CRT taking your licence away

[alan_fincher]

You do however still need to comply with the specified mooring time limits be that 24, 48, 72 hours or 7, 14 days.

 

Actually that is not what the 1995 act says either, but we have done all this to death before.

 

I don't anyway believe the cases in question are about how long a boat has stayed in one place, I believe they are about not moving far enough about the system.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Actually that is not what the 1995 act says either, but we have done all this to death before.

 

I don't anyway believe the cases in question are about how long a boat has stayed in one place, I believe they are about not moving far enough about the system.

Absolutely!

[Athy]

Under the Act, if you do not have a home mooring then you can moor in a place for 14 days or longer if reasonable.

Is this true?

[Tuscan]

I have fond memories of just travelling round the system in a fairly care free manor now as I motor down the northern end of the Shroppie I find that the CRT data logger walking to keep up with me whilst he inputs my index number. I wish we didn't have this focus on data capture.for the sake of it, why does big brother need this I'm obviously moving to a different "place" .

[Naughty Cal]

I have fond memories of just travelling round the system in a fairly care free manor now as I motor down the northern end of the Shroppie I find that the CRT data logger walking to keep up with me whilst he inputs my index number. I wish we didn't have this focus on data capture.for the sake of it, why does big brother need this I'm obviously moving to a different "place" .

Why do we need it?

 

Because of the selfish piss taking by a few ruining it for the vast majority.

[KenK]

 

I would argue that they do seem to be out to prevent boaters using there boats

 

Actually, moving a boat every 14 days is a prime example of how BW/CaRT has attempted to pervert the 1995 Act.

 

Under the Act, if you do not have a home mooring then you can moor in a place for 14 days or longer if reasonable. If you do have a home mooring then you are unrestricted as to mooring.

 

However, under its T's & C's CaRT attempt to modify the law by imposing a blanket limit less that the law.

The 1995 act modified the existing rules and regulations in terms of the granting of a license.

It is not unreasonable for BW and now C&RT to impose mooring restrictions the original purpose of the canal system was to enable movement of goods. That has now changed and it has become a leisure resource for boating not however a linear housing estate.

If you want to use your boat as a floating home without movement then find and pay for a mooring.

If you wish to use it as a boat then I suspect that you will never fall under the enforcement radar.

 

Ken

[John V]

The 1995 act modified the existing rules and regulations in terms of the granting of a license.

It is not unreasonable for BW and now C&RT to impose mooring restrictions the original purpose of the canal system was to enable movement of goods. That has now changed and it has become a leisure resource for boating not however a linear housing estate.

If you want to use your boat as a floating home without movement then find and pay for a mooring.

If you wish to use it as a boat then I suspect that you will never fall under the enforcement radar.

 

Ken

 

yes!!!!!!!!!

[MtB]

Interesting, this.

 

One or other of my boats is always away from it's home mooring, usually bridge hopping in one particular area and usually for months at a time, so I imagine I am at significant risk of becoming a test case.

 

Watch this space.

 

MtB

[Arthur Marshall]

I still think it's an interesting concept, this "always being away from its home mooring". I suppose Robert Frost would agree, though. Perhaps you can quote him in mitigation...

[Tuscan]

Why do we need it?

Because of the selfish piss taking by a few ruining it for the vast majority.

So you think moving boats need to be logged in case someone's taking the piss by moving. Last I heard that's meant to be a good thing.

[Naughty Cal]

So you think moving boats need to be logged in case someone's taking the piss by moving. Last I heard that's meant to be a good thing.

I was talking about boat logging in general!

[NigelMoore]

I am struggling to get my message across so please bear with me.

 

I cannot but admire your rugged determination in pursuit of such a doomed endeavour.

 

There is a psychological category of person – vital to the persistence of all oppressive tyrannies – that has been revealed in a minority [thankfully] of recent contributors to this topic: those who possess a visceral need to BELIEVE in the unquestionable rightness of those wielding power over them.

 

This class of person will always be impervious to any facts revealing the corruption of their masters. To them, if their masters have taken extreme action against any of their fellows, then whatever the evidence of innocence, there MUST be some undisclosed contrary evidence [to which the authority alone is privy] that fully justifies an otherwise obvious abuse of power.

 

EmmaB #172 asked the obvious question as to how it could be considered the boater in my example ended up on CaRT’s radar – the answer proffered: “It isn’t for doing the right thing that’s for sure” [!?] What was the wrong thing? as others asked - ???

 

The ensuing regurgitated debate here - over the lawfulness or otherwise of new twists on the ‘rules’ - rather bypasses the facts in the case I evidenced. There the boater had done, like Naughty Cal and most others, nothing wrong, marginal, or ‘piss-taking’. He likewise had absolutely NO history with CaRT, having entered their jurisdiction only 2 days prior to receiving an illegal s.8. He was, in short, just exactly the class of boater pretended to by Naughty Cal; someone who had never given occasion to light up CaRT’s radar.

