Jump to content

Continuous cruisers???????


bigste
 Share

Featured Posts

Thank you for some interesting answers. However the section of the Lancaster beyond Tewitfield isn't stagnant does have water (in alot of it) still attracts walkers etc and doesn't need dredged or much other maintenance. I doubt you will ever find a way to get walkers and cyclists to pay much if anything towards dredging lock gates etc. It would be slightly easier with anglers but I doubt they would increase much what they already pay.

 

So how are you going to get these walkers cyclists etc to pay when cyclists can't even be persuaded to cycle sensibly (in many case OK not all but a good number).

 

It is all very well suggesting these other "users" should pay more but how exactly are you going to do it. Also cyclists and walkers (and to a certain extent anglers) have alternatives they can use and so more expense may just make them move. Many (most?) boat owners have no alternative to the canal system.

 

So having identified those you think should pay other than boaters how are you going to get them to pay and how much?

The extra income should come from the dogs. Judging by the exquisite breeding of the dogs I see walking their owners, the owners must be rolling in it. (Money not poo.) And so many of them! A towpath dog walking license of say £5 per week would probably solve CART's cash problems and clear the National Debt as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extra income should come from the dogs. Judging by the exquisite breeding of the dogs I see walking their owners, the owners must be rolling in it. (Money not poo.) And so many of them! A towpath dog walking license of say £5 per week would probably solve CART's cash problems and clear the National Debt as well.

 

And the crap off the towpath as well. Some inconsiderate dog owners even allow their dogs to crap around the lock areas.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

but staff patrol officers who were reasonable people as long as you were.

They still are, so long as they are not being told a right load of old bootmakers as to why the boat cant move or why some scruffy type cant pay for a mooring but the teller is not short of crap to smoke or booze to drink. So dont forget that the enforcement staff are only human.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They still are, so long as they are not being told a right load of old bootmakers as to why the boat cant move or why some scruffy type cant pay for a mooring but the teller is not short of crap to smoke or booze to drink. So dont forget that the enforcement staff are only human.

Are you a CaRT enforcement officer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that, Carl.

But no-one, (with the exception of Parliament) can possibly be held responsible for explaining what is NOT in an Act.

 

I believe you are confusing [or perhaps unaware that there are] two distinct types of Parliamentary Act, Public & Private. The Transport Acts were “Public” Acts promulgated by Parliament on their own initiative. The original Enabling Acts, and all the British Waterways Acts were “Private” Acts promoted by the relevant proprietors.

 

The British Waterways Act of 1995 was the end result of the private Bill promoted by BW in 1990 on their own behalf, which is basically a request to Parliament to grant such powers as they did not then have, but which they then perceived as needed, and which they felt were best achieved through primary legislation.

 

They did have an alternative [which would still have required examination and approval], which was to promote relevant byelaws [secondary legislation] – but either path was one to be drafted and promoted at their own expense. As a consequence of that, they were and are obviously in a position to explain the wording of the subsequently successful form of the Act once Parliament had got through scrutinising the Bill and modifying/deleting as appropriate. They are the promoters, not Parliament.

 

I understand why you would think what you do respecting what is NOT in an Act, but the plain fact is that you are mistaken. When seeking to understand an Act, it is in fact especially necessary at times, to learn what Parliament did NOT allow. For this reason Parliamentary materials are sometimes now allowed in court in order to gain an insight into precisely that question.

 

Lord Browne- Wilkinson in the case of Pepper v Hart stated: “Take the normal Law Commission Report which analyses the problem and then annexes a draft Bill to remedy it. It is now permissible to look at the report to find the mischief and at the draft Bill to see that a provision in the draft was not included in the legislation enacted: see Factortame [1990] 2 A.C. 85.

