The Fate Of The Camouflage Boat.....

[Burgiesburnin]

I don't remember where I got it from but isn't at least to the "next Parish" the required distance to comply with a required relocation?

[RLWP]

I don't remember where I got it from but isn't at least to the "next Parish" the required distance to comply with a required relocation?

 

No, that's a very old interpretation of the rules, long out of use

 

Richard

[Chris Pink]

 

 

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

 

There's no procedure that enables CRT to remove a boat ( or to refuse to license it which amounts to the same thing ) for breaching their terms and conditions.

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.

 

The reality is, if CRT pick on the easy targets who don't or can't defend themselves they build up a smokescreen of propaganda to intimidate others.

[Caprifool]

I imagine it is quite difficult to comply to the rules of CC'ing if you are under arrest.. What's the alternative? A camouflaged boat that have inspired hateful comments on towpaths and forums, looking sadly abandoned on the cut for months? Surely that will attract more problems. So, perhaps it is best for all if it stayed on land until it is all sorted.

 

Oh wait, if they don't claim it back. Will it be for sale? I quite like camouflage! :-)

[alan_fincher]

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!

 

I agree.

 

Whatever else these people stand accused of, (which seems to be plenty!), there is little doubt in my mind that they were "navigating".

 

If they had not have been, we would not have had forum members tracking their considerable movement over a period of time!

 

CRT have dropped the "progressive journey" in their interpretation of the law, and I'm struggling to see ho the boat was not complying with the latest guidelines to those without a home mooring.

 

Whilst there will no doubt be considerable rejoicing by many other boaters at its removal, I find the CRT statement more than a little odd.

 

:tongue_in_cheek_smiley: Perhaps they needed a roving mooring permit, which if they had complied with it, would at least have let people know which 5 mile stretch they might have been committing their anti-social behaviours over, and allowed them to avoid mooring in it!

 

(too hot for my coat, though!........)

Oh wait, if they don't claim it back. Will it be for sale? I quite like camouflage! :-)

There is a suggestion that CRT craned it out into a wooded area, but now can't find it!

[junior]

Oh wait, if they don't claim it back. Will it be for sale? I quite like camouflage! :-)

 

 

Having read the original 'Camo Boat' thread, i would suggest the first thing any new owner does is paint the boat anything but Camo.

 

 

:tongue_in_cheek_smiley: Perhaps they needed a roving mooring permit, which if they had complied with it, would at least have let people know which 5 mile stretch they might have been committing their anti-social behaviours over, and allowed them to avoid mooring in it!

 

 

 

 

Shhhhh!!! Don't mention the *whispers* Roving Mooring Permit. It usually guaruntees a thread ends up getting locked before sundown.

[mark99]

Come on be reasonable - if you not doing 'owt wrong, you are in no danger of being lifted.

[Guest]

 

There's no procedure that enables CRT to remove a boat ( or to refuse to license it which amounts to the same thing ) for breaching their terms and conditions.

 

 

I'm sure as hell confused then, as I interpret the first paragraph of this -

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/654.pdf

 

Part of which says -

 

. If you breach any of these, we are entitled to terminate your Licence and

you could face legal action, which may result in the removal of your boat from our waterways

and then (specifically to anti-social behaviour) goes on to say -

7.5. You must not do (or carelessly fail to do) anything which will cause damage or nuisance to us or any

person or their property. You accept responsibility for any such damage or nuisance caused by you,

other occupants of the Boat or your visitors. You will not be responsible for events that are outside your

control.

???

Are you saying they have a condition that they have no procedure to enforce?

[fudd]

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

So just as an aside, what do you call 'reasonable navigation' ? Also 'unreasonable behaviour'. Surely someone must be able to define them.

Steve P

[nicknorman]

So just as an aside, what do you call 'reasonable navigation' ? Also 'unreasonable behaviour'. Surely someone must be able to define them.

Steve P

Well the first one, no. But the second one yes. Its somebody who disagrees with me.

[mrsmelly]

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.

I am in total agreement with you Keith. I have never had so much as even a verbal warning in 24 years of boat ownership much of it as a ccer. The rules are very very simple and there are hardly any rules to comply with.

 

Tim

[Chris Pink]

 

 

I'm sure as hell confused then, as I interpret the first paragraph of this -

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/654.pdf

 

Part of which says -

 

. If you breach any of these, we are entitled to terminate your Licence and

you could face legal action, which may result in the removal of your boat from our waterways

and then (specifically to anti-social behaviour) goes on to say -

7.5. You must not do (or carelessly fail to do) anything which will cause damage or nuisance to us or any

person or their property. You accept responsibility for any such damage or nuisance caused by you,

other occupants of the Boat or your visitors. You will not be responsible for events that are outside your

control.

Are you saying they have a condition that they have no procedure to enforce?

 

 

Yes. There is no legal procedure to refuse to license a boat for breaching the terms and conditions. The conditions under which they must license a boat are set out in Section 17 of the 1996 Act. And there are twom neither of which has anything to do with terms and conditions. Anti-social behaviour is a breach of byelaws and thus a criminal offence but that in itself doesn't entitle CRT to remove a license.

