CRT Press Release - Spreading the work about the demands of living afloat

[BruceinSanity]

Sorry, am I missing something?

 

As someone who is about to apply for their first C&RT license and plan on it being a license with no home mooring (CC). I would not have a problem if the rule for a CC license were to include something like.....must travel a minimum of 50 miles or even 100 miles during the year of the license, along with the limitation of staying in any one given place for 14 days. Due to our size we are limited to a cruising distance of Warwick on the GU down to Reading and then on the K&A to Bristol. We plan on doing that entire route as often as possible (ice & stoppages taken into consideration of course). Isn't that the whole idea of being a CC'er?

 

I appreciate it is much easier for us than some others as, neither of us are trying to hold down jobs away from the boat, we do not have children attending school and nor do we have land based families we need to be close to.

 

What I would like to see is clearer divination of "place". At present if we were to stay at one mooring for 13 days (unlikely, but never say never) and move on day 14, I have no idea how far we have to travel to abide within the terms of our license, and this both worries and frustrates me. I've read somewhere that a "place" can be taken as a parish, but then I've also read that that is only a guideline in some counties, but not all. The whole thing is very grey. IMO the authorities who take responsibilities of collecting the fees to travel, live & maintain the canals need to make the guidelines very clear so the people, like ourselves, who wish to live on the canals while abiding by the rules have a clear set of guidelines to follow.

 

Yes, I do get the "A to B to C to D to B to C to D to E to B and so on, not what our plan is, so not really worried about that. But is there anywhere that states clearly the distance between A & B? This could come in quite handy if stuck between two closures or if needing to travel in bad weather or ice.

 

Sorry for the rant

 

B~

There should be a term for malapropisms that are more fitting than the intended word. I guess you meant definition, but divination is spot on!

 

It's like a minute I once saw explaining that the difficulty finding volunteers for a working party on something was because members were "over-committeed".

[mayalld]

What I would like to see is clearer divination of "place". At present if we were to stay at one mooring for 13 days (unlikely, but never say never) and move on day 14, I have no idea how far we have to travel to abide within the terms of our license, and this both worries and frustrates me. I've read somewhere that a "place" can be taken as a parish, but then I've also read that that is only a guideline in some counties, but not all. The whole thing is very grey.

 

 

OK, let me try to assist.

 

First of all, cast aside anything that you have that talks about a "Parish". Anything that mentions a Parish is drawing on apocryphal stories of what the rules were before 1995.

 

CRT have provided a definition of a place, which does require some interpretation, but it isn't difficult to do. Really the only thing that they could do that is more would be to apply the definition and produce a list of places.

 

At its simplest, and as a good starting point, a village is a place.

On a rural canal, there will be stretches that are between 2 villages, the stretches between two villages are places too.

On urban canals, in a large town, then it becomes slightly more complex, because any town will consist of identifiable neighbourhoods, and moving from one neighbourhood to another means moving to a new place.

[jenlyn]

OK, let me try to assist.

 

First of all, cast aside anything that you have that talks about a "Parish". Anything that mentions a Parish is drawing on apocryphal stories of what the rules were before 1995.

 

CRT have provided a definition of a place, which does require some interpretation, but it isn't difficult to do. Really the only thing that they could do that is more would be to apply the definition and produce a list of places.

 

At its simplest, and as a good starting point, a village is a place.

On a rural canal, there will be stretches that are between 2 villages, the stretches between two villages are places too.

On urban canals, in a large town, then it becomes slightly more complex, because any town will consist of identifiable neighbourhoods, and moving from one neighbourhood to another means moving to a new place.

A village may well be a place, but a "place" can also be where you are moored for 14 days. You then move to your next mooring "place", and so on. You nor CRT can define "place" as a village or neighborhood. Moving from one mooring place to the next would be sufficient for any court, as long as you were continuing along your way.

[mayalld]

A village may well be a place, but a "place" can also be where you are moored for 14 days. You then move to your next mooring "place", and so on. You nor CRT can define "place" as a village or neighborhood. Moving from one mooring place to the next would be sufficient for any court, as long as you were continuing along your way.

 

The law says that you must satisfy the board, so until overturned by a court, their definition stands.

 

I rather suspect that if it came to court, a boater claiming that he had moved 100 feet every fortnight would find that the court took the view that this was NOT what parliament intended.

[luctor et emergo]

I was talking to another boater yesterday, and he has been told that the 'continues cruising' guidelines have been abandoned by CART, but they have not announced it, for fear of depriving the good denizens of this forum of something to argue about.

[jenlyn]

The law says that you must satisfy the board, so until overturned by a court, their definition stands.

 

I rather suspect that if it came to court, a boater claiming that he had moved 100 feet every fortnight would find that the court took the view that this was NOT what parliament intended.

I said nothing about 100ft, your just nitpicking because you made a silly statement that has no factual base.

