BW vs Davies

[Sir Nibble]

Don't keep on disagreeing with ymu. She'll become disturbed,start laughing hysterically and accuse you of stalking her.

She has so far accused me of:

• 
   
  
• Seeking to deny CCers a life.
  
• Being vindictive.
  
• Mindlessness.
  
• Being pathetic.
  
• Petty mindedness.
  

I have tried to answer each of these carefully, offering long explanation and fairly detailed reasoning. Her sole argument beyond insult has been called into question twice now and no response is forthcoming, so let's try again.

Does the water useage incurred by boat movements render continuous cruising in your opinion unsustainable?

I await the hysterical laughter as more likely than an answer.

[canaldrifter]

Having just read through this entire fairly fascinating thread (I know... too much time on my hands) it seems obvious that the main contention is to do with the intention of how the boat is used.

 

1. If the intention is to use the boat for bona fide cruising, and the mooring limits and 'place' rules are adhered to in good will then all is well.

 

2. If the boat is principally intended to be used as a 'home-by-choice' and also for bona fide cruising then all is well.

 

3. If the boat is intended to be used as a 'home-by-choice' but the intention is not to use it for bona fide cruising according to the act, then all is not well.

 

Someone suggested that Mr Davies had admitted that he was only moving his boat backwards and forwards along a ten mile stretch of the K&A to avoid having to have a permanent mooring. If that was the case then he did not intend to use it for bona fide cruising according to the act.

 

I wonder whether there would have been a court case at all if he had stated that he intended to use the boat for bona fide cruising up and down his favourite piece of canal and if he had asked BW to define how far he should travel in that area to comply with the act.

 

I bet there would have been some head-scratching then.

 

Tone

[Sir Nibble]

Having just read through this entire fairly fascinating thread (I know... too much time on my hands) it seems obvious that the main contention is to do with the intention of how the boat is used.

 

1. If the intention is to use the boat for bona fide cruising, and the mooring limits and 'place' rules are adhered to in good will then all is well.

 

2. If the boat is principally intended to be used as a 'home-by-choice' and also for bona fide cruising then all is well.

 

3. If the boat is intended to be used as a 'home-by-choice' but the intention is not to use it for bona fide cruising according to the act, then all is not well.

 

Someone suggested that Mr Davies had admitted that he was only moving his boat backwards and forwards along a ten mile stretch of the K&A to avoid having to have a permanent mooring. If that was the case then he did not intend to use it for bona fide cruising according to the act.

 

I wonder whether there would have been a court case at all if he had stated that he intended to use the boat for bona fide cruising up and down his favourite piece of canal and if he had asked BW to define how far he should travel in that area to comply with the act.

 

I bet there would have been some head-scratching then.

 

Tone

Unfortunately I suspect BW would have simply referred him to the guidelines and no one would have been any further forward. This issue really cries out to go back to parliament and be resolved clearly and unambiguously once and for all.

[cotswoldsman]

I think the 14 days itself may become evidential of intent,14 days is a limit not a target. If one never (or rarely) stops for less than 14 days then that may demonstrate an intention to minimise actual cruising making the location more important than the cruising.

 

Don't quite follow that argument or should I say statement. I often stay in one place for 14 days have even been known to stop for 21 days if I really like somewhere.

 

It seems like an utterly bizarre prediction. Why on earth would they force CCers to use more lock passages when there is a water shortage and one of the main complaints is that we get to use the cut more (by dint of actually being on our boats). At the moment, the typical CCer does less than the typical holiday-maker, it would be stupid to address a non-existent problem by making them put more wear on the infrastructure.

 

 

 

I think to save water and wear and tear on the system CCers should not move and just stay in one place.

[ymu]

Read it.

So to validate your point, do you consider continuous cruising to be unsustainable in terms of water use? Would you accept being limited in your annual lock useage (useing the K&A scenario 24 lock passages per year)in order to avoid water "wastage"?

I think it's insane to make CCers travel the length of the L&S five times a year when they could do it once within the current (and new) guidelines. It'll increase traffic for all river users, including visiting boats, and leave Lady Muck and her fellow moorers stranded most of the time.

 

But, you know, don't let basic good sense get in the way of bashing the most vulnerable. That would never do.

Edited May 18, 2011 by ymu

[cotswoldsman]

I think it's insane to make CCers travel the length of the L&S five times a year when they could do it once within the current (and new) guidelines. It'll increase traffic for all river users, including visiting boats, and leave Lady Muck and her fellow moorers stranded most of the time.