 

So, in this case, in my interpretation, what they did was invoke Section 17 of the 1995 Act and, I'm guessing now, I don't think it was defended in court as, as Nick Norman points out, it can clearly be shown to be navigating all over the place.

 

This forum stands witness to that when they stalked the boat.

[Delta9]

"all occupants were arrested enabling us to continue with the removal."

 

Anybody know what the occupants were charged with?

[nicknorman]

"all occupants were arrested enabling us to continue with the removal."

 

Anybody know what the occupants were charged with?

Well at a guess, obstructing the officials in their exercise of the court judgement.

[Bee]

They make the rules, interpret the rules and enforce the rules, I feel uncomfortable with that. However, it seems a nuisance has been removed so that is a `good thing` albeit ultimately a subjective view, why then am I worried about `mission creep` ?

[luctor et emergo]

As long as you do as you're told, you have nothing to worry about.

[Naughty Cal]

As far as I'm concerned if this low life is removed from the waterways it can only be a good thing.

 

Why should the rest of us have to put up with his behaviour?

 

And why are the keyboard warriors actually defending this idiot?

 

I don't care how or under what regulation they removed his boat. Him and it are gone.

[Henhouse]

As far as I'm concerned if this low life is removed from the waterways it can only be a good thing.

 

Why should the rest of us have to put up with his behaviour?

 

And why are the keyboard warriors actually defending this idiot?

 

I don't care how or under what regulation they removed his boat. Him and it are gone.

 

I'll second that

[Woodstock]

I actually thought the boat was unlicensed so surprised at the terminology used. We've encountered this boat several times chopping live trees and burning them and encountered mounds of rubbish left after them. I also met an elderly couple last year who were very intimidated by them and their dogs when the camo boat moored next too them -substance abuse and harassment was suggested- not hanging offences by any means but I wont miss them

[Paul C]

It might be that previously, like 6 months ago, they weren't moving around and that period of time was the basis for the legal process leading to licence withdrawal. Come the summer, they started moving again, but had no licence.....and the rest is history.

 

Of course, I am guessing, just like everyone else on this thread!

[Delta9]

As far as I'm concerned if this low life is removed from the waterways it can only be a good thing.

 

Why should the rest of us have to put up with his behaviour?

 

And why are the keyboard warriors actually defending this idiot?

 

I don't care how or under what regulation they removed his boat. Him and it are gone.

What behavior of his have you had to put up with? I've seen a few allegations of theft in the previous threads, but no actual evidence, and confiscating someones home is not usually the punishment for theft. He even seemed to be moving about a lot, so not a continuous moorer, and there is no mention of the boat being unlicensed. I would like to know what offense he committed that has led to his home being taken from him and his arrest.

[Naughty Cal]

What behavior of his have you had to put up with? I've seen a few allegations of theft in the previous threads, but no actual evidence, and confiscating someones home is not usually the punishment for theft. He even seemed to be moving about a lot, so not a continuous moorer, and there is no mention of the boat being unlicensed. I would like to know what offense he committed that has led to his home being taken from him and his arrest.

It is fairly common knowledge he was a thief and a miscreant.

 

His behaviour around others was not acceptable and he was a nuisance.

 

Good riddance.

 

I have no sympathy for him or any others who try to bend the rules and get caught out.

 

ETA: we were never at the receiving end of any of his antics however we have met many who have been and were genuinely shocked by his behaviour.

 

There are one or two others in the Trent area who it would be nice to get rid of as well.

 

If CRT are seen to be "sorting" this problem then maybe it will be an eye opener to others.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Naughty Cal

[JamesFrance]

The defensive attitude of some forum members makes me think they are expecting to be next on the list of scrotes for removal. Having read the previous topics I would have expected strong support for enforcement.

[Delta9]

It is fairly common knowledge he was a thief and a miscreant.

 

His behaviour around others was not acceptable and he was a nuisance.

 

Good riddance.

 

I have no sympathy for him or any others who try to bend the rules and get caught out.

 

ETA: we were never at the receiving end of any of his antics however we have met many who have been and were genuinely shocked by his behaviour.

 

There are one or two others in the Trent area who it would be nice to get rid of as well.

 

If CRT are seen to be "sorting" this problem then maybe it will be an eye opener to others.

Is it really common knowledge? I've seen no actual evidence of his thefts and apparently neither have the police or they would have arrested him for it some time ago.

 

What behavior around others? I have seen people complain about him cutting trees on the towpath or the smell of him smoking weed, hardly the crimes of the century.

 

What rules was he trying to bend? I see no mention of the boat being unlicensed and he appears to be moving about sufficiently as we saw by the thread tracking him.

 

Others were shocked at his behavior? How terrible for them. What was he doing that was so shocking,?

 

The only thing I can see that he did wrong was the theft which is a police matter and not related to the removal of his boat. I still can't figure out what he actually did to get his home taken from him.

[FidoDido]

They moored for several months at the end of allotment. I think they went up to Frazely to get another butty. They go up Shardlow way when they run out of diesel. I imagine C&RT only hauled their boat due to long term and persistent breaches of their terms. I think it is right that they publicise such cases, although the amount of detail was a bit gratuitous.

 

What happens to a boat when its removed? It is essentially impounded, with the owners liable for costs (like a car), or is it scrapped, ownership transferred to C&RT?