The Fate Of The Camouflage Boat.....

[Tam & Di]

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

You claimed there was no intent that the people who were to be exempt from the requirement to have a home mooring were those engaged in slow but steady travels around the system or major parts of it rather than those staying within a specific locality. I have assured you from my being there (as a petitioner myself) that there was indeed such intent, but it was poorly expressed in the eventual Act. That does not seem to me to be splitting hairs - it is stating a varifiable fact.

 

I don't see what relevance freight carriage has - there was never any intent to make freight boaters move every 14 days or any other period. I don't know either where you get the idea that people always lived locally on canals - retired boat people possibly, but it was not a common event. It did slowly come about, but even by the 1960s there were enough moorings to accommodate it. After that things did get very out of hand, and BW were unable to control it. The whole purpose of making it mandatory in the Bill originally put before the Lords for all craft to have a home mooring was to clear the towpaths of what were at the time known as towpath dossers - to give the Board necessary legal powers to regain control.

 

It may or may not be relevant now, but that was the actual history of it.

 

Tam

Edited July 20, 2013 by Tam & Di

[Chris Pink]

 

the intention was to permit those who have no home area to also have no home mooring.

 

It was but to extrapolate and say that it was only intended for for that purpose and not to enable those who do have a home area to behave within the same law is as I say simplistic.

 

There is no hint of such a concept, wording, whatever. BW have come up with plenty of stuff since "continuous cruiser", "progressive journey", 'neighbourhood". The fact remains these concepts are not in the 1995 Act and to impute that as incompetence is like me saying the Theft was never intended to stop me stealing, they just didn't word it right. (see the fuel duty thread)

 

if you want to call yourself a simpleton that's up to you, I called your opinion simplistic - It's that's your idea of logic it's no wonder you're so confused about the 1995 Act.

 

The whole purpose of making it mandatory in the Bill originally put before the Lords for all craft to have a home mooring was to clear the towpaths of what were at the time known as towpath dossers - to give the Board necessary legal powers to regain control.

 

indeed. They asked and Parliament said 'no'. For you and CRT to say they say 'no' but intended to say 'yes' is Looking Glass stuff. The Bill was debated for 8 years plenty of time to get that wording right.

 

Your use of language shows exactly your bias " clear the towpaths" of " towpath dossers". That's a lot of people you just insulted there Tam both in 1995 and now.

 

Maybe you, and BW think like that. Parliament put you right and said "the canals belong to everybody" as long as they satisfy on of two simple conditions.

[magpie patrick]

 

 

if you want to call yourself a simpleton that's up to you, I called your opinion simplistic - It's that's your idea of logic it's no wonder you're so confused about the 1995 Act.

 

 

I was trying to inject some self effacing humour Chris! You know, the sort we might share on the towpath when we meet again

 

I'll see if I can work an obsolete Kentish word into a post at some point, that really would give ME the last word...

[jelunga]

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

 

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

You are right. Some things cannot be revealed especially in relation to on going legal processes.

[Tam & Di]

 

It was but to extrapolate and say that it was only intended for for that purpose and not to enable those who do have a home area to behave within the same law is as I say simplistic.

 

There is no hint of such a concept, wording, whatever. BW have come up with plenty of stuff since "continuous cruiser", "progressive journey", 'neighbourhood". The fact remains these concepts are not in the 1995 Act and to impute that as incompetence is like me saying the Theft was never intended to stop me stealing, they just didn't word it right. (see the fuel duty thread)

 

if you want to call yourself a simpleton that's up to you, I called your opinion simplistic - It's that's your idea of logic it's no wonder you're so confused about the 1995 Act.

 

indeed. They asked and Parliament said 'no'. For you and CRT to say they say 'no' but intended to say 'yes' is Looking Glass stuff. The Bill was debated for 8 years plenty of time to get that wording right.

 

Your use of language shows exactly your bias " clear the towpaths" of " towpath dossers". That's a lot of people you just insulted there Tam both in 1995 and now.

 

Maybe you, and BW think like that. Parliament put you right and said "the canals belong to everybody" as long as they satisfy on of two simple conditions.

 

There is obviously a very strong hint. BW modified their Bill to take account of those who cruised steadily around the system and did not required a home mooring. Unfortunately it was left to BW to define subsequently what they regarded as cruising around the system, and that is where these ill-considered definitions come about, and the introduction of the concept of the continuous cruiser. Yes it was incompetence when it comes to it - Jeremy Duffy the BW Solicitor was so frightened of losing the whole Bill that he did not wish to spend days of Parliamentary time defining bona fide navigation there and then, and hoped that being left to define it subsequently would suffice. We did say to him we thought he would quickly run into problems and of course he did. Come up with a definition of bona fide navigation to include Cotswoldsman and you've immediately discounted a whole raft of other equally genuine ways of cruising around.

