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

[Jerra]

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

You have missed a couple of points I made or I didn't make them clear enough.

 

Firstly I did say subject to limitations caused by the length of the navigation and/or the boat size.

 

Secondly I didn't say my view was an interpretation of anybody else's writings. It is my view and I am allowed to hold it and post it.

 

I still feel that anybody who moves one and a half hours every fortnight (average) isn't conforming to what the spirit of what parliament intended.

 

The idea of moving up the towpath a few hundred yards has been described as silly (or words to that effect) 100 miles (approx) per annum is the equivalent of 6 or 7 minutes move per day. Which to me would fit into the suggestion that a new place is a few yards down the canal.

[Hawkmoth]

Wouldn't it be simpler just to charge everyone without a home mooring either a non-residential or a residential mooring fee?

I thought that was what the licence fee was. Why charge for mooring if the cruiser is truly CC?

Bob

[Bettie Boo]

 

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?

Thank you Mayalld - very astutely put and exactly what we are trying to do.

 

As an simple example; I drive, Dave doesn't and has no real knowledge of anything pertaining to driving. When I first moved over here and bought a car, I found it quite difficult to understand some of the road signage....like the round white sign, with the black x through it, and so on. However, I was able to go online and look it up. There were very clear definitions of each signs meaning. With that knowledge I am able to drive in this country and abide within the rules/law (as long as I remember to keep to the right side of the road ). Simple as that really.

 

We are not looking to live as close to meaning of CC'ing as possible. We just want to make sure that our plans fall within the rules/guidelines and any ignorance we have of such rules/guidelines do not put us in breach of the system.

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".

 

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.

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.

 

Simply to say, you misunderstood the intent of my OP. Please refer to Mayalld's post above he sums it up quite clearly.

 

In no way was my OP meant to be taken as C&RT bashing or brow beating.

 

Thanks for the info regarding the River only license, if we ever decide to limit ourselves to a 28 mile cruising radius on the River Lee that may well come in handy

[KevMc]

 

I still feel that anybody who moves one and a half hours every fortnight (average) isn't conforming to what the spirit of what parliament intended.

 

 

 

Why not? If they move consistently in the same direction maybe they are making the absolute most of each place they stop, exploring the local environment and then moving along

[Bettie Boo]

 

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.

Again, thank you Mayalld - this does go some way in making it clearer

 

Appreciate the strait forward and understandable answer to a simple question

[Dave_P]

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".

 

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.

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.

After wading through this thread with the same old arguments trotted out yet again, I was losing hope that anyone would actually tell-it-like-it-is, rather than tell-it-like-they-wish-it-was! Thanks Alan for restoring my faith!

 

Much as I wholeheartedly agree with Mayall's definition of place, ultimately, that argument is rendered pretty pointless by Sally Ash's comments about the River Lee.

 

Pottering up and down 28 miles of river is continuous cruising, whether we like it or not!

 

Where I am in Birmingham, we have a number of CCers who don't really go too far and turn up in the city centre again and again. So what? They're not doing anyone any harm. They don't seem to overstay on visitor moorings, especially in the busy season. I could choose to do the same but I prefer to cruise as and when i choose and to to have the services and security of my home mooring. They choose to cruise and save a bit of money. It's all good!

 

Why would I want CRT to use their resources harrassing these people simply because they don't cover a wide enough area or enough miles? Where's the harm in what they're doing? I'm glad to have them around. They're the eyes and ears of the BCN. They know everything (good and bad) that's going on in the area and most importantly, they make sure the canals are being used all year round.

 

If a boat moored up near me and didn't move at all for months, that would be a whole different ball game and I can see why that might require some action. There's plenty of boats around the network doing just that and keeping CRT busy. No need to start pointing fingers at people who don't move a required amount of yards or miles every fortnight.

[Jerra]

 

Why not? If they move consistently in the same direction maybe they are making the absolute most of each place they stop, exploring the local environment and then moving along

Because in my opinion anybody who is actually moving for less than 0.5% of the time can barely be described as cruising let alone doing it continuously.

 

Just my opinion and I realise it will be a distinctly unpopular one as there appears to be a majority of boaters think CCing (even when actually aiming for some place far away) means moving very little at a time and long gaps in between.

 

To me (again I stress it is just my opinion) taking the work from the guidelines defining navigation - transit.

Again to me Transit is defined (at least in my dictionary) as "the action of passing through or across a place."

