Liveaboards mooring or Cruiser......

[carlt]

2 minutes ago you had, and I quote - Your quote : I speak about the law having had many years experience in an enforcement role and having actually had a direct influence on formulating the very legislation that you stumbled over.

Yes, you fool, you were stumbling over the laws regarding illegal encampments before you had even heard of the British Waterways Act, which you then proceeded to demonstrate a complete lack of ability to understand, too.

 

I have never worked for, or been involved with, Waterways enforcement (except to be, wrongly, on the receiving end of).

 

I have, however, been heavily involved with the laws regarding illegal encampments and trespass.

 

Go and read a book or something (or just look at the pictures), you are way out of your league here. You can't even understand other peoples' posts, so you've no chance with legalese.

[sueb]

Wow, calm down you'll blow a gasket Mr Superior...

 

Stamping your feet won't resolve the fact that you are continually contradicting yourself. Your knees must be black and blue with constantly tripping yourself up.

 

I'm happy here thanks, I don't need a book. This stops me having to watch X factor....sorry if I'm disturbing it for you..

 

How self important you are to think that you are above someone. Trying to backtrack with legalese is typical of your type and I'm not surprised you were employed in that area...maybe try a career in politics or banking next..? A tiny man that needs to try and belittle others....well done you, a round of applause.

 

 

What I find funny is that you make a statement, I pull it apart and you have no reply, you ignore it....

 

 

I never professed to being a lawyer, what I did state was that BW could if they so chose, utilise a number of laws to take action against the abusers of the CCer rules and regulations. If they have successfully taken action once, they can do it again....although at present, the switchover to new status is likely their priority. What you did was decide that rather than take the main point of "BW utilising a law to suit", you decided to focus on the laws I suggested and try and trip me up. Trouble is I'm still here, my point was and still is, the same....they will find a law to suit...and so are you despite saying "goodbye" many, many, many posts ago.

 

And I need a book with pictures...I suppose I could come down to your level and say - next week I'll teach you "Hello".

 

 

 

They're legal if they're on prescription, your Honour....

 

 

 

Ymu...?

Some one who was hounded from the forum because her views were disliked.

Sue

[carlt]

Some one who was hounded from the forum because her views were disliked.

Sue

So would you agree that £3000 for a continuous cruising licence is fair, Sue?

 

After all, according to GD, you're all cheating the system.

[LoneWolf]

...

 

I never professed to being a lawyer, what I did state was that BW could if they so chose, utilise a number of laws to take action against the abusers of the CCer rules and regulations. If they have successfully taken action once, they can do it again....although at present, the switchover to new status is likely their priority. What you did was decide that rather than take the main point of "BW utilising a law to suit", you decided to focus on the laws I suggested and try and trip me up. Trouble is I'm still here, my point was and still is, the same....they will find a law to suit...and so are you despite saying "goodbye" many, many, many posts ago.

...

 

no. they. can't.

 

this. has. already. been. explained. to. you. quite. clearly. by. carl. and. smelly. above.

 

 

So would you agree that £3000 for a continuous cruising licence is fair, Sue?

 

After all, according to GD, you're all cheating the system.

 

blimey carl, you have the patience of a saint today but i'd give it up if were you, the fool ain't listening.

[alan_fincher]

Some one who was hounded from the forum because her views were disliked.

I doubt even a Rottweiler could have hounded "ymu" from anywhere, to be honest!.....

 

Another view would be someone who just repeated over and over the same bonkers mantra, even though the "facts" were very clearly flawed, and unsupportable, and consistently refused to produce any reasoned response when that was pointed out.

 

Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it ?

 

But "hounded from the forum" ? Yeah ! Right !

[LoneWolf]

i think i'm going to get a telly this winter, not to watch but so i can add not having a telly licence to the list of things i get away with. along with not paying any council tax.

yay!

 

I doubt even a Rottweiler could have hounded "ymu" from anywhere, to be honest!.....

 

Another view would be someone who just repeated over and over the same bonkers mantra, even though the "facts" were very clearly flawed, and unsupportable, and consistently refused to produce any reasoned response when that was pointed out.

 

Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it ?

 

But "hounded from the forum" ? Yeah ! Right !

 

ymu was probably the most interesting poster here. she posted on a variety of topics. she didnt clutter up the place with whinge after whinge about other boaters poor mooring choices, extra bollards, jutting concrete etc

And she never mocked or ridiculed other peoples boats either.

 

you are correct about her not being 'hounded off the forum' though.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

For example - Pay £3000 (or more) as a CCer per annum for your licence, or prove you have a 12 month mooring with a signed contract through the chosen Marina which then leaves you to pay the lesser licence fee of say, £750. The Marina then forwards the licence number to BW of any boat that cancels that 12 month contract within that paid-for timeframe (as contracts obviously have a cooling off period/cancellation period etc).