 

But, you know, don't let basic good sense get in the way of bashing the most vulnerable. That would never do.

 

As I have not read said thread and have no intention of reading it as I will not be going on L & S I do not understand why CCers should not move every other day. You seem to be saying that a considerate CCer should do minimum amount of movements. Yes I do stay quite often for 14 days but on average most probably move very 3 days. Does that now make me an inconsiderate CCer? Or should that be ICCer

[matty40s]

I think it's insane to make CCers travel the length of the L&S five times a year when they could do it once within the current (and new) guidelines. It'll increase traffic for all river users, including visiting boats, and leave Lady Muck and her fellow moorers stranded most of the time.

But, you know, don't let basic good sense get in the way of bashing the most vulnerable. That would never do.

 

Which is why this CC'er did it before Easter.......

There have been several occasions during and since Easter when a couple of pounds have run un-navigable up the top end due to the volume of boat movements (before the new guidelines come in).

 

What would make more sense is for BW just to enforce the present rules more effectively instead of introducing unworkable and ridiculous new proposals. Along with removing the permanent fixture CM'ers completely - two boats have been lifted out of the Lea in recent weeks, with another 5 in the pipeline..

[ymu]

As I have not read said thread and have no intention of reading it as I will not be going on L & S I do not understand why CCers should not move every other day. You seem to be saying that a considerate CCer should do minimum amount of movements. Yes I do stay quite often for 14 days but on average most probably move very 3 days. Does that now make me an inconsiderate CCer? Or should that be ICCer

I'm not really following this.

 

I'm saying that BW are forcing CCers who would otherwise move less to move five times as much as the minimum required by the current CC guidelines. On a river which already has problems with moored boats getting beached through overuse of the locks.

 

I've said nothing at all about whether people should be allowed to move when they wish, simply that forcing all of them to move more than the minimum required makes life worse for every other river user, and costs BW a lot of money too. It appears to have been born out of little more than spite, because it is the most ridiculous proposed solution to the stated problem I have ever seen.

 

Which is why this CC'er did it before Easter.......

There have been several occasions during and since Easter when a couple of pounds have run un-navigable up the top end due to the volume of boat movements (before the new guidelines come in).

 

What would make more sense is for BW just to enforce the present rules more effectively instead of introducing unworkable and ridiculous new proposals. Along with removing the permanent fixture CM'ers completely - two boats have been lifted out of the Lea in recent weeks, with another 5 in the pipeline..

An informed view? On CWDF? Be off with you, cad!

[RichardN]

I think it's insane to make CCers travel the length of the L&S five times a year when they could do it once within the current (and new) guidelines. It'll increase traffic for all river users, including visiting boats, and leave Lady Muck and her fellow moorers stranded most of the time.

 

If I recall right Lady Muck's problem is caused by people ignoring the signs and not shutting gates behind them. The lock gates leak, pound drains. So if no boats move and the lock gates are left open then the pound will run dry. I suspect it will get a lot better with more boat movements. I am struggling here but cannot remember the Lee & Stort ever having water restrictions though as a river navigation that should happen in dry summers? The whole argument of the Lee and Stort running dry because it is used for navigation seems highly unlikely to me

[ymu]

You'd have to ask Lady Muck. She lives there, and I wouldn't know if it was a problem had she not mentioned it.

 

I may have misunderstood her, of course. And I have no idea how fewer lock passages could use more water but I know very little about how the waterways are engineered, so always happy to learn.

[Sir Nibble]

I think it's insane to make CCers travel the length of the L&S five times a year when they could do it once within the current (and new) guidelines. It'll increase traffic for all river users, including visiting boats, and leave Lady Muck and her fellow moorers stranded most of the time.

 

But, you know, don't let basic good sense get in the way of bashing the most vulnerable. That would never do.

If they stuck to either the current or new guidelines they wouldn't be on the river, they'd have moved on long ago to be replaced by a few temporary visitors. The real answer is to enforce upon the Davies principle, no licence renewal since you have demonstrated you do not want to cruise.

But, you know, don't let basic good sense get in the way of bashing the most vulnerable. That would never do.

"I bet you think Hitler was right".

Now, do you consider CCing to be unsustainable due to water useage, third time of asking. If so why are you doing it, if not where is your point?

