Continuous Cruising- Again

[jenlyn]

The problem I have it is being offered as Legal Advice and as you say it is purely opinion All I know is I know a boater who is having his boat removed tomorrow for only cruising an 11 mile area and like the advice given by K&A group he thought it was legal. Unfortunately he has found out his licence did not allow him to cruise an 11 mile I just worry for my fellow boaters that read this stuff and then find themselves homeless

I told you to get off that visitor mooring in march. You wouldnt listen would you. Tut

[matty40s]

I don't read science fiction.

I have read it, and listened to nick brown taking 'clutching at straws' directions for several years now ,since the L&S moorings proposals reared their ugly head.

He and Panda tread a dangerous line of confrontation that

1 may well lose people their boats and homes

and

2 may lead to a judgement and subsequent draconian stance against all boaters (cc, liveaboard or not).

 

I can see milton keynes being the next area targeted if the boaters group there follow the advice of the group spokesperson and panda..

I told you to get off that visitor mooring in march. You wouldnt listen would you. Tut

stoppages mistah, followed by broken gear box and too many boaters meetings to attend.

Nice bw man called dodwell said I would be ok until someone put a patrol notice on 'is boat..m

Edited July 21, 2013 by matty40s

[jenlyn]

I have read it, and listened to nick brown taking 'clutching at straws' directions for several years now ,since the L&S moorings proposals reared their ugly head.

He and Panda tread a dangerous line of confrontation that

1 may well lose people their boats and homes

and

2 may lead to a judgement and subsequent draconian stance against all boaters (cc, liveaboard or not).

I can see milton keynes being the next area targeted if the boaters group there follow the advice of the group spokesperson and panda..

Lol, the lethal legals! (with a strange language) I think it's all biblical. They do have a claim to fame now though, they have latched onto nigel moores turnups. This enables them to suggest they won something.

[cotswoldsman]

I told you to get off that visitor mooring in march. You wouldnt listen would you. Tut

But but but Judge I was told by people on the Internet I could..,,,

[jenlyn]

I have read it, and listened to nick brown taking 'clutching at straws' directions for several years now ,since the L&S moorings proposals reared their ugly head.

He and Panda tread a dangerous line of confrontation that

1 may well lose people their boats and homes

and

2 may lead to a judgement and subsequent draconian stance against all boaters (cc, liveaboard or not).

I can see milton keynes being the next area targeted if the boaters group there follow the advice of the group spokesperson and panda..

 

stoppages mistah, followed by broken gear box and too many boaters meetings to attend.

Nice bw man called dodwell said I would be ok until someone put a patrol notice on 'is boat..m

He was there that long, he picked up a brummy accent, innit.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

The problem I have it is being offered as Legal Advice and as you say it is purely opinion All I know is I know a boater who is having his boat removed tomorrow for only cruising an 11 mile area and like the advice given by K&A group he thought it was legal. Unfortunately he has found out his licence did not allow him to cruise an 11 mile I just worry for my fellow boaters that read this stuff and then find themselves homeless

Sorry to hear that's happening.

 

Are you saying he sought out, and followed direct advice from 'the k&a group'?

 

Glenn.

[blodger]

 

I am offering up an alternative view for others to read, if they haven't already.

 

Glenn

Legality would seem to be a non issue if folk are willingly buying the Roving Permits so that they are not subject to the same CaRT enfocement process as those without such permits. Where is the legal challenge coming from?

[Guest]

Sorry to hear that's happening.

Are you saying he sought out, and followed direct advice from 'the k&a group'?

Glenn.

A bit strange too given the warning stages before it gets to the point of the boat being removed.

 

I wonder why he didn't twig before that he was being misled.

Edited July 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[cotswoldsman]

Sorry to hear that's happening.

 

Are you saying he sought out, and followed direct advice from 'the k&a group'?

 

Glenn.

No I am not and would not blame anyone in particular but he unfortunately followed the type of advice that you posted and in his case it was clearly the wrong advice.

A bit strange too given the warning stages before it gets to the point of the boat being removed.

 

I wonder why he didn't twig before that he was being misled.

Because by then it is to late.

[mark99]

 

So you do think/feel something then? That's good to know!