 

But to the critics you seek to enlighten it can never make any difference. To sufferers of this particular psychosis, any criticism of the authority, however reasoned, evidenced or constructive, HAS TO BE a 'CaRT-bashing' of the guilty. If CaRT have targeted you, then no question exists: you are a 'piss-taking' abuser of the 'rules' deserving everything coming to you.

 

I found precisely the same knee-jerk reaction in my own case, and the eventual vindication by the penultimate court in the land has made not the slightest dent in the critics' mindless convictions.

[Naughty Cal]

 

I cannot but admire your rugged determination in pursuit of such a doomed endeavour.

 

There is a psychological category of person vital to the persistence of all oppressive tyrannies that has been revealed in a minority [thankfully] of recent contributors to this topic: those who possess a visceral need to BELIEVE in the unquestionable rightness of those wielding power over them.

 

This class of person will always be impervious to any facts revealing the corruption of their masters. To them, if their masters have taken extreme action against any of their fellows, then whatever the evidence of innocence, there MUST be some undisclosed contrary evidence [to which the authority alone is privy] that fully justifies an otherwise obvious abuse of power.

 

EmmaB #172 asked the obvious question as to how it could be considered the boater in my example ended up on CaRTs radar the answer proffered: It isnt for doing the right thing thats for sure [!?] What was the wrong thing? as others asked - ???

 

The ensuing regurgitated debate here - over the lawfulness or otherwise of new twists on the rules - rather bypasses the facts in the case I evidenced. There the boater had done, like Naughty Cal and most others, nothing wrong, marginal, or piss-taking. He likewise had absolutely NO history with CaRT, having entered their jurisdiction only 2 days prior to receiving an illegal s.8. He was, in short, just exactly the class of boater pretended to by Naughty Cal; someone who had never given occasion to light up CaRTs radar.

 

But to the critics you seek to enlighten it can never make any difference. To sufferers of this particular psychosis, any criticism of the authority, however reasoned, evidenced or constructive, HAS TO BE a 'CaRT-bashing' of the guilty. If CaRT have targeted you, then no question exists: you are a 'piss-taking' abuser of the 'rules' deserving everything coming to you.

 

I found precisely the same knee-jerk reaction in my own case, and the eventual vindication by the penultimate court in the land has made not the slightest dent in the critics' mindless convictions.

Why do I somehow doubt that this chap was only known to CRT for 2 days prior to his Section 8?

[EmmaB]

For the reasons Nigel has given in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of his post.

[John V]

 

This class of person will always be impervious to any facts revealing the corruption of their masters. To them, if their masters have taken extreme action against any of their fellows, then whatever the evidence of innocence, there MUST be some undisclosed contrary evidence [to which the a

The ensuing regurgitated debate here - over the lawfulness or otherwise of new twists on the ‘rules’ - rather bypasses the facts in the case I evidenced. There the boater had done, like Naughty Cal and most others, nothing wrong, marginal, or ‘piss-taking’. He likewise had absolutely NO history with CaRT, having entered their jurisdiction only 2 days prior to receiving an illegal s.8. He was, in short, just exactly the class of boater pretended to by Naughty Cal; someone who had never given occasion to light up CaRT’s radar.

 

But to the critics you seek to enlighten it can never make any difference. To sufferers of this particular psychosis, any criticism of the authority, however reasoned, evidenced or constructive, HAS TO BE a 'CaRT-bashing' of the guilty. If CaRT have targeted you, then no question exists: you are a 'piss-taking' abuser of the 'rules' deserving everything coming to you.

 

I found precisely the same knee-jerk reaction in my own case, and the eventual vindication by the penultimate court in the land has made not the slightest dent in the critics' mindless convictions.

 

The same type of person on the opposite side of the fence will use an isolated case to try and prove endemic use of illegal force in an organisation.

If a person is victimised by some petty minded individual within an organisation and the said organisation fails to correct, then the proper course of action is through the courts.

 

This acts as a perfectly effective and reasonable way of keeping big organisations on their toes, especially if punitive damages are awarded.

 

The problem here is that a particular case is being used to start a C&RT bashing theme implying endemic and systematic lawbreaking by C&RT

 

I think my post #212 (I think) is pertinent, asking if it was such a prima facie case, why had it not gone back to the court?

I cannot see how any boater acting in a normal manner is likely to "fall foul" of C&RT.

If someones normal cruising causes them to show up as a blip on monitoring systems then this will normally only involve a question and simple answer to sort out. To try and make out a bogeyman out of it is ridiculous.

 

If enforcement is vindictive or unreasonable and complaints to a higher level ineffective then there is always the courts

Edited June 12, 2014 by John V

[matty40s]

Why do I somehow doubt that this chap was only known to CRT for 2 days prior to his Section 8?

...and with that statement, immediately confirming Nigels comments.

[BGA]

Its an interesting question as to 'how do you prove you have moved ?

 

Diesel receipts ? - just shows you have run the engine ?

Photo of 'Local' dated newspaper with a land mark in the background - Possibly ?

Signed and dated 'affidavit' from lockeepers that you have passed ? - not many canals have permanent lockies.

Your cruising log ? - could be a total fabrication.

