Jump to content

CCing and BW's interpretation of the law


spacecactus

Featured Posts

Some people, especially on this forum just love pointing the finger... I’m on about 5 other forums and ive never seen anything like it other than on canal world.

Some people need to chill, or stop polishing their brass knobs and peering through the net curtains. Aint this suppose to be a community not waring factions.

 

I work in the criminal justice system and have a strong interest in the way legislation is applied.

 

Poorly written laws can lead to the arbitrary implementation by those in authority; from what I have read this seems to be the case with CCing and BW.

 

An unclear situation in my view only gives those who want to take the piss, the ammunition to do so. It further does not provide those that want to stick to the rules the protection and clarity they deserve.

 

Well I am pleased to announce that I do not have net curtains and in the time I have owned my boat never polished the brasses.

I do not seek protection or clarity. I also have no problem with those that want to interpret the law as they see fit. I was merely pointing out that as a CCer I have never found the need to check the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thats always encouraging...

What does that mean?

 

We are people with completely different backgrounds, political affiliations, religious beliefs, ethical and moral standards and geographical locations with a vaguely common interest in inland waterways.

 

That common interest is divided into factions who liveaboard, travel the system, stay in one place, don't own boats, hire, walk, cycle or fish the waterways, often getting in the way of another sector of this broad spectrum of an interest.

 

Where on Earth does community come into it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's behind you!

 

who is, not another cc er with a cassette toilet moored in a lock on the wrong side of the bank with no signal on his dongle and all because of BW

 

oh no he isnt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are people with completely different backgrounds, political affiliations, religious beliefs, ethical and moral standards and geographical locations with a vaguely common interest in inland waterways.

 

That common interest is divided into factions who liveaboard, travel the system, stay in one place, don't own boats, hire, walk, cycle or fish the waterways, often getting in the way of another sector of this broad spectrum of an interest.

 

 

Any community is made up of different backgrounds, political affiliations, religious beliefs, ethical and moral standards and geographical locations...

 

The gay commuity, the muslim community, the whatever commuity.

 

The point is, is that they are a group of people with a common interest which unites them, rather than divides them.

 

Maybe think more about unity and less about divisions and diffrence.

 

If this isint an online community, what is it? A bunch a misriable old gits arguing the toss I suppose?

 

 

 

Top of the page, on the right. :lol:

 

 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the word 'virtual' defines such a community - basically one that isn't.

 

We certainly have waterways as a common interest, but as is so often the case in discourse and discussion, that is where it stops.

One of the side effects of such internet forums is the addiction to reading, and commenting, often with no constructive effect or intent. For some this is a release from boredom, for others to feel noticed. I would challenge anyone to switch off for a few weeks and adopt real life as an alternative, that way a real community may be found.

 

Am I as addicted as anyone else? Let's try it - I'll log off and say cheerio - indefinitely. A PM may reach me, but I doubt any will arrive.

 

Derek

Edited by Derek R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bunch a misriable old gits arguing the toss I suppose?

Exactly.

 

I would challenge anyone to switch off for a few weeks and adopt real life as an alternative, that way a real community may be found.

You assume that the rest of us don't have a real life, as well as frequenting an internet forum.

 

It's an internet website, Derek, don't let it rule your life. :lol:

 

Top of the page, on the right. :lol:

Like Derek says "virtual", not real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people, especially on this forum just love pointing the finger... I’m on about 5 other forums and ive never seen anything like it other than on canal world.

Some people need to chill, or stop polishing their brass knobs and peering through the net curtains. Aint this suppose to be a community not waring factions.

 

I work in the criminal justice system and have a strong interest in the way legislation is applied.

 

Poorly written laws can lead to the arbitrary implementation by those in authority; from what I have read this seems to be the case with CCing and BW.

 

An unclear situation in my view only gives those who want to take the piss, the ammunition to do so. It further does not provide those that want to stick to the rules the protection and clarity they deserve.

 

Ah, the old "but we are all boaters, and we should all stand together" argument.

