No room in the middle ?

[ymu]

Yes. The judge said he wasn't going to use the CC guidance because it was not an accurate reflection if the law. Therefore, I have a reasonable expectation that, should the board declare itself unsatisfied, we will nevertheless be able to satisfy a court, as long as we comply with the 1995 Act.

 

I have no idea why you think you're saying any different.

 

The key difference is that some used to claim that the requirement in the Act to satisfy the board entailed obeying the CC guidance. We now have a precedent that states this us not the case. The CC guidance just tells you what patterns are unlikely to be called into question, but don't cover all ways of complying with the law.

[PhilR]

Similar topics to this appear regularly on here and they usually degenerate into an argument (or lively discussion )

 

Like anything else in the UK, those who pay the most often receive the least and visa versa. Like anything else in our society we have to accept and applaud this as it is a sign of democracy and freedom at work.

 

Putting aside financial issues etc, I do have a lot of sympathy with people on hire boats and boat owners who aren't living aboard. The problem that faces them frequently is the lack of overnight moorings near to pubs, towns, facilities etc. I reckon more 24 hour only moorings would be a way forward.

[ymu]

Thrupp is 5 miles north of Oxford, Nibble. In an area too expensive for us to want to live on land there. There are cheap moorings all over, and there's always the option of keeping the boat further away from home, if excessive charges become worse than the cist and inconvenience of travel.

 

It comes down to your personal preferences, and what it is worth to you. If the limited resource you want control of is desired by lots of others and those others have a high disposable income, it will be expensive for you to get what you want.

 

This is no reason to bitch about people who have made different, cheaper, choices in life. You can't always get what you want. Learn to live with it cos green-eyed monster is not an attractive look.

[DeanS]

We are CC-ers

We intend to keep moving

We paid for 1 month in a mooring for May.

We know that between Oct and Feb things freeze up

We've made plans to return to the same marina mooring for that period.

 

Today a BW lock keeper told us that because we are CC-ers we arent allowed to return for a winter mooring.

 

Guess he wants us to just end up frozen in somewhere away from power, facilities etc.

 

I dont see a problem being a CC-er while the water is liquid, and a moorer when the water is frozen...but apparently it's not allowed.

[Sunset Rising]

Well this has turned into a good lively debate Sort of confirms my belief that there should be something 'in the middle'

 

My references to Oxford, cropredy and heyford were just places chosen at random because I happen to know where they are and could envisage someone wanting to stay there a bit longer than two weeks.

 

Lets try turning this onto a slightly different tack. The original post wasn't particularly about me, this is.

 

I am technically blind. my son is also technichally blind. This means we cannot drive cars but could ( and do ) manage a very slowly moving boat with the frequent aid of binoculars.

 

This puts us in an awkward position as travelling long distances to get to our boat for regular short breaks is difficult.... but we cannot run to permanent moorings ( and wouldn't really want to as that would mean we only ever 'see' the same bit of scenery ) Continuous cruising is ok but getting back to the boat on public transport can be a bind and having to ALWAYS do it within 14 days puts a damper on things.

 

A 'middle' road would work well for us and there is no intension or desire to 'get one over' on other boaters or the system.

[ymu]

We often invite family and friends to crew when we want to bounce cars for a long cruise with no handy stations. We also offer free holidays when the boy wants a bath and unmetered internet for downloading.

 

You might be able to do something similar for awkward fortnights?

 

Travel time and costs as a CCer are massive, even if you live aboard. But lots of canals follow railway lines for considerable distances and we often hop berween stations for convenience (the boy doesn't drive). BW ought to be sympathetic too, if you let them know the score. RNIB might be helpful. Towpaths are very popular with blind walkers. There's no good reason not to be accommodating as long as you do your best to stick to the rules.

[Sir Nibble]

Thrupp is 5 miles north of Oxford, Nibble. In an area too expensive for us to want to live on land there. There are cheap moorings all over, and there's always the option of keeping the boat further away from home, if excessive charges become worse than the cist and inconvenience of travel. I'll try this again. If I could find a cheaper mooring within a sensible distance of my home I would take it.

It comes down to your personal preferences, and what it is worth to you. If the limited resource you want control of is desired by lots of others and those others have a high disposable income, it will be expensive for you to get what you want. It is not down to personal preferance, it is a licence condition. I do not want control over any resource nor have I ever implied so. I agreed already that mooring costs are subject to market conditions, of course they are, the point does not need making.

