Why the Roving Permit

[Jerra]

The law has not interpreted the guidance nor is the guidance law. The guidance is BWs idea of what constitutes it finds acceptable which has changed over time.

There is one licence and when it is issued people either have a home mooring or do not. Those who do not are meant to be moving about the network so as to render a home mooring of no use. Those who do not move around the network to some extent and/or stay moored in the same locality and/or are always exceeding 14 days mooring in one spot probably should have a home mooring and not claim to be CCers is my simple interpretation.

So basically you are saying that when the CRT say "The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]” there is no such law?

 

Not having the law to hand I can't check but the guidance appears to make it clear that if you declare you are continuously cruising there is this phrase "Bona fide navigation" which applies to you. It also interprets the law even referring to case law which has been accepted by the courts.

 

Incidentally you seem to have got what I said the wrong way round. I said the guidance was CRT interpreting the law not the law interpreting the guidance. I certainly didn't say or even suggest that the guidance was law as you seem to imply.

 

To me on the face of it it is fairly clear (with out having the actual text in front of me) there is a law which people find difficult to understand. CRT has chosen to publish what they (and presumably their legal advisors) think is a simplified clear interpretation of the law.

 

To me the phrase Bons fide navigation doesn't seem to need clarification but that may be due to suffering Latin among other things at school. I don't see how anyone can interpret Bona fide navigation to cover staying in a small area whether bridge hopping, CMing or any other means of remaining in the small area.

[blodger]

So basically you are saying that when the CRT say "The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]” there is no such law?

 

 

The Bona Fide Navigation bit has been done to death in other threads and is a bit of a catch all to permit lots of different ways of using boats on the canal. In the context of discussing Roving Permits then mostly those for whom they are intended are not bona fide navigators.

[Jerra]

So basically you are saying that when the CRT say "The law requires that the boat “will be bona fide used for navigation throughout the period of [the licence]” there is no such law?

 

 

The Bona Fide Navigation bit has been done to death in other threads and is a bit of a catch all to permit lots of different ways of using boats on the canal. In the context of discussing Roving Permits then mostly those for whom they are intended are not bona fide navigators.

If you go back to post #64 you will see I was taking the point there is no law which requires you to go a certain distance or direction as a CCer. Which is true it wouldn't be possible to say you must go X miles in Y direction. However I was making the point that there is (or appears to be) a law which has a very clear interpretation. Nothing whatever to do with roving permits.

 

A roving permit is something which allows those with "Grandfather" rights i.e. have been in the same area for a long time due to having been in many cases mislead by BW. CRT is sensibly looking for a way of slowly phasing them out humanely. So RP permits certain people to stay in the same area contrary to the strict letter of the "Law".

 

My following posts were about post #64 and the interpretation of the law as given by CRT and how/why I (personal opinion) think it is very clear.

[blodger]

As has been said:-

 

1. Some people only wish to see what suits them.

2. Some people only wish to hear what suits them.

 

 

'Bona fida navigation' is a concise term to cover many eventualities not neccesarily as you have interpreted.

 

The exchange of opinions with you has enabled me to get in:-

 

Also. it seems to me that if the intention is to die out a breed of boaters then the Roving Permits should be issued free with the knowledge that each which is not re-issued means rising CaRT income and a diminishing 'problem', and it demonstrates it is not about penalties and income streams!

 

I am interested in further discussion on introducing rectitude without penalty, etc

Edited May 20, 2013 by blodger

[cotswoldsman]

As has been said:-

 

1. Some people only wish to see what suits them.

2. Some people only wish to hear what suits them.

 

 

 

Are you talking about yourself?

[blodger]

Are you talking about yourself?

I am requoting it as it is applicable to nearly everybody including myself and you

[Tuscan]

I think it applies to all ,especially those who think it doesn't.

[NigelMoore]

 

Better legal eagles than me will no doubt come on and correct my assumptions above.

 

Bearing in mind that debate over whether BW got it right or wrong is irrelevant to the core of this topic [clearly enough stated in the OP], but taking an opportunity to pass comment on judicial interpretation -

 

Trained “legal eagles” no doubt would correct you; they suffer form a distorted way of interpreting plain English that takes years of training to achieve – and yet more years of practice. When/if they get to be judges, the urge to extract abstruse extended meanings from plain language is something they need consciously to work to overcome. One general rule for interpreting statutes is that they should be read as a man in the street would read his newspaper, giving effect to the obvious apparent meaning any ordinary citizen would understand from the words.

 

Duport Steels Ltd v SIRS (1980) HL Lord Diplock -

 

"Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them. When Parliament legislates to remedy what the majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect or a lacuna in the existing law (whether it be the written law enacted by existing statutes or the unwritten common law as it has been expounded by the judges in decided cases), the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.”

 

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1980] HL same judge again –

 

“The source to which Parliament must have intended the citizen to refer is the language of the Act itself. These are the words which Parliament has itself approved as accurately expressing its intentions. If the meaning of those words is clear and unambiguous and does not lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable, it would be a confidence trick by Parliament and destructive of all legal certainty if the private citizen could not rely upon that meaning but was required to search through all that had happened before and in the course of the legislative process in order to see whether there was anything to be found from which it could be inferred that Parliament's real intention had not been accurately expressed by the actual words that Parliament had adopted to communicate it to those affected by the legislation.”

