Unnecessarily Inconsiderate Behaviour

[Albion]

Strangely enough I haven't been banned but my posts are quickly swept up and, contrary to what he claims, he does not publish every email he receives.

 

I haven't been banned either although that maybe because I haven't bothered to visit it for ages. Lost interest and the will to live with some of it.

I much prefer the robust debate we get here; impassioned debate might be a better description.

Roger

[alan_fincher]

I keep seeing in this and other threads comments like "BW have now abandoned the term "Continuous Cruiser".

 

But if I go to current British Waterways : Terms and Conditions for Boat licences, then I read.....

 

3.2. If you do not declare a Home Mooring for the Boat, we will treat you as a Continuous Cruiser (see Condition 4 below).

3.3. The only exceptions to the requirement to have a Home Mooring are:

(a) if the Boat is removed from the water when it is not being used for cruising,

( if you cruise continuously without staying in any one place for more than fourteen days (or less where local BW signs indicate a shorter period).

 

and further.....

 

4. Continuous Cruisers

4.1 You must cruise in accordance with the British Waterways Act 1995. The Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers is contained in Schedule 2 and this Guidance sets out what is required to comply with the British Waterways Act 1995.

 

And the mooring guidance for "continuos cruisers" is indeed contained in Schedule 2 in the above document, in a section not unsurprisingly called "Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers", that looks to me remarkably like it ever did. (I'll not cut and paste it all here, but it is easy to find in the PDF document I have linked to above).

 

So whilst BW may be making some revisions in the light of the Davies case, I can't see they have actually made it into the terms and conditions you agree to when applying for a licence ?

 

Either BW have the wrong document now linked to on their "Licence it" page, or the term "Continuos Cruiser" seems to me to be very much still part of it, despite what many people have contended.

 

Comments, please ?

Edited November 8, 2011 by alan_fincher

[Nine of Hearts]

Try putting a link to your blog (if you had one) in your siggy - that'll do it...

 

Oh, come on now, Martin. I thought we'd established in a previous thread that only a complete and utter friend-of-Anton-Ferdinand would do such a thing.

 

Oh...

Edited November 8, 2011 by Nine of Hearts

[Chris Pink]

I keep seeing in this and other threads comments like "BW have now abandoned the term "Continuous Cruiser".

 

But if I go to current British Waterways : Terms and Conditions for Boat licences, then I read.....

 

 

 

and further.....

 

 

 

And the mooring guidance for "continuos cruisers" is indeed contained in Schedule 2 in the above document, in a section not unsurprisingly called "Mooring Guidance for Continuous Cruisers", that looks to me remarkably like it ever did. (I'll not cut and paste it all here, but it is easy to find in the PDF document I have linked to above).

 

So whilst BW may be making some revisions in the light of the Davies case, I can't see they have actually made it into the terms and conditions you agree to when applying for a licence ?

 

Either BW have the wrong document now linked to on their "Licence it" page, or the term "Continuos Cruiser" seems to me to be very much still part of it, despite what many people have contended.

 

Comments, please ?

 

Presumably there is a lead time on documentation.

 

The first document to drop the term "continuous cruiser" was the mooring guidance.

 

this page;

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/license-it/boating-essentials/mooring-information

 

refers to

 

"Mooring Guidance for Boats without a Home Mooring"

 

although it appears they might still be retaining the expression "continuous cruising" - perpetuating their confusion between the terms "continuous" and "continual"

Edited November 8, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Nine of Hearts]

"Mooring Guidance for Boats without a Home Mooring"

 

And isn't that a mush less pejorative way to describe them? Put like that you almost feel like having a whip round for the poor things. Bless.

[carlt]

 

"Mooring Guidance for Boats without a Home Mooring"

 

Should that not be "Mooring guidance for boats without a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left."?

 

Which leads one to the question "If I ask nicely I could put my boat on my Mum's drive, if necessary...Does this mean I do not have to comply with S17(3){c}(ii)?"

Edited November 8, 2011 by carlt

[alan_fincher]

Presumably there is a lead time on documentation.

 

The first document to drop the term "continuous cruiser" was the mooring guidance.

 

this page;

 

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/license-it/boating-essentials/mooring-information

 

refers to

 

"Mooring Guidance for Boats without a Home Mooring"

 

although it appears they might still be retaining the expression "continuous cruising" - perpetuating their confusion between the terms "continuous" and "continual"

Thanks,

 

As usual the BW site is a mess, and it seems depending on which links you follow, you get different revisions of the same document!

 

However if I go by the shortest route I can find to a form for Boat Licence Application Form, then the relevant check box on there says......

 

The boat cruises continuously.

So I still contend that whilst you can find references on the BW site with "continuous cruiser" removed, if I were to download a form right now to apply for a new licence, it is reasonable to say I am still given the option of making a "continuous cruiser" declaration!

 

I'm not wrong, am I ?