If water useage means forcing Lea squatters to move up and down will drain the navigation then force them to move on off the river as they indicated they would when they agreed to the CC declaration.

[matty40s]

If I recall right Lady Muck's problem is caused by people ignoring the signs and not shutting gates behind them. The lock gates leak, pound drains. So if no boats move and the lock gates are left open then the pound will run dry. I suspect it will get a lot better with more boat movements. I am struggling here but cannot remember the Lee & Stort ever having water restrictions though as a river navigation that should happen in dry summers? The whole argument of the Lee and Stort running dry because it is used for navigation seems highly unlikely to me

 

 

some points from and "informed viewer" !""""

 

The main problems recently have been up near the new shiny Roydon Marina, the pound below Brick Lock if fairly short, and is also drained by the new lock down into the Marina Lake(with no back pump fitted for some unearthly reason). A cavalcade of plastics drained it prior to Easter and then over Easter and MayBank as the shiny boats came out and went back in it happened again several times.

Lady Mucks main issue is that the moorings havn't been dredged since 1789 and as soon as Stonebridge Lock is used more than Picketts, the boats on the long term moorings all bottom out.

 

Second Point Mr Nibble,

BW issues River Only Licences to some 240plus boats on the L&S. A proportion of these are CC'ers/CM'ers, and are therefore restricted to the Navigation they currently reside on.

[romarni123]

some points from and "informed viewer" !""""

 

The main problems recently have been up near the new shiny Roydon Marina, the pound below Brick Lock if fairly short, and is also drained by the new lock down into the Marina Lake(with no back pump fitted for some unearthly reason). A cavalcade of plastics drained it prior to Easter and then over Easter and MayBank as the shiny boats came out and went back in it happened again several times.

Lady Mucks main issue is that the moorings havn't been dredged since 1789 and as soon as Stonebridge Lock is used more than Picketts, the boats on the long term moorings all bottom out.

 

Second Point Mr Nibble,

BW issues River Only Licences to some 240plus boats on the L&S. A proportion of these are CC'ers/CM'ers, and are therefore restricted to the Navigation they currently reside on.

Then perhaps that is the answer, issue those without a mooring a canal and river licence so they can extened their cruising pattern.Can they refuse to issue a rivers only licence and insist you have CandR one??

[RichardN]

some points from and "informed viewer" !""""

 

The main problems recently have been up near the new shiny Roydon Marina, the pound below Brick Lock if fairly short, and is also drained by the new lock down into the Marina Lake(with no back pump fitted for some unearthly reason). A cavalcade of plastics drained it prior to Easter and then over Easter and MayBank as the shiny boats came out and went back in it happened again several times.

Lady Mucks main issue is that the moorings havn't been dredged since 1789 and as soon as Stonebridge Lock is used more than Picketts, the boats on the long term moorings all bottom out.

 

Second Point Mr Nibble,

BW issues River Only Licences to some 240plus boats on the L&S. A proportion of these are CC'ers/CM'ers, and are therefore restricted to the Navigation they currently reside on.

 

During this debate over the last few months in various places I have see plenty of comments about "shiny boats" often made in quite a nasty way *sigh*

 

Dredging is always a problem but according to this post http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=30338&view=findpost&p=531423 it seems to be about not shutting gates.

 

I must admit I don't see what is wrong with BW issuing rivers only licences to people on the Lee. For example if someone wanted to only use the Lee, Thames and Wey is that wrong? Is it for BW to cross examine every application before allowing it?

[mayalld]

I think it's insane to make CCers travel the length of the L&S five times a year when they could do it once within the current (and new) guidelines. It'll increase traffic for all river users, including visiting boats, and leave Lady Muck and her fellow moorers stranded most of the time.

 

But, you know, don't let basic good sense get in the way of bashing the most vulnerable. That would never do.

 

You simply don't get it do you.

 

The whole concept of CCing is to cruise.

 

The law on licencing without a home mooring contains TWO requirement.

1. An objective requirement not to remain in one place for more than 14 days.
2. A subjective requirement to "satisfy the board" that you will engage in "bona fide navigation"

Now, leaving aside possible arguments about what constitutes a "place", because by and large all but the most vociferous CMers are happy with the CC guidelines on what constitutes a place, that means that we have one requirement that we can easily say "met" or "not met". You seem to feel that provided you can tick the box on the easy to measure requirement, that is sufficient, and that the second (difficult to measure) requirement can be ignored.

