Liveaboards mooring or Cruiser......

[carlt]

Did you know that a US state law was recently passed that enforced trousers to be pulled up over underwear...

Fortunately we have Ultra Vires that would protect us from that sort of law (and your stupid ideas too) so not everything can happen, except in your silly little world.

[carlt]

[

Edited November 7, 2011 by carlt

[LoneWolf]

tl;dr

 

again.

 

well i did so i can helpfully summarise for you.

 

blah blah rubbish bollocks tosh

 

hth

 

The English is getting worse though

[carlt]

And in a world where a law to pull up your trousers is passed, then my suggestions are even more realistic.

 

If you were in Florida your ideas may be taken seriously but, as I say, here where we have Ultra Vires, your ideas have a distinct Lime Green tinge to them.

[journeyperson]

words fail me

 

I am still reading though...

 

So am I but GD has been strumming exactly the same tune for at least 24 hours now.

 

GD, why don't you give it a rest on this thread? CWDF is going to be here for the forseeable future and if you stick around you can highlight the perceived bullying and overbearing behaviour as an when it manifests itself in future topics whilst gathering knowledge for your boating activities.

 

It gets dull from time to time and regular, spaced out bursts of vitriol will be more entertaining than one long tirade.

[LoneWolf]

 

I can help you with your poor English if you so wish....

 

naw, i get by, but thanks for the offer

 

 

So am I but GD has been strumming exactly the same tune for at least 24 hours now.

 

GD, why don't you give it a rest on this thread? CWDF is going to be here for the forseeable future and if you stick around you can highlight the perceived bullying and overbearing behaviour as an when it manifests itself in future topics whilst gathering knowledge for your boating activities.

 

It gets dull from time to time and regular, spaced out bursts of vitriol will be more entertaining than one long tirade.

 

good idea there JP

 

btw passed your boat again on the weekend - it's looking its usual smart self. there was a little tiny speck of dust though....

[Sir Nibble]

Carl, give it a rest mate. You're dealing with the kind of plonker who loses 10 nil and does a lap of honour crying victory from the rooftops. He's on a different planet. There is no way it is possible to continue an adult debate whilst some retard shot down at every turn insists in crying "that'll show 'em" every time he bites the dust.

 

Guitardoctor, stop it, you are being shown up for a fool every time you put finger to keyboard. No matter what you claim you are exposing nothing but your own limited knowledge and ability and if this were a proper debate you would be losing so badly your stock would be subterreanean but it's not a proper debate because you have dragged it to the nursery. Go play elsewhere.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Sir Nibble

[journeyperson]

btw passed your boat again on the weekend - it's looking its usual smart self. there was a little tiny speck of dust though....

 

I think you must have been driving along Poolehill Lane! It's covered with leaves and spiders webs at the moment. I'll be there one day this week to tackle that spec of dust .

[carlt]

Carl, give it a rest mate.

Works for me.

 

I thought we'd steered the thread back on track this morning but, alas, not.

[carlt]

Just got home....looks like we're still going then.....

No...I'm done.

 

The rest of your post is quite simply nonsense and just not worth bothering about.

[Guest]

Watch out for the post from the real 'last word freak' in this debate..if that is what it was.

 

it's coming he's still typing...

Edited November 7, 2011 by MJG

[Guest]

Ta dah....

[carlt]

Of course it is.....

 

http://www.whichcanal.com/index.php/news-flash/3245-bw-wants-to-make-laws

Okay you're quoting NBW now... :rolleyes:

 

IN THE changeover to a charity British Waterways is sneaking through an amendment giving it power to make subordinate legislation including powers of forcible entry, search or seizure.

BW already has powers of forcible entry, search and seizure/removal. That was one of the original reasons for BWA 1983.

 

 

(2)(a)

An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.

Edited November 7, 2011 by carlt

[sociable_hermit]

BW already has powers of forcible entry

So perhaps a law about keeping one's trousers up might not be such a bad thing, eh?

[carlt]

So perhaps a law about keeping one's trousers up might not be such a bad thing, eh?

Nobody will see...here's your coat.

[carlt]

See, I knew you couldn't bear to say goodbye....you'd miss me way too much.

Look...I am happy to discuss the topic with you, and anyone else, but if you want to carry on your pathetic sniping (could it be hounding?) then you are on your own.

 

You can't address the actual content of my post because, yet again, you are proven wrong.

Edited November 7, 2011 by carlt

[carlt]

I addressed your point, you glossed over my reply....

You provided a link that is factually wrong.

 

I quoted the law that already provides the power that NBW claims BW is seeking.

 

I didn't gloss over your reply. I addressed it and proved you wrong...yet again.

 

Do you not check what somebody writes, before quoting them?

 

You are deliberately trying to disrupt this thread when I am repeatedly trying to discuss the topic.

 

Why?

[Guest]

Aw I love you too....

 

Trust me you are not my type...

[carlt]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by theguitardoctor . View it anyway?

 

Ahhh...That's better!

 

Now, does anyone want a sensible discussion?

[Guest]

For someone that keeps coming back to my threads, it's the closest to someone having a crush on me with nothing constructive to say.