 

An interesting gambit, but ultimately, flawed.

 

It fails to recognise that boaters are a very varied bunch, and that in many cases, the differences between two boaters will be far greater than the single common bond (boating) that exists.

 

There are two features of this call to brotherhood that I note;

  1. It invariably comes with an assumption that whoever we are all supposed to be standing together in opposition to exists for the sole purpose of doing bad things to us all. Even the trades unions have moved away from that mindset!
  2. It is taken as given that even if a rule is actually beneficial to most boaters, we should all stand against it in solidarity with the tiny number that don't like it. Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind!

 

Put simply, BW may well be badly flawed, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything tehy do is to the detriment of all boaters. In the CC guidelines, we have something that tries to ensure that the majority of boaters who aren't CCers don't find that all the best public moorings are permanently hogged by CCers. Why would I object to such a rule? It is beneficial to me (and to most boaters) that such a rule exists. I even note a CCer not having a problem with it.

 

So, yes, perhaps we should all stand together, and we should all get behind the CC guidelines. Those who don't are the ones that are dividing the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the old "but we are all boaters, and we should all stand together" argument.

 

An interesting gambit, but ultimately, flawed.

 

It fails to recognise that boaters are a very varied bunch, and that in many cases, the differences between two boaters will be far greater than the single common bond (boating) that exists.

 

There are two features of this call to brotherhood that I note;

  1. It invariably comes with an assumption that whoever we are all supposed to be standing together in opposition to exists for the sole purpose of doing bad things to us all. Even the trades unions have moved away from that mindset!
  2. It is taken as given that even if a rule is actually beneficial to most boaters, we should all stand against it in solidarity with the tiny number that don't like it. Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind!

 

Put simply, BW may well be badly flawed, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything tehy do is to the detriment of all boaters. In the CC guidelines, we have something that tries to ensure that the majority of boaters who aren't CCers don't find that all the best public moorings are permanently hogged by CCers. Why would I object to such a rule? It is beneficial to me (and to most boaters) that such a rule exists. I even note a CCer not having a problem with it.

 

So, yes, perhaps we should all stand together, and we should all get behind the CC guidelines. Those who don't are the ones that are dividing the community.

But they are possibly keeping to the letter of the law and thus should be supported by the rest of us.

Sue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they are possibly keeping to the letter of the law and thus should be supported by the rest of us.

Sue

 

The letter of the law is that they must "satisfy the board".

 

If BW are not satisfied that they are engaged in "bona-fide navigation", then they are NOT keeping to the letter of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter of the law is that they must "satisfy the board".

 

"Satisfy the board" that they are complying with the terms of the act,

 

From BW guidelines:

 

"Navigation"

 

The law requires that the boat "will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]". 'Bona fide' is Latin for "with good faith" and is used by lawyers to mean 'sincerely' or 'genuinely'. 'Navigation' in this context means travelling on water i.e. making a journey[3]. A "cruise" is a journey or series of journeys "making for no particular place or calling at a series of places".[4]

 

Therefore, subject to stops of permitted duration, those using a boat licensed for continuous cruising must genuinely be engaged on a journey or series of journeys. Such journey or cruise must take place "throughout the period of [the licence]" and therefore requires progression around the network, or at least a significant part of it.

 

Thus short trips within the same area, "bridge hopping" and shuttling backwards and forwards along a smaller part of the network does NOT meet the legal requirement for continuous cruising. The law requires a genuine progressive journey (a cruise) around the network or significant part of it.

 

The law does not require this at all. "A "cruise" is a journey or series of journeys". It may well be but where does the Act mention "cruise"? It says, quite clearly that:

 

the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used 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.

 

BW themselves say that, "'Navigation' in this context means travelling on water i.e. making a journey". If I set off on a boat from Braunston and boated to Birmingham and turned around and went back, and repeated this 'journey' for the duration of my license without stopping in one place more than 14 days, I would be complying with the the terms of the Act, but not with BW's continuous cruising guidelines. That is why those guidelines do not accord with the legal requirement.

