NICK BROWN vs CANAL & RIVER TRUST Charity responds to misconceived claim for judicial review

[NBDensie]

I have said it many times I support boaters that obey the law part of that is move every 14 days maybe you could define "bridge hop" and "bona fide" for me and then I might be able to answer the rest of your question.

 

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days.

 

I want to stay near a little village where my children are happy at school. So I moor for 14 days within walking distance of the school, and then "navigate" to another "place" 100 yards up the canal and stop for another 14 days after which I turn around and repeat. Do you believe I am meeting the Law's requirements and so worthy of your support? If not why not and what changes would I have to make to my strategy to gain your support?

[cotswoldsman]

 

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days.

 

I want to stay near a little village where my children are happy at school. So I moor for 14 days within walking distance of the school, and then "navigate" to another "place" 100 yards up the canal and stop for another 14 days after which I turn around and repeat. Do you believe I am meeting the Law's requirements and so worthy of your support? If not why not and what changes would I have to make to my strategy to gain your support?

Not sure why you want me to support you!! The example you give is not one that I would do personally and I think if someone was doing that they would find themselves under enforcement and then they would have the choice of letting a judge decide. I always advise CCers to hover at least 30 miles in one year as a minimum but even better if they do more. In the example you give I would advise the boater to change their cruising pattern.

[furnessvale]

 

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days.

 

 

Such terms are normally settled in court by referring to the "reasonable man" test.

 

I suspect that an out and out CMer would receive short shrift from him.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Mike Todd]

No, it is absolutely not about paying or not. Even if (god forbid) folk could leave their boats on the towpath in an uncontrolled way we would still keep our boat in a marina and pay for it. As I said it is about protecting the canal system from becoming a linear housing estate with people making their claim on a patch of towpath to the exclusion of others, rather than a historic transport network. As I mentioned in my post a few days ago about our local "patch" we have a handful of CMers who never move, or just bridge hop. As I also said, whilst this is not a great problem right now in our area, with the cost of housing ever rising there is a danger of such proliferation happening in the future as has already happened in a few popular places.

 

I would go so far as to say that folk who want to plonk their boat in one place and never move, are not boaters. They are no more boaters than the people who live in those amphibious houses in the Netherlands that have just been on the TV.

We have yet to see anything like the full impact of the beenfit/welfare changes. Already 800,000 have been 'sanctioned' and a large number of rent defaults are taking place in the wake of the bedroom tax. It takes time for these effects to filter through (one of the problems for debt advisers is that the problem grows slowly but crystallises very quickly to a point at which only slow long term solutions are viable).

 

It seems entirely plausible that within two years or so there will be considerable pressure on those living in marginal conditions - ie those whose income/expenditure is so finely balanced that very small hiccups create catastrophoc consequences.

 

At the same time, there are inevitably those who hide behind the chnages - not all those who refuse to pay the bedroom tax, for example, cannot afford it.

 

CaRT planners/strategists rightly need to be concerned that the canal could easily become rife with 'squatters rights' issues which would overwhelm their ability to manage. Enforcement currently affects a small number of people directly - there would be no maintenance at all if the meltdown scenario started to appear as all staff would have to be seconded to enforcement!

[furnessvale]

Not sure why you want me to support you!! The example you give is not one that I would do personally and I think if someone was doing that they would find themselves under enforcement and then they would have the choice of letting a judge decide. I always advise CCers to hover at least 30 miles in one year as a minimum but even better if they do more. In the example you give I would advise the boater to change their cruising pattern.

Moving 2031 yards once every 14 days and then doubling back again falls well within my idea of CMing which is why we must agree to differ.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days.

 

I want to stay near a little village where my children are happy at school. So I moor for 14 days within walking distance of the school, and then "navigate" to another "place" 100 yards up the canal and stop for another 14 days after which I turn around and repeat. Do you believe I am meeting the Law's requirements and so worthy of your support? If not why not and what changes would I have to make to my strategy to gain your support?

 

Last Monday, I moved from where my boat was moored about three quarters of a mile to a water point, filled with water and returned to exactly the place that my boat was moored (even winded and reversed for some distance so the boat was facing the same way). The trip took just under two hours and I travelled a total distance of 1.5 miles.

I make this same trip throughout the period of my licence

 

Am I "bona fide navigating"?

[Ex- Member]

Mmm. The Board is however happy to turn a blind eye if money is involved winter mooring and roving mooring permits come to mind.