 

I am not the least bit confused by the 1995 Act, but I do know how it evolved from the original Bill, and what the intent of it was concerning home moorings.

 

I agreed already that lawful use was permitted use. Unfortunately from the late 60s onwards there were more and more craft tying to the towpaths, many of them hardly ever moving, often gathered at the spots other boats would like to stop for a day or two. This was generally lawful, but certainly anti-social and affecting other users, and it was BW's intent to control this in the Bill. To do so meant they had to make certain uses unlawful.

 

By all means use BW's inefficiency and "get away with" what you can, but please do not try to rewrite history to suit some view of the world where the past was always just like your view of the ideal present but nasty people like BW have come along and tried to spoil it.

 

Tam

Edited July 21, 2013 by Tam & Di

[Jigsawged]

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

What "the man on the Clapham omnibus" might consider unreasonable behaviour, was oft used where no definition existed. That seems acceptable to me but I know that somebody will shoot me down!

[Chris Pink]

 

I agreed already that lawful use was permitted use. Unfortunately from the late 60s onwards there were more and more craft tying to the towpaths, many of them hardly ever moving, often gathered at the spots other boats would like to stop for a day or two. This was generally lawful, but certainly anti-social and affecting other users, and it was BW's intent to control this in the Bill. To do so meant they had to make certain uses unlawful.

 

By all means use BW's inefficiency and "get away with" what you can, but please do not try to rewrite history to suit some view of the world where the past was always just like your view of the ideal present but nasty people like BW have come along and tried to spoil it.

 

Tam

 

Once again you are reading things into my posts that I didn't say in order to prop up your entrenched point of view. I have no need whatsoever to 'get away' with anything. Is this personal abuse a sign that you are losing the argument?

 

If you are going to make assumptions and allegations about my personal circumstances then please back this up with factual evidence.

 

BW were given powers to deal with the situation you describe, as I described above. Those powers were limited, intentionally, so as not to criminalise liveaboard boaters but simply to make them satisfy simple conditions that were also intended, not by or BW's solicitor but by Parliament because they are supposed to be representative of everybody, to make the canals available to everybody, not just a narrow band of users typified by yourself.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Chris Pink]

I'll see if I can work an obsolete Kentish word into a post at some point, that really would give ME the last word...

 

Quickly please Mr P, put us out of our misery

[magpie patrick]

 

Quickly please Mr P, put us out of our misery

 

I've got to work out what zyxt means first haven't I?

 

Oh... That means I've put it in a post...

[Tam & Di]

 

Once again you are reading things into my posts that I didn't say in order to prop up your entrenched point of view. I have no need whatsoever to 'get away' with anything. Is this personal abuse a sign that you are losing the argument?

 

I thought we were part of a discussion rather than an argument, but there you go. My English is obviously too complex for you to understand. I have however arrived at an entrenched point of view - it is that you will not accept any evidence which says that canal history is not as you have decided. Where you go from that point is up to you and I don't really care. I've got no interest in discussing something with someone who is simply out to win points.

 

I'll trump Patrick's zyxt before I go - zyzzyva - see!

Edited July 21, 2013 by Tam & Di

[luctor et emergo]

I'll trump zyzzyva

 

Zzzzz...

[peterboat]

Hi just come back from the IWA at Watford. I have been following this thread and the previous thread when we were being told to be aware of the "the boat" I must say that down south their seems to be more scrap and unlicenced boats than up north. We went to Oxford to pick up Taff the border collie but also went for a walk down the towpath and the canal was awash with semi derelict boats! Most had a licence but a lot didnt is this a narrow canal problem or is it all the boats that have scattered from Reading and beyond and was the camo boat from there? If CART are taking a hard line on all these boats is that not a fare and good thing? After all I pay my dues on time and dont break the rules and I am sure all of you reading this are the same arnt you? and if you dont maybe that is why you are trying to defend other peoples behaviour when non of us knows the full story! Me I am not worried courts generally due the right thing and if fresh evidence comes to light you can always appeal the decision so I am now going to ignore this thread goodnight

 

Peter

[Guest]

Hi just come back from the IWA at Watford. I have been following this thread and the previous thread when we were being told to be aware of the "the boat" I must say that down south their seems to be more scrap and unlicenced boats than up north. We went to Oxford to pick up Taff the border collie but also went for a walk down the towpath and the canal was awash with semi derelict boats! Most had a licence but a lot didnt is this a narrow canal problem or is it all the boats that have scattered from Reading and beyond and was the camo boat from there? If CART are taking a hard line on all these boats is that not a fare and good thing? After all I pay my dues on time and dont break the rules and I am sure all of you reading this are the same arnt you? and if you dont maybe that is why you are trying to defend other peoples behaviour when non of us knows the full story! Me I am not worried courts generally due the right thing and if fresh evidence comes to light you can always appeal the decision so I am now going to ignore this thread goodnight

 

Peter

 

Whilst I applaud you for taking Taff on I'm afraid you like a lot of folk on here are being incredibly judgemental - I say again as I said in the other thread - just because a boat is not displaying a licence does not ruddy mean a boat is not licensed.

