Continuous Cruising - BW win case

[mayalld]

I accept that would be the outcome on a low value (abandoned) boat, which the legislation was drafted to cover, but suppose my £250K (hypothetical) boat was section 8'd. I rather suspect the outcome would be different.....

 

 

Why?

 

s8 doesn't give BW any right to appropriate your vessel as their own. You still own it, and can have it back less what you owe them.

[Josher]

"Canal dwellers fear new cruise controls" in the Guardian Wednesday 27 April 2011 Here

[David Schweizer]

"Canal dwellers fear new cruise controls" in the Guardian Wednesday 27 April 2011 Here

It is interesting that the Guardian article has chosen to use Brian Greaves as an example of the type of boater who could be affected by the recent Court ruling. I know Brian well and I have always understood that he was considered an exception to the rules, as he offers a mobile service to other boaters in much the same way as the fuel and coal boats do, and he does actually move around on a regular basis, according to where his services are required.

 

Certainly if he was forced to leave the canals, the system would be the poorer for it. I have used him on a number of occasions and his willingness to take on even the smallest welding or forging job at a reasonable price would be missed by many boaters.

Edited April 27, 2011 by David Schweizer

[canaldrifter]

"Canal dwellers fear new cruise controls" in the Guardian Wednesday 27 April 2011 Here

 

I note that Nick Brown gets in on the act:

 

Nick Brown, legal officer for the National Bargee Travellers Association (NBTA), says that although the judgment only refers to Davies, and doesn't create a formal legal precedent, BW will try to rely on it in future cases, which could pave the way for "social cleansing". "Many boaters may be rendered homeless," he says.

 

 

 

At least Clive Henderson ends it with a note of sanity:

 

"If a family chooses to take up boating and make it their place of residence, then it's clear what the obligations are. I can't believe continuous cruising is suitable for anyone with a job or with children at school."

 

Tone

Edited April 27, 2011 by canaldrifter

[MtB]

I note that Nick Brown gets in on the act:

 

 

 

 

 

At least Clive Henderson ends it with a note of sanity:

 

"If a family chooses to take up boating and make it their place of residence, then it's clear what the obligations are. I can't believe continuous cruising is suitable for anyone with a job or with children at school."

 

Tone

 

Yes I agree, it's not difficult. But Clive Henderson STILL did not spell it out. If you want to live on a boat in a specific area, then all you need to do is get a mooring. Then you are fully legitimate.

 

This appears to me to be about avoiding paying mooring fees, nothing else. I'm sure Paul Davies wound be more than pleased to comply with the rules if home moorings happened to be free.

 

Fixed accommodation is not free in our society. Accommodation services have to be either purchased or rented by everyone. People like Paul Davies who are trying to twist and bend the rules to avoid paying the legitimate costs of accommodation whilst staying in effectively one place because of the need for access to schools, job etc annoy me, frankly.

 

Brian Greaves seems a different case. He seem a legitimate CCer to me because his job requires him to continuously move around, unlike Paul Davies whose job requires him to stay put.

 

Just my opinion as a non liveaboard these days.

 

Mike

[Chris Pink]

 

 

Brian Greaves seems a different case. He seem a legitimate CCer to me because his job requires him to continuously move around, unlike Paul Davies whose job requires him to stay put.

 

Just my opinion as a non liveaboard these days.

 

Mike

 

Interesting. As someone who knows both well there is almost no difference in their cruising patterns. So how am I to differentiate your statement from blind prejudice? You seem to be saying that Mr Davies would be legitimate in your eyes if his deaf blind clients were on the canal?

 

Small difference to tie the noose.

[carlt]

At least Clive Henderson ends it with a note of sanity:

 

"If a family chooses to take up boating and make it their place of residence, then it's clear what the obligations are. I can't believe continuous cruising is suitable for anyone with a job or with children at school."

 

Whilst the statement should not earn him a section, it is still wrong.

 

It is perfectly feasible to continuously cruise, to BW's satisfaction, and hold down a full time job assuming you are willing to commute the same distance as many thousands of house dwelling workers.

