The Fate Of The Camouflage Boat.....

[nb Innisfree]

Ultimately it's down to the judge who's judgement is never in doubt, after all they are pillars of society and all that jazz. Hang 'em high I say.

[luctor et emergo]

Ultimately it's down to the judge who's judgement is never in doubt, after all they are pillars of society and all that jazz. Hang 'em high I say.

Hang the judges? I say, that seems a tad extreme..

[nb Innisfree]

Hang the judges? I say, that seems a tad extreme..

Do you really think so?

[carlt]

Do you really think so?

Well the music they constantly play,

It says nothing to me about my life..

 

Oh, hang on...Judges?

[nicknorman]

It seems to me likely that they were "done" for CMing when in reality CRT would rather have "done" them for being pain in the arse thieves. However the latter would have been more difficult to prove, the former easier and that is why it went that way. If you think that is wrong, sorry but its how the legal system often works. You have to prosecute for something that is likely to secure a conviction, rather than the heinous thing you know they have done, but can't prove rigorously enough for a court.

[Graham Davis]

Re the "arrest".

The original posting states that the Police were present when the boat was removed.

The Police may attend any eviction (land or boat), if requested, so as to prevent a possible Breach of the Peace. If they consider that any of the occupants might, repeat might, cause such a Disturbance, then they can arrest that person before the actual Eviction is done. Once the "action" has been completed then the Police will release (un-arrest) the occupants.

[StarUKKiwi]

Having read this thread and the other one; I have come to the conclusion that CaRT are "flexing their muscles". I am given to understand that BW didn't "police" moorings as much whilst there were plenty to go round. However, as more of us decide we want that change of lifestyle and to lievaboard; moorings in more popular areas become less avilable. For example, residential moorings are hard to find (and virtuous;y impossible in some areas) and therefore, some are "forced" into CC; I have read on here (in various threads) what can and can't be interpreted as CC. Therefore, it would seem to me, that if you CC but in a relatively small to area, you should try and stay under the radar - it appears that for whatever reason, the inhabitants of "the Camoflage Boat" did not do this and chaos and destruction went in their wake. I am not a fan of enforcement for enforcements sake; however, it appears that wherever this boat appeared, there were reported instances of theft, vandalism and a sheer disrespect of those who use the waterways around them. I got the sense (from reading the article) that CaRT had been trying to "get rid" for a while and this was their valedictory summation. Perhaps, also as a veiled threat to others of that ilk thinking they could do the same? Unfortunately, in ifem there are thise who like to spoil things for others and one hopes this is not "the thin end of the wedge" with regards to enforcement. I also get the feeling that as a PFI. they, the CaRT will have to start "paying their way" in a way BW never had to as public sector .

I note "One year after launching the Canal and River Trust - and nine months since it began fundraising - the organisation, borne out of British Waterways, has raised £900,000 from the public and corporate supporters."

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/15701/canal_and_river_trust_raises_900k_in_first_year

 

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Finance/article/1190024/Canal---River-Trust-income-1221m-end-March/

Corporate sponsors don't want their names associated with bad behaviour as it affects their image and Stock market price - so, whilst it is probably a thank you to them for ridding the canal of these miscreants - one wonders how they will interpret rules in the future and what this will mean for ordinary boaters - I think all should join the most appropriate body - maybe (horror of horrors) we should all join CaRT so we have a say?

[Jerra]

we have to go through due process.

 

Surely the case having been before a judge has gone through due process! Unless there has been some form of conspiracy between the judge and CRT which I personally couldn't believe.

[Ange]

Surely the case having been before a judge has gone through due process! Unless there has been some form of conspiracy between the judge and CRT which I personally couldn't believe.

That's why I'd like to see the judgement.

 

As I said before I don't think we have all the facts.

[StarUKKiwi]

Surely the case having been before a judge has gone through due process! Unless there has been some form of conspiracy between the judge and CRT which I personally couldn't believe.

Therein lies the tale - the devil in the detail!

[Paul C]

That's why I'd like to see the judgement.

 

As I said before I don't think we have all the facts.