[mayalld]

Actually I disagree, from reading the act, bona fide navigation is not defined, place is not defined, & the distance you need to move isnt specified, just that you do need to move every 14 days... it doesnt say how far & where to & how long before you can come back again. For Davies, the judge decided that his movements along 10 miles of river/canal were not enough to comply & so he lost, but BWs "Continuous Cruiser" doesnt have any basis in law... lawful? no, unlawful? not so sure... trouble is BW seems to have introduced some rules that are not in the act & tout it as law... even if Mr Davies was taking the pee as seems to be the general consensus (tho I know nothing about it)

 

Thank you for disagreeing.

 

You are, indeed correct that "Bona Fide Navigation" is not defined.

 

What the Act does say is that you must "Satisfy the Board".

 

The term "Satisfy" is common in legislation, and it invariably means that the person or organisation described will decide whether they believe that a certain thing is the case.

 

In some cases, the thing that they need to be satisfied about is very clearly defined, in others it is more vague (as here), but the onus is placed on that person or organisation to reach an initial decision. In any case, it is open to a court to say that this decision was wrong, but absent such a ruling, the decision will stand.

 

The line than Mr Davies and others take is that as the 14 days is unambiguous, they will comply with that bit, but that because the remained isn't set out in black and white, they will simply discard it as ineffective. That was (effectively) Mr Davies' position in court. He said that he complied with the 14 day rule, and that the rest was to vague to obey. He lost, and it was made clear that BW does have the right to decide, constrained by having to justify in each case why it was not satisfied.

 

So, the CCer guidelines are entirely lawful, as they represent a position that if you comply, the board will ALWAYS be satisfied.

 

What is more debatable is "what if you are outside the guidelines", to which I would say; "BW should make an individual asessment of whether they are satisfied".

[cotswoldsman]

 

British waterways, meanwhile, who have contempt for all of us, continue with their 'evil' intentions with no effective challenge.

 

I'll get me coat

 

Geoff Mayers

 

Hello Geoff please take your coat back off.......as someone who has lived on their boat for 20 years I think you have a lot to contribute to this forum. As I have never been on NBW Forum I can not comment on that, but can assure you that on this forum your opinion and contribution would be welcomed. Yes a lot of people will not agree with your stand against BW but I think after the last 3 years you have been through with BW you can actually contribute. Besides you have a historic boat and people here are always interested in that.

Welcome Geoff

[Athy]

I have recently registered with this site and then read this ten pages of, mostly, the usual spiteful, malicious nonsense as a result of a boat being inconsiderately moored. I would have spoken to the person concerned and pointed out that they were moored in a place that was causing a problem for people using the lock. Instead we get accusations and photographs and more attacks against the, so-called, 'continuous cruiser', an unlawful concept devised by British Waterways to cause division and discrimination, also unlawful, to further their persecution programme against people who live on the waterways, which is what living on a boat is about, as opposed to living in a marina which the antithesis of what 'living on a boat' is all about.

This site is as bad as Narrowboatworld, from which I have been 'banned' three times, which is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle for a certain element in boat clubs, canal societies and marinas that have a blinkered hatred for those actually living on the waterways who seem now to be generally referred to as 'continuous moorers'.

 

British waterways, meanwhile, who have contempt for all of us, continue with their 'evil' intentions with no effective challenge.

 

 

Now I have twigged whom this reminds me of.

Does anyone else remember Dave Spart?

[cotswoldsman]

Careful I almost ended up burned at the stake for views such as this....!!!

 

I do not see any similarity between what mayalld has posted and the rubbish you have been posting

Edited November 8, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Allan(nb Albert)]

He dared take on BW

[14skipper]

I have recently registered with this site and then read this ten pages of, mostly, the usual spiteful, malicious nonsense as a result of a boat being inconsiderately moored. I would have spoken to the person concerned and pointed out that they were moored in a place that was causing a problem for people using the lock. Instead we get accusations and photographs and more attacks against the, so-called, 'continuous cruiser', an unlawful concept devised by British Waterways to cause division and discrimination, also unlawful, to further their persecution programme against people who live on the waterways, which is what living on a boat is about, as opposed to living in a marina which the antithesis of what 'living on a boat' is all about.

This site is as bad as Narrowboatworld, from which I have been 'banned' three times, which is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle for a certain element in boat clubs, canal societies and marinas that have a blinkered hatred for those actually living on the waterways who seem now to be generally referred to as 'continuous moorers'.

 

British waterways, meanwhile, who have contempt for all of us, continue with their 'evil' intentions with no effective challenge.

 

I'll get me coat

 

Geoff Mayers

Oh joy does that mean we can look forward to more of your vile spiteful vindictive vendetta against BW being carried out on these pages then ?

I am not a fan of BW but you most certainly do not speak in my name and l have yet to see their contempt for me.

14Skipper

[journeyperson]

This site is as bad as Narrowboatworld, from which I have been 'banned' three times, which is nothing more than a propaganda vehicle for a certain element in boat clubs, canal societies and marinas that have a blinkered hatred for those actually living on the waterways who seem now to be generally referred to as 'continuous moorers'.