 

Moving less than 0.5% of the time doesn't (for me) equal continuous navigation (transit).

 

EDIT: To make a line read less clumsily.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jerra

[peterboat]

I have only read a bit of the thread but it seems reasonable from CRTs point of view. The only way I could think of for everyone to understand the rules would be a meeting with the Patrol officer when you buy the boat ans sign to say you have received and understand the rules might work who knows?

Sorry if someone has already posted this but just on teabreak

Peter

[KevMc]

Because in my opinion anybody who is actually moving for less than 0.5% of the time can barely be described as cruising let alone doing it continuously.

 

Fair enough .... each to their own.

 

When I'm retired (ha ha) I'd like to cruise the network - I think I would like to take my time to explore areas that I found interesting and might find that 2 weeks isn't enough to do somewhere justice and so I'd just scuttle along a bit so I could carry on in that area. By the same token I might decide that I really don't want to hang about another place and would move quickly through; I thought that is supposed to be the beauty of boating - the freedom to do as you like rather than consider it a race to complete the network.

[Dave_P]

Because in my opinion anybody who is actually moving for less than 0.5% of the time can barely be described as cruising let alone doing it continuously.

 

Just my opinion and I realise it will be a distinctly unpopular one as there appears to be a majority of boaters think CCing (even when actually aiming for some place far away) means moving very little at a time and long gaps in between.

 

To me (again I stress it is just my opinion) taking the work from the guidelines defining navigation - transit.

Again to me Transit is defined (at least in my dictionary) as "the action of passing through or across a place."

 

Moving less than 0.5% of the time doesn't (for me) equal continuous navigation (transit).

 

EDIT: To make a line read less clumsily.

I think your speaking common sense. However, in this case, your common sense is irrelelvant since the only thing which matters in CCing is what is legally enforceable. You are entitled to you opinion but just remember that forwarding these arguments is likely to muddy the waters for newcomers. For them, the only important opinion is the one which mirrors what is lawful.

[Bettie Boo]

After wading through this thread with the same old arguments trotted out yet again, I was losing hope that anyone would actually tell-it-like-it-is, rather than tell-it-like-they-wish-it-was! Thanks Alan for restoring my faith!

 

Much as I wholeheartedly agree with Mayall's definition of place, ultimately, that argument is rendered pretty pointless by Sally Ash's comments about the River Lee.

 

Actually Mayall's definition is "fairly close" to verbatim with that which is posted in C&RT website so not really a case of it being "tell-it-like-they-wish-it-was".

 

I revisited the CRT site today to see if I could indeed find anything relevant and was able to locate the below quote. However; I didn't actually find anything quoting Sally Ash's personal comments about the River Lee reference. I think we'll just ensure we fall well within the below guidelines laid out on the C&RT website (clearly translated by Mayall) when we are not able to, or wish to, cruise on a daily basis. As others have said, the plans we have, that I've laid out, should not see us fall foul of C&RT.

."Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position" Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The

necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it

must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the

end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area –on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city

may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made. It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely

populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually

be a locality and also a “place”).

Exact precision is not required or expected–what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine cruise

[kris88]

i thInk this is crt's answer to the numerous threads containing myriad intereptations, that have appeared on this forum

[sueb]

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

Is the water behind Homebase EA?

[KenK]

Actually Mayall's definition is "fairly close" to verbatim with that which is posted in C&RT website so not really a case of it being "tell-it-like-they-wish-it-was".

 

I revisited the CRT site today to see if I could indeed find anything relevant and was able to locate the below quote. However; I didn't actually find anything quoting Sally Ash's personal comments about the River Lee reference. I think we'll just ensure we fall well within the below guidelines laid out on the C&RT website (clearly translated by Mayall) when we are not able to, or wish to, cruise on a daily basis. As others have said, the plans we have, that I've laid out, should not see us fall foul of C&RT.

."Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position" Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The

necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it

must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the

end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area –on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city

may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made. It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely

populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually

be a locality and also a “place”).

Exact precision is not required or expected–what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine cruise

 

If it is any help CRT have recently completed a mooring consultation for the Western end of the K&A, you can find it on their website under completed consultations. In it they identify fourteen "places" between Bath top lock and Lock 44 at Foxhangers, if you look on a map or Nicholsons you'll see that most of the places identified are little more than a mile apart. It does at least indicate what their definition of a "place" is at least are far as that stretch of waterway is concerned. I suspect that mooring at any of the locations would be no problem at this time of the year but somewhat more difficult in the summer.