 

Possibly the best avenue might be to ask CRT to publish the court judgement. Its possible to obtain it as a third party, but CRT will 1) already have it and 2) there is probably sufficient public interest to justify CRT publishing it.

[Ange]

 

Possibly the best avenue might be to ask CRT to publish the court judgement. Its possible to obtain it as a third party, but CRT will 1) already have it and 2) there is probably sufficient public interest to justify CRT publishing it.

That's a good idea - thanks.

[Doorman]

I thought they got Capone on "Failure to display a licence"?

No, it was the scar on his face!

 

He too thought that he was untouchable.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Doorman

[nicknorman]

I didn't like the newsletter, but all this squealing about CRT's bad behaviour boils down to a simple point: you can get a home mooring and be fine. You can genuinely CC and be fine. But if you pretend to CC but don't (making you a liar) because in reality you want to live in one location, you may not be fine. Seems fair enough to me!

[peterboat]

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.ditto

 

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.

[Chris Pink]

 

 

So, whilst the spirit of CCing was for people who genuinely traveled much of the system it became a tool for not having a home mooring.

 

 

Sorry, Patrick, normally you talk sense. In this instance you've made this up. Evidence please that Section 17 c iii b of the 1995 Act was intended as you claim. Or is this just your interpretation.

 

 

 

 

But the Continuous Cruiser licence is specifically for those who wish to cruise "continuously" and therefore have no need of a home mooring. The legislation was poorly drafted and so various distance per week/month/year have been cobbled together in an attempt to clarify it.

 

No sorry, you just made that up. There is no such thing as a "Continuous Cruiser licence" nor can there be under current legislation

 

 

And to the both of you. The canal system does not belong to any subset of it's users. It belongs to all of them. If someone chooses to use the canals in a way consistent with the law but doesn't fit your desired pattern then it is you who are wrong not them.

 

In this case, I would be surprised if there was a defence. CRT would not have needed to produce evidence and the Judge would have no choice but to award the case to them.

 

 

They intended to introduce such a system but ceded the point that their system was big enough that some people could explore year on year and never get back to, or even be near, their home mooring.

 

 

No they didn't 'cede' the point. They asked for the provision to require a home mooring in the bill, Parliament refused it. That is a bit different.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Tam & Di]

 

No sorry, you just made that up. There is no such thing as a "Continuous Cruiser licence" nor can there be under current legislation

 

And to the both of you. The canal system does not belong to any subset of it's users. It belongs to all of them. If someone chooses to use the canals in a way consistent with the law but doesn't fit your desired pattern then it is you who are wrong not them.

 

 

OK I'll happily cede the detail, but I did sit in on every day of the 1995 Bill in the Lords, and in response to argument put by RBOA (as I recall) that there were some of their members who cruised steadily around the system and had no requirement of a home mooring, BW made hasty and ill-considered amendments to the Bill. BW's and now C&RT's problem has been how to deal with people who keep looking for the loopholes so they don't actually move far at all, and certainly not in the way suggested by RBOA and which was the purpose of the amendment. Parliament only asked for these people to be taken into account - they did not refuse the provision for a home mooring in the way you imply, and Patrick is perfectly correct about the "intent". It is just the actuality that went awry. I've still got full records of the hearings but not the time to look them up to post the evidence.

 

I've no idea where your subset stuff comes from - I didn't say anything at all to that effect and would basically agree that lawful use is permitted use.

 

However that still does not validate L&E's thesis that they could then introduce non-navigational requirements for a person who is CCing which was the main thrust of my point.

 

Tam

Edited July 20, 2013 by Tam & Di

[Barry]

Re "the fate of the camouflage boat"

 

Now that the boat has been removed from the water I'm presuming the original owner still owns it since the boat hasn't been confiscated, just removed. If the owner so chose, could he live on it ashore?

[Paul C]

Re "the fate of the camouflage boat"

 

Now that the boat has been removed from the water I'm presuming the original owner still owns it since the boat hasn't been confiscated, just removed. If the owner so chose, could he live on it ashore?

 

I can't see why not in theory, in practice it would need a hardstanding area to put it. And there would be costs - paying CRT back for their costs so far and the moving of the boat not on the water.

 

I'm not sure how many people live on boats on hardstandings though. Or how practical life like that is.