 

SOS for the Environment ex parte Spath Holme, R v (2000) HL; Lord Nicholls –

 

“Citizens, with the assistance of their advisers, are intended to be able to understand parliamentary enactments, so that they can regulate their conduct accordingly. They should be able to rely upon what they read in an Act of Parliament.”

 

 

The extent of the squabbles over the plain meaning of Parliament in the present case is indication enough - not of ambiguity in the original wording, but - of desperate attempts by legally trained minds to wring something more from the simple words than was ever intended.

[NigelMoore]

. . . can somebody please explain 1. What about that isn't clear. 2. What about it makes people think it might not be legal or enforceable.

 

Again, recognising that interpreting CC ‘rules’ has no bearing on the Roving Permit topic, but to answer the questions here put -

 

1) It IS clear – but how does that assist the question? Quoting Fairlie Yacht Slip in the present context is pathetically pretentious by BW and the judges, because is adds nothing to the argument. The above re-quotation ascribes the pre-eminent meaning of movement, of passage, to the word ‘navigate’ – it still does not advance any criteria for how long one may moor incidentally to that passage. The burden of Fairlie was that rights of passage, while undoubtedly embracing reasonable rights of stopping enroute, did not include any right at all to install permanent apparatus for that purpose on someone else’s land without their permission.

 

Fairlie was, in effect, a test of how far a public right could usurp a private right – it is of no assistance to the 'continuous cruiser' debate at all.

 

2) What is it about defining navigation as movement that might not be legal or enforceable? Nothing. What is it about defining navigation in terms beyond the clear wording of the relevant statute that might be not legal or enforceable? – everything. See previous post on statutory interpretation.

 

None of which debate over the extent of the legal framework is relevant to 2 parties working out a mutual agreement outside of the legal framework. The scheme reminds me of nothing so much as a protection racket – for so long as you pay us we’ll leave you alone - but if voluntarily agreed on, with a valuable side effect of leaving visitor moorings clear for those passing through but wanting to stop off and do some shopping or sightseeing before moving on, then why should others complain?

[RickH]

This is something we are looking to negotiate. It's extremely difficult to even think about, but let me assure you, if we do not get involved with discussion on this with CRT, I have no doubt whatsoever that at some point, they will find a way of bringing in "not far enough".

There was another posting which has the suggested distances on the K&A listed by place , for instance you'd have to move from Bath to at least Bathampton over 14 days . It was put together by an independant group I believe and is well worth reading . They also expect you to move at least 12 miles within your licence term .

[RLWP]

Bearing in mind {snip}.

 

Nigel, please can you find a way of explaining yourself that doesn't look like M'learned council showboating in court. I'm sure there is good stuff in both your posts, but I'm afraid I am completely put off reading it by the quoted lumps of legalese. It is too dense for a simple person like me

 

Richard

[Ray T]

Nigel, please can you find a way of explaining yourself that doesn't look like M'learned council showboating in court. I'm sure there is good stuff in both your posts, but I'm afraid I am completely put off reading it by the quoted lumps of legalese. It is too dense for a simple person like me

 

Richard

Have a greenie Richard, I was beginning to think I was a bit thick as I usually give up after the first sentence of Nigel's missives.

[mayalld]

A roving permit is something which allows those with "Grandfather" rights i.e. have been in the same area for a long time due to having been in many cases mislead by BW. CRT is sensibly looking for a way of slowly phasing them out humanely. So RP permits certain people to stay in the same area contrary to the strict letter of the "Law".

 

A Roving Mooring Permit does not allow anybody to do anything that is contrary to the strict letter of the law.

 

The law requires that a boater either engages in "Bona Fide Navigation" or that there is "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept"

 

Whilst there is, I suppose, a certain logic to supposing that if people are to be granted permits to cruise about rather less than continuous cruising, but still not actually have a mooring of their own, then this is a bit of bending the CCing rules.

 

In actual fact, those who take out a Roving Permit will cease to be licenced as continuous cruisers, and will be licenced on the basis that they have "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept".

 

That may not be the same place every month, but the fact will remain that in return for a sum of money, CRT has granted a permission to moor.

[cotswoldsman]

 

Nigel, please can you find a way of explaining yourself that doesn't look like M'learned council showboating in court. I'm sure there is good stuff in both your posts, but I'm afraid I am completely put off reading it by the quoted lumps of legalese. It is too dense for a simple person like me

 

Richard

I was to ashamed to admit I might be thick but I will come out now!!

[Higgs]

In actual fact, those who take out a Roving Permit will cease to be licenced as continuous cruisers, and will be licenced on the basis that they have "a place where the boat may lawfully be kept".

 

I understand that this permit will apply only within an area specified and beyond this specified area normal CC practice will apply.

[alan_fincher]

I too will admit to this being a subject that interests me greatly, but I'm afraid not having the stamina to wade through Nigel's posts.

I may be doing him a disservice, (and I'm certainly no fan of dumbing down!), but it must surely be possible to make it a bit more reader friendly?

