The Fate Of The Camouflage Boat.....

[Guest]

I'm not sure if it was ever completely clarified what happened to the 'camouflage boat' but this from 'Boaters Update' sets out what happened. Apologies if already posted.

 

We hate doing it but will if we have to…

While we don’t like to remove boats from the cut unless absolutely necessary. Helen Underhill, enforcement supervisor for the midlands, says consistent breaches of licence Terms & Conditions can only end badly for the boater concerned:

“We’ve successfully removed what was commonly recognised on the cut as the Camouflage Boat PENNY II, index 52657. The boat was not continuously cruising according to the ‘Guidance for boats without a home mooring’. In addition there were also complaints, backed by signed testimonials, of anti-social behaviour. So, after plenty of warnings stating that the boat wasn’t moving far enough and following our normal enforcement procedure, we had no alternative but to revoke the licence and issue notice that the boat had to be removed from the water. As we always do when a boat is someone’s home we took the matter to Court to get our actions endorsed by a judge. On the 20th March 2013 His Honour Judge Inglis gave the Trust declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring the owner to remove the craft by 4pm on the 3rd April 2013. If it wasn’t removed by then the Trust was entitled to remove it. In addition the judge summarily assessed cost at £995.

“Due to constant movement of the boat PENNY II, the enforcement team prepared 2 lifting points between the areas of Beeston and Upper Trent - Cranfleet, On the morning of Friday 14th June 2013, and with police presence, all occupants were arrested enabling us to continue with the removal. We manoeuvred the boat to the lifting point by water where a crane was standing by and removed the boat.

“It was a tight operation that went well on the day and is a credit to the detailed planning and organisation of the enforcement team who carried out a difficult seizure. It must be emphasised that this action is always our last resort – if boats follow our “Guidance for boats without a home mooring” then they will be safe from enforcement action. What you can’t do is just remain in one relatively small area and just shuffle about. Unfortunately, some boats do just this and, despite lots of warnings, we are left with no other alternative than to take action. It is worth noting that during 2012/13 that the enforcement team seized 72 craft for either no licence or non-continuous cruising.”

[luctor et emergo]

Oh, ohhhhhhhh. Really? Talk about menacing. So all you people who don't move along at great speed, be affraid. You'll be next.

 

This has to be the most nasty, and ill thought out statement so far. How do they manage to include the CC rules into this? And did you notice the underhand threat to all other CCers?

 

So there we have it. On the one hand, chuggers trying to lambast the public into spending money, and on the other hand a tightning noose for those who don't want to leave their boat in a marina.

 

 

Happy dayz ahead

[bottle]

Strange I read it as C&RT explaining and informing what is required and if you try to bend the rules, you only have yourself to blame when your boat is removed.

[nicknorman]

It does seem rather inappropriate to name and shame. And rather confusing too, because on the one hand we are told its because they didn't move enough, but then (assuming it was the same boat) they were seen traversing significant parts of the system (well at least from Sawley to Fazeley) and then in the newsletter it says "Due to constant movement of the boat PENNY II..." which seems to be not entirely compatible with failing to CC!

 

But look on the bright side, probably the W K&A will be next - watch out Lucky, they're coming for you... Oh no, that's just some gentlemen in white coats!

Edited July 19, 2013 by nicknorman

[luctor et emergo]

I will ask one last time, where do the rules (laws) state how far you must move?

 

Well?

Amazing, Nick has just verbatim posted what I was going to post next..

 

Well, untill his edit that is.. Hoho

Edited July 19, 2013 by luctor et emergo

[KevMc]

Strange I read it as C&RT explaining and informing what is required and if you try to bend the rules, you only have yourself to blame when your boat is removed.

 

All CRT need to do is define what they mean by moving far enough. From what I understand about this boat it did seem to move a reasonable distance - it needed to if it's occupants were carrying out the alleged nefarious activities that they were accused of.

[Suzie_q]

Is it a case of getting the "suspects" on what you can get them on, not what you really want to charge them with?

 

Just a thought?

[nicknorman]

 

All CRT need to do is define what they mean by moving far enough.

The trouble is, they can't do that because the law doesn't state it, and so it would be just their interpretation, or wish, which could be subject to legal challenge. Better to keep us guessing! An alternative view might be that it allows them to use discretion and not hassle people who in general comply with the spirit of the regulation, whilst being able to target those who clearly have no intention of complying with the spirit.

Is it a case of getting the "suspects" on what you can get them on, not what you really want to charge them with?

 

Just a thought?

Yes, I think that's very likely! Is that a bad thing?

[cheshire~rose]

Surely the "antisocial behaviour" adds a good deal of weight to this?

[Guest]

Surely the "antisocial behaviour" adds a good deal of weight to this?

 

My thoughts too - personally I couldn't really care less how far or how little a boat moves as it doesn't really affect me but 'anti-social behaviour' would and whilst I could move why should I if I have found a nice spot to moor.

[mayalld]

Oh, ohhhhhhhh. Really? Talk about menacing. So all you people who don't move along at great speed, be affraid. You'll be next.

 

This has to be the most nasty, and ill thought out statement so far. How do they manage to include the CC rules into this? And did you notice the underhand threat to all other CCers?