 

If we were back in school (are we..?), you'd be calling my names, pulling my hair and running away....

 

1 out of 3 ain't a bad start....

 

I'm merely responding to your posts and having a titter in the process - you amuse me...it's like playing with our cat Harvey...

[Guest]

You shouldn't touch a cat there....the RSPCA will be coming after you....

 

Harvey is a Tom

 

Goodness this is fun....

Edited November 7, 2011 by MJG

[Guest]

Exactly....!!

 

Bless you have found what you must be thinking is a welcome distraction from debating with Carl

[carlt]

So, to get back on track.

 

The NBW article is factually incorrect because, since 1983, British Waterways have had the power to force entry, on to a boat.

 

BWA ACT 1983 Section 7(2) states:

(2)(a)An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any vessel on any inland waterway or on any reservoir owned or managed by the Board for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the vessel so as to ascertain whether the vessel is unsafe.

 

(b An officer shall not enter upon any vessel in accordance with this subsection unless—

(i)not less than 24 hours' notice of such entry has been given to the master of the vessel; or

(ii)the officer has reason to believe that the vessel may be unsafe and that an immediate inspection is required.

 

Seizure is a tricky one because BW have been seizing, impounding and destroying boats for years but, in my opinion, they are abusing the law.

 

Section 8 of the 1983 act says:

 

(1) In this section-

 

"owner" in relation to any relevant craft means the owner of vessels. the relevant craft at the time of sinking, stranding or abandonment and includes a person letting a vessel for hire, whether or not that person owns the vessel;

 

"relevant craft" means any vessel which is sunk, stranded or abandoned in any inland -waterway or in any reservoir owned or managed by the Board or which is left or moored therein without lawful authority and includes any part of such vessel.

 

(2) The Board may remove any relevant craft after giving not less than 28 days' notice to the owner of the relevant craft, stating the effect of this section.

 

(3) All expenses incurred by the Board in—

 

(a)the removal, storage or destruction of the relevant craft;

 

(b the removal or storage of any furniture, tackle and apparel of the relevant craft, or any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board the relevant craft; or

 

(c marking, watching, buoying or otherwise controlling the relevant craft;

may be recovered by the Board from the owner of the relevant craft.

 

(4) If within six weeks of its removal by the Board any relevant craft cannot be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Board to belong to any claimant, it shall, together with any furniture, tackle and apparel and any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board, vest in the Board:

Provided that, if within twelve months of its removal a claim to the relevant craft is made by a person who subsequently proves that he is the owner thereof, the Board shall, if the relevant craft is unsold, permit the owner to retake it with any furniture, tackle, apparel, cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board upon payment of the expenses referred to in subsection (3) of this section or, if the relevant craft and the furniture, tackle and apparel and any cargo, goods, chattels and effects on board have been sold, the Board shall pay to such owner the amount of the proceeds of such sale after deducting the said expenses, and in case such proceeds shall be insufficient to reimburse the Board such expenses the deficiency may be recovered by the Board.

 

(5)Notwithstanding the provisions of this section the Board may at any time move without notice a relevant craft if it be an obstruction or a source of danger.

 

This gives BW the right to remove the boat (from water they manage) but not impound or seize unless they fail to locate an owner.

Edited November 7, 2011 by carlt

[Albion]

Ahhh...That's better!

 

Now, does anyone want a sensible discussion?

 

OK I'll bite.

Getting back to our earlier discussion today. Now that BW has a legal ruling in the case of Davies about 'bona-fide navigation' how does that benefit them in other cases? It seems to me, although I have no direct knowledge of the case, that the judge has ruled that one person, and one person only, didn't match his interpretation of bona-fide navigation. However, how is this going to be applied to other sluggish movers that BW wish to gee up? If the ruling was about Davies, and if the judge gave no actual clarification of distance involved in 'bona-fide navigation' then surely we are no further forward in the application of the law to other similar cases? It will be impossible to take each case through the courts so what, in reality, has BW achieved other than sorting one person?

Perhaps though, they didn't get the sort of clarification that they were seeking.

Roger

[carlt]

OK I'll bite.

Getting back to our earlier discussion today. Now that BW has a legal ruling in the case of Davies about 'bona-fide navigation' how does that benefit them in other cases? It seems to me, although I have no direct knowledge of the case, that the judge has ruled that one person, and one person only, didn't match his interpretation of bona-fide navigation. However, how is this going to be applied to other sluggish movers that BW wish to gee up? If the ruling was about Davies, and if the judge gave no actual clarification of distance involved in 'bona-fide navigation' then surely we are no further forward in the application of the law to other similar cases? It will be impossible to take each case through the courts so what, in reality, has BW achieved other than sorting one person?

Perhaps though, they didn't get the sort of clarification that they were seeking.

Roger

I think it hinders, rather than helps them.

 

All the Davies case really established was that, in this case, moving 10 miles and back again every 14 days does not satisfy what that particular judge thinks "Bona fide for navigation" constitutes.

 

11 miles and back again may still be acceptable...Who knows? (though personally I wouldn't chance it).