 

 

 

So once I have paid my £3,000 would I be able to moor where I want for as long as I want?

I think this is a great idea surprised no one has ever mentioned it before!!!! BW could then change all the best mooring spots for exclusive use of CCers so like people who moor in Marinas or LTM we have reserved mooring spots.

Under this system would the Genuine CCers and the the Ordinary CCers like myself become all one type of CCer?

[LoneWolf]

whilst you say that only parliament can change law, I think you are missing the point that the judiciary can effectively alter law by ruling on how that law is interpreted

 

no, rulings do not effectively change the law - they help clarify it.

 

The BW guidance is their attempt to clarify the law ie what they think it means. After the Davies case they changed it (again) for example they removed the bit about the need to cruise 'all, or a substantial part, of the system' because the legislation does not demand this.

 

You need to understand this fundamental point if you're going to pontificate about it.

[saltysplash]

 

Under this system would the Genuine CCers and the the Ordinary CCers like myself become all one type of CCer?

 

Very norty, but he still doesnt get it

[bottle]

Take your pick digging implement

[Albion]

ymu was probably the most interesting poster here. she posted on a variety of topics. she didnt clutter up the place with whinge after whinge about other boaters poor mooring choices, extra bollards, jutting concrete etc

And she never mocked or ridiculed other peoples boats either.

 

you are correct about her not being 'hounded off the forum' though.

 

She rarely posted much to do with boating anyway so it would be unlikely that she would comment on boats or mooring matters. What she did do was whinge about the intolerance that she and her partner supposedly experienced due to their headaches, colour and the attitudes of the residents of the city of Oxford. According to her IIRC she successfully got two interview panels dismissed after they had rejected her at interview. She claimed to be a psychology lecturer and sneered at those who didn't agree with her political views, threatening to use them as suitable cases for treatment in her lectures. We never heard much about the lecturing post after that. When sometimes her hypocrisy was exposed she got very aggressive. Luckily the majority of her rantings were confined to the VP. I'm not sure what the female equivalent of Walter Mitty is but it could be applicable IMO.

Roger

[dylan7]

Afternoon,

 

Was just wondering how many permanent liveaboards there are on here and how you get on with the two week stays, 24 hour and 48 hour moorings?

 

And for the liveaboards with a mooring, what are your views on the so called 'River Gypsy, Canal Squatters' as some people may call the Cruisers?

 

I am a live aboard boater without a home mooring and cruise the Kennet and Avon canal between Newbury and Devizes. I move quite religously every two weeks and never over stay on limited mooring spaces or water points as many do on this canal.

It seems a small minority could ultimately ruin our lifes tyle for ever by over staying for months complaining to officials they have jobs and children in local schools (Bradford on Avon being a prime example and has been highlighted on national TV). The simple answer IMO is, get a permanent mooring or buy a house like everyone else. It annoys me that people buy the license, knowing the rules, then bend and shout and scream when a official asks them to leave. Its a new age traveller view that doesnt cut it anymore.

Devizes has seen a sudden increase in people making a exodus from Bath and bradford who are trying it on here.

 

Im sure there are some strong views on this from cruisers and moored liveaboards alike.

 

[Sir Nibble]

i think i'm going to get a telly this winter, not to watch but so i can add not having a telly licence to the list of things i get away with. along with not paying any council tax.

yay!

 

 

 

ymu was probably the most interesting poster here. she posted on a variety of topics. she didnt clutter up the place with whinge after whinge about other boaters poor mooring choices, extra bollards, jutting concrete etc

And she never mocked or ridiculed other peoples boats either.

 

you are correct about her not being 'hounded off the forum' though.

ymu was not hounded off the forum. She consistently stuck to an interpretation of the facts that was not just flawed but straight out of fairyland. She refused to budge from an unsustainable position and when told what the law actually was by practicing lawyers still kept beating the forum up with her invented version and insisting that sections of the waterway user

should be prosecuted for doing nothing illegal. I frankly doubt the lecturer story the level of cognative ability demonstrated here would have shamed a cabbage and she apparently left due to being in a minority of one descended into being a figure of fun. The parallels here are striking in that we have another fool getting everything wrong whilst believing he is winning an argument and holding himself up for ridicule in the frantic hope that reality will change before he has to admit he doesn't have a clue.

[LoneWolf]

ymu was not hounded off the forum. She consistently stuck to an interpretation of the facts that was not just flawed but straight out of fairyland. She refused to budge from an unsustainable position and when told what the law actually was by practicing lawyers still kept beating the forum up with her invented version and insisting that sections of the waterway user

should be prosecuted for doing nothing illegal. I frankly doubt the lecturer story the level of cognative ability demonstrated here would have shamed a cabbage and she apparently left due to being in a minority of one descended into being a figure of fun. The parallels here are striking in that we have another fool getting everything wrong whilst believing he is winning an argument and holding himself up for ridicule in the frantic hope that reality will change before he has to admit he doesn't have a clue.

