CCing and BW's interpretation of the law

[Chris Pink]

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.

 

Once again you selectively quote in order to bolster your specious arguments rather than trying to arrive at a greater understanding. Natalie's analysis is one of the best readings of the Act I have seen and you are clutching at straws to try and drag it down.

 

As you are no doubt aware Section 17 (4) actually says;

 

"the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days). " which is a wholly different from "BW can withdraw his licence.".

[carlt]

"the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days). " which is a wholly different from "BW can withdraw his licence.".

Thereby increasing the length of time, one may stay in one place, to 42 days??

[Smelly]

Isn't it bona fide FOR navigation?

 

The draftsman's whim that one simply needs to "navigate" and not stay in one place?

 

One!

 

Two maybe?

 

I really thought that this discussion has taken a new course with the Tottenham angle but I was mistaken.

 

I'm going to start a "slow down" thread now as i've not seen one of those this year

[carlt]

Isn't it bona fide FOR navigation?

Problem is "navigation" is such different things to different folk.

 

A cross-channel ferry captain, plying the same 21 miles, several times a day has a totally different interpretation than, say, Ellen MacArthur.

 

Like wise the owner of a small yacht, never venturing beyond his home estuary, yet carefully plotting his journeys, on charts, may well see the ccer (genuine) as not doing a scrap of real "navigation".

 

Is the marina dweller, who travels no further than a few miles from his base, except for an extended holiday or two, each year any more, or less, of a "navigator" than the "bridge hopper" who moves once a fortnight, but not "throughout the system"?

 

BW's interpretation of "navigation" is actually fulfilled by so few boaters as to be total nonsense.

[Smelly]

Problem is "navigation" is such different things to different folk.

 

A cross-channel ferry captain, plying the same 21 miles, several times a day has a totally different interpretation than, say, Ellen MacArthur.

 

Like wise the owner of a small yacht, never venturing beyond his home estuary, yet carefully plotting his journeys, on charts, may well see the ccer (genuine) as not doing a scrap of real "navigation".

 

Is the marina dweller, who travels no further than a few miles from his base, except for an extended holiday or two, each year any more, or less, of a "navigator" than the "bridge hopper" who moves once a fortnight, but not "throughout the system"?

 

BW's interpretation of "navigation" is actually fulfilled by so few boaters as to be total nonsense.

 

True, but the two being discrete; bona fide & navigation, arguably removes the fetter as to the extent of said navigation.

 

A lot of weight is imparted upon the "bona fideness" of the navigation whereas on a proper reading the navigation is undefined and thus unfettered...

 

Edit, other than by law whereby one must move every 14 days.

 

Mi Lud

Edited August 12, 2010 by Smelly

[Chris Pink]

Thereby increasing the length of time, one may stay in one place, to 42 days??

 

I have known someone to argue this (in all seriousness).

 

 

The reality is that if BW stuck to enforcing the 1995 Act in it's letter rather than in their hyperbolic interpretation they would actually achieve what they and almost all boaters want - and retain some credibility to boot.

[cotswoldsman]

Edit, other than by law whereby one must move every 14 days.

 

Mi Lud

 

How far?

[mayalld]

Once again you selectively quote in order to bolster your specious arguments rather than trying to arrive at a greater understanding. Natalie's analysis is one of the best readings of the Act I have seen and you are clutching at straws to try and drag it down.

 

As you are no doubt aware Section 17 (4) actually says;

 

"the Board may give notice requiring the holder of the relevant consent to remedy the default within such time as may be reasonable (not being less than 28 days). " which is a wholly different from "BW can withdraw his licence.".

 

No, I am not selectively quoting.

 

I am making an attempt at brevity.

 

Natalie stated that once you had a licence, there was nothing they can do if you ignore the rules.

 

Simply pointing out that there is a process for withdrawing your licence if you fail to comply.

 

Oh, and in answer to other points, I suppose that somebody could use those rules to habitually stay in one place for 42 days. However, I would suggest that if somebody actually did that, BW would be justified in refusing a licence, as they were not satisfied that the applicant intended to engage in bona fide navigation, on the evidence of his past failure to do so.

[Gibbo]

Only bridge hoppers object to the CCing guidelines and try to interpret them to mean something other than that intended.

 

Genuine CCers have nothing to fear.

[carlt]

Only bridge hoppers object to the CCing guidelines and try to interpret them to mean something other than that intended.

Having never "bridge hopped", disagree. When I was a "ccer" I covered virtually the whole of the navigable system, moving at least once a fortnight.

 

Then again, BW's CCing guidelines are merely their (flawed) interpretion of a piece of legislation, which I have never tried to interpret...so maybe you are right.

Edited August 13, 2010 by carlt

[Smelly]

How far?

 

Therein lies the problem as it doesn't give a benchmark distance.

 

An amending order to include a distance, with an exceptional.circumstances clause would stop this.debate dead in it's tracks.

[ymu]

How far?

According to the BW guidelines, there is no set distance - just a requirement that it is a new "place".

 

The law requires that stops during such a journey should not be “in any one place for more than 14

days”. “Place” in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site

or position5

.

Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The

necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual

steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood X, by day 15 it

must be in neighbourhood Y. Thereafter, the next movement must normally be to neighbourhood Z,

and not back to neighbourhood X (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the end of a terminal

waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine progressive journey).

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village or

hamlet will be a neighbourhood and on a urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city will

be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made.

