BW vs Davies

[Allan(nb Albert)]

BW's website is still saying -

 

British Waterways is currently waiting for the sealed Judgment relating to the recent continuous cruiser ruling. As soon as we have it we will post it on this page along with revised continuous cruiser guidelines.

 

However, they have provided me with the information I requested on April 1st under the freedom of information act (which I said I would make available here)-

 

Sealed Judgement

 

Court Order

 

Revised Mooring Guidance

[KenK]

Well despite all the doom sayers all BW have done is clarify the CC guidelines, seems perfectly reasonable and should be clear to everyone what they mean. However I suspect it won't stop the arguments.

 

Ken

[Gibbo]

...it won't stop the arguments.

 

Or the continuous moorers

[deletedaccount]

Or the continuous moaners

[muddywaters]

Well I have only ead the first page of the constant cruising guidelines butit is very clear to understand IMHO.

Ans might add is also what my idea of constant cruising has always been.

So perhaps now the anti constant cruiser brigade will concentrate on the real abusers constant moorers and leave the genune constant cruisers alone

[deletedaccount]

bloody cheek including any reference to the davies case in the guidelines imo

[carlt]

Am I alone in thinking that they may have shot themselves in the foot with:

 

What constitutes a „neighbourhood‟ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village or

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

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

[Guest]

Am I alone in thinking that they may have shot themselves in the foot with:

 

Rather...

[churchward]

You could be right. I guess they are trying to say they will reasonably flex the limits of what a neighborhood is as they see fit but it also could set the expectation that a neighborhood inside a city/town will be just a couple of miles or so and OK to move in and out of this. It depends on the conditions around return which I haven't looked at yet.

Edited May 16, 2011 by churchward

[Sir Nibble]

I suspect that what the guidelines say is of far less importance than the intention (or otherwise) to enforce them. If the mooring strategies on the K&A and Lea are implemented then I would suggest that that demonstrates a lack of intention to enforce the new guidelines any more than the old.

[Graham Davis]

bloody cheek including any reference to the davies case in the guidelines imo

 

Why is it?

This case is an important item in the arguement, and other people may wish to read it in full, and not listen to biased and ill-informed tittle-tattle from others, which is prevelant on most internet forums.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Why is it?

This case is an important item in the arguement, and other people may wish to read it in full, and not listen to biased and ill-informed tittle-tattle from others, which is prevelant on most internet forums.

 

I think the objection was to Paul Davies's name being used in the guidelines rather than the sealed judgement.

[Phoenix_V]

Revised Mooring Guidance

 

The new guidelines rather contradict what they are proposing for the Lea and Stort

 

Well done by the way for bringing this to us.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Revised Mooring Guidance

 

The new guidelines rather contradict what they are proposing for the Lea and Stort

 

Well done by the way for bringing this to us.

 

I seem to recall getting a bit of stick on this forum for requesting information that BW had indicated that it would publish anyway.

This link currently reads -

 

Bristol continuous cruiser ruling

British Waterways is currently waiting for the sealed Judgment relating to the recent continuous cruiser ruling. As soon as we have it we will post it on this page along with revised continuous cruiser guidelines.

 

Perhaps the reason that BW have not published this information is because the new guidelines contradict the L&S proposals and its own press release.

 

There is no valid reason why BW should not publish on its website. Hopefully, this post will embarrass them into doing so

Edited May 16, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[paulmorgan]

I seem to recall getting a bit of stick on this forum for requesting information that BW had indicated that it would publish anyway.

This link currently reads -

 

Bristol continuous cruiser ruling

British Waterways is currently waiting for the sealed Judgment relating to the recent continuous cruiser ruling. As soon as we have it we will post it on this page along with revised continuous cruiser guidelines.

 

Perhaps the reason that BW have not published this information is because the new guidelines contradict the L&S proposals and its own press release.