 

Ken

[Bettie Boo]

If it is any help CRT have recently completed a mooring consultation for the Western end of the K&A, you can find it on their website under completed consultations. In it they identify fourteen "places" between Bath top lock and Lock 44 at Foxhangers, if you look on a map or Nicholsons you'll see that most of the places identified are little more than a mile apart. It does at least indicate what their definition of a "place" is at least are far as that stretch of waterway is concerned. I suspect that mooring at any of the locations would be no problem at this time of the year but somewhat more difficult in the summer.

 

Ken

thanks Ken - that's very useful - much appreciated

 

B~

[MtB]

Is the water behind Homebase EA?

 

Now you ask, I've an idea it may be.

 

It's upstream of Blakes Lock but downstream of the traffic light at High Bridge. I've an idea this bit still falls under control of the EA.

 

Even so, there used to be BW mooring limit signs on the moorings behind the prison, just along from Homebase and on the same backwater, so I'm not sure what the mooring position is actually. I'm fixing a boiler there later, if I see any of the boaters I'll ask them.

 

MtB

[matty40s]

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.

This figure came from a study of the Oxford moorings and non-compliance in the area.

It wasn't a figure given to boaters for guidance per se, but a cut off figure used after extensive monitoring on a regular basis of the "local" CC population to identify the worst offenders and whether they could be encouraged to comply more without actual enforcement proceedings.

[OldGoat]

 

Now you ask, I've an idea it may be.

 

It's upstream of Blakes Lock but downstream of the traffic light at High Bridge. I've an idea this bit still falls under control of the EA.

 

Even so, there used to be BW mooring limit signs on the moorings behind the prison, just along from Homebase and on the same backwater, so I'm not sure what the mooring position is actually. I'm fixing a boiler there later, if I see any of the boaters I'll ask them.

 

MtB

 

The limit of EA navigation is slightly upstream of the footbridge by the end of the Forbury (Abbey) loop. By slightly I mean a few yards; quite possibly where the traffic light control is?

[MtB]

 

The limit of EA navigation is slightly upstream of the footbridge by the end of the Forbury (Abbey) loop. By slightly I mean a few yards; quite possibly where the traffic light control is?

 

Ok. The cluster of CMers behind Homebase are definitely in the Forbury loop, so they are on EA waters and I therefore did them a disservice suggesting earlier they are overstaying, and I apologise.

 

MtB

[Dave_P]

Actually Mayall's definition is "fairly close" to verbatim with that which is posted in C&RT website so not really a case of it being "tell-it-like-they-wish-it-was".

 

I revisited the CRT site today to see if I could indeed find anything relevant and was able to locate the below quote. However; I didn't actually find anything quoting Sally Ash's personal comments about the River Lee reference. I think we'll just ensure we fall well within the below guidelines laid out on the C&RT website (clearly translated by Mayall) when we are not able to, or wish to, cruise on a daily basis. As others have said, the plans we have, that I've laid out, should not see us fall foul of C&RT.

."Place" in this context means a neighbourhood or locality, NOT simply a particular mooring site or position" Therefore to remain in the same neighbourhood for more than 14 days is not permitted. The

necessary movement from one neighbourhood to another can be done in one step or by short gradual steps. What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it

must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the

end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area –on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city

may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made. It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely

populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually

be a locality and also a “place”).

Exact precision is not required or expected–what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine cruise

You're right in pointing out what CaRT say on their website and as a former CCer I am very aware of the rules. What I would say in response to you is that (I think) Alan was trying to highlight a discrepancy between the official CaRT rules and what they are actually able to enforce against. This is why Sally Ash made her comments about the River Lee. In the time I've been boating (which isn't all that long) I've seen CaRT's definition of CCing watered down. The web-quote you posted is also, IMO, a case of telling-it-like-they-wish-it-was.

 

Apologies to Alan if I've misrepresented you.

[DeanS]

some reality might help.

 

in order for a boat to cruise continuously, it needs DIESEL which of course costs MONEY. If someone has lots of MONEY, they can cruise a long distance, however if someone has little MONEY, they will cruise less hours per month. SPEED of a boat also affects DISTANCE as distance = speed x time. That is not time per day, but the time someone can actually be standing behind a tiller each day. This may be after work. From Sept the days are short, and many come home when the sun has set, severely limiting the amount of TIME available to cruise. This may force many to only move on weekends. WEEKENDS however, is also the time many boaters wish to stop at a PLACE like a village for 48HRS and enjoy the PLACE. This mixture of DIESEL, SPEED, TIME, means that boaters will not move their boats to try and accommodate CRT's interpretation of the law, but will try the best they can to continue their boating in a manner which allows them to ENJOY a boating lifestyle, which is not possible if CRT are too heavy handed. Having limited MONEY, may mean a boater can only realistically move a few miles per month. WE are not to judge those in that position.