 

Until it is, I'm afraid I'm in the habit of just skipping those posts - sorry Nigel!

[cotswoldsman]

 

I understand that this permit will apply only within an area specified and beyond this specified area normal CC practice will apply.

No normal practice of someone with a home mooring will apply they will no longer have a CCing prefix on licence

[NigelMoore]

I was to ashamed to admit I might be thick but I will come out now!!

 

I just quoted judges, rather than putting it in my own words. They said that you shouldn’t try to find an extended meaning in statutory words that are simple enough in their own right.

 

If you have to start debating over the meaning of a few words, with references to only tangentially relevant case law, then it is probable that you are attempting to go beyond what Parliament intended.

 

The continuing debate over the definition of ‘continuous cruising’ is just such an exercise.

[Higgs]

No normal practice of someone with a home mooring will apply they will no longer have a CCing prefix on licence

 

Ok, that's clear enough. Thanks.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I just quoted judges, rather than putting it in my own words. They said that you shouldnt try to find an extended meaning in statutory words that are simple enough in their own right.

 

If you have to start debating over the meaning of a few words, with references to only tangentially relevant case law, then it is probable that you are attempting to go beyond what Parliament intended.

 

The continuing debate over the definition of continuous cruising is just such an exercise.

Personally I would be happy to never debate Continuois cruising again

[mayalld]

As far as I can make out, the Roving Permit will for a fee legitamise some of the people who currently probably should have a home mooring but do not. New Boaters will have to have a home mooring or be genuinely using the network (CCing) not saving mooring costs or using any (including Human Rights) excuses for staying in the same locality.

 

Firstly but not primarily, CaRT raises more revenue and there is secondly, a hope that the category of no home mooring boaters who do not move/bridge hop will die out.

I can see the first happening to some extent for the peace of mind being legal brings for those who can afford it. Whilst the intention may be to allow no more new boater CMers so that the Roving Permit numbers gradually decline I can see such intention not being fulfilled and also policy changes meaning Roving Permits are extended in some ways. Since the majority of boaters are not affected support for the introduction and roll out of Roving Permits will be there on the basis it seems fairer and might work.

 

Also. it seems to me that if the intention is to die out a breed of boaters then the Roving Permits should be issued free with the knowledge that each which is not re-issued means rising CaRT income and a diminishing 'problem', and it demonstrates it is not about penalties and income streams!

 

An interesting view, and I would take a different one.

 

As the Irish would say, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".

 

However, we are here, and a situation has built over the years where a fair few people have chosen not to have a mooring, but not to engage in bona fide navigation either. Arguments will rage for years about whose fault that was, whether BW for not enforcing and thereby giving the impression that it was OK, or certain boaters who acted as siren voices, encouraging others to join them in breaking the rules.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter how we got here. Certain people are non-compliant, not through any deliberate wish to break rules, but because they were foolish enough to believe what others told them. Certainly they SHOULD have known better, but I would accept that simply enforcing won't work.

 

So, we need an accomodation, and that is what can be a devil to work out. Simply saying "OK, fair enough, we'll let you do what you want" isn't a tenable position. Rewarding the rule breaker is unfair to those who played by the rules, and didn't listen to the rebels who said it would be OK.

 

As such, a position that accomodates, but requires a quid pro quo is the right answer. This answer cannot give away free what others pay for, but neither can it charge the boater who has no permanent mooring the price of such a mooring. The RMP has a value to the boater, in terms of the additional convenience that being in a small area brings over cruising far and wide for somebody with local ties.

 

I don't like the grandfather rights aspect though. I can see why they introduced it, but it does make an RMP into a reward for long term rule breaking.

 

I would like all existing non-compliant CCers offered an RMP at a price set by formula (I would reckon 75% of the cost of an insecure towpath LTM). Then CRT should determine a long term RMP level for each area, and (provided that the number issued by right is less than this number) offer them as for any other mooring via the auction site.

[Higgs]

The continuing debate over the definition of ‘continuous cruising’ is just such an exercise.

 

Within the document guidance, for those without a home mooring, the flexible nature of what constitutes CC is alluded to for rural and urban areas. Placing hard and fast measurements on CC is not possible, even by CRT. Mostly subject to guess work by the CC'er.

[Paul C]

Given that effective enforcement can't be taken against this proportion of CCers due to the Human Rights Act, what's their incentive to pay the £700 or so per year for a roving permit?

[RLWP]

I just quoted judges, rather than putting it in my own words. They said that you shouldn’t try to find an extended meaning in statutory words that are simple enough in their own right.

 

If you have to start debating over the meaning of a few words, with references to only tangentially relevant case law, then it is probable that you are attempting to go beyond what Parliament intended.

 

Perhaps you could bracket the quotes with your own explanation of the relevance and meaning.

 

For instance, what is the relevance to the roving permits?

 

Richard

[cotswoldsman]

 

Given that effective enforcement can't be taken against this proportion of CCers due to the Human Rights Act, what's their incentive to pay the £700 or so per year for a roving permit?

Peace of mind the fact that basically these people want to be law abiding and do not want to spend their life going to court.