This is no reason to bitch about people who have made different, cheaper, choices in life. You can't always get what you want. Learn to live with it cos green-eyed monster is not an attractive look. I have never bitched about anyone making different choices except those who choose to live in such a way that their choice impedes the interests of others. I do not have any envy towards continuous moorers, especially now that the writing is on the wall.

[ymu]

You could also identify helpful types in each area.

 

We picked up our first. boat from an area with no phone reception and stayed there a couple of days whilst we moved on board. The moment we got into reception his phone went nuts. My mother-in-law had had a stroke and wasn't expected to survive the weekend and he had to get there fast. We checked the maps for the closest station, bumped into Dusty who advised us where to head and phoned someone to ask them to help us out if they saw us.

 

We left the boat on a lock-landing with apology notes in the canalside windows (not wanting to advertise our absence on the towpath side).. The yard sent someone to move it through the lock whilst I was still in London. I was on my own for the first few weeks CCing because he had to be in London, but lovely people helped me move. It helped that we were hiring out of season so the yard were there for us (David Dare and all at Heyford, you're diamonds, all of you).

 

Full recovery, btw. She's started going out on her own most nights cos hubby slows her down.

 

Nibble, you obviously prefer your expensive mooring to all your alternatives. That is all. Why are you going around in circles agreeing with me whilst pretending you don't?

 

'Market forces are for life, not just when it's convenient for you. Suck it up or oppose 'free' market capitalism like you so obviously should, given the views you express here.

Edited June 7, 2011 by ymu

[mayalld]

Yes. The judge said he wasn't going to use the CC guidance because it was not an accurate reflection if the law. Therefore, I have a reasonable expectation that, should the board declare itself unsatisfied, we will nevertheless be able to satisfy a court, as long as we comply with the 1995 Act.

 

I have no idea why you think you're saying any different.

 

The key difference is that some used to claim that the requirement in the Act to satisfy the board entailed obeying the CC guidance. We now have a precedent that states this us not the case. The CC guidance just tells you what patterns are unlikely to be called into question, but don't cover all ways of complying with the law.

 

What UTTER CRAP.

 

What the judge actually said was "in general terms, I favour the construction of s17 that is contended for by [british Waterways]"

 

He went on to say that "It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short... but which still qualified"

 

To contend that this throws the guidance out is ridiculous.

[ymu]

Where did I say it threw the guidance out?

 

It just removes the ambiguity over whether satisfying the board is part of the law. The answer is no. You may be able to satisfy the law without satisfying the board.

 

Both 14 day rules are now effectively the same, with the exception that those with home moorings can still ignore them with impunity whilst CCers who choose to obey the law but not the guidance may have to justify themselves in court.

Edited June 7, 2011 by ymu

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

Today a BW lock keeper told us that because we are CC-ers we arent allowed to return for a winter mooring.

 

<snip>

 

I don't understand why he would say that. Winter moorings are specifically for continuous cruisers. People with a permanent mooring don't need one

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Where did I say it threw the guidance out?

 

It just removes the ambiguity over whether satisfying the board is part of the law. The answer is no. You may be able to satisfy the law without satisfying the board.

 

 

Another perverse reading from you.

 

Satisfying the board remains part of the law. The option to ask a judge to rule that the board has overstepped the mark in what it requires for satisfaction remains open.

 

There was no ambiguity before, other than in the minds of "the hard of thinking"

[ymu]

It's an impossibly difficult board search, but some have claimed exactly that.

 

Now that we know, we will not be moving further than the next stretch of moorings unless we want to. I'm happy that we can satisfy a court that we comply with BW 1995.

[Sir Nibble]

It's an impossibly difficult board search, but some have claimed exactly that. You, constantly, ad bloody nauseum and you are wrong. There is a requirement for CCers to leave the locale within 14 days supported by the judge. There is not and never has been a requirement upon moorers to do the same. Your constant references to the "other" 14 day rule will not call it into existance.

Now that we know, we will not be moving further than the next stretch of moorings unless we want to. I'm happy that we can satisfy a court that we comply with BW 1995. You are over confident then. If I were unable to read and understand what one judge has decided as you seem to be, I would not rush to predict what the next may say.

[ymu]

Nibble, there is no definition of 'place'or 'bona fide navigation' in BW 1995. If I had a precedent where a judge relied on the CC guidance, I'd not risk ignoring it. Now I know that the CC guidance is unlikely to be considered definitive by a lower-level court, I will obey the law and treat the CC guidance with the contempt it deserves and take my chances in court.

