Jump to content

Continuous cruising case - liveaboard homes at risk


Flossie007

Featured Posts

In my view the big print in this sad affair reads "MISLEAD" and "LET DOWN".

I agree entirely though I believe BW deliberately picked an extreme example, in order to secure a victory, but, as a result that victory was only partial.

 

It would have been interesting to see the result if they had taken the same action against someone who travelled the whole length of the K&A, as part of their routine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too fail to see the problem, by accepting a license you are agreeing to the terms and conditions. If you don't like them, don't accept the license and go elsewhere. I would however accept that a CCer on the K&A would be ok if CCing from Bath to Reading & return in a similar way to that proposed for the L&S. As said above, if you don't want to cruise, get a mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that someone has lost their home, that is no basis upon which to score debating points, I foresee more going the same way because of the incompetant leadership these people place their trust in.

 

 

 

How is this? Surely all he has lost is the ability to keep his home bouncing about within a very restricted length of canal, when the licence conditions require him to move rather further than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course! I am entirely supportive of their right to defend their position, I am simply exasperated that when the stakes are so high that defence is in the hands of people working at the level of a playground argument. There is a great deal that could be achieved on behalf of this group in the way of damage limitation by adult constructive engagement, simply insulting the other side of the debate and repeating tired worn out and unsupported mantras leads one way only, down the pan. Let us not forget that someone has lost their home, that is no basis upon which to score debating points, I foresee more going the same way because of the incompetant leadership these people place their trust in.

In my view the big print in this sad affair reads "MISLEAD" and "LET DOWN".

 

You really do not have a clue do you?

 

"their right" who exactly is 'their"? "defence in the hands of people" Whose hands were his defence in? "incompetent leadership" gosh, you've made that one up out of whole cloth.

 

What makes you think that Paul Davies is part of any 'group'?

 

What do you know about the legal advice he obtained to fight his case? Nothing.

 

Even the bit about 'losing his home' is not as clear cut as you'd like to believe in this game of chinese whispers.

 

We know that you are crowing because the headlines of this judgement back up your tired and repetitive point of view but to those who know the situation your statements are completely and utterly out in the long grass.

 

Just because you make sweeping statements about something you know nothing about apart from what you've read in two polarised press releases, this will never ever make it the truth.

Edited by Chris Pink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that someone has lost their home,

 

 

Not as far as I can see.

 

A person who uses their boat to both live on and to permanently 'work, socialise and navigate in the 10 mile stretch between Bath and Bradford on Avon' has been told by a court of law that a CC licence is not suitable, that's all. He has three options at least which allow him to continue using his boat as a home as far as I can see:

 

1) Start CCing in accordance with the BW guidance on what constitutes CCing.

 

2) Get a home mooring and an ordinary licence.

 

3) Move onto a different waterway e.g. the Thames. (The EA appears not to mind the cluster of boats permanently on the Thames towpath just upstream of Kennetmouth, for example.)

 

If he ends up 'losing his home' over this it will be because he refuses to accept the conditions under which the rest of society (in the form of BW, parliament etc) allows him to use his boat on the BW waterways.

 

 

Mike

 

P.S. Richard, the domain name bargee-traveller.org.uk was registered by one Nick Brown on 19th March 2009 according to Nominet, so the idea has been around a while.

 

(Edited to correct a detail error)

Edited by Mike the Boilerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not as far as I can see.

 

A person who uses their boat to both live on and to permanently 'work, socialise and navigate in the 10 mile stretch between Bath and Bradford on Avon' has been told by a court of law that a CC licence is not suitable, that's all. He has three options at least which allow him to continue using his boat as a home as far as I can see:

 

1) Start CCing in accordance with the BW guidance on what constitutes CCing.

 

2) Get a home mooring and an ordinary licence.

 

3) Move onto a different waterway e.g. the Thames. (The EA appears not to mind the cluster of boats permanently on the Thames towpath just upstream of Kennetmouth, for example.)

 

If he ends up 'losing his home' over this it will be because he refuses to accept the conditions under which the rest of society (in the form of BW, parliament etc) allows him to use his boat on the BW waterways.

 

 

Mike

 

P.S. Richard, the domain name bargee-traveller.org.uk was registered by one Nick Brown on 19th March 2009 according to Nominet, so the idea has been around a while.