 

There is no requirement within the act to be engaged in a progressive journey around the system and, consequently, there can be no requirement within the act to satisfy the board that you are doing so.

Edited by Natalie Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BW never state what they mean by a significant part of the network, but it is negatively defined by the next section on bridge-hopping, which it is designed to prevent. Assuming that "significant part of the network" and "bridge-hopping" are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive descriptions of cruising activity, then anything which cannot reasonably be described as bridge-hopping is legitimate.

 

Birmingham to Braunston, a distance of 40 miles is quite reasonable, IMO. There's at least a dozen legitimate stops, so it'd take a nearly a year to get there and back longer with winter moorings - and is probably the sort of distance a moorer would venture on the average week's trip out on the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Satisfy the board" that they are complying with the terms of the act,

 

BW themselves say that, "'Navigation' in this context means travelling on water i.e. making a journey". If I set off on a boat from Braunston and boated to Birmingham and turned around and went back, and repeated this 'journey' for the duration of my license without stopping in one place more than 14 days, I would be complying with the the terms of the Act, but not with BW's continuous cruising guidelines. That is why those guidelines do not accord with the legal requirement.

 

There is no requirement within the act to be engaged in a progressive journey around the system and, consequently, there can be no requirement within the act to satisfy the board that you are doing so.

 

Like many people who don't want BW to be right on this point, you fail to see the point.

 

The key thing in the act is that you must satisfy the board that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

In any case where there is a difference of opinion as to whether what a boater is doing is bona fide navigation for the purposes of the act, the wording of the act is crystal clear that the board must be satisfied. It is explicit that it is for the board to make that judgement.

 

If the boater disagrees, and believes that the board are setting down unreasonable requirements to be satisfied, they can, once they have been refused a licence (or had a licence withdrawn) take the board to court and ask a court to rule that BW are acting beyond their powers.

 

In contemplating this, you should bear in mind that BW have taken counsels advice, and their baristers advice is that the guidelines would be upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many people who don't want BW to be right on this point, you fail to see the point.

 

The key thing in the act is that you must satisfy the board that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

In any case where there is a difference of opinion as to whether what a boater is doing is bona fide navigation for the purposes of the act, the wording of the act is crystal clear that the board must be satisfied. It is explicit that it is for the board to make that judgement.

 

If the boater disagrees, and believes that the board are setting down unreasonable requirements to be satisfied, they can, once they have been refused a licence (or had a licence withdrawn) take the board to court and ask a court to rule that BW are acting beyond their powers.

 

In contemplating this, you should bear in mind that BW have taken counsels advice, and their baristers advice is that the guidelines would be upheld.

 

Like most laws and regulation, interpretation is always going to be a problem. Now I consider myself a CCer but I am sure some boaters might think I am not and I am sure some boaters who have seen me moving up and down The Gloucester and Sharpness Canal for the last 7 weeks might also think I am not a CCer. I like to spend the summer on a different canal every year. Now last year I spent 4 months on The Lancaster Canal I think I am right in saying that The Lancaster is only 45 miles so in 4 months I covered 90 miles that is an average of about 5.5 miles a week. In April I moved off the L & L and took 3 months to move down to The G & S by the time I move down The Bristol Channel to The Kennet and Avon in September I will have been cruising 15 miles of Canal for 3 months guess that is an average of 2.5 miles a week. So guess I am a CCer and Bridge Hopper but in my opinion I am a CCer. Having said all that I very rarely moor on official moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many people who don't want BW to be right on this point, you fail to see the point.

 

The key thing in the act is that you must satisfy the board that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

In any case where there is a difference of opinion as to whether what a boater is doing is bona fide navigation for the purposes of the act, the wording of the act is crystal clear that the board must be satisfied. It is explicit that it is for the board to make that judgement.

 

If the boater disagrees, and believes that the board are setting down unreasonable requirements to be satisfied, they can, once they have been refused a licence (or had a licence withdrawn) take the board to court and ask a court to rule that BW are acting beyond their powers.