 

It cannot, and that means that it would be difficult for a boater to claim that shuttling up and down the L&S all the time is "a cruise", as opposed to just ticking the "move every 14 days box".

 

Bluntly, the CCers on the L&S should go and CC, which will involve going elsewhere than the L&S as well. That BW is prepared to offer them a potential option to cruise no further than the L&S, provided they move more should be regarded as a concession to be grateful for, not a dreadful imposition.

 

 

Second Point Mr Nibble,

BW issues River Only Licences to some 240plus boats on the L&S. A proportion of these are CC'ers/CM'ers, and are therefore restricted to the Navigation they currently reside on.

 

No they aren't.

 

They are perfectly entitled to buy a short term licence (at a discount) to allow them onto canals.

[matty40s]

Then perhaps that is the answer, issue those without a mooring a canal and river licence so they can extened their cruising pattern.Can they refuse to issue a rivers only licence and insist you have CandR one??

 

I havent got a clue, the Rivers only (L&S) has been issued for years and there are many boaters up there who have never been anywhere else. However, BW would really struggle to remove it from 20 years plus L&S boaters, it probably would move into the Human Rights area of conflict.

 

The main issue for most of the waterways users in the area is that BW did NO research, didn't involve ANYONE except the Lee Parks Authority and tried to force it all through in half the normal consultation period expecting no tangible response.

The Cruising associations don't want extra boat movements, the Anglers don't, the Rowing Clubs don't, they just want a couple of clear corners and NO boat movements on Regatta days, there are various outreach groups which PREFER the CC'ers and even CM'ers as they bring security to the towpaths. It has been a very interesting process watching BW extend the consultation to the prescribed 12 weeks and now extra time,it has also been notable as to the complete rejection of the proposals by all except the IWA , who will NOT engage with anyone else if they aren't members.

 

It is probably a quite unique and beautiful area, well worth exploring MR Cotswoldman, and has issues completely of it's own. IF BW embraced these issues (as it seems half in the mind to) it could create something exceptional as a stakeholder partnership in the entire E.London/L&S area. It depends on how bravesome people are, and how set in stone others are...................

 

No they aren't.

They are perfectly entitled to buy a short term licence (at a discount) to allow them onto canals.

 

......but can they afford it, and why should they when they have a licence that should allow them to CC the 41.5 miles they have paid for??

 

Richard, the Rivers Licence only covers the L&S, the THAMES is different, and I believe the Wey is National Trust.

[romarni123]

Thanks I dont think the can they afford it should be an issue, Do the boats mentioned move over the whole lenght or only over a small lenght

Edited May 18, 2011 by romarni123

[Minos]

Having just read through this entire fairly fascinating thread (I know... too much time on my hands) it seems obvious that the main contention is to do with the intention of how the boat is used.

 

1. If the intention is to use the boat for bona fide cruising, and the mooring limits and 'place' rules are adhered to in good will then all is well.

 

2. If the boat is principally intended to be used as a 'home-by-choice' and also for bona fide cruising then all is well.

 

3. If the boat is intended to be used as a 'home-by-choice' but the intention is not to use it for bona fide cruising according to the act, then all is not well.

 

Someone suggested that Mr Davies had admitted that he was only moving his boat backwards and forwards along a ten mile stretch of the K&A to avoid having to have a permanent mooring. If that was the case then he did not intend to use it for bona fide cruising according to the act.

 

I wonder whether there would have been a court case at all if he had stated that he intended to use the boat for bona fide cruising up and down his favourite piece of canal and if he had asked BW to define how far he should travel in that area to comply with the act.

 

I bet there would have been some head-scratching then.

 

Tone

The legal principle is ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ - which roughly translated means that unless you have a guilty mind ('mens rea') then the act you perform doesn't make you guilty. Hence the vital importance of the words 'bona fide' in the Act.

 

What I am enjoying more than anything else is the quantity of time and effort people are putting into analysing the arse off everything written and said about this judgement in order to justify refusing to acknowledge the legal principle upon which it, and the Act of Parliament upon which it is based, relies upon.

 

As the judgement states, "It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17 etc"

 

Whatever else people are arguing about, it is obvious to anyone without a chip on their shoulder that the instrumental factor in this case was not Davies' movements of his boat, but the manner in which the movements of his boat reflected his ties to an area. The law demanded an examination of his intentions, and those intentions fell short of what the law requires.