[alan_fincher]

Interesting. As someone who knows both well there is almost no difference in their cruising patterns. So how am I to differentiate your statement from blind prejudice? You seem to be saying that Mr Davies would be legitimate in your eyes if his deaf blind clients were on the canal?

 

Small difference to tie the noose.

I tend to agree, I think......

 

It would seem odd if one person who had chosen to stick within a tight geographical area were deemed to not be within the rules, and another who on the face of it seems not dissimilar were considered OK.

 

Whilst I accept that the potential loss of someone providing services to boaters is always a shame, as neither the act, nor BW's guidelines make the distinction, it is hard to see why legally they should be treated differently.

 

As an aside, BW's actions on both the K&A and on the L&S do not seem to be having a deterrent effect on people elsewhere. I encountered yet another live-aboard boater who used to be in the same marina as us, now "continuously cruising" just outside it, just yesterday. His reasons were solely ones of escalating costs, so he has joined the increasing numbers who had a mooring, but are quitting them to move to the tow-path.

 

If BW decide to start enforcing in this area, I do wonder whether they would move in first on the ones that have held a mooring for years, but are now declaring themselves as CC, or whether their first targets would be the boats that have not held a mooring in years, but seldom move.

 

You could argue that the former have more willingly placed themselves in their current situation, I suppose. Either way, there must be some moorings free at the moment, if anybody were prepared to pay the charges now levied.

[canaldrifter]

It seems to me that all this is just pissing into wind anyway.

 

In view of the fact that TWT (or whatever) hasn't a cat's chance in hell of raising the additional funds needed over and above very limited GIA to effectively run our canals, then I reckon there is a very good chance that anarchy will eventually win the day, because there won't be the funding to police the waterways, nor prosecute mooring offenders.

 

Also there is a good chance that as lumps of waterway shut down because there isn't funding to repair leakage or rebuild crumbling 200 year old structures, it won't be possible to obey the continuous cruising conditions anyway.

 

I cite the Basingstoke's Deepcut Flight as a microcosm of what will happen to parts of the trust's network.

 

Tone

[MtB]

Interesting. As someone who knows both well there is almost no difference in their cruising patterns.

 

It has been clearly established the difference lies in the intention, not the distance travelled. You are being willfully awkward with that comment.

 

 

So how am I to differentiate your statement from blind prejudice? You seem to be saying that Mr Davies would be legitimate in your eyes if his deaf blind clients were on the canal?

 

Yes, I am saying exactly that. If Mr Davies' clients were canal dwellers and his boat was his consulting room, and he needed to travel to his clients and not them to him then yes, he would be a legit canal trader like Mr Greaves. But none of these are the case so he is not a legit canal trader.

 

From the article, Mr Greaves appears to use his boat as a mobile workshop and needs to take it to site to conduct his blacksmithy business which means he is bona fide CCing in my personal opinion. Mr Davies, it appears, only travels in order to avoid having to pay for a fixed mooring. Not bona fide CCing in my blindly prejudiced view. Given a free hand I suspect Mr Davies would prefer never to have to move. But unlike you, I don't know him so can only base my opinion on stuff said here, in the press and by the judge.

 

And my opinion is pretty ill-informed having only ever lived on board on the Thames where these issues do not crop up, so probably not valid. I take part in this debate to get an education so I'd appreciate it if you'd moderate your sniping and just explain your point of view coherently and logically. You might find you can change my opinion and I find myself agreeing with you.

 

 

Small difference to tie the noose.

 

Yes. A line has to be drawn in the sand in my view, somewhere between Mr Davies and Mr Greaves.

 

I think you are saying you do not agree that a line needs drawing at all, and that anyone shuttling even the most microscopic distance between two public moorings should be excused the requirement to buy or rent a home mooring. Is that your position? If so, then the law needs to be changed and the way to do that is by gaining popular support and lobbying your MP.

 

Mike

[ymu]

"BW is assuming the property market will recover in two years,"

 

Madness.

[carlt]

 

Brian Greaves seems a different case. He seem a legitimate CCer to me because his job requires him to continuously move around, unlike Paul Davies whose job requires him to stay put.