 

 

yes, thats what i said.

 

no, this bit is wrong.

[Peter Reed]

Look up the meaning of awe.

[alan_fincher]

...obviously I've ruffled feathers here and stuck my awe in at the top of the pecking order...

 

If someone wants to tell me the chain of command then I'll be sure not to air my opinions again....

 

Ho, ho!

 

There is no pecking order, as quite well know, and no chain of command.....

 

Well other than that the forum has an owner, who sets some rules, and has a team of moderators who can intervene in the most extreme cases. (But I'm not aware that has happened at here, has it ?).

 

You are not receiving the reaction you are getting because you are a "newbie" or "low down any pecking order". If the "longest serving" or "most widely posting" members of the forum started spouting the level of obviously totally unresearched drivel that you keep coming back with, trust me, they would take just as much of a pasting as you are! (And rightly so in my view!...)

 

There do seem to be enormous parallels to other recently departed posters who had their own unshakable view of what was fact, even though it quite simply was not, and despite people who generally sit on opposite sides of an argument being surprisingly unified in telling them they simply were not listening.

Edited November 6, 2011 by alan_fincher

[Sir Nibble]

It was fictional...you know like Harry Potter...it was merely a theory, nothing more. You can make up whatever you like and if you think it's abviously a good solution, as above, that's great, welcome aboard.

 

Otherwise I suppose they could allow CCers anywhere along the towpath except for the visitor moorings which would still have a time limit...again, a theory like E=MC2 (I'm sure they claimed Einstein was crazy too...I'm in good company)....

 

 

Later today I'm having a pitchfork and flaming torch sale..I expect it will be a sell out...obviously I've ruffled feathers here and stuck my awe in at the top of the pecking order...

 

If someone wants to tell me the chain of command then I'll be sure not to air my opinions again....oh yeah, look up the meaning of opinion while you have a minute, I'm off out. Be back later to tackle the mob at the castle gates.....

 

It lives.....!!!

No, you look up opinion. Now note the difference between informed opinion based upon known facts and uninformed opinion based upon cluelessness. You are entitled to your opinion but if it is based upon a flawed understanding or an unsustainable premise then you must expect those who do know what they are talking about to take issue. No one is trying to deny you your right to an opinion just decrying a display of ignorance.

[Peter Reed]

 

Look up the meaning of awesome....

I fully understand the meaning of awesome, and it certainly does not apply to you.

[Tim F]

If sombody has a mooring in some obscure place that costs very little and then decides to stay in another area basically bridge hopping for a couple of months, then what rules apply? Apologies if this has been disscussed elsewhere.

[carlt]

If sombody has a mooring in some obscure place that costs very little and then decides to stay in another area basically bridge hopping for a couple of months, then what rules apply? Apologies if this has been disscussed elsewhere.

They do not have to abide by Section 17, of the BWA Act 1995, so they are not required to convince BW that their boat "will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.", however the licence terms and conditions require all boats, away from their home moorings, to move every 14 days.

[carlt]

and for the sake of the future therefore means every boat owner can moor where they like for as long as they like then....?

No, you are wrong and I don't understand how you could interpret what I posted as that.

[Alan de Enfield]

They do not have to abide by Section 17, of the BWA Act 1995, so they are not required to convince BW that their boat "will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.", however the licence terms and conditions require all boats, away from their home moorings, to move every 14 days.

 

But (if I'm correct) they can just move a short distance - ie 1 mile - and not necessarily move into the next zone / parish / area as a CCer must do.

They can then move 'back again' and not be contravening any rules or regulations.

 

Disclaimer - this is my opinion and not a legal argument or discussion. It may be correct or incorrect it is MY interpretation only and no action should be taken by any third party based on the information posted here.

[carlt]

They can then move 'back again' and not be contravening any rules or regulations.

 

Yes they can.

 

They do not have to fulfill either the law's. or BW's requirements for ccing, only the licence requirement to move every 14 days (assuming that the requirement is enforceable).

 

The OP, now he has a winter mooring, is allowed to bridgehop (but not overstay)

Edited November 6, 2011 by carlt

[Chris Pink]

You didn't answer the question. Is this set in stone and can it never be revised?

 

That's because your question is more appropriate to a four year old than an adult discussion.

 

It's a Law, it can be changed only by an Act of Parliament.

 

So no, it is not set in stone, it is set in Statute and yes, it could be revised.

[carlt]

You didn't answer the question. Is this set in stone and can it never be revised?

I type what I want to, not what others think I should.

 

I answered your question in the way I chose to and, If that's not good enough...well...tough.