Edited January 15, 2014 by DeanS

[PhilR]

some reality might help.

 

in order for a boat to cruise continuously, it needs DIESEL which of course costs MONEY. If someone has lots of MONEY, they can cruise a long distance, however if someone has little MONEY, they will cruise less hours per month. SPEED of a boat also affects DISTANCE as distance = speed x time. That is not time per day, but the time someone can actually be standing behind a tiller each day. This may be after work. From Sept the days are short, and many come home when the sun has set, severely limiting the amount of TIME available to cruise. This may force many to only move on weekends. WEEKENDS however, is also the time many boaters wish to stop at a PLACE like a village for 48HRS and enjoy the PLACE. This mixture of DIESEL, SPEED, TIME, means that boaters will not move their boats to try and accommodate CRT's interpretation of the law, but will try the best they can to continue their boating in a manner which allows them to ENJOY a boating lifestyle, which is not possible if CRT are too heavy handed. Having limited MONEY, may mean a boater can only realistically move a few miles per month. WE are not to judge those in that position.

Dean

I can see the point you are making, but how much more does it cost to run an engine to go cruising AND battery charging compared to running an engine just to charge batteries?

I suspect the reasons for non-compliance with CaRT's *interpretation* lies elsewhere.

[KenK]

 

Ok. The cluster of CMers behind Homebase are definitely in the Forbury loop, so they are on EA waters and I therefore did them a disservice suggesting earlier they are overstaying, and I apologise.

 

MtB

Actually no one seems to know who owns or is responsible for the Loop, the whole area was purchased by the developer and they put in the mooring rings when they redeveloped the area. The EA were approached when we held the festival last year because some of the original wood on the mooring sides has broken away and the bolts stick out and they said it wasn't their problem but the developers because they own the area. However the original developer doesn't seem to exist any more. There was some talk about Reading council taking it over but nothing much has happened so far.

 

Ken

[Henhouse]

some reality might help.

 

in order for a boat to cruise continuously, it needs DIESEL which of course costs MONEY. If someone has lots of MONEY, they can cruise a long distance, however if someone has little MONEY, they will cruise less hours per month. SPEED of a boat also affects DISTANCE as distance = speed x time. That is not time per day, but the time someone can actually be standing behind a tiller each day. This may be after work. From Sept the days are short, and many come home when the sun has set, severely limiting the amount of TIME available to cruise. This may force many to only move on weekends. WEEKENDS however, is also the time many boaters wish to stop at a PLACE like a village for 48HRS and enjoy the PLACE. This mixture of DIESEL, SPEED, TIME, means that boaters will not move their boats to try and accommodate CRT's interpretation of the law, but will try the best they can to continue their boating in a manner which allows them to ENJOY a boating lifestyle, which is not possible if CRT are too heavy handed. Having limited MONEY, may mean a boater can only realistically move a few miles per month. WE are not to judge those in that position.

On the basis of your eloquent and rational argument I will not disagree with any of the points you make.

 

However, as in all walks of life, there is something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Anyone wishing to take up a life afloat on the canals should ensure that they believe they can comply with the rules and regulations, and are prepared to do so before they buy a boat.

 

If that were the case, then we wouldn't have to rake over the same arguments ad infinitum, and CaRT could get on with maintaining the system.

 

Obviously, from time to time there will be exceptional circumstances. Such as a person suffering ill health, where the rules may be relaxed to accommodate visits to hospital, or a recovery period.

[PhilR]

On the basis of your eloquent and rational argument I will not disagree with any of the points you make.

 

However, as in all walks of life, there is something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Anyone wishing to take up a life afloat on the canals should ensure that they believe they can comply with the rules and regulations, and are prepared to do so before they buy a boat.

 

If that were the case, then we wouldn't have to rake over the same arguments ad infinitum, and CaRT could get on with maintaining the system.

 

Obviously, from time to time there will be exceptional circumstances. Such as a person suffering ill health, where the rules may be relaxed to accommodate visits to hospital, or a recovery period.

 

Great reply.