 

I'm wondering what differentiates Mister Greaves from other canal traders, who operate within a fixed area, yet attract no attention from British Waterways?

[David Schweizer]

I'm wondering what differentiates Mister Greaves from other canal traders, who operate within a fixed area, yet attract no attention from British Waterways?

As far as I am aware there is no difference. Brain Greaves has operated as a mobile Blacksmith on the K&A for at least 15 years to my knowledge, and was encouraged to do so in the past by the then BW Area Manager. If BW now decided that he should no longer opererate as he does, it could be a breach of faith on BW's part.

 

For the record Brian actually has two boats, a 55ft(ish)residential boat with no engine and a 15ft engined push tug which incorporates at Blacksmith's Forge.

Edited April 27, 2011 by David Schweizer

[Spesh]

I'm wondering what differentiates Mister Greaves from other canal traders, who operate within a fixed area, yet attract no attention from British Waterways?

 

Don't know if I missed it, but I didn't see anything in that article that suggests he is attracting attention from BW. I think he was just featured to give the perspective of someone who might hypothetically be impacted in the future if the BW charity elect to attempt to enforce more strict controls.

[cotswoldsman]

 

As an aside, BW's actions on both the K&A and on the L&S do not seem to be having a deterrent effect on people elsewhere. I encountered yet another live-aboard boater who used to be in the same marina as us, now "continuously cruising" just outside it, just yesterday. His reasons were solely ones of escalating costs, so he has joined the increasing numbers who had a mooring, but are quitting them to move to the tow-path.

 

If BW decide to start enforcing in this area, I do wonder whether they would move in first on the ones that have held a mooring for years, but are now declaring themselves as CC, or whether their first targets would be the boats that have not held a mooring in years, but seldom move.

 

You could argue that the former have more willingly placed themselves in their current situation, I suppose. Either way, there must be some moorings free at the moment, if anybody were prepared to pay the charges now levied.

 

I guess the ones that have just moved off there mooring will still have a licence showing they pay for a mooring and therefore will not attract the same attention, and according to what I read on here can continue to go back to the same moorings as often as they wish.

[Minos]

Interesting. As someone who knows both well there is almost no difference in their cruising patterns. So how am I to differentiate your statement from blind prejudice? You seem to be saying that Mr Davies would be legitimate in your eyes if his deaf blind clients were on the canal?

 

Small difference to tie the noose.

Chris, this has been discussed at length, and you have even quoted my response on your blog - you seem to be suffering from a convenient loss of memory. The difference is down to the intentions of the individual, not their cruising patterns.

 

Mike the Boilerman's response to you is absolutely right.

 

It would seem odd if one person who had chosen to stick within a tight geographical area were deemed to not be within the rules, and another who on the face of it seems not dissimilar were considered OK...

...it is hard to see why legally they should be treated differently.

BW has intimated that in interpreting the various Acts of Parliament (as they are required to do) they consider the intention of the boater to be fundamental. Two boaters with identical cruising patterns for a period of time could be legitimately deemed to be on opposite sides of the law precisely because of their intentions: one to remain close to work/school/friends; the other to explore an area they do not know as part of a lengthier pattern of continuous cruising.

 

They should be legally treated differently because the law expressly demands it that way.

[cereal tiller]

yes,it is licenced.

and it belongs to david gilmore of the band known as pink floyd

[canaldrifter]

yes,it is licenced.

and it belongs to david gilmore of the band known as pink floyd

 

It's sister hull is now an excellent floating Indian restaurant on Bob Potter's Lakeside, just off the Basingstoke at Frimley Green. The BMC 2.52 engine out of that is now powering my boat, Dreamcatcher.

 

Tone

[Chris Pink]

Chris, this has been discussed at length, and you have even quoted my response on your blog - you seem to be suffering from a convenient loss of memory. The difference is down to the intentions of the individual, not their cruising patterns.

 

Mike the Boilerman's response to you is absolutely right.

 

 

 

It is not my personal opinion I am examining here, for the record, in my opinion Mr Davies brought this on his own head and has done many boaters a big disservice - and he knows this is my view- and that Mr Greaves is an asset to the community and the waterways and I would imagine his would be one of the very last of the fantasy evictions.

