Protests on the K&A

[sueb]

My reply to Wrigglefingers is to tell that to hirers. We have had complaints from holiday makers that they can't find moorings and have to travel further than they want to do so.

We r on the K&A so can see the situation. Disableing the boat seems to be a common trick to permantly moor.

Sue

[FrigateCaptain]

You deliberately misunderstand.

I would maintain that it is virtually impossible to conform to the 14 day rule and keep ones children in education at one school.

Really? Cruise between bath and devizes and can get to work on time, so i dont see why we'd have problems with education.

 

There are about 300 metres of empty 72h moorings in the centre of bath right now. I'm not sure how you'd fit.

 

You trying to say he's a big fat fatty?

 

My reply to Wrigglefingers is to tell that to hirers. We have had complaints from holiday makers that they can't find moorings and have to travel further than they want to do so.

We r on the K&A so can see the situation. Disableing the boat seems to be a common trick to permantly moor.

Sue

 

lol

[Kentboycamper2]

Really? Cruise between bath and devizes and can get to work on time, so i dont see why we'd have problems with education.

 

 

 

You trying to say he's a big fat fatty?

 

 

 

lol

 

At the moment, there may be visitor moorings in Bath, above and below the locks as we are not in a time of peak traffic.

 

I have struggled to get a mooring above the locks, right up past MOD Warminster Road and as far up as Bathampton and beyond. This is not the CCers, it is the sheer amount of hire traffic, travelling boaters etc etc. This situation occurred in the summer and right up to late September.

 

The same occurred below the locks by the Weir and also by the moorings (shown in the photograph)on the Avon by the multi-storey carpark. These moorings are different because as far as I know you can moor there for as long as you like (as long as you are licensed).

 

I know the area very well and I know that you see the same boats who are CCers on the canal but they do move. Like it or not they are within the rules. I have walked the canal from Bathampton to Bath at all times of the years and you do see the same boats moving up and down that stretch. Having said that BW do seem to be monitoring more closely than they used to.

 

BW need to clarify the CCer rules and then verify these are being adhered to. It is not rocket science and would stop the pathetic CCer bashing that does no one any credit,

 

Andy

[mayalld]

 

I know the area very well and I know that you see the same boats who are CCers on the canal but they do move. Like it or not they are within the rules. I have walked the canal from Bathampton to Bath at all times of the years and you do see the same boats moving up and down that stretch. Having said that BW do seem to be monitoring more closely than they used to.

 

BW need to clarify the CCer rules and then verify these are being adhered to. It is not rocket science and would stop the pathetic CCer bashing that does no one any credit,

 

 

So far as I can see, BW have clarified the rules that they lay down if they are to be "satisfied" that a boat is engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

Unfortunately, having a set of rules doesn't prevent;

• People not reading them - you seem to believe that providing CCers do actually move, they are within the rules.
• People trying to claim that the rules are wrong.

[carlt]

So far as I can see, BW have clarified the rules that they lay down if they are to be "satisfied" that a boat is engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

"Bona fide navigation" is such an ambiguous thing, though.

 

I can only assume that the vast majority of boat owners, who don't continuously cruise, are not engaged in "bona fide navigation".

 

I assume that also applies to me, and the vast majority of offshore boaters, who, despite having professionally recognised qualifications, plot our courses on charts every time we go for a cruise, have an array of navigation equipment, that is fully utilised, yet rarely venture beyond our particular bit of coastline are not engaged in "bona fide navigation".

 

It seems a bit unfair that BW have chosen to redefine the term "bona fide navigation" for one tiny proportion of the boating world.

 

An unfairness that I am convinced, if it was raised in a courtroom, would lead to BW losing the case.

 

Why not pray?

 

 

Ansews in order.

 

Too high access.

I always thought that God, should he exist, would be a bit busy to cope with every single prayer request

 

Believers assure me, though, that he allows access to all.

[Chris Pink]

It seems a bit unfair that BW have chosen to redefine the term "bona fide navigation" for one tiny proportion of the boating world.

 

An unfairness that I am convinced, if it was raised in a courtroom, would lead to BW losing the case.

 

Especially when to apply that definition to boats with a marina mooring leads to a logical absurdity.

[AlanH]

Then I don't misunderstand. You are just wrong.

 

If you are prepared to commute then it is perfectly viable to take your kids to school and continuously cruise, to the satisfaction of BW.

 

It may not satisfy you but, then again, you are not the enforcing authority.

But the protester in the original article said herself that it would make it impossible to get kids to school so how am I wrong? Is she wrong as well? If it is perfectly possible them what is she complaining about?

Edited November 4, 2010 by AlanH

[Chris Pink]

But the protester in the original article said herself that it would make it impossible to get kids to school so how am I wrong? Is she wrong as well? If it is perfectly possible them what is she complaining about?