 

And a very commonsensical approach indeed. I think the nay sayers better start getting used to the idea that if anything, rules and guidelines for CC'ers are more likely to be relaxed than tightened, especially considering that in the long run this will save the trust money as well as gain good opportunities to make additional money, the winter mooring permits being a prime example.

 

I can honestly invisage that C&RT will possibly create some kind cheaper tow path moorings for boaters in the other 7 months of the year that may well exceed 14 days.

 

For those who grumble it will end up some kind of floating housing estate, Well isn't it already? Even with CCing boaters that comply with the guidelines all that's happening is that the majority of compliant boats are just being shuffled around around the system, if all the boats stayed where they are now for the next 6 months, nothing would change. The entire argument of continuous movement on the canal system is basically flawed.

 

ETA shuffled around around the system, or up and down the system.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Julynian

[Mike Todd]

 

Last Monday, I moved from where my boat was moored about three quarters of a mile to a water point, filled with water and returned to exactly the place that my boat was moored (even winded and reversed for some distance so the boat was facing the same way). The trip took just under two hours and I travelled a total distance of 1.5 miles.

 

I make this same trip throughout the period of my licence

 

Am I "bona fide navigating"?

If I was deliberately breaking laws/rules I wouldn't want to advertise it on a public forum for the attention of the enforcers . . .

[cotswoldsman]

 

Last Monday, I moved from where my boat was moored about three quarters of a mile to a water point, filled with water and returned to exactly the place that my boat was moored (even winded and reversed for some distance so the boat was facing the same way). The trip took just under two hours and I travelled a total distance of 1.5 miles.

 

I make this same trip throughout the period of my licence

 

Am I "bona fide navigating"?

Yes for that day IMO especially as you have a Home Mooring hehe did you not Aldo go yo The Dog and Duck"? Edited February 22, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Ex- Member]

 

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days.

 

I want to stay near a little village where my children are happy at school. So I moor for 14 days within walking distance of the school, and then "navigate" to another "place" 100 yards up the canal and stop for another 14 days after which I turn around and repeat. Do you believe I am meeting the Law's requirements and so worthy of your support? If not why not and what changes would I have to make to my strategy to gain your support?

 

The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it.

 

 

 

Does it really need defining. If we want to travel from A to B who can argue that isn't a bona fide journey as would be B to C and so on.

 

It's simply utter nonsense and a term people use erroneously to try and misinterpret the guidelines because they can't be arsed to look it up in the dictionary.

[furnessvale]

If I was deliberately breaking laws/rules I wouldn't want to advertise it on a public forum for the attention of the enforcers . . .

What Allan doesn't say is that the mooring in question is a "home" mooring.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited February 22, 2014 by furnessvale

[cotswoldsman]

What Allan doesn't say is that the mooring in question is a "home" mooring.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Does that mean "bona fide" has. 2 meanings one for a boat with home mooring and one for boats without home mooring, I am confused!!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yes for that day IMO especially as you have a Home Mooring hehe did you not Aldo go yo The Dog and Duck"?

You just spoilt my trick question

[cotswoldsman]

You just spoilt my trick question

Oooops sorry but did you go to the "Dog and Duck?"

[Graham Davis]

 

Why are you only concerned with supporting boaters with respect to part of the law? I shouldnt use the term "bridge hop" as it does not appear in the Law. The key wording in the law is "bona fide" but unfortunately the Law fails to define it. I believe this is the critical issue rather than 14 days.

 

I want to stay near a little village where my children are happy at school. So I moor for 14 days within walking distance of the school, and then "navigate" to another "place" 100 yards up the canal and stop for another 14 days after which I turn around and repeat. Do you believe I am meeting the Law's requirements and so worthy of your support? If not why not and what changes would I have to make to my strategy to gain your support?

 

You are not navigating, just moving 100yds every 14 days. You are bridge hopping!! That definitely fits into the A - B - A - B catergory.

[furnessvale]

Does that mean "bona fide" has. 2 meanings one for a boat with home mooring and one for boats without home mooring, I am confused!!

I didn't think a boater having a home mooring was required to be involved with bone fide navigation when moving to or from his home mooring, only CCers who, of course. have no home mooring.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[cotswoldsman]

I didn't think a boater having a home mooring was required to be involved with bone fide navigation when moving to or from his home mooring, only CCers who, of course. have no home mooring.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

No wonder I get confused so people with a home mooring never make a "bona fide" cruise also where in the 1995 Act does it say "bona fide" is exclusive to boats without a home mooring? The question was has Allan made a "bona fide" cruise? Edited February 22, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[MtB]

 

Last Monday, I moved from where my boat was moored about three quarters of a mile to a water point, filled with water and returned to exactly the place that my boat was moored (even winded and reversed for some distance so the boat was facing the same way). The trip took just under two hours and I travelled a total distance of 1.5 miles.