 

There's always Windermere if we lose.

Edited June 7, 2011 by ymu

[mayalld]

Nibble, there is no definition of 'place'or 'bona fide navigation' in BW 1995. If I had a precedent where a judge relied on the CC guidance, I'd not risk ignoring it.

 

Clearly you are still having great difficulty with the long words in the Davies Case.

 

In that case, the judge DID say that he favoured the argument put forward by BW based on the CC guidance. The fact that as an aside he commented that he wasn't going to give the guidance the imprimatur of being the only way in which one could comply doesn't amount to carte blanche to do as you please.

 

As it is now your stated intent to do whatever you think you can get away with, and to ignore the BW guidance, youi have clearly identified yourself, not just as making common cause with CMers, but as a CMer yourself.

 

Doubtless you will scream oppression.

[ymu]

Pretty sure I didn't say we'd be using the Davies defence, dave. That would be a remarkably silly thing to do, not to mention a remarkably odd conclusion for you to leap to.

[sebrof]

Pretty sure I didn't say we'd be using the Davies defence, dave. That would be a remarkably silly thing to do..............

 

Being remarkably silly? Since when did that deter you, Yummy.

[DeanS]

I don't understand why he would say that. Winter moorings are specifically for continuous cruisers. People with a permanent mooring don't need one

 

Richard

 

Maybe my use of the word winter moorings is wrong. I used it to describe our use of moorings, which we want to pay for over the icy months. I wasn't meaning any other known moorings which might be known as "winter moorings" such as ones which BW might make specifically available etc. My understanding is that, as a CC-er, if I wanted to remain in one town for a little longer than the BW 48hrs for instance, I could find a private marina, book in for a while, and then book out again and carry on. Apparently, according to the lock keeper, I'm not allowed to. I'm not talking about overstaying or bridge hopping etc. I'm a legitimate CC-er...we live on the boat. We keep the boat pointing in one direction. We move on daily, every 2 days etc. Why would a BW lock-keeper say we aren't allowed to come back to the same place we are at now, in November, and pay for moorings while the entire country freezes over. Being a newbie, and a CC-er at that, all these rules and debates do my head in When I bought my BW licence, it didnt have different licences for CC-ers to others. It just said that if you ARE a CC-er, the rules are to keep moving. I wasn't a CC-er at the time, as my boat was in a paid for mooring. (last Oct). I am a CC-er now, because we're on the move. In November, we will stop being a CC-er. Next March, when things thaw, we'll be CC-ers again. Pointless paying for a "home mooring" when you aren't there for 6 months....yet not pointless in paying for a home mooring when we ARE there for a few months (winter.). Our winter mooring might be in a different place each year.

[mayalld]

Pretty sure I didn't say we'd be using the Davies defence, dave. That would be a remarkably silly thing to do, not to mention a remarkably odd conclusion for you to leap to.

 

 

Pretty sure I didn't suggest that you would be re-running the Davies defence.

 

However, YOU are the one who is running around saying that the judge in the Davies case has ruled that the board doesn't have to be satisfied.

 

That is quite blatantly untrue, and we can draw one of 3 conclusions;

1) You actually believe the crap that you are spouting, which would suggest that you are monumentally stupid.

2) You know that it is crap, but you think that you are so clever that you can run rings round lesser mortals and confuse them. Let me assure you that nobody with anything over the mental capacity of a guppy is taken in.

3) The rules were made by white hetrosexual able-bodied men for the oppression of wimmin.

 

I suppose it doesn't matter which is the case, because whichever it is you are still wrong.

[Sunset Rising]

To the best of my knowledge BW have no say in whether or not you choose to spend some time in a marina, whatever time of year.

[Sir Nibble]

I vote for option 1).