 

She is protesting that BW's proposed changes are intended (illegally) to make this impossible.

[AlanH]

She is protesting that BW's proposed changes are intended (illegally) to make this impossible.

But Carl says that it is possible. The legality of the matter has not been challenged and is your opinion only.

[mayalld]

"Bona fide navigation" is such an ambiguous thing, though.

 

I can only assume that the vast majority of boat owners, who don't continuously cruise, are not engaged in "bona fide navigation".

 

 

You would be entirely correct in your assumption that the vast majority of boat owners who don't continuously cruise are not engaged in bona fide navigation during the periods of time when their boats are on their home mooring.

 

However, when they move away from their home mooring, they do engage in bona fide navigation.

 

You will note that a CCer must engage in bona fide navigation "throughout the period for which the consent is valid".

 

In the context of a boater who has licenced his vessel as having a place where it may lawfully be kept when not in use, it is reasonable to assume that his navigation will be constrained by the need to return the vessel to the place where he has told BW he will keep it when not in use.

 

In the context of a boater who has assured BW that he will engage in navigation throughout, that assumption does not hold.

[Nightwatch]

 

 

Believers assure me, though, that he allows access to all.

Even if there is a dodgy hip involved. how does that work then.

[mayalld]

She is protesting that BW's proposed changes are intended (illegally) to make this impossible.

 

In which case, she is talking crap.

 

BW have always told people that CCing is not compatible with retaining ties (job, school etc) in a particular location.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that I actually agree with Carl that this is overstating the case, it remains true to say that retaining job and school ties in a particular location is going to be challenging, and will require effort on the part of the boater.

 

It seem to me that organisations such as the K&A community have done those who have listened to them a great disservice, by repeatedly trying to tell them that BW's rules are wrong, and cannot be enforced.

 

Bluntly, the people affected were TOLD when they became CCers that there were rules, and TOLD that this would make commuting to work or School difficult or impossible. They chose, based on the hyperbole spouted by you and your friends to ignore what BW had told them, and are now finding that this may come back and bite them.

 

Now, who shall we blame?

• BW, for changing the rules?
  • No, I suggest not. They haven't changed the rules, they are merely applying the rules. At most, we might suggest that their failure to act sooner may have contributed to people heeding poor advice.

  [*]Themselves, for preferring the advice that suited them rather than taking the cautious view of how things might turn out.

  • Yes, the significant portion of the responsibility must lie on their own shoulders.

  [*]The "community", for giving out advice, which they knew would leave people in a jam if BW got its act together.

  • Yes, a fair wedge of responsibility rest here as well

[GSer]

Is 'the K&A community' an proper organisation then? If they are that's the first i've heard of them

[Chris Pink]

In which case, she is talking crap.

 

BW have always told people that CCing is not compatible with retaining ties (job, school etc) in a particular location.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that I actually agree with Carl that this is overstating the case, it remains true to say that retaining job and school ties in a particular location is going to be challenging, and will require effort on the part of the boater.

 

It seem to me that organisations such as the K&A community have done those who have listened to them a great disservice, by repeatedly trying to tell them that BW's rules are wrong, and cannot be enforced.

 

Bluntly, the people affected were TOLD when they became CCers that there were rules, and TOLD that this would make commuting to work or School difficult or impossible. They chose, based on the hyperbole spouted by you and your friends to ignore what BW had told them, and are now finding that this may come back and bite them.

 

Now, who shall we blame?

• BW, for changing the rules?
  • No, I suggest not. They haven't changed the rules, they are merely applying the rules. At most, we might suggest that their failure to act sooner may have contributed to people heeding poor advice.

  [*]Themselves, for preferring the advice that suited them rather than taking the cautious view of how things might turn out.

  • Yes, the significant portion of the responsibility must lie on their own shoulders.

  [*]The "community", for giving out advice, which they knew would leave people in a jam if BW got its act together.

  • Yes, a fair wedge of responsibility rest here as well

 

Oh Dave "broken record" Mayall. Round and round you go.

 

No-one 'became CCers' they all licensed their boats according to the law of the land, just like you. End of.

[mayalld]

Is 'the K&A community' an proper organisation then? If they are that's the first i've heard of them

 

Well, they present themselves as an organisation, and have a website.

 

Oh Dave "broken record" Mayall. Round and round you go.

 

No-one 'became CCers' they all licensed their boats according to the law of the land, just like you. End of.

 

Yes, they applied to licence their boats,and in doing so, they indicated on their application form that they would be continuous cruisers.

 

"became CCers" seems a reasonable enough description of this process to me.

 

Of course, you will argue against it, because as ever you don't want to talk about the actual issues, and would rather steer the discussion round into endless to and fro about the works to be used.