It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely

populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they

may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually

be a locality or ‘place’). Exact precision is not required or expected – what is required is that the boat

is used for a genuine progressive journey (i.e. a cruise).

 

http://www.waterscape.com/media/documents/1862.pdf

 

So, around the Oxford way, you can use a series of restricted 48 hour/7 day moorings in town for up to 14 days - technically 28 days as you go through Jericho and Summertown but there aren't enougn mooring spots available to spend much more than 2 weeks there thanks to Agenda 21. Then there's Duke's Lock (Wolvercote), Kidlington, Thrupp, Shipton, Emslow, Kirtlington, Heyford... That's 8-9 legitimate places for up to 4 months perfectly legitimate CCing, all within a distance of 12 miles of the starting point.

Edited August 13, 2010 by ymu

[cotswoldsman]

Only bridge hoppers object to the CCing guidelines and try to interpret them to mean something other than that intended.

 

Genuine CCers have nothing to fear.

 

I never understand the problem with bridge hoppers.

I think the point of this thread is that no one can define a genuine CCer

[mayalld]

I never understand the problem with bridge hoppers.

 

The problem is that bridge hoppers tend to congregate in honeypot locations, to the extent that the use of their favoured locations becomes all but impossible for leisure users.

[carlt]

The problem is that bridge hoppers tend to congregate in honeypot locations, to the extent that the use of their favoured locations becomes all but impossible for leisure users.

I don't think this is true, everywhere.

 

Certainly around Northants/Warks, the "bridgehoppers" don't tend to stay on short term visitor moorings but move around the more remote bridge holes.

 

I can't think of anyone who hangs around the centre of Braunston, for example, preferring to moor up at Wolfhampcote, on the way to Willoughby or, when it's not flooded, in the tunnel cutting.

 

The overstayers in Braunston itself tend to be non-liveaboards who leave their boats in "safe" places, until their next holiday jaunt.

[Denis R]

Certainly around Northants/Warks, the "bridgehoppers" don't tend to stay on short term visitor moorings but move around the more remote bridge holes.

...and irritate the locals by littering 'their' lanes with parked cars.

 

The overstayers in Braunston itself tend to be non-liveaboards who leave their boats in "safe" places, until their next holiday jaunt.

The 14 Day north of the A45 bridge being a favourite, although even the 48 Hour between the turn and the pub isn't immune...

[carlt]

...and irritate the locals by littering 'their' lanes with parked cars.

Only the ones one doesn't mind irritating.

[cotswoldsman]

The problem is that bridge hoppers tend to congregate in honeypot locations, to the extent that the use of their favoured locations becomes all but impossible for leisure users.

 

Not sure I agree here, is that because they are overstaying? Surely popular moorings are occupied with boats by virtual nature that they are popular and bridge hoppers take the blame, when a bridge hopper moves out after 14 days and another boat moves in the mooring is still full.

[ymu]

Not sure I agree here, is that because they are overstaying? Surely popular moorings are occupied with boats by virtual nature that they are popular and bridge hoppers take the blame, when a bridge hopper moves out after 14 days and another boat moves in the mooring is still full.

Yes, I'm not sure that all the righteous indignation has anything to do with actual continuous moorers, of which there are undoubtedly some. CCers will often not be moving on very far if they are near a populated area - there is no need for them to, within the rules. They will therefore tend to be mooring up earlier than the average holiday-maker, if it's a day they are due to move, so visitors may well find spots are full even if all the CCers in the area are strictly within the BW guidelines.

 

FWIW, I tend to think of visitor moorings as those restricted to less than 14 days. It's rare to find a CCer on one of these, unless they are intending to move through the area fairly fast. Most of us like to stop and enjoy a place for a bit longer before moving on. I would guess most boaters can only comment on the movements of boats near their home moorings - further afield, I would have thought it was unlikely they'd be around long enough to observe the mechanics of the fortnightly CC shuffle.

[Lady Muck]

I don't think this is true, everywhere.

Certainly around Northants/Warks, the "bridgehoppers" don't tend to stay on short term visitor moorings but move around the more remote bridge holes.

 

They don't in London either - I rarely see them at Camden, Little Venice or Paddington. These moorings are patrolled regularly and there are wardens at some sites.

[tomsk]

The problem is that bridge hoppers tend to congregate in honeypot locations, to the extent that the use of their favoured locations becomes all but impossible for leisure users.

 

If that's Daves stated position, I fear we must all concur.

[Guest]

If that's Daves stated position, I fear we must all concur.

 

Why?? (apart from the fact he's correct)

[matty40s]

a honeypot location to me is Stratford, Braunston, Marsworth??, Little Venice, Camden, Paddington, Gas St etc,

 

however, as ladyMuck states, CM'ers are rarely found in these locations.

 

....and apparenly Braunston is a den of iniquitous thieves anyway so who wants to go there......

[mayalld]

If that's Daves stated position, I fear we must all concur.

 

Well, you could put forward a reasoned argument, but you would rather just throw a bit of abuse, wouldn't you?

[Chris Pink]

Well, you could put forward a reasoned argument, but you would rather just throw a bit of abuse, wouldn't you?

 

This;

 

"The problem is that bridge hoppers tend to congregate in honeypot locations, to the extent that the use of their favoured locations becomes all but impossible for leisure users."

 

is not a reasoned argument, it is simply an unsubstantiated and incorrect assertion complete with offensive generalisation.