 

 

 

He dared take on BW

 

Giving him a platform to publicise his case didn't seem to win him round!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Giving him a platform to publicise his case didn't seem to win him round!

I think it was more of a case of being given a platform to win others round......

[Grace and Favour]

Giving him a platform to publicise his case didn't seem to win him round!

 

 

I think it was more of a case of being given a platform to win others round......

 

Based on his recent postings maybe the only platform he'll be comfortable on - - - will have a trapdoor in it

[mayalld]

He dared take on BW

 

Ah, classic case of "I think somebody else is responsible for everything".

 

Has he possibly considered that the fact that rules require him to do something doesn't compel the authority making those rules to provide him with the means of doing so?

 

Perhaps he is also of the opinion that if he drives into town and can't find a car parking space, he can unilaterally declare the parking restrictions to be unlawful.

 

There is limited capacity on the canals for people to live on their boats (although there is, I would argue, sufficient capacity, it just may not be exactly where they want to live - much like buying a house in a particular village), and that doesn't mean that people can simply demand the right to do as they please.

 

If what is written is accurate, there has certainly been a measure of bloody minded jobsworth stuff from BW, but it is matched in equal measure, in my view, by a wish on his part to provoke confrontation with BW, rather than talk to them about circumstances that might justify overstaying.

[Sir Nibble]

Here's an idea. Take one of the "unsuitable" non residential moorings and then spend weekdays on the towpath and weekends on your mooring. Or spend the whole time on the towpath and just move every 14 days for a weekend. Win win, You can pretty well go on as you wish and BW won't be able to touch you.

[journeyperson]

Ah, classic case of "I think somebody else is responsible for everything".

 

Has he possibly considered that the fact that rules require him to do something doesn't compel the authority making those rules to provide him with the means of doing so?

 

Perhaps he is also of the opinion that if he drives into town and can't find a car parking space, he can unilaterally declare the parking restrictions to be unlawful.

 

There is limited capacity on the canals for people to live on their boats (although there is, I would argue, sufficient capacity, it just may not be exactly where they want to live - much like buying a house in a particular village), and that doesn't mean that people can simply demand the right to do as they please.

 

If what is written is accurate, there has certainly been a measure of bloody minded jobsworth stuff from BW, but it is matched in equal measure, in my view, by a wish on his part to provoke confrontation with BW, rather than talk to them about circumstances that might justify overstaying.

 

Any one of us can be overtaken by events and become a victim of circumstances, but it take a fair degree of application and determination to remain permanently in conflict with authority.

 

Some people will only be satisfied if they are left alone to use the system as it suits them. But when they fall ill or otherwise need support they invariably expect to be caught in the arms of the welfare state, or even have their demands met by the very authority they despise.

[Guest]

Of course you don't...try going back to the first point I made in the infamous thread and re-read it...

 

<SNIP>

 

 

[matty40s]

"PearlygEROFF- I have recently registered with this site and then read this ten pages of, mostly, the usual spiteful, malicious nonsense as a result of a boat being inconsiderately moored. I would have spoken to the person concerned and pointed out that they were moored in a place that was causing a problem for people using the lock."

 

I wasn't malicious, I wasn't spiteful, I hit this boat after being blown into it on a very windy, rainy day(I cruised 14 hours that day). There was nobody around to get burnt by spilt coffee after my collision as the front door and back doors were locked externally.By the same token, there was no-one around to tell to fek off the lock mooring.

I couldn't moor on the lock landing as I have a 70ft boat and single hand most of the time. The inconsiderate twaerp(sp)should not be moored there at all, has been moored there (on and off)for a long time, and action needs to be taken by the BW enforcement officers.

Any damage caused to said boat by hire boats, private boats, or indeed BW boats, can only be expected due to current selfish mooring practices.

[alan_fincher]

....maybe I'm typing in a strange language....hmmm....I'll ponder that a while.....

A long ponder, (I mean a really, really, really, very long ponder), would be good!

[cereal tiller]

You know this would be a lot less interesting without me.....

 

I've sussed what happens now though and how those in the upper echelons exact their process of authority.

 

Ok....indulge me.

 

Explain exactly how what I typed in the other thread is the polar opposite to what Mayalld typed.

 

I would really like to know, because it seems it's either that my keyboard is actually in Chinese and I've overlooked it or I'm being totally misinterpreted....also maybe because my keyboard is in Chinese....

careful GD!

i do believe you are being subtle,and you may shortly be applying esoteric humour to this thread.

 

please be considerate,and dont lose sight of the fact that many forum members,including me,are rather set in their ways.

 

personally,i do like a smattering of heresy...

[matty40s]

careful GD!

i do believe you are being subtle,and you may shortly be applying esoteric humour to this thread.

 

please be considerate,and dont lose sight of the fact that many forum members,including me,are rather set in their ways.

 

personally,i do like a smattering of heresy...

 

indeed, I love heresy drawn narrowboots, so long as they add value and not just stand still waiting for the tourist season

[cereal tiller]

I do trust that you are not suggesting there may be be a transylvanian element in this esteemed,(by jove it does get "steamed"!)forum?