 

It follows therefore, that the points that Allan has highlighted regarding what was in the draft Bill that BW promoted - but which were NOT included in the legislated enacted - are valid ones. BW not only drafted what they wanted, they had to employ barristers and field their top managers to argue their case for around 5 years in this instance, before both Houses of Parliament. Few people will be in a better position to explain why certain clauses failed to pass through Parliament than those who did their damndest to get them passed. But in the face of BW/CART’s natural reluctance to explain, for those sufficiently interested the answers are revealed in the thousand plus pages of the publicly accessible Select Committee Minutes of the proceedings.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Nigel. Reasoned argument is so much more informative than personal insults.

I understand what you are saying.

However, it is a not fact that it is the Parliamentary material that is occasionally admitted to court as evidence, not material from promoters of bills?

My point was that I do not believe that C&RT have to explain anything. As you say, it's all in the public record.

Edited by PaulG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it is a not fact that it is the Parliamentary material that is occasionally admitted to court as evidence, not material from promoters of bills?

My point was that I do not believe that C&RT have to explain anything. As you say, it's all in the public record.

 

Yes Paul, but the material from promoters of bills is part of the Parliamentary material. So far as the courts are concerned, the admissibility of certain types of Parliamentary material for elucidation of an Act is still in an evolutionary stage of development – until fairly recently, absolutely nothing from Parliament was admissible at all. The trend, however, since Factortame, has been to acknowledge that anything helpful should be used. Hansard and Special Reports are certainly admitted, while I was able to produce Select Committee Minutes and the original draft Bill in my own case [although BW objected].

 

In the end, the judge quoted some of the Minutes in his judgment, not to establish a point of interpretation it must be said, but certainly to highlight the recognition by the promoters, of the character of certain existing clauses.

 

Although this material IS in the public record, it is not readily accessible, and some material has to be especially requested if less than 30 years old, and permission gained first. The material can only be viewed insitu in the Parliamentary Archives, which needs an appointment and ID etc, etc. Not a problem, just a mild hassle. The difficulty and cost of public access to such materials used to be one of the courts’ arguments for not allowing it – it entailed ‘inequality of arms’ between joe public and well-heeled professionals.

 

So far as CART having to explain anything – well in a sense no, because it is self explanatory; if the powers were not granted [whether they had asked for them or not], then they don’t have them. But as they DO lay claim to powers that had been refused, explaining away their failure to get them would seem to be a pre-requisite for public confidence in their veracity and grasp of their own legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I can imagine most government departments assume they have powers that in fact they do not possess, which are rarely challenged. Perhaps now CRT is a charity the trustees may need to be more careful if they are made aware that CRT is exceeding its legal powers if that is the case although I imagine they have some protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The licence fee covers the right to have a boat on the water . . .

 

I agree with this, but BW/CART have held otherwise from the beginning of the 21stC [as in the 2001 case of BWB v Roberts], belatedly dropping [in the 2008 version] all previous acknowledgments of a right “to keep a boat on the waterfrom the Boat Licence Terms & Conditions - it interferes with their arguments in courts that a boat licence gives no right to “keep” a boat on the water, as distinct from a right to “use” a boat on the water.

 

It appears that you haven’t kept up-to-date with their current legal thinking, which for such a stalwart supporter is rather remiss. You are roughly 12 years behind at this stage, time to get up to speed – they need people like you on board, not inadvertently undermining them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, I am new here, at the end of next year my wife and I are off CC'ing, I have read all the posts on this thread and have to say it all seems a grey area, slightly confusing to say the least. As I understand it, some people pay for leisure moorings with the intention of CC'ing, and rarely if at all use the mooring, but for what reason? If I intend to keep moving(observing the time limit rule on each free mooring of course!) do I still need a paid mooring?

paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So having identified those you think should pay other than boaters how are you going to get them to pay and how much?

 

Canals offer significant benefits for the communities through which they pass. As 'green corridors' for wildlife, as footpaths and cycleways, tourist attractions, places to sit and relax, and a source of revenue (trade from passing boaters and other users).