 

In contemplating this, you should bear in mind that BW have taken counsels advice, and their baristers advice is that the guidelines would be upheld.

 

You must satisfy the board that you are complying with the terms of the act. Nothing in the act the act authorises the board to invent its own requirements. That is also, apparently, the view of BW as they say that their guidelines have no force of law. If they were entitled by the act to set out their own regulations on this matter they would say so, would they not? IF BW believed, as you do, that they have the power to set down legally binding requirements of what constitutes bona fide navigation, then they would undoubtedly do so and make it clear in their regulations that these carried the force of law. BW has taken legal advice that their interpretation could be defended in a court of law. As I said earlier, it is my impression that they have stretched the interpretation as far in their own favour as they are advised they can go without clearly inviting a legal challenge. Theirs is one view which legal opinion says could be defended in court. That doesn't mean it is the only one, or the strongest one.

 

There is nothing in the act that requires a progressive journey around the system and nothing in the act which empowers BW to require it.

 

Cotswoldman's post is a good example. He is complying with the act but not, apparently, with BW's guidelines.

 

I don't see why you consider the phrase "satisfy the board" to be the key part of the act. It might be the key to the line you are trying to argue but it isn't key to the interpretation of the act. The act is talking about the provisions to obtain a licence in advance of the period it will be used so that is why the term is used. When you apply for the licence you must either have a mooring or satisfy them you will be using your boat in such a way that you don't need one. Actually there is no requirement to move the boat at all once you have the licence, only to satisfy the board at the time you apply that you will do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is no requirement to move the boat at all once you have the licence, only to satisfy the board at the time you apply that you will do so.

But if you got your license and then subsequently did not move your boat surely that would give BW justification to refuse your license renewal a year later because they would have reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that you will meet the requirements in the future, would it not?

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you got your license and then subsequently did not move your boat surely that would give BW justification to refuse your license renewal a year later because they would have reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that you will meet the requirements in the future, would it not?

 

Tony

 

Quite probably so. But perhaps if you really, really, promised that this time you would move it, and that you really do mean it this time, they might be persuaded.

 

Or they might not. :lol:

 

But the point is that the act cannot require you to show that you are engaged in bona fide navigation as you don't have the licence at the point to which it refers, or that you intend to do this as there is no measure of your intentions. The term "satisfy the board" merely refers to the process of acquiring the licence and does not grant BW the power to set its own requirements as to what consitutes 'bona fide navigation'. If they had that power, there would be no need for the Act in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point is that the act cannot require you to show that you are engaged in bona fide navigation as you don't have the licence at the point to which it refers, or that you intend to do this as there is no measure of your intentions. The term "satisfy the board" merely refers to the process of acquiring the licence and does not grant BW the power to set its own requirements as to what consitutes 'bona fide navigation'. If they had that power, there would be no need for the Act in the first place.

 

 

You took the words out of my mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like most laws and regulation, interpretation is always going to be a problem. Now I consider myself a CCer but I am sure some boaters might think I am not and I am sure some boaters who have seen me moving up and down The Gloucester and Sharpness Canal for the last 7 weeks might also think I am not a CCer. I like to spend the summer on a different canal every year. Now last year I spent 4 months on The Lancaster Canal I think I am right in saying that The Lancaster is only 45 miles so in 4 months I covered 90 miles that is an average of about 5.5 miles a week. In April I moved off the L & L and took 3 months to move down to The G & S by the time I move down The Bristol Channel to The Kennet and Avon in September I will have been cruising 15 miles of Canal for 3 months guess that is an average of 2.5 miles a week. So guess I am a CCer and Bridge Hopper but in my opinion I am a CCer. Having said all that I very rarely moor on official moorings.