[luctor et emergo]

 

The law says that you must satisfy the board, so until overturned by a court, their definition stands.

 

I rather suspect that if it came to court, a boater claiming that he had moved 100 feet every fortnight would find that the court took the view that this was NOT what parliament intended.

Why? If he or she is moving in one direction, how can you possibly argue thatthat is not a continues journey? Much as you wisj, there is no minimum distance.

[MtB]

Another way of looking at is is that CRT will (probably) have limited resources which they will (hopefully) concentrate on the easiest targets. I.e. they will spend their time hassling or enforcing (depending on your point of view) the boats with the least 'compliant' cruising pattern.

 

So the general cruising behaviour Bettie describes is unlikely to draw the disapproval of CRT. They'll have their time cut out tracking, for example, the cluster of boaters who have been moored behind Homebase in the centre of Reading for the last year and never, ever, appear to move

 

MtB

[mayalld]

I said nothing about 100ft, your just nitpicking because you made a silly statement that has no factual base.

 

You said "the next mooring place".

 

If you move 100 feet, you are clearly not mored in the exact same place.

 

Isn't that what you meant?

[jenlyn]

You said "the next mooring place".

 

If you move 100 feet, you are clearly not mored in the exact same place.

 

Isn't that what you meant?

Dave, just please do not give out information that is not correct, it merely leads to further confusion.

[Paul C]

A village may well be a place, but a "place" can also be where you are moored for 14 days. You then move to your next mooring "place", and so on. You nor CRT can define "place" as a village or neighborhood. Moving from one mooring place to the next would be sufficient for any court, as long as you were continuing along your way.

 

That's an incredibly handy definition of "place", though.

[mayalld]

Dave, just please do not give out information that is not correct, it merely leads to further confusion.

 

The information that I gave out is correct.

 

It is the definition of Place that CRT supply. It is the definition that they will apply when deciding whether to act against a boater.

 

It may well be that some disagree with that definition and wish to substitute their own definition. They might wish to spend half their lives arguing with CRT about it.

 

However, it is clear to me that Bettie Boo is seeking clarity not about what she can argue in court to be sufficient, but about what CRT want from her.

 

One of the problems with discussions about the rules on CCing is that there are a significant number of people who wish to accept CRT's rules as to what they must do, but they find it difficult to do so, because they can't get clarity about those rules, as any attempt to explain those rules is drowned out by complaints that the rules aren't valid.

 

If Bettie Boo wants to comply with CRT's rules rather than joining any crusade to prove the rules wrong, then why can't she do just that?

[jenlyn]

The information that I gave out is correct.

 

It is the definition of Place that CRT supply. It is the definition that they will apply when deciding whether to act against a boater.

 

It may well be that some disagree with that definition and wish to substitute their own definition. They might wish to spend half their lives arguing with CRT about it.

 

However, it is clear to me that Bettie Boo is seeking clarity not about what she can argue in court to be sufficient, but about what CRT want from her.

 

One of the problems with discussions about the rules on CCing is that there are a significant number of people who wish to accept CRT's rules as to what they must do, but they find it difficult to do so, because they can't get clarity about those rules, as any attempt to explain those rules is drowned out by complaints that the rules aren't valid.

 

If Bettie Boo wants to comply with CRT's rules rather than joining any crusade to prove the rules wrong, then why can't she do just that?

Sorry, bored already :-)

That's an incredibly handy definition of "place", though.

Nothing handy about it, just good old fashioned common sense. Works for me :-)

[MtB]

I was talking to another boater yesterday, and he has been told that the 'continues cruising' guidelines have been abandoned by CART, but they have not announced it, for fear of depriving the good denizens of this forum of something to argue about.

 

Oh no they haven't!!

 

 

MtB

[lampini]

 

Oh no they haven't!!

 

 

MtB

[Captain Fizz]

My mate said that his mate had been told by the milkman...............

[MtB]

 

The information that I gave out is correct.

 

It is the definition of Place that CRT supply. It is the definition that they will apply when deciding whether to act against a boater.

 

It may well be that some disagree with that definition and wish to substitute their own definition. They might wish to spend half their lives arguing with CRT about it.

 

However, it is clear to me that Bettie Boo is seeking clarity not about what she can argue in court to be sufficient, but about what CRT want from her.

 

One of the problems with discussions about the rules on CCing is that there are a significant number of people who wish to accept CRT's rules as to what they must do, but they find it difficult to do so, because they can't get clarity about those rules, as any attempt to explain those rules is drowned out by complaints that the rules aren't valid.

 

If Bettie Boo wants to comply with CRT's rules rather than joining any crusade to prove the rules wrong, then why can't she do just that?

 

 

Good analysis, Dave.

 

Sums up how the answer to Bettie's question has been derailed very neatly.

 

MtB

[Captain Fizz]

Bettie's current plans should give no reason for her to come up on CRT radar.