 

While some of this might seem inconsequential, I bet it all adds up. For example how much do the Police and the NHS save if 100 people at high risk of stress or depression sit by the water and feed the ducks every day, rather than popping pills or jumping from bridges?

 

There's also a desperate need to involve local people and local authorities to a greater extent, so the canals are "their" canals - to be promoted, looked after, and fully integrated into their surroundings. While some places are good at this, others are very much "us and them".

 

For this reason I still think that the SOW proposal to establish a formal and binding framework for part-funding via local authorities (from Council Tax revenue) is a logical and perfectly valid suggestion. Particularly if it were based on route miles of CaRT waterway per County Council. No waterway = no charge.

 

It wouldn't replace the boat licence, nor overlap with it. Nor would it replace the central Government funding (which recognises the national significance of the system), though it might reduce it. The Council contribution would simply be a payment for the aspects which are currently "free" and mostly the domain of local residents - walking, cycling etc.. I suggest that it would require the abolition of any charges from CaRT to angling clubs, as otherwise fishermen would end up paying for the same thing twice.

 

Fringe benefits would include greater integration of services. For example towpath grass cutting, bin emptying etc. could be transferred over to local authority contractors in return for a reduction in CaRT subsidy. Local authorities would also be far more likely to think about the canals when granting planning permission, arranging tourism promotions etc. if they are actually paying towards their upkeep.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, I am new here, at the end of next year my wife and I are off CC'ing, I have read all the posts on this thread and have to say it all seems a grey area, slightly confusing to say the least. As I understand it, some people pay for leisure moorings with the intention of CC'ing, and rarely if at all use the mooring, but for what reason? If I intend to keep moving(observing the time limit rule on each free mooring of course!) do I still need a paid mooring?

paul.

 

Hi all, I am new here, at the end of next year my wife and I are off CC'ing, I have read all the posts on this thread and have to say it all seems a grey area, slightly confusing to say the least. As I understand it, some people pay for leisure moorings with the intention of CC'ing, and rarely if at all use the mooring, but for what reason? If I intend to keep moving(observing the time limit rule on each free mooring of course!) do I still need a paid mooring?

paul.

 

No.

 

If you comply with what C&RT want, then there is no need.

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/mooring/want-to-be-a-continuous-cruiser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Canals offer significant benefits for the communities through which they pass . . . Local authorities would also be far more likely to think about the canals when granting planning permission, arranging tourism promotions etc. if they are actually paying towards their upkeep.

 

Excellent suggestions.

 

Of course, the same arguments reasonably justify continuance of the former level of central government contributions, which was always one way of reflecting the national benefit the country received from all such non-targetable profits - but that is not going to happen.

 

So, a practical and useful additional recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It wouldn't replace the boat licence, nor overlap with it. Nor would it replace the central Government funding (which recognises the national significance of the system), though it might reduce it. The Council contribution would simply be a payment for the aspects which are currently "free" and mostly the domain of local residents - walking, cycling etc.. I suggest that it would require the abolition of any charges from CaRT to angling clubs, as otherwise fishermen would end up paying for the same thing twice.

 

Thought provoking ideas but why have you left boaters in isolation as the only canal users expected to pay twice for their use of the system?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought provoking ideas but why have you left boaters in isolation as the only canal users expected to pay twice for their use of the system?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Good question.

 

Because using boats generally creates maintenance costs for CaRT, in terms of bank erosion, wear to lock gates and paddle gear etc.. to a far greater extent than, say, cycling or jogging or feeding the ducks does. The Council Tax contribution covers the general "access to the towpath for leisure" aspect which is currently free (and would be a very small sum per head) whereas the boat licence is very specifically for the use of a boat on the waterways.

 

Agreed there would have to be an arbitrary way of dividing the two cost groups (probably "whatever we think we can get away with most successfully") but I doubt if there'd be any reduction for boaters in the short term, as licence revenue doesn't cover anything like CaRT's basic maintenance costs. But yeah, it could, depending on the ratios used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.