[GSer]

Well, they present themselves as an organisation, and have a website.

 

 

Ah! i've just looked them up, it appears to be a western end thing.

[carlt]

But Carl says that it is possible. The legality of the matter has not been challenged and is your opinion only.

If all the 14 day moorings (or the towpath where there are no formal moorings but ccers have to comply with the restrictions in BWA 1995) remain, then it should be possible, with some effort, to satisfy BW's expectations.

 

If they decide to introduce shorter time limits on all moorings, including lengths of towpath that provide no services, then this would make a perfectly acceptable lifestyle impossible.

 

Such draconian measures are merely a sop to the envious and serve no practical purpose.

 

I also believe they are contrary to the spirit of any legislation that they may reinterpret, to implement such measures.

 

I used to commute from Northants to central London. That required far more effort than ccing and commuting to Rugby.

 

Even if there is a dodgy hip involved. how does that work then.

I suggest you don't attempt to kneel, to pray. Rising again may require divine intervention.

 

 

However, when they move away from their home mooring, they do engage in bona fide navigation.

 

You will note that a CCer must engage in bona fide navigation "throughout the period for which the consent is valid".

 

In your opinion....

 

I think that the weekender who takes his boat out of Braunston Marina, potters up to Hillmorton for a bit of fishing and a meal in the Bistro, once a fortnight, then potters back again, would disagree if you suggested that the boating he does is not "bona fide navigation"

 

If a ccer does the same thing "throughout the period for which the consent is valid", why is that different?

[journeyperson]

I think that the weekender who takes his boat out of Braunston Marina, potters up to Hillmorton for a bit of fishing and a meal in the Bistro, once a fortnight, then potters back again, would disagree if you suggested that the boating he does is not "bona fide navigation"

 

If a ccer does the same thing "throughout the period for which the consent is valid", why is that different?

 

I think the Braunston Boater would say he's going for a cruise or a potter but wouldn't mind if you called it bona fide navigation. The difference is that he is paying for a mooring and it is that difference that people get upset about when they believe someone is just flouting the rules by claiming to cc whilst cm-ing. That may or may not be an erroneous perception but it persists as borne out by the regular arguments here.

Edited November 5, 2010 by journeyperson

[AlanH]

If they decide to introduce shorter time limits on all moorings, including lengths of towpath that provide no services, then this would make a perfectly acceptable lifestyle impossible.

 

Such draconian measures are merely a sop to the envious and serve no practical purpose.

 

I accept that it may be possible to CC and maintain a job and education for one's children. I don't see why shortening the period that boaters are allowed to moor in a single place should make any difference. You would have to move more regularly that's all.

 

I'm not envious. I have no desire whatever to live on a boat. I also have little sympathy with those who choose a difficult lifestyle and then complain when they are made to comply with the rules or when the rules are changed in order to minimise the detrimental effects their lifestyle has on others.

Edited November 4, 2010 by AlanH

[deletedaccount]

I accept that it may be possible to CC and maintain a job and education for one's children. I don't see why shortening the period that boaters are allowed to moor in a single place should make any difference. You would have to move more regularly that's all.

 

I'm not envious. I have no desire whatever to live on a boat. I also have little sympathy with those who choose a difficult lifestyle and then complain when they are made to comply with the rules or when the rules are changed in order to minimise the detrimental effects their lifestyle has on others.

 

every two days?

 

and I have no detrimental effect on anyone else at all.

[mayalld]

In your opinion....

 

I think that the weekender who takes his boat out of Braunston Marina, potters up to Hillmorton for a bit of fishing and a meal in the Bistro, once a fortnight, then potters back again, would disagree if you suggested that the boating he does is not "bona fide navigation"

 

If a ccer does the same thing "throughout the period for which the consent is valid", why is that different?

 

Of course it is my opinion. I always find it best to state my own opinion.

 

Firstly, and I apologise for "doing a Chris Pink" on you here, the term "weekender" above is ambiguous. The term is more usually applied to a boater who uses his/her boat over the course of a weekend, then leaves the boat on a towpath mooring for 5 days, before moving again the following weekend. The essential component being that the weekender will tend to make a progressive journey. Many (most?) weekenders are actually CCers.

 

I suspect that you are talking about a weekend leisure user with a home mooring.

 

What he does constitutes, in my opinion, Bona Fide navigation, within the scope of that "use" of the boat, prior to it returning to its home mooring when not in use.

 

The CCer's "use" of the boat is continuous, and as such the bona fide navigation must be judged over the whole period of use.