 

 

Not sure if there was meant to be a smiley at the end of your comment - I posed two rhetorical questions and I think you took them as my feelings or thoughts on the matter.

[DeanS]

The problem I have it is being offered as Legal Advice and as you say it is purely opinion All I know is I know a boater who is having his boat removed tomorrow for only cruising an 11 mile area and like the advice given by K&A group he thought it was legal. Unfortunately he has found out his licence did not allow him to cruise an 11 mile I just worry for my fellow boaters that read this stuff and then find themselves homeless

 

Hi John

 

From what I remember in a previous post, was his real problem that he didnt respond to their warning letters?...and then it got past the point of no return...in other words, IF he had just asked them when receiving the first letter...."can I travel...20miles....30mile.....40miles...... they would have eventually told him...yes....40miles is fine...you can keep your boat.?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

No I am not and would not blame anyone in particular but he unfortunately followed the type of advice that you posted and in his case it was clearly the wrong advice.

Just to be clear.

I personally am not advising anyone.

 

I found the article to be of interest because it informed me why the k&a has refused the proposal of the roaming permit.

 

Glenn

[cotswoldsman]

Just to be clear.

I personally am not advising anyone.

 

I found the article to be of interest because it informed me why the k&a has refused the proposal of the roaming permit.

 

Glenn

I know it is not your personal advice and people can chose themselves as the whether they follow it

[Chris Hills]

Like other I get a little bored of the CC issue. The issue that is increasingly apparent on the Shroppie, S&W, and T&M is the number of boats displaying no CaRT licence or an out of date licence, or a photocopy of a licence with no identifiable markings on the boat. These boats are obviously breaking the rules and need swift retribution!

[Guest]

Like other I get a little bored of the CC issue. The issue that is increasingly apparent on the Shroppie, S&W, and T&M is the number of boats displaying no CaRT licence or an out of date licence, or a photocopy of a licence with no identifiable markings on the boat. These boats are obviously breaking the rules and need swift retribution!

We often don't display an up to date licence , it does not at all mean a boat is not licenced and whilst technically a breach of the rules we don't stress over not doing it or if we happen to see a boat doing the same.

[blodger]

 

Like other I get a little bored of the CC issue. The issue that is increasingly apparent on the Shroppie, S&W, and T&M is the number of boats displaying no CaRT licence or an out of date licence, or a photocopy of a licence with no identifiable markings on the boat. These boats are obviously breaking the rules and need swift retribution!

I am reminded that a 550 flat development of the mid sixties was demolished ten years ago to get rid of drug and theft problems and bad tenants majoritively on benefits. Obviously, they had to be rehoused and now all the other former local authority estates gone housing trust suffer the same problem and reputation.

Those being displaced by enforcement action and not tied to the area are likewise being redistributed. In that, the OP is in some ways correct

[Chris Hills]

We often don't display an up to date licence , it does not at all mean a boat is not licenced and whilst technically a breach of the rules we don't stress over not doing it or if we happen to see a boat doing the same.

Why would you not display your valid boat licence?

[cotswoldsman]

Like other I get a little bored of the CC issue. The issue that is increasingly apparent on the Shroppie, S&W, and T&M is the number of boats displaying no CaRT licence or an out of date licence, or a photocopy of a licence with no identifiable markings on the boat. These boats are obviously breaking the rules and need swift retribution!

3 points I would like to make

1. Some CCers like myself can have a problem receiving their licence

2 CRT no longer issue a licences to boats making short visits to the system

3 people on benefits who pay licences monthly are not issued with a licence.

Why would you not display your valid boat licence?

Because I am always on the move so licence catching up can be a problem.

[Chris Hills]

3 points I would like to make

1. Some CCers like myself can have a problem receiving their licence

2 CRT no longer issue a licences to boats making short visits to the system

3 people on benefits who pay licences monthly are not issued with a licence.

Because I am always on the move so licence catching up can be a problem.

Fair point

[Guest]

Why would you not display your valid boat licence?

 

 

A ) We live just under a hundred miles from where we moor and I ain't making a trip to the boat just to stick the licence in the window, if I am not going to the boat soon after the licence comes anyway.

 

B ) Last two times we renewed I have simply forgotten to take it to the boat. I ain't making a specific journey back home just to get it, so we cruised with out it in the window (for several weeks on one occasion because I did this twice)

 

C) because it gives nosey people something to comment on.

