangerously moored boat, a wooden cabin cruiser, taking up the entire lock mooring at Lock 1. As it's a high bankside, with a really evil bit of twisted piling and some subsidence at the end of the lock mooring, it wasn't easy to get off. Selfish boat did not have gunwhales, so you couldn't hop on via that either. I managed but only because we have a tug deck (I perfomed a death leap off the bowlocker), but the boat behind us did not, they became stuck accross the navigation, it was impossible to drop someone off the rear of the boat onto the teeny space the selfish boater had left.

 

With this and the obstruction of the Tottenham lock mooring, BW have powers which allow them to immediately remove any boat that is causing an obstruction. Whereas I can understand your feelings towards the boats involved, it is really down to BW to deal with this situation.

 

Has anyone spoken to BW about this, or this is another case of having a good moan is preferable to doing something?

 

...and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the original post. I object to the conflation of the two.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Chris Pink

[koukouvagia]

Boaters might not move around as much as the 'guidelines' say they should but I have seen the boatcheckers out on bikes every week this summer.

 

Boatcheckers are only concerned with licence-dodgers. They have absolutely no interest in moving on overstayers.

[David Schweizer]

I am not going to get involved in another debate between the rights of boaters who register as Contuiinuos Cruisers and those who register a Permanent Mooring. However, having read the various Waterways Acts and the the guidelines applied by BW to the requirements of those Acts, I am little doubt as to what requirements the original authors intended to apply, even thought the 1995 Act is unclear and open to interpretation.

 

The problem is that the Acts are written (as are many Acts) in a way that requires the Courts to apply a ruling and, as far as I am aware, no such case has been brought before the Courts, so please take the matter to Court Spacecactus, you will be doing us all a favour by bringing this old chestnut to rest.

 

Given that the status of BW is likely to change in the near future, with the operation of the Inland Waterways being transferred into the Third Sector, new legislation will be required and the matter clarified in order that the new Agencies can manage their resonsibilities effectively, .

 

One thing we can be sure of with this new Coalition Government is that they will not give much credence to mass lobbying from those who oppose clarification (as was the case with the 1995 Act) if it stands in the way of what they want to achieve , and they will almost undoubtably pursue the arguement put forward by BW.

 

Interesting times are ahead of us.

Edited August 9, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Lady Muck]

With this and the obstruction of the Tottenham lock mooring, BW have powers which allow them to immediately remove any boat that is causing an obstruction. Whereas I can understand your feelings towards the boats involved, it is really down to BW to deal with this situation.

 

Has anyone spoken to BW about this, or this is another case of having a good moan is preferable to doing something?

 

...and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the original post. I object to the conflation of the two.

 

Yep, bit of a derail there - we spoke to our warden directly about these boats last week, but you are correct, it needs a phonecall to BW London <gets on phone>.

[Derek R.]

I disagree with David I'm afraid. Sleeping dogs are best left to lay. There are available actions that can be taken by BW, but for whatever reason, they choose not to. Were a court to decide a more definitive action, then many more of us may find ourselves prone to new legislations that affect not only our cruising behaviours, but our moorings also.

 

This coalition government is a two headed dog fit for nothing save biting itself, and proceeding in the same way as all that has gone before. But let's leave party politics out of the canal system.

 

Derek

[n.b.Goldie]

There is a big local debate going on in our neck of the woods over a new 'Travellers' site being proposed at Simpson. Understandably the locals are upset about it, most of them are not as understanding as our good friend Carlt might be.

 

Our council is telling us that they have a statutory duty to provide sites for travellers and the local population must put up with it for the good of the community as a whole. So, the thought occurs to me that not all travellers are on the road, some are on the water and surely the same law must apply to them. This being the case the local authority is surely bound to provide facilities for CCers. Perhaps they could fund some offline CCer only marinas with suitable facilities. After all in Milton Keynes the 'land travellers' sites provide individual shower/toilet blocks with an individual kitchen in a brick-built 'hut' complete with washing machine.

 

Water based travellers are being discriminated against - shall we start a campaign on their behalf??

 

Ditchdabbler

[carlt]

There is a big local debate going on in our neck of the woods over a new 'Travellers' site being proposed at Simpson. Understandably the locals are upset about it, most of them are not as understanding as our good friend Carlt might be.

 

Our council is telling us that they have a statutory duty to provide sites for travellers and the local population must put up with it for the good of the community as a whole. So, the thought occurs to me that not all travellers are on the road, some are on the water and surely the same law must apply to them. This being the case the local authority is surely bound to provide facilities for CCers. Perhaps they could fund some offline CCer only marinas with suitable facilities. After all in Milton Keynes the 'land travellers' sites provide individual shower/toilet blocks with an individual kitchen in a brick-built 'hut' complete with washing machine.

 

Water based travellers are being discriminated against - shall we start a campaign on their behalf??

 

Ditchdabbler

Sorry but why bring me into it?

 

There are good and bad travellers and I have no more or less sympathy with them than any other sector of society.

 

I can point you to more than one parish, near to me, though, that have positively welcomed travellers, in the past and their contribution to the local economy.

 

I have a letter from a Parish Council Chairman that applauds their local traveller community saying that they are genuinely helpful, around the village, and their contributions led to record takings, at the village fete and the local shop had never been busier.

 

Also, if you moor at Barby, and take a walk to the village, down Elkington Lane, you will pass a bench, paid for jointly, by the travellers and villagers, dedicated to a traveller who tragically died, when his trailer caught fire.

 

Not everybody is unwelcoming.

Edited August 9, 2010 by carlt