 

At the risk of the usual suspects howling that this isn't what the law says, might I present a conceptual model which I believe encompasses the spirit of what the rules mean;

 

• Any vessel can at a given time be in one of two states; Engaged in Navigation or Not Engaged in Navigation.
• A vessel that is Engaged in Navigation must, throughout the period for which it is Engaged in Navigation, move at least once every 14 days, and must move to a new place.
• In moving to a new place, turning round and retracing your route is permitted where the physical limits of a waterway is reached, or where a destination that is to be visited has been reached
• Repeatedly turning round and retracing your route [possibly this needs some quantification] is not permitted
• A vessel only ceases to be Engaged in Navigation when it returns to a "place where it can lawfully be left" (its home mooring)
• Once a vessel is Not Engaged in Navigation, the next occasion upon which it is Engaged in Navigation is considered separately, without reference to any previous occasion where it was Engaged in Navigation.

[AlanH]

every two days?

 

and I have no detrimental effect on anyone else at all.

Are BW proposing to make all the towpath 48h moorings? I doubt it.

[deletedaccount]

Large swathes (as in miles) from what I hear.

 

We'll see when they bother to let us know.

[carlt]

Of course it is my opinion. I always find it best to state my own opinion.

 

Firstly, and I apologise for "doing a Chris Pink" on you here, the term "weekender" above is ambiguous. The term is more usually applied to a boater who uses his/her boat over the course of a weekend, then leaves the boat on a towpath mooring for 5 days, before moving again the following weekend. The essential component being that the weekender will tend to make a progressive journey. Many (most?) weekenders are actually CCers.

 

I suspect that you are talking about a weekend leisure user with a home mooring.

 

What he does constitutes, in my opinion, Bona Fide navigation, within the scope of that "use" of the boat, prior to it returning to its home mooring when not in use.

 

The CCer's "use" of the boat is continuous, and as such the bona fide navigation must be judged over the whole period of use.

 

At the risk of the usual suspects howling that this isn't what the law says, might I present a conceptual model which I believe encompasses the spirit of what the rules mean;

 

• Any vessel can at a given time be in one of two states; Engaged in Navigation or Not Engaged in Navigation.
• A vessel that is Engaged in Navigation must, throughout the period for which it is Engaged in Navigation, move at least once every 14 days, and must move to a new place.
• In moving to a new place, turning round and retracing your route is permitted where the physical limits of a waterway is reached, or where a destination that is to be visited has been reached
• Repeatedly turning round and retracing your route [possibly this needs some quantification] is not permitted
• A vessel only ceases to be Engaged in Navigation when it returns to a "place where it can lawfully be left" (its home mooring)
• Once a vessel is Not Engaged in Navigation, the next occasion upon which it is Engaged in Navigation is considered separately, without reference to any previous occasion where it was Engaged in Navigation.

You are, once again, extending the spirit of the law to suit your own opinion.

 

Navigation, as far as I was taught, when doing my Yachtmaster's Certificate, is moving a vessel from one place to another, not all that spiel you've tacked on, to suit your argument.

 

I am "Navigating" when I move my boat from my mooring to anywhere else. I was "navigating" when I moved my boat from Braunston to Napton, Napton to Cropredy, Cropredy to Napton and back to Braunston.

 

The term "Navigating" does not involve any fixed distance, or period of time, hence why the government felt the need to add a specific period of time, of 14 days, onto the "Navigating" requirement.

 

Edited to add: Interesting that they didn't feel the need to add a distance, or 'non-return' restriction, nor did they feel the need to confer any powers, to a quango, to add such restrictions.

 

You have, as far as I am aware, no more right to change legislation than BW have, so your cockamamey interpretation is just as invalid (and even sillier) than theirs.

Edited November 4, 2010 by carlt

[mayalld]

You are, once again, extending the spirit of the law to suit your own opinion.

 

Navigation, as far as I was taught, when doing my Yachtmaster's Certificate, is moving a vessel from one place to another, not all that spiel you've tacked on, to suit your argument.

 

I am "Navigating" when I move my boat from my mooring to anywhere else. I was "navigating" when I moved my boat from Braunston to Napton, Napton to Cropredy, Cropredy to Napton and back to Braunston.

 

The term "Navigating" does not involve any fixed distance, or period of time, hence why the government felt the need to add a specific period of time, of 14 days, onto the "Navigating".

 

You have, as far as I am aware, no more right to change legislation than BW have, so your cockamamey interpretation is just as invalid (and even sillier) than theirs.

 

I am suggesting that the above actually represents what BW are trying to achieve through its rules.

 

I think that it represents a reasonable set of rules. You may differ.

 

Whether it is what Parliament intended is open to debate. You may argue that Parliament intended something else.

 

I think, however, that unlike Chris Pink you would resist the temptation to argue that Patliament intended that the rules should allow somebody to bimble up and down the same few miles for years on end.