[frangar]

Perhaps if you did display your licence then any confusion would be avoided but it seems some people think they are above such mundane things and reckon that they are having their human rights infringed by merely complying with the rules......I'm very glad that the vocal minority on here aren't the majority of boaters!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Guest]

Perhaps if you did display your licence then any confusion would be avoided but it seems some people think they are above such mundane things and reckon that they are having their human rights infringed by merely complying with the rules......I'm very glad that the vocal minority on here aren't the majority of boaters!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

 

No 'confusion' - the only people who need to know are CRT staff, and they can check on their systems in seconds, it's the business of no body else.

 

Who has suggested that they are not displaying them because it's breaching any bodies human rights? - I would wager it's purely an issue of practicality.

 

like in this case

Edited July 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[Guest]

A C&RT official approached our boat last week and started punching some numbers into his computer device that was glued to his hand. My wife asked him politely why he was doing this.

"Just checkin' yer licence luv."

My wife said that it was in the window, though he didn't seem interested and only left after checking it was up to date on his puter.

Why do they continue to waste money on paper licences then not bother with them?

I will always display them when required, but can no longer see the need for them.

 

Edited cause i am a knob, and put "issue" instead of "display."

Edited July 21, 2013 by Guest

[jenlyn]

A C&RT official approached our boat last week and started punching some numbers into his computer device that was glued to his hand. My wife asked him politely why he was doing this.

"Just checkin' yer licence luv."

My wife said that it was in the window, though he didn't seem interested and only left after checking it was up to date on his puter.

Why do they continue to waste money on paper licences then not bother with them?

 

They are intending to do away with the paper ones.

[frangar]

So boats that display no licence, name or reg number are easy to check in seconds then?? I have seen a number of boats like this so far this year. CRT must have some really clever equipment! I can't see what's so difficult about having to display an in date licence whatever electronic means of checking is available.

 

If you are licenced why not show it? Or have you something to hide?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Guest]

A C&RT official approached our boat last week and started punching some numbers into his computer device that was glued to his hand. My wife asked him politely why he was doing this.

"Just checkin' yer licence luv."

My wife said that it was in the window, though he didn't seem interested and only left after checking it was up to date on his puter.

Why do they continue to waste money on paper licences then not bother with them?

 

He would check it as just because you have one in the window does not mean it may have been revoked by CRT I guess.

 

I agree with your last point, it's the same as road tax discs being issued - why?? It's all on the 'puter now and can be checked at the roadside in seconds,

[Tuscan]

You are quite right , there is no need for a license now .

 

I would support the need for the boat registration number and/or name to be clearly displayed. I wonder what our man with his hand held data logger does when nothing is displayed which I have seen a few times recently does he just go onto the next boat?

[Guest]

So boats that display no licence, name or reg number are easy to check in seconds then?? I have seen a number of boats like this so far this year. CRT must have some really clever equipment! I can't see what's so difficult about having to display an in date licence whatever electronic means of checking is available.

 

If you are licenced why not show it? Or have you something to hide?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

 

I didn't refer to index numbers. As to your question about not showing it I have answered that.

Edited July 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[Delta9]

I removed my license from the window just to wind up all the nosey #people# who seem to think it is their duty to check every boat they pass.

Edited July 22, 2013 by DHutch
Inappropriate language removed.

[carlt]

If you are licenced why not show it? Or have you something to hide?

 

Why do you have to have "something to hide" just because you value your privacy.

 

I never displayed my licence and my boat still carried all the information necessary to satisfy those that mattered that all was in order.

[Guest]

They are intending to do away with the paper ones.

Probably a good thing I think. New technology has changed things somewhat.

[tree monkey]

So boats that display no licence, name or reg number are easy to check in seconds then?? I have seen a number of boats like this so far this year. CRT must have some really clever equipment! I can't see what's so difficult about having to display an in date licence whatever electronic means of checking is available.

 

If you are licenced why not show it? Or have you something to hide?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

no i have nothing to hide, in fact it shows more about how bloody forgetful i am and i wish i could hide that