 

(Edited to correct a detail error)

You missed the bit where the court case was about BW refusing him a licence then attempting to remove his boat for not having a licence.

 

He cannot stay on the K&A whatever he does now. Which may mean he is effectively homeless if he cannot find a suitable place for his boat close to his work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree entirely though I believe BW deliberately picked an extreme example, in order to secure a victory, but, as a result that victory was only partial.

 

It would have been interesting to see the result if they had taken the same action against someone who travelled the whole length of the K&A, as part of their routine.

That may be the way to win a forum flame war, but it is not the way for a corporate body to build up a legally watertight position from which to establish and then enforce a policy.

 

If BW tried to fight a less straightforward case, then their credibility could have been undermined by losing it - and I don't mean their credibility here on this forum (it's apparent that they have little) but their credibility in the legal sense as a corporate body with rights and duties. As it is, while this case does not carry any authority of precedent, it does provide a clear implication that certain interpretations of the term 'continuous cruising' will not be upheld in a court - with consequences.

 

From this perspective, it does look like a step has been made towards tightening the definitions in a way that would be difficult to challenge or ignore.

 

It would seem that common sense might prevail, and the judgement has essentially said that both parties are wrong.

Again, having only read the press release and not the ruling, I agree up to a point. It does look like BW could be using the courts to redefine and refine their definitions. This will make guidelines simpler to draw up, enforcement easier to carry out, and lay debate about the ins and outs of what constitutes acceptable conduct on the waterways less and less relevant.

 

If I'm right then it's all in the hands of the lawyers now. Common sense is bound to be the first casualty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the bit where the court case was about BW refusing him a licence then attempting to remove his boat for not having a licence.

 

He cannot stay on the K&A whatever he does now. Which may mean he is effectively homeless if he cannot find a suitable place for his boat close to his work.

 

He obviously cannot stay on the little bit of K&A he presently lives on, but he may well be able to come to agreement with BW if he elects to CC in accordance with BW's interpretation of CCing. Mike the Boilerman outlined two other possibilities for him which seem to remain quite valid as well, i.e. find a legitimate residential mooring or move onto e.g. the Thames at Kennetmouth. The Court case did not just happen overnight, and he has obviously had plenty of warning and time to make at least some minimal effort to comply with his licence conditions, so it's difficult to feel at all sorry for him now. His home is only at risk if he continues to make it so.

Edited by Tam & Di
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, having only read the press release and not the ruling, I agree up to a point. It does look like BW could be using the courts to redefine and refine their definitions. This will make guidelines simpler to draw up, enforcement easier to carry out, and lay debate about the ins and outs of what constitutes acceptable conduct on the waterways less and less relevant.

 

If I'm right then it's all in the hands of the lawyers now. Common sense is bound to be the first casualty.

 

I've noted it on other threads, but when the BW Bill for the 1995 Act was at Committee stage in the Lords the Board was finally trying to get to grips with the proliferation of boats on the towpaths, and had a clause that required all boats to have a regular authorised mooring as a condition of obtaining a licence. RBOA representatives in particular argued that there was a number of owners who cruised all year around the system and that such a requirement would be unfair on this group. The Lords agreed, and BW came up with the concept of a continuous cruising licence. It was always based upon the idea of boats slowly journeying around the system or some major part of it, but unfortunately was cobbled together without sufficient forethought, and it did not take long for some people to find ways of getting round the requirement without moving any great distance at all. So they got away with it for some 15 years, and if some of them had not effectively taken the pyss would probably still be getting away with it now. The only surprise is that BW have not moved on it earlier.

 

Where does the BW press release say that he is now free to reach an accommodation with them if he wishes to remain on their waters?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

 

I can only reiterate your own tag. I was only putting it as a possibility, but where does it say he can't? Press releases don't generally go into that sort of detail anyway, but I must agree that BW are not likely to be particularly sympathetic as he has already presumably refused to comply up to the point they took him to court.

Edited by Tam & Di
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the bit where the court case was about BW refusing him a licence then attempting to remove his boat for not having a licence.

 

He cannot stay on the K&A whatever he does now. Which may mean he is effectively homeless if he cannot find a suitable place for his boat close to his work.