 

I think though that the fact you started the year on the Lancaster and will finish it on the K and A would overcome most objections. There are a few people who start the year at Bathampton, Finish it at Bathampton and in the meantime have been to Bath and Limpley Stoke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must satisfy the board that you are complying with the terms of the act. Nothing in the act the act authorises the board to invent its own requirements. That is also, apparently, the view of BW as they say that their guidelines have no force of law. If they were entitled by the act to set out their own regulations on this matter they would say so, would they not? IF BW believed, as you do, that they have the power to set down legally binding requirements of what constitutes bona fide navigation, then they would undoubtedly do so and make it clear in their regulations that these carried the force of law. BW has taken legal advice that their interpretation could be defended in a court of law. As I said earlier, it is my impression that they have stretched the interpretation as far in their own favour as they are advised they can go without clearly inviting a legal challenge. Theirs is one view which legal opinion says could be defended in court. That doesn't mean it is the only one, or the strongest one.

 

There is nothing in the act that requires a progressive journey around the system and nothing in the act which empowers BW to require it.

 

Cotswoldman's post is a good example. He is complying with the act but not, apparently, with BW's guidelines.

 

I don't see why you consider the phrase "satisfy the board" to be the key part of the act. It might be the key to the line you are trying to argue but it isn't key to the interpretation of the act. The act is talking about the provisions to obtain a licence in advance of the period it will be used so that is why the term is used. When you apply for the licence you must either have a mooring or satisfy them you will be using your boat in such a way that you don't need one. Actually there is no requirement to move the boat at all once you have the licence, only to satisfy the board at the time you apply that you will do so.

 

Excellent post, a fair minded and legally accurate precis of the situation as it stands. Dave you really should give up on your continued assersion that BW can do whatever they want... Its a very silly posture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must satisfy the board that you are complying with the terms of the act. Nothing in the act the act authorises the board to invent its own requirements. That is also, apparently, the view of BW as they say that their guidelines have no force of law. If they were entitled by the act to set out their own regulations on this matter they would say so, would they not? IF BW believed, as you do, that they have the power to set down legally binding requirements of what constitutes bona fide navigation, then they would undoubtedly do so and make it clear in their regulations that these carried the force of law. BW has taken legal advice that their interpretation could be defended in a court of law. As I said earlier, it is my impression that they have stretched the interpretation as far in their own favour as they are advised they can go without clearly inviting a legal challenge. Theirs is one view which legal opinion says could be defended in court. That doesn't mean it is the only one, or the strongest one.

 

I wouldn't argue that it is the only interpretation of the rules, nor that it would necessarily be upheld by a court, nor that anything in the act authorises them to invent requirements (although they do have other powers that are more wide ranging).

 

However, I do argue that the act makes BW arbiter, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, of whether a boater is complying with the act. It is, of course, open for a court to rule that they have got it wrong, but it would require a court to do so. It is not open to the individual boater to simply say "your rules have no force, and I say I comply, so issue me with a licence"

 

There is nothing in the act that requires a progressive journey around the system and nothing in the act which empowers BW to require it.

 

Cotswoldman's post is a good example. He is complying with the act but not, apparently, with BW's guidelines.

 

I don't see why you consider the phrase "satisfy the board" to be the key part of the act. It might be the key to the line you are trying to argue but it isn't key to the interpretation of the act.

 

It is key, not to interpretation, but to the process that is to be followed, in terms of challenging a decision by BW to refuse or withdraw a licence.

 

Cotswoldman, I would agree, mostly complies with what the act requires. I would also agree that his cruising pattern may fall foul of the guidelines.

 

Perhaps there is a need for a change of emphasis in the guidelines, which should probably say that complying with these guidelines WILL mean that the board is satisfied, but that certain cruising patterns not meeting with the guidelines MAY also satisfy the board.

 

The act is talking about the provisions to obtain a licence in advance of the period it will be used so that is why the term is used. When you apply for the licence you must either have a mooring or satisfy them you will be using your boat in such a way that you don't need one. Actually there is no requirement to move the boat at all once you have the licence, only to satisfy the board at the time you apply that you will do so.

 

Actually, you are completely wrong on that point.

 

s 17(4) and 17(5) BW Act 1995 provide that if a boater isn't actually engaged in bona fide navigation, after declaring that he was going to, BW can withdraw his licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.