[magpie patrick]

 

Sorry, Patrick, normally you talk sense. In this instance you've made this up. Evidence please that Section 17 c iii b of the 1995 Act was intended as you claim. Or is this just your interpretation.

 

 

 

 

No sorry, you just made that up. There is no such thing as a "Continuous Cruiser licence" nor can there be under current legislation

 

 

And to the both of you. The canal system does not belong to any subset of it's users. It belongs to all of them. If someone chooses to use the canals in a way consistent with the law but doesn't fit your desired pattern then it is you who are wrong not them.

 

In this case, I would be surprised if there was a defence. CRT would not have needed to produce evidence and the Judge would have no choice but to award the case to them.

 

No they didn't 'cede' the point. They asked for the provision to require a home mooring in the bill, Parliament refused it. That is a bit different.

 

On the first and second points, I think Tam has answered you,

 

On the third I've never stated what I want the law to be, just what I believed it to be

 

On the last, If parliament had refused then the act wouldn't have been passed. Parliament had a bill with no "CC" clause and an objection from RBOA, the objection was dealt with by BW amending the bill (something only the promoter of the bill can do) to ren=move the objection.

[Grace and Favour]

Re "the fate of the camouflage boat"

 

Now that the boat has been removed from the water I'm presuming the original owner still owns it since the boat hasn't been confiscated, just removed. If the owner so chose, could he live on it ashore?

There may be room on Carlt's drive/yard possibly?

[mark99]

Maybe a driveway could be offered from anyone that thinks that he has been hard done by?

 

 

 

There may be room on Carlt's drive/yard possibly?

[carlt]

There may be room on Carlt's drive/yard possibly?

Sorry, Al Capone has put his caravan there.

[Chris Pink]

 

On the first and second points, I think Tam has answered you,

 

On the third I've never stated what I want the law to be, just what I believed it to be

 

On the last, If parliament had refused then the act wouldn't have been passed. Parliament had a bill with no "CC" clause and an objection from RBOA, the objection was dealt with by BW amending the bill (something only the promoter of the bill can do) to ren=move the objection.

 

Sorry, both you and Tam are splitting hairs. Parliament (the select committee) told BW to amend the bill and remove the then Section 18 otherwise it wouldn't be passed.

 

And it wasn't just the IWA and RBOA there were objections from others and waterways-aware members of parliament and the lords.

 

And you'll be able to show me where, in the bill, it makes provision to prevent the kind of use you are referring to? It's not like exactly that sort of use wasn't happening at the time. People have always used canals in very local terms both for commercial use and living. All the Act did was but some quantification around that existing use, ie 14 days and bona fide for navigation and satisfying the board. To pretend that all the people involved in the Bill were somehow unaware of these uses is to describe them as idiots, which they were not.

 

The removal of Section 18 about distance, restrictions and no-return indicate the type of distinction you refer to wasn't intended. If "progressive journey" were part of the law it would be in there. See BW vs Moore.

 

You, both, are being simplistic in order to represent a preferred scenario. It just ain't so and furthermore has nothing to do with this case unless it was defended.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Chris Pink

[magpie patrick]

 

Sorry, both you and Tam are splitting hairs. Parliament (the select committee) told BW to amend the bill and remove the then Section 18 otherwise it wouldn't be passed.

 

You, both, are being simplistic in order to represent a preferred scenario. It just ain't so and furthermore has nothing to do with this case unless it was defended.

 

Well this simpleton makes his money from advising what will and won't wash, so my "opinion" tends to get road tested and is seldom if ever trashed in reality. I also know enough about the law to know that I understand its machinations better than most but still not that well.

 

As for splitting hairs, if that is what I am doing, then so are you, the bill was amended, like so many things, there is a procedure for doing it and that was followed.

 

As no one is paying my fees I'm not going to spend hours doing the legwork I would otherwise, but I will maintain that the intention was to permit those who have no home area to also have no home mooring. This has progressively (and perhaps wisely) been reduced but the bar is still higher than some would like it to be. If I'm indulging in wishful thinking, then I'm not the only one.

 

I can't think of a word that comes after zyxt though So you will probably get that in