 

ymu,

 

Correct, I missed that. I've just read the whole press statement in the other thread to check. This puts a different light on I agree, but still I have no sympathy.

 

Paul Davies appears to me to be a fully paid up member of the awkward squad who has been taking the p*ss at my (and my fellow law-abiding, rule-following boaters') expense by refusing to follow the rules that the rest of us collectively agree to follow. This seems like democracy in action to me.

 

If I breach the terms and conditions of my mortgage my lender will generally demand repayment of my mortgage and if I fail to stump up they will get a court order to evict me and repossess. I don't see much difference here in principle. Breach the terms you agreed to and you should suffer the consequences.

 

Mr Davies has persistently and wilfully refused to continuously cruise or get a proper mooring and frankly, I'm delighted he has been held to account. He has clearly not been journeying around the system as a genuine itinerant and has simply been trying to avoid paying for a home mooring in the area in which he chooses to live. Is this not the root of what why he was picked upon by BW? To be made an example of?

 

He appears to me to have been the architect of his own demise, or of his home's demise anyway...

 

Mike

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really do not have a clue do you?

 

"their right" who exactly is 'their"? "defence in the hands of people" Whose hands were his defence in? "incompetent leadership" gosh, you've made that one up out of whole cloth.

 

What makes you think that Paul Davies is part of any 'group'?

 

What do you know about the legal advice he obtained to fight his case? Nothing.

 

Even the bit about 'losing his home' is not as clear cut as you'd like to believe in this game of chinese whispers.

 

We know that you are crowing because the headlines of this judgement back up your tired and repetitive point of view but to those who know the situation your statements are completely and utterly out in the long grass.

 

Just because you make sweeping statements about something you know nothing about apart from what you've read in two polarised press releases, this will never ever make it the truth.

Boy what a rant! Better answer it hadn't I :rolleyes:

Right, I don't have a clue. I only know what is in the public domain, here, NBW and KandA, therefore I must confess that I don't know the whole story but enough I think to recognise that much of what you have asserted over the years, like that nobody needs a mooring if they move every 14 days is plain wrong.

"Their right" etc, "they" were a hypothetical group postulated by Carlt as part of an exchange between us, I am guilty of assuming Mr Davies was supported by the people behind the Cbeebies KandA website, if I am wrong and they just left him hung out to dry then I apologise, nonetheless the inept moronic style of this particular shop front does seem to encourage people in the now shown to be mistaken belief that this lifestyle is lawful and is encouraging people to play for higher stakes than they can afford on a very weak hand.

I have no reason to believe Mr Davies is part of any group but the notion that he has gone so far so self destructively entirely alone speaks of either an overwhelming hubris or someone who shouldn't cross the road without a grownup, are you really telling me that no one said "you go for it mate" or otherwise reinforced the belief that he could win this?

Ok, you tell me that his losing his home is not so clear cut, well I am at fault there I should know that internet sources are liable to be either half arsed or spouted in persuit of a hidden agenda, here it is.

Whereas in this talking shop it is usual to go off on hyperbolic trajectories in the absence of facts it would be a mistake to take BW's press release as an accurate synopsis of the Judge's judgement, with the exception, of course that someone has just lost their home.

 

As for crowing, you'd love me to wouldn't you, then you could point at me and decry my glorying in someone losing their home, unless they haven't, I've had both versions from the same evidently unreliable source. Yes the headline does back up my tired, repetetive and apparently vindicated point of view rather than your tired repetetive and apparently discredited one.

Sore loser?

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on boys, be nice to each other. Try not allow this topic to turn into yet another bout of unnecessary insults

Come on Graham, "Sore loser"? counts an insult worthy of moderator intervention?? I have certainly made no other comment that looks close to an insult to me.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering..........

 

Some folk choose to live in caravans and as a result local authorities provide special sites for these static 'travellers' who choose to define themselves as an ethnic group. IMHO very few of them are genuine Gypsies and most are Irish travellers. How does an ethnic group become recognised as such?

 

So why are live-aboard boaters any different just because they are on water rather than on land? Surely they can also be defined as an ethnic group and local authorities should be obliged to provide sites for continuous moorers as they do for land dwelling 'static travellers'.

 

Fairness for all!