 

Everything else is just noise.

[RichardN]

 

Richard, the Rivers Licence only covers the L&S, the THAMES is different, and I believe the Wey is National Trust.

 

Exactly the point (and I do like your shorthand classification of the Thames as different, very accurate for this context).

[mayalld]

 

......but can they afford it, and why should they when they have a licence that should allow them to CC the 41.5 miles they have paid for??

 

 

Whether they can afford it isn't a factor.

 

Boating has a cost, and has rules that must be complied with. Saying "I can't afford that cost, and I can't comply with those rules isn't an option"

 

You still miss the point that trundling up and down the same 41.5 miles for 20 years is NOT CCing. It is complying with the 14 day rule, without bothering with the bona fide navigation aspect.

[matty40s]

Whether they can afford it isn't a factor.

Boating has a cost, and has rules that must be complied with. Saying "I can't afford that cost, and I can't comply with those rules isn't an option"

You still miss the point that trundling up and down the same 41.5 miles for 20 years is NOT CCing. It is complying with the 14 day rule, without bothering with the bona fide navigation aspect.

 

I do not miss the point Dave, they have a licence which gives them 41.5 miles of Navigation, that is exactly what they pay for.

They also have a CC aspect of the licence which BW have agreed, otherwise, BW would not have issued it.

 

There are lots of people up there who stick to the L&S rules, they move up and down the rivers.

 

The only people who now miss the point, are the minority who wish to continuously moor at Stanstead Abbots,Stonebridge, Harlow or outside Springfield marina and only move to wash the other side of the boat....or not as the lime-sapped hulks may suggest.

 

and if BW acted against the well known offenders instead of trying to bring in ridiculous new proposals, then it would be far more respected by all and sundry, and as previously stated, they are starting to pull boats out.....so there is hope for even you.

[ymu]

If they stuck to either the current or new guidelines they wouldn't be on the river, they'd have moved on long ago to be replaced by a few temporary visitors. The real answer is to enforce upon the Davies principle, no licence renewal since you have demonstrated you do not want to cruise.

 

 

Now, do you consider CCing to be unsustainable due to water useage, third time of asking. If so why are you doing it, if not where is your point?

If water useage means forcing Lea squatters to move up and down will drain the navigation then force them to move on off the river as they indicated they would when they agreed to the CC declaration.

Your reading comprehension needs some work. I ain't bothering until you do.

 

You simply don't get it do you.

 

The whole concept of CCing is to cruise.

 

The law on licencing without a home mooring contains TWO requirement.

1. An objective requirement not to remain in one place for more than 14 days.
2. A subjective requirement to "satisfy the board" that you will engage in "bona fide navigation"

Now, leaving aside possible arguments about what constitutes a "place", because by and large all but the most vociferous CMers are happy with the CC guidelines on what constitutes a place, that means that we have one requirement that we can easily say "met" or "not met". You seem to feel that provided you can tick the box on the easy to measure requirement, that is sufficient, and that the second (difficult to measure) requirement can be ignored.

 

It cannot, and that means that it would be difficult for a boater to claim that shuttling up and down the L&S all the time is "a cruise", as opposed to just ticking the "move every 14 days box".

 

Bluntly, the CCers on the L&S should go and CC, which will involve going elsewhere than the L&S as well. That BW is prepared to offer them a potential option to cruise no further than the L&S, provided they move more should be regarded as a concession to be grateful for, not a dreadful imposition.

 

 

 

No they aren't.

 

They are perfectly entitled to buy a short term licence (at a discount) to allow them onto canals.

You an' all. Shockingly testerical stuff.

[Sir Nibble]

Your reading comprehension needs some work. I ain't bothering until you do.

 

 

Well answering one way brings your whole argument down in flames and answering the other way makes you a hypocrit so I can well understand why you are frightened to commit yourself, I'll just stop asking, leave you to your monologue style of debate and accept that you are a fine exponent of the unfounded argument.

[ymu]

Like I said, put a bit of effort in and you could be retaining whole sentences soon!

[Sir Nibble]

Like I said, put a bit of effort in and you could be retaining whole sentences soon!

Go ahead, whatever you like, you're the one who has publicly demonstrated an inability to sustain an argument. I'm off back to the issues, you know, the point of the debate, the stuff you call irrelevant.