 

There is no valid reason why BW should not publish on its website. Hopefully, this post will embarrass them into doing so

 

Allan,

I'm just waiting for the all clear to publish them from the senior manager responsible, that is all. I have it all waiting to go. Will let this thread know when it's done.

 

All the best,

Paul

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Allan,

I'm just waiting for the all clear to publish them from the senior manager responsible, that is all. I have it all waiting to go. Will let this thread know when it's done.

 

All the best,

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

Why do you need an 'all clear' when BW has already committed to publish?

 

Who is the senior manager responsible?

 

Why did BW not just publish and provide my foi request with links?

[RichardN]

I seem to recall getting a bit of stick on this forum for requesting information that BW had indicated that it would publish anyway.

 

 

Quite rightly too. How much has your grandstanding cost?

[paulmorgan]

Hi Paul,

 

Why do you need an 'all clear' when BW has already committed to publish?

 

Who is the senior manager responsible?

 

Why did BW not just publish and provide my foi request with links?

 

Hi Allan,

Simples, because I'm not the person responsible for that subject area, it's the Head of Boating, Sally Ash (the senior manager responsible). I would guess it's similar to your position at NBW - you have certain responsibilities and others have the same according to their specialism/ area of expertise. I got a number of documents from a BW lawyer and needed to clarify what went up and where. As part of this update, we are removing a superfluous page and amending another existing one where this information sits better in context.

 

Whilst this may take some time, we don't want to hold up you getting the documents that you have requested... I mean, you might think it a conspiracy if we took too long

 

edited to add:

 

The documents et al are now available at:

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/our-work/boating/long-term-moorings-provision

 

and we have removed the page that lived under this section - it was the holding page that had the text you referenced on it.

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listening-to-you/consultations-and-reviews

 

We have also changed the short url for http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/bristol_cc_ruling to the long term moorings provision page.

 

 

All the best,

Paul

Edited May 16, 2011 by paulmorgan

[cotswoldsman]

I have said before that I have no problem with what people like to call Bridge Hoppers that move within the mooring guide lines. Not quite sure that all these documents will make any difference to people that simply overstay for ages on what some people call "Prime Locations". People that just stay on these "Prime Locations" are in my opinion simply selfish and that is a mind set and all the documents in the world will make no difference to these people.

As I read these documents I can not see that things will change unless BW spend there life using limited funds going to court.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Quite rightly too. How much has your grandstanding cost?

 

I will submit a foi request to find out

 

Unfortunately, BW can not be trusted to publish in a timely manner what it says it will and often needs some encouragement.

 

It would seem to me that BW has had some six months to alter its CC guidelines (the main judgement is dated 30th November). Why the delay?

 

Having said that, it is good that BW are, at last, meeting with NABO and other boating user groups to discuss the new draft guidelines.

[Chris Pink]

Quite rightly too. How much has your grandstanding cost?

 

to scan 2 documents and post them and one pdf on the internet, I'll charge you £6.75

 

Oh, hang on, this is British Waterways we're talking about....

 

that will be £275.64 plus the VAT......

 

....Sir.

[paulmorgan]

Hi All,

The revised mooring guiduance has been edited to show to differences between the previous and the current versions, so it is easier to see what has been changed. Hopefully, that should be the last edit for a while.

 

All the best,

Paul

[carlt]

Hopefully, that should be the last edit for a while.

 

But, considering the number of times BW has reinterpreted this law, expect another rewrite in a few months time.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Hi All,

The revised mooring guiduance has been edited to show to differences between the previous and the current versions, so it is easier to see what has been changed. Hopefully, that should be the last edit for a while.

 

All the best,

Paul

 

Thanks, that is very helpful.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But, considering the number of times BW has reinterpreted this law, expect another rewrite in a few months time.

 

Perhaps, sooner than that. I see note 4 repeats part of note 1.

 

I am told another case is on its way and that 'will of parliament' will be used as part of the defense. No doubt those with a grounding in law will be able to explain.