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why are live-aboard boaters any different just because they are on water rather than on land? Surely they can also be defined as an ethnic group and local authorities should be obliged to provide sites for continuous moorers as they do for land dwelling 'static travellers'.

Well, I suppose that you could do that --- wouldn't they be called 'Marinas'?

 

I don't fancy the Council's chances of building one without a massive uproar from the locals, who would also have to finance it through their Council Tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I suppose that you could do that --- wouldn't they be called 'Marinas'?

 

I don't fancy the Council's chances of building one without a massive uproar from the locals, who would also have to finance it through their Council Tax.

 

Would be a great idea if there was a charity somewhere that owned marinas, shame I can't think of one!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering..........

 

Some folk choose to live in caravans and as a result local authorities provide special sites for these static 'travellers' who choose to define themselves as an ethnic group. IMHO very few of them are genuine Gypsies and most are Irish travellers. How does an ethnic group become recognised as such?

 

So why are live-aboard boaters any different just because they are on water rather than on land? Surely they can also be defined as an ethnic group and local authorities should be obliged to provide sites for continuous moorers as they do for land dwelling 'static travellers'.

 

Fairness for all!

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

 

There are regulations about Local Authorities' duties toward travellers and it's been said that boaters could fall within them. However I think they only hold to LAs, not Navigation Authorities so although an LA might have a duty to ask BW to sort boaters out BW can use S43 TA 62 to tell them to go stuff themselves.

 

BTW, and this is where I choose my side; anyone who tries arguing that boaters are ethnically separate is having a larf and it seriously undermines the credibility of NBTA. I'd invite anyone to provide a credible argument that could hold this to be the case!

 

Who is this Nick Brown bloke? I struggle to believe that anyone with any background in law could find such a claim plausible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering..........

 

Some folk choose to live in caravans and as a result local authorities provide special sites for these static 'travellers' who choose to define themselves as an ethnic group. IMHO very few of them are genuine Gypsies and most are Irish travellers. How does an ethnic group become recognised as such?

 

So why are live-aboard boaters any different just because they are on water rather than on land? Surely they can also be defined as an ethnic group and local authorities should be obliged to provide sites for continuous moorers as they do for land dwelling 'static travellers'.

 

Fairness for all!

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

 

The nearest comparison would be to ask if there is any obligation on the highways agency to provide for travellers? If no, then why would there be a similar obligation against BW who are simply the highways agency of the canals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nearest comparison would be to ask if there is any obligation on the highways agency to provide for travellers? If no, then why would there be a similar obligation against BW who are simply the highways agency of the canals?

No there isn't but there is an obligation on the local authorities and they most certainly cannot just evict travellers without carrying out welfare checks.

 

The police have powers to carry out evictions, without notice, but they rarely exercise those powers, except under exceptional circumstances.

 

One notable incident, that I was involved in, was where a group of travellers had parked up on top of an old land fill site that was in danger of collapsing.

 

The Highways Agency, being only responsible for Motorways and Trunk roads, have very few problems with travellers, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Highways Agency, being only responsible for Motorways and Trunk roads, have very few problems with travellers, btw.

 

yep, they let them take over service areas and drive past the mess they are creating.It is the local management who have to deal and remove, either by applying through the courts for eviction notices etc, or by taking methods which work far quicker (but may be construed as being slightly anti-sociaL ;) )

 

The Highways Agency do doodly squat sh&5 about travellers on the motorways, letting them drive luxury caravans about without visible number plates at the rear (so they can drive off from fuel staions without getting caught).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Highways Agency, being only responsible for Motorways and Trunk roads, have very few problems with travellers, btw.

 

yep, they let them take over service areas and drive past the mess they are creating.It is the local management who have to deal and remove, either by applying through the courts for eviction notices etc, or by taking methods which work far quicker (but may be construed as being slightly anti-sociaL ;) )

 

The Highways Agency do doodly squat sh&5 about travellers on the motorways, letting them drive luxury caravans about without visible number plates at the rear (so they can drive off from fuel staions without getting caught).

I think theft from service stations and not displaying number plates is a police matter.

 

I'm not sure what enforcement powers you think are bestowed on the Highways Agency regarding such situations.

 

Would a County Council (as the highway authority for county roads) be blamed for theft from a local garage?

Edited by carlt
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.