[Jerra]

Right I have got the sandbags in place. The flame proof suit and flak jacket on so here goes.

 

First it would appear only sound common sense to introduce this monitoring during the first year it may do two things. Firstly it may prevent some of the s8 actions in the future and second it means that as the system progresses into the future there will be fewer and fewer who aren't sure what they are allowed to do.

 

With regard to continuous cruising distances of under hundred miles a year aren't continuous cruising. Unless limited by the length of the waterway or size of the boat it is hardly continuous cruising to me. Somebody who moves 100 miles in the year could have spent as little as 30 to 35 hours cruising. So about one and a half hours every 14 days. Not IMO a lot of cruising for a continuous cruiser.

 

It certainly doesn't feel "bona fide" as in genuinely, sincerely and honestly trying.

 

Ducks below sandbags and dons tin helmet.

[Alan de Enfield]

...............CRT. They'll have their time cut out tracking, for example, the cluster of boaters who have been moored behind Homebase in the centre of Reading for the last year and never, ever, appear to move

 

MtB

 

It shouldnt take much time to track them if they havn't moved, or are not moving

 

[alan_fincher]

Sorry, am I missing something?

Yes, I think you are.

 

Your post, like so many, relies on what you believe is your common sense view of "how it ought to be", or "surely that's what it must mean?".

 

I don't dispute there are huge numbers sharing yours or a similar view.

 

However, what you don't seem to be taking into account is that CRT can only work within the framework of what parliament has given them, and are not arbitrarily allowed to set a very much tighter definition of "continuous cruising" or "boat with no home mooring declared" than they have the powers to actually enforce.

 

BW/CRT have continuously watered down their interpretations in "guidance to boaters without a home mooring", because they have had to accept that in the light of legal cases, what it previously said was too draconian, and not supported by the underlying acts of parliament.

 

CRT's head of boating, Sally Ash, is on record as saying you could take your wide-beam, (or any other licensed boat) on to the Lee Navigation, hold a "rivers only" licence declared as "no home mooring", and still be within their cc-er guidelines.

 

That may upset some, (who may even consider it ridiculous!), but is probably CRT reasonably conceding that "bona fide for navigation" certainly does not mean you have to make a progressive journey over large distances - all you actually have to do is demonstrably "navigating".

 

Sorry for the rant

 

B~

Don't apologise - your view is a popular one, and many no doubt wish the current underlying acts of parliament were more prescriptive.

 

The reality is they are not, (there are countless threads on the subject on here!), so without going back to parliament for new legislation, CRT have to restrict their rules and enforcement based on what the current acts actually say.

 

I have no axe to grind on this topic - we have home moorings for both boats, and typically cover 1000 miles in a year, but I am realistic enough to see that CRT have to act within their current legal framework, even if a large slice of boat owners might prefer it otherwise.

With regard to continuous cruising distances of under hundred miles a year aren't continuous cruising.

See above.....

 

CRT have confirmed in a written answer that you can be a compliant CC-er without ever leaving the Lee Navigation.

 

My "Nicholson's" shows this as being less than 28 miles.

 

So I'm afraid your interpretation is out of line with CRT's head of boating.

[Alan de Enfield]

Taken from the "Hackney Citizen" newspaper - I dont think even C&RT could enforce this :

 

"..........He said: “Our boats are our homes. It’s an entirely reasonable thing to expect to live in our homes, to be able to access our jobs, GPs and healthcare, and interact with our chosen community, and not be separated from that.”

 

While boaters with permanent moorings will be unaffected, continuous cruiser craft such as Mr Kelly’s, which are required by law to make a journey around BW’s network once every two weeks..........."

[Mike Todd]

For some the issue is about how close they can sail to the wind without capsizing.

 

In other words, how far can they go without provoking C&RT into enforcement action. As with many laws/rules, minor infringements - with or without extenuating circumstances - will not result in enforcement. That does not make the action legal!

 

If every driver that exceeded the speed limit by 1mph was prosecuted, the system would soon be clogged up. Still means that 31 mph in a 30 mph zone is illegal!

 

Of course, it would be helpful if the CC definition were more precise but, on the other hand, that might mean that more people fell foul of them - precision is always accompanied by greater unfairness.

 

This was why I asked the question - I seem to remember towards the end of last year that a figure of 20km's (or maybe 20 miles) per year had been quoted by C&RT as a guideline for CC compliance.

[AndrewIC]

A boat moves up and down a piece of canal.

CRT tell them they haven't travelled enough.

They are forced to buy a home mooring.

They don't like living in a marina, so they cruise.

and move up and down the same piece of canal.

 

just like they used to.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

The logic seems flawed.

The cynic in me would observe that "buying" a home mooring almost always involves CRT taking a cut, one way or another.

[Henhouse]

- precision is always accompanied by greater unfairness.

 

Since when ? If I pay for a packet of 20 cigarettes I expect there to be 20 in it