 

I make this same trip throughout the period of my licence

 

Am I "bona fide navigating"?

 

 

Depends on whether you are a member of the ACC...

 

 

 

MtB

[NBDensie]

Does that mean "bona fide" has. 2 meanings one for a boat with home mooring and one for boats without home mooring, I am confused!!

 

 

It doesnt need to mean anything for boats with a home mooring. Under the law such boats dont need to be engaged in "bona fide navigation".

 

It seems to me it is painfully clear that relying on the Law for practical guidance is a waste of time, and using the detailed wording of the Law to justify particular ways of living on the canals leads no-where. What is important is the C&RT Guidelines which I believe could usefully be strengthened and more rigorously enforced. Then any boaters who feel that the Guidelines are incompatible with the Law are welcome to put their case before a judge.

Edited February 22, 2014 by NBDensie

[Captain Zim]

Can I ask whether, rather than repeating that 'bona fide" and "place" etc etc are not clearly defined, someone from one of the organisations, I don't know, perhaps the ACC, can enlighten me on exactly how cc'ing should be defined? Genuine question, not facetiousness. I ask because its often very easy to deconstruct something and to argue against it but do these organisations have an alternative real plan? In actual easily understood words? Or is that up to CaRT to come up with? And if so, why? And apologies if this has new answered eleswhere. I know distances are often bandied about but I'm interested from the point of view of organisations that are apparently engaged with CaRT to resolve this matter, rather than general personal opinions. Thanks

[cotswoldsman]

Can I ask whether, rather than repeating that 'bona fide" and "place" etc etc are not clearly defined, someone from one of the organisations, I don't know, perhaps the ACC, can enlighten me on exactly how cc'ing should be defined? Genuine question, not facetiousness. I ask because its often very easy to deconstruct something and to argue against it but do these organisations have an alternative real plan? In actual easily understood words? Or is that up to CaRT to come up with? And if so, why? And apologies if this has new answered eleswhere. I know distances are often bandied about but I'm interested from the point of view of organisations that are apparently engaged with CaRT to resolve this matter, rather than general personal opinions. Thanks

I guess at the end of the day it is up to Parliament or maybe a Judge certainly not the Associations

[NBDensie]

..where in the 1995 Act does it say "bona fide" is exclusive to boats without a home mooring

Section 17 ©(3) states (in summary) that the Board can refuse to issue a licence unless (i) the boat has a mooring OR (ii) ... engaged in bona fide navigation.

Edited February 22, 2014 by NBDensie

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

It doesnt need to mean anything for boats with a home mooring. Under the law such boats dont need to be engaged in "bona fide navigation".

 

It seems to me it is painfully clear that relying on the Law for practical guidance is a waste of time, and using the detailed wording of the Law to justify particular ways of living on the canals leads no-where. What is important is the C&RT Guidelines which I believe could usefully be strengthened and more rigorously enforced. Then any boaters who feel that the Guidelines are incompatible with the Law are welcome to put their case before a judge.

I would agree with that all I have ever said is that they are what it says on the tin "Guidelines" and not "Law" or "rules" so best to not quote them as Law

[NBDensie]

Can I ask whether, rather than repeating that 'bona fide" and "place" etc etc are not clearly defined, someone from one of the organisations, I don't know, perhaps the ACC, can enlighten me on exactly how cc'ing should be defined? Genuine question, not facetiousness. I ask because its often very easy to deconstruct something and to argue against it but do these organisations have an alternative real plan? In actual easily understood words? Or is that up to CaRT to come up with? And if so, why? And apologies if this has new answered eleswhere. I know distances are often bandied about but I'm interested from the point of view of organisations that are apparently engaged with CaRT to resolve this matter, rather than general personal opinions. Thanks

 

From a practical point of view it is up to C&RT to implement policies that are compatible with its interpretation of the Act. It is very likely to do this in consultation with interested groups. Anyone who disagrees would ultimately have to get a judge to make a ruling, presumably on the basis of "reasonableness" .

[cotswoldsman]

Section 17 ©(3) states (in summary) that the Board can refuse to issue a licence unless (i) the boat has a mooring OR (ii) ... engaged in bona fide navigation.

Yes you have quoted that before but that does not mean that CCers are the only boats that can cruise "Bona fide"