 

We did the same with our long term mooring permits too just for good measure.

 

The only people who need to be sure the boat is licensed and it has a valid LTM permit are CRT staff and they can check on their systems, it's no one else's business.

Edited July 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[Tuscan]

The problem I have it is being offered as Legal Advice and as you say it is purely opinion All I know is I know a boater who is having his boat removed tomorrow for only cruising an 11 mile area and like the advice given by K&A group he thought it was legal. Unfortunately he has found out his licence did not allow him to cruise an 11 mile I just worry for my fellow boaters that read this stuff and then find themselves homeless

It's not helped when an enforcement officer recently emailed a boater on the southern GU that if he were to move every 14days and journey for example 15kms (less than the 11 miles mentioned for the poor soul above) and return that he considers this in compliance with current CRT guidance.

 

Then you have others with legal advice that say that distance travelled is irrelevant it's your intent to travel further at some stage,then RMP's and charges proposed by CRT and the 3 great and good gents here then RMPs proposed without charge on the K&A also (like Uxbridge proposals i think ) supported by the Navigation Advisory Group.

 

In my personal opinion it's the inconsistency of the approach that I find a bit worrying coupled with a feeling that CRT are more financially driven in their solutions than may have previously been the case. I reckon what's needed in the medium term is for boaters groups and CRT to agree a workable definition of license terms and lobby boat friendly MP's for a change in the law or perhaps CRT themselves can fund a test case so that clear guidance is given. Or maybe ............

[jenlyn]

It's not helped when an enforcement officer recently emailed a boater on the southern GU that if he were to move every 14days and journey for example 15kms (less than the 11 miles mentioned for the poor soul above) and return that he considers this in compliance with current CRT guidance.

Then you have others with legal advice that say that distance travelled is irrelevant it's your intent to travel further at some stage,then RMP's and charges proposed by CRT and the 3 great and good gents here then RMPs proposed without charge on the K&A also (like Uxbridge proposals i think ) supported by the Navigation Advisory Group.

In my personal opinion it's the inconsistency of the approach that I find a bit worrying coupled with a feeling that CRT are more financially driven in their solutions than may have previously been the case. I reckon what's needed in the medium term is for boaters groups and CRT to agree a workable definition of license terms and lobby boat friendly MP's for a change in the law or perhaps CRT themselves can fund a test case so that clear guidance is given. Or maybe ............

The distance brogan quoted was for a 12 month period. CRT are trying to sort it, but some groups keep coming up with legal bull...t. I think some would contest the fact tomorrow is monday, if CRT stated it. What amazes me, is all this bull runs around the internet. No attempt to sit at a table and hammer something out.

[mayalld]

I can understand why these rules are in place, that is, to prevent popular spots being hogged, denying other boaters the opportunity to use them. Makes a lot of sense.

 

But if an area isn't popular, what's the problem? I understand why CRT might want to enforce rules because if they don't, gradually, over time, the rules will cease to exist.

 

But quite why other boaters would have a problem with someone hanging around an area longer than 2 weeks when hardly anyone else is there is beyond me. Live and let live, I say.

Your understanding of "why" is flawed

....but a permit that's unlawful?

 

An article on the Kennet and Avon Boating Community Website titled "Why Roving Mooring Permits are unlawful" begins:

 

"Boaters without home moorings on the southern Grand Union Canal are being offered Roving Mooring Permits by CRT. Boaters are being offered a way out of the enforcement process that means paying a substantial extra fee (£800 per year for a 60 foot boat) to do what s.17(3)©(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995 already permits them to do."

 

It can be found at;

http://kanda.boatingcommunity.org.uk/why-roving-mooring-permits-are-unlawful/

And of course articles written by groups pushing an agenda are always 100 % accurate

[ditchcrawler]

I can understand why these rules are in place, that is, to prevent popular spots being hogged, denying other boaters the opportunity to use them. Makes a lot of sense.

 

I don't think it is

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Your understanding of "why" is flawed

 

And of course articles written by groups pushing an agenda are always 100 % accurate

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm sure there are people like myself who like to read articles written from different and varied sources.

 

So, who, in your opinion, writes a good article?

 

Glenn