 

It is simply to explore the nature of assumption when it comes to intention. We now have Mr Boilerman appearing to say that if Mr Davies takes up a canal centred occupation then his behaviour, which you will note has not changed, then becomes acceptable.

 

Another question then; how many hours would Mr Davies have to devote to canal based care and how many hours would Mr Greaves be allowed to work on the bank in this never never land?

Edited April 27, 2011 by Chris Pink

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

 

 

yes,it is licenced.

and it belongs to david gilmore of the band known as pink floyd

 

I presume that these two posts go together

 

Richard

[bargemast]

It's sister hull is now an excellent floating Indian restaurant on Bob Potter's Lakeside, just off the Basingstoke at Frimley Green. The BMC 2.52 engine out of that is now powering my boat, Dreamcatcher.

 

Tone

 

 

Hello Tone,

 

did the sistership from which you have the BMC-2.52 in "Dreamcatcher" look the photograph of the houseboat in the previous posting ? If so, did it have more engines ? it looks like quite a thing that is not really made to be going anywhere much.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter.

[Smelly]

It has been clearly established the difference lies in the intention, not the distance travelled. You are being willfully awkward with that comment.

 

 

 

 

The difference is down to the intentions of the individual, not their cruising patterns.

 

Mike the Boilerman's response to you is absolutely right.

 

 

BW has intimated that in interpreting the various Acts of Parliament (as they are required to do) they consider the intention of the boater to be fundamental. Two boaters with identical cruising patterns for a period of time could be legitimately deemed to be on opposite sides of the law precisely because of their intentions: one to remain close to work/school/friends; the other to explore an area they do not know as part of a lengthier pattern of continuous cruising. Do you mean that the distances over which an individual was likely to travel might be further than a couple of miles per hop?

 

 

 

 

On the individual facts PD's intentions were drawn into question... he wasn't bona fide in his attempts at navigation, however HH O'Malley also made findings flatly refusing to accept that the distances travelled might constitute navigation. The intention, although part of the mix, is not the be all and end all and I sorely doubt on different facts that intentions will be decisive and they certainly weren't the sole factor in PD's case.

[Minos]

It is not my personal opinion I am examining here, for the record, in my opinion Mr Davies brought this on his own head and has done many boaters a big disservice - and he knows this is my view- and that Mr Greaves is an asset to the community and the waterways and I would imagine his would be one of the very last of the fantasy evictions.

 

It is simply to explore the nature of assumption when it comes to intention. We now have Mr Boilerman appearing to say that if Mr Davies takes up a canal centred occupation then his behaviour, which you will note has not changed, then becomes acceptable.

 

Another question then; how many hours would Mr Davies have to devote to canal based care and how many hours would Mr Greaves be allowed to work on the bank in this never never land?

I can't speak on Boilerman's behalf - that is for him to do. All I can do is agree (or disagree, if appropriate) with what he has posted.

 

The crucial point in this situation is that the Act of Parliament has placed the decision in these matters entirely in the hands of BW (and whatever charity takes its place.) It is their decision. This is the point that people (like your good self) seem to have a problem comprehending.

 

They have made it clear that they consider intention as crucial in these matters, and judge boaters' intentions by their place of work, social life, children's schools and so on.

 

It doesn't matter a rat's dick whether boaters like that or not. The law has given BW that power, and the law has chosen not to revoke it.

 

Mr Davies' case has been tested by the law and found wanting. Mr Greaves' has not yet been tested. A wise person would objectively extrapolate from what is known and make an educated guess. A fool would bet his home on it.

[cotswoldsman]

It is not my personal opinion I am examining here, for the record, in my opinion Mr Davies brought this on his own head and has done many boaters a big disservice - and he knows this is my view- and that Mr Greaves is an asset to the community and the waterways and I would imagine his would be one of the very last of the fantasy evictions.

 

 

 

I guess I am not one of the many boaters you refer to as I do not understand what disservice he has done me. I would be interested to know how many members on here feel that Mr Davies has done them a disservice. I guess as usual I am in the minority not being one of these many boaters!!!!

[Chris Pink]

Glad to hear it.