 

As far as I can see, the boat moved quite a lot, but kept coming back to the same places all the time.

 

As was established in the Davies case, intent rather than distance is all.

 

I won't weep too many tears for scrotes removed from the canal, and if they can use the CCing rules as a tool for that then all well and good (remember what they finally got Al Capone for)

[luctor et emergo]

Yes, I think that's very likely! Is that a bad thing?

I think it is. How can it be good to let a ruling body make up their parameters as they see fit, as it suits them?

 

Remember, today they come for me, but tomorrow they may come for you.

Surely the "antisocial behaviour" adds a good deal of weight to this?

But that was not why they were removed.

As far as I can see, the boat moved quite a lot, but kept coming back to the same places all the time.

 

As was established in the Davies case, intent rather than distance is all.

 

I won't weep too many tears for scrotes removed from the canal, and if they can use the CCing rules as a tool for that then all well and good (remember what they finally got Al Capone for)

Well, if anybody can, you can. Please Dave, how far do you have to move, before you can turn around. As defined in the law.

[Guest]

But that was not why they were removed.

 

I suspect it will have added to the weight of CRT's case in the eyes of the court though, it certainly wouldn't have painted them in a good light and painted a picture of 'responsible' boaters.

[mayalld]

The trouble is, they can't do that because the law doesn't state it, and so it would be just their interpretation, or wish, which could be subject to legal challenge. Better to keep us guessing! An alternative view might be that it allows them to use discretion and not hassle people who in general comply with the spirit of the regulation, whilst being able to target those who clearly have no intention of complying with the spirit.

 

Indeed.

 

In practice, CRT have defined a minimum distance that a boat must travel in order to remain "off radar" IIRC, it is something like 10km over the course of a 6 month period, which actually means that only the real piss takers are on radar, and people who make almost no effort to comply are safe.

 

They can set a target like that, because it is so low that it is near inconcievable that somebody moving less could actually win if they argued it. That doesn't mean that somebody who does 11km is obeying the rules, it just means that CRT are going after the low hanging fruit.

 

If the boater is on-radar despite moving more (as in this case), CRT may well come after them. After all, in the Davies case, intent was all, and it would be difficult to argue that cruising around nicking stuff was "bona fide navigation" (well it would be difficult to argue without self-incrimination for piracy!)

[Suzie_q]

I think it is. How can it be good to let a ruling body make up their parameters as they see fit, as it suits them?

 

Remember, today they come for me, but tomorrow they may come for you.

 

Unfortunately it does happen with many ruling bodies. Its how half the ruling bodies stay the ruling bodies!!!

 

[RLWP]

I think it is. How can it be good to let a ruling body make up their parameters as they see fit, as it suits them?

 

Remember, today they come for me, but tomorrow they may come for you.

 

But that was not why they were removed.

 

Well, if anybody can, you can. Please Dave, how far do you have to move, before you can turn around. As defined in the law.

 

Why ar you asking us? Ask His Honour Judge Inglis. It's good enough for him

 

Richard

[mayalld]

Well, if anybody can, you can. Please Dave, how far do you have to move, before you can turn around. As defined in the law.

 

Enough to "satisfy the board". The law doesn't say, so it is left to CRT to decide whether it is enough.

[Chris Pink]

I think it is. How can it be good to let a ruling body make up their parameters as they see fit, as it suits them?

 

Remember, today they come for me, but tomorrow they may come for you.

 

You don't know whether the case was defended or not.

[luctor et emergo]

 

My thoughts too - personally I couldn't really care less how far or how little a boat moves as it doesn't really affect me but 'anti-social behaviour' would and whilst I could move why should I if I have found a nice spot to moor.

But the anti-social behaviour is not why they were removed. They did not 'comply with the cc rules, and you could be next' is the message of this

[Guest]

But the anti-social behaviour is not why they were removed. They did not 'comply with the cc rules, and you could be next' is the message of this

 

I understand anti social behaviour to be a breach of the licencing terms and conditions too....

 

Breaches of the licence T&C's can lead to the removal of your boat.

[luctor et emergo]

 

I understand anti social behaviour to be a breach of the licencing terms and conditions too....

 

Breaches of the licence T&C's can lead to the removal of your boat.

Another ill defined rule. One man's party is another man's nuisance. You don't like my heavy metal. I don't like your sqeezebox/violin/archers. What is a reasonable party, and what is a nuisance?

 

I'm only saying, that I don't like the vibe that has been around for the last year or so. And this is just oone aspect of it.

[Midnight Rider]

Looks like they have used what old time bobbies called the Ways & Means Act --- quite rightly too in this case.

[Guest]

I'm only saying, that I don't like the vibe that has been around for the last year or so. And this is just oone aspect of it.

 

It's interesting you think there has been a change since the inception of the Trust as I don't see it - it was like this when BW held the reigns wasn't it (genuine question as I've only owned a boat for two years longer than the Trust has existed)

 

 

grammar ed.

Edited July 19, 2013 by The Dog House

[matty40s]

....... and if they can use the CCing rules as a tool for that then all well and good (remember what they finally got Al Capone for)

....mooring overnight with a centre line on a water point??

[mayalld]

....mooring overnight with a centre line on a water point??

 

yes, and running his engine till 20:05