[mayalld]

Maybe my use of the word winter moorings is wrong. I used it to describe our use of moorings, which we want to pay for over the icy months. I wasn't meaning any other known moorings which might be known as "winter moorings" such as ones which BW might make specifically available etc. My understanding is that, as a CC-er, if I wanted to remain in one town for a little longer than the BW 48hrs for instance, I could find a private marina, book in for a while, and then book out again and carry on. Apparently, according to the lock keeper, I'm not allowed to. I'm not talking about overstaying or bridge hopping etc. I'm a legitimate CC-er...we live on the boat. We keep the boat pointing in one direction. We move on daily, every 2 days etc. Why would a BW lock-keeper say we aren't allowed to come back to the same place we are at now, in November, and pay for moorings while the entire country freezes over. Being a newbie, and a CC-er at that, all these rules and debates do my head in When I bought my BW licence, it didnt have different licences for CC-ers to others. It just said that if you ARE a CC-er, the rules are to keep moving. I wasn't a CC-er at the time, as my boat was in a paid for mooring. (last Oct). I am a CC-er now, because we're on the move. In November, we will stop being a CC-er. Next March, when things thaw, we'll be CC-ers again. Pointless paying for a "home mooring" when you aren't there for 6 months....yet not pointless in paying for a home mooring when we ARE there for a few months (winter.). Our winter mooring might be in a different place each year.

 

Ah, now it gets complicated!

 

The 1995 Act doesn't actually recognise that people might wish to switch between CCing and mooring, and strictly speaking if you licenced as having a mooring, and give that mooring up to go CCing, BW are entitled under the 1995 act to withdraw your licence. [s17(4)©] Similarly, if you licence as a CCer and take a mooring.

 

Of course, BW don't do that, because it would be monstrously silly. You licenced as a moorer and are now have no mooring. Provided you actually do CC, BW are not going to try to withdraw your licence for no longer having a mooring (although if you fail to CC they would have to withdraw your licence on the grounds that you no longer have a mooring, rather than for not CCing). Likewise, if as a CCer you take a mooring, they are likely to take the view that having a mooring makes overstaying "reasonable in the circumstances"

[RLWP]

Maybe my use of the word winter moorings is wrong. I used it to describe our use of moorings, which we want to pay for over the icy months. I wasn't meaning any other known moorings which might be known as "winter moorings" such as ones which BW might make specifically available etc. My understanding is that, as a CC-er, if I wanted to remain in one town for a little longer than the BW 48hrs for instance, I could find a private marina, book in for a while, and then book out again and carry on. Apparently, according to the lock keeper, I'm not allowed to. I'm not talking about overstaying or bridge hopping etc. I'm a legitimate CC-er...we live on the boat. We keep the boat pointing in one direction. We move on daily, every 2 days etc. Why would a BW lock-keeper say we aren't allowed to come back to the same place we are at now, in November, and pay for moorings while the entire country freezes over. Being a newbie, and a CC-er at that, all these rules and debates do my head in When I bought my BW licence, it didnt have different licences for CC-ers to others. It just said that if you ARE a CC-er, the rules are to keep moving. I wasn't a CC-er at the time, as my boat was in a paid for mooring. (last Oct). I am a CC-er now, because we're on the move. In November, we will stop being a CC-er. Next March, when things thaw, we'll be CC-ers again. Pointless paying for a "home mooring" when you aren't there for 6 months....yet not pointless in paying for a home mooring when we ARE there for a few months (winter.). Our winter mooring might be in a different place each year.

 

 

Cor, now you are confusing me!

 

Bw offer Winter Moorings in certain places over the winter. These are universally called "Winter Moorings". They are used by CCers to moor up over the winter

 

Marinas offer short term moorings at any time of the year. I can't see that it matters to them or BW what kind of license you have to take them up.

 

Using the terms Winter moorings and short term moorings as I have, what did the BW lockkeeper say to you?

 

Richard

[ymu]

Pretty sure I didn't suggest that you would be re-running the Davies defence.

 

However, YOU are the one who is running around saying that the judge in the Davies case has ruled that the board doesn't have to be satisfied.

 

That is quite blatantly untrue, and we can draw one of 3 conclusions;

1) You actually believe the crap that you are spouting, which would suggest that you are monumentally stupid.

2) You know that it is crap, but you think that you are so clever that you can run rings round lesser mortals and confuse them. Let me assure you that nobody with anything over the mental capacity of a guppy is taken in.

3) The rules were made by white hetrosexual able-bodied men for the oppression of wimmin.

 

I suppose it doesn't matter which is the case, because whichever it is you are still wrong.

Then why do you assume I plan to break the law?

 

Davies clearly broke it. We do not. I'll leave it for a judge to decide if BW decide to make it a test case. Would be delighted to, in fact. I shall endeavour to use all the busiest visitor moorings I can find to attract time-wasters complaints.

Edited June 7, 2011 by ymu