 

 

So - you are recorded at location A, and 15 days later are recorded at location A - just how can you provide evidence that in between those dates you have been to locations B to C to B and back to A

 

As an example we had a couple of weeks on an 'out & return' and we stopped at the same mooring on the 1st and last night - fortunately it was Cromwell Lock so the lock keeper would have records of us transiting the lock. If it wasnt a manned lock how could we argue we hadnt moved ?

 

I'd be interested in any proposals.

I think if you argued you had moved within the 15 days that should be accepted if 15 days later you again at A then things start to look suspicious and your argument looks weaker.

[Tuscan]

Why do I somehow doubt that this chap was only known to CRT for 2 days prior to his Section 8?

Probably for the same reason that you believe that for a very small minority of "piss takers" it now needs a substantial team of volunteer and paid data loggers each with hand held pda (soon to be upgraded) to capture all boat movements and feed the information into a new computer system.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

The same type of person on the opposite side of the fence will use an isolated case to try and prove endemic use of illegal force in an organisation.

If a person is victimised by some petty minded individual within an organisation and the said organisation fails to correct, then the proper course of action is through the courts.

 

 

 

 

I'd be interested to know how many "isolated cases" there need to be before you would accept there is a 'problem'

 

There are an increasing number of instances of 'isolated cases' countrywide, if it is 'victimisation by petty minded individuals' within C&RT then its pretty widespread within C&RT and maybe C&RT should start to emply staff with more 'people skills' than 'little-Hitlers' (to coin a phrase)

[Naughty Cal]

Probably for the same reason that you believe that for a very small minority of "piss takers" it now needs a substantial team of volunteer and paid data loggers each with hand held pda (soon to be upgraded) to capture all boat movements and feed the information into a new computer system.

 

If it wasnt for the piss takers then CRT wouldnt have to spend money logging boats.

 

What is so difficult about following a few simple guidelines?

 

CRT could save a lot of money not logging boats but then how do they clamp down on the piss takers?

...and with that statement, immediately confirming Nigels comments.

 

With all respect to Nigel the cases that he gets involved in are rarely as black and white as he would lead us all to believe.

 

As with all these cases more detail is always hidden behind the CRT bashing smoke screen.

[Tuscan]

If it wasnt for the piss takers then CRT wouldnt have to spend money logging boats.

 

What is so difficult about following a few simple guidelines?

 

CRT could save a lot of money not logging boats but then how do they clamp down on the piss takers?

 

een.

 

So given all this information how many are there in your view ?

[Alan de Enfield]

BGA, on 12 Jun 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

I think if you argued you had moved within the 15 days that should be accepted if 15 days later you again at A then things start to look suspicious and your argument looks weaker.

 

I understand your point but remember we have a paid for 'home mooring' in Newark, we do not need to move to a new 'parish; every 14 days when we are cruising (according to the rules' we can move 100 yards every 14 days - if we wanted to), however, take this scenario :

First night out - stop at Cromwell lock to get the morning tide cruise the Trent & Witham for a couple of weeks, 15th night stop at Cromwell lock. - go home.

Following weekend we only have a couple of days - cruise up to Cromwell lock on the Friday night, Stay Friday & Saturday night, go home Sunday.

Following weekend same again.

 

As far as any observer can tell (if the just check the mooring on (say) Friday or Saturday night, we have been there for 3 weeks

 

Unless C&RT is going to take daily records (or in the above example at least twice per week) then who is to say the rsuklts show the true picture.

 

Remember according to the 'law' the boat owner has to prove compliance to "C&RT's satisfaction" - guilty until proved innocent.

[Naughty Cal]

 

I understand your point but remember we have a paid for 'home mooring' in Newark, we do not need to move to a new 'parish; every 14 days when we are cruising (according to the rules' we can move 100 yards every 14 days - if we wanted to), however, take this scenario :

First night out - stop at Cromwell lock to get the morning tide cruise the Trent & Witham for a couple of weeks, 15th night stop at Cromwell lock. - go home.

Following weekend we only have a couple of days - cruise up to Cromwell lock on the Friday night, Stay Friday & Saturday night, go home Sunday.

Following weekend same again.

 

As far as any observer can tell (if the just check the mooring on (say) Friday or Saturday night, we have been there for 3 weeks

 

Unless C&RT is going to take daily records (or in the above example at least twice per week) then who is to say the rsuklts show the true picture.

 

Remember according to the 'law' the boat owner has to prove compliance to "C&RT's satisfaction" - guilty until proved innocent.

 

In this case Im fairly sure the lockie at Cromwell would put them right.

So given all this information how many are there in your view ?

 

It isnt my view that counts.

 

CRT obviously believe there is a big enough problem to warrant spending the money on logging boat movements.

[Tuscan]

 

It isnt my view that counts

 

(:-

[John V]

Logging of boat movements is very important otherwise they will be unable to reply to all the FOI requests from C&RT bashers.

 

On a more sensible note, data logging movements over the whole network gives valuable facts that can enable a well informed plan to be put in place to help run the system, instead of one based on conjecture and vocal minority views

 

 

 

dammit why do I always spot errors after I have posted!!!

Edited June 12, 2014 by John V