Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[AndrewIC]

CRT do not have the resources to run vendettas, secret police groups, massive databases of who was on their home mooring when and so on. They do have the ability to spot people taking the piss...

Do they have the resources to weed out "false positives" from those suspected to be taking the piss? I'm not suggesting the chap in question is a false positive.

[RLWP]

Do they have the resources to weed out "false positives" from those suspected to be taking the piss? I'm not suggesting the chap in question is a false positive.

 

I believe that the mechanism for that one is called 'having a conversation'.

 

Rchard

[Athy]

 

No, don't be silly

 

Richard

You said exactly the same thing to me a few posts back. Evidently you have forgotten. Please do not repeat it - especially as I was questioning information given by our colleague Mr. Boat - so if anyone is being "silly", or proffering incorrect information, it's not me.

[RLWP]

You said exactly the same thing to me a few posts back. Evidently you have forgotten. Please do not repeat it - especially as I was questioning information given by our colleague Mr. Boat - so if anyone is being "silly", or proffering incorrect information, it's not me.

 

I have been pointing out that the information that is inflaming you may well be incorrect, and that there are good reasons why it should be presented in a way that will have you 'going off on one'

 

Richard

[Rich]

 

No.

 

People are in danger of such action, not for being moored in lots of different places, but for being regularly moored in the SAME place.

Why?

[adam1uk]

Is this the guy mentioned in a previous thread (which I can't now find) who freely admitted (although not to CRT) that he didn't like his home mooring because it had no access for his car, so he spends all his time on VMs instead? If so, it's not surprising he fails Richard's duck spotting test.

[Athy]

 

I have been pointing out that the information that is inflaming you may well be incorrect, and that there are good reasons why it should be presented in a way that will have you 'going off on one'

 

Richard

I am not inflamed. I am taking part in a mainly civilised discussion.

So are you saying that Mr. Boat's assertion that a boat must not return to a visitor mooring within 14 days is wrong? I hope so.

[Quinafloat]

Seems to me that the boater in question needs some serious help with his defense. Then we can find out who was right and who was wrong. It's called justice.

[Alan de Enfield]

Apologies for the confusion of posting the link relating to two 'cases' - I was solely refing to the Dunkley case (not the one with the poorly arm' who didnt move.)

 

 

I do not put forward Narrowboat World as a paragon of virtue, or anything much other than a "C&RT bashing site", but they do seem to pick up on issues which are of interest.

 

You may remember some time ago during a discussion on enforcement of overstaying, & I put forward the scenario of being 'seen' in the same place over an extended period, but having moved during the period - how could you prove it ?

 

Well - (according to NB world) it has happened on the Trent.

 

A boater has had enforcement commenced against him for being on the 48 hour mooring for a week, they could have evidence from the Trent lockies logs at Cromwell & Torksey that he passed thru' the locks during that period, but how can he proceed to prove his innocence.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7076-a-rotten-apple

Edited July 9, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

I am not inflamed. I am taking part in a mainly civilised discussion.

So are you saying that Mr. Boat's assertion that a boat must not return to a visitor mooring within 14 days is wrong? I hope so.

 

This bloke has had his licence revoked for not complying the the terms of his licencing contract with CRT I suspect, rather than for contravening one of the various acts governing mooring. I suspect CRT hold that he is not complying with mooring rules.

 

The whole affair threatens to shine a spotlight on the enormous logical black hole in most mooring signage, this being the absense of a properly defined "no return within" time limit.

 

MtB

P.S. For simplicity the 'No Return within" time limit should always be 14 days. IMHO.

[Naughty Cal]

Apologies for the confusion of posting the link relating to two 'cases' - I was solely refing to the Dunkley case (not the one with the poorly arm' who didnt move.)

 

 

I do not put forward Narrowboat World as a paragon of virtue, or anything much other than a "C&RT bashing site", but they do seem to pick up on issues which are of interest.

 

You may remember some time ago during a discussion on enforcement of overstaying, & I put forward the scenario of being 'seen' in the same place over an extended period, but having moved during the period - how could you prove it ?

 

Well - (according to NB world) it has happened on the Trent.

 

A boater has had enforcement commenced against him for being on the 48 hour mooring for a week, they could have evidence from the Trent lockies logs at Cromwell & Torksey that he passed thru' the locks during that period, but how can he proceed to prove his innocence.

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7076-a-rotten-apple

I know the boater involved in that one and its not as clear cut as NBW would like you to believe.

 

(Surprise, Surprise)

[RLWP]

MMM I think the judge did well and I think CART may have jumped the gun a little, however a 48 hour mooring is just that and normally you then spend 14 days away before you reuse it again, or for me it is, so I suspect it might not go well for either of the 2 parties if they dont get the facts straight!! I think I would like more facts before deciding who is to blame

 

Peter

 

 

Why? We have fairly often gone from our home mooring, spent two nights below Cropredy lock, returned to our mooring and then done the same thing the following weekend. Are you suggesting that you, or the authorities, consider this to be reckless and anti-social behaviour?

 

Peter said ' a 48 hour mooring is just that and normally you then spend 14 days away before you reuse it again, or for me it is'. I don't recognise the '14 days away bit', and judging by the bit in red, he can't support it

 

On the 'consider this to be reckless and anti-social behaviour?' I can't see how he would know what 'the authorities' consider on any matter

 

I would like to point out that the first quote in the sentence above does have a certain mad-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth quality to it, and 'the authorities' feels like it is missing two capital letters and a sequence of three descending chords

 

Personally, no - I don't consider it to be reckless, anti-social or in fact anything other than normal or proper behaviour. Should it ever come to the point when people doing normal things like that get their license renewals refused, I'll man the barricades with you. Meanwhile, we are a very, very long way from there

 

Richard

P.S. For simplicity the 'No Return within" time limit should always be 14 days. IMHO.

 

I disagree. It makes out and back trips hard to do for no good reason. E.g. you cannot shop in Banbury on the way to and from Oxford

 

Richard

[Quinafloat]

 

P.S. For simplicity the 'No Return within" time limit should always be 14 days. IMHO.

 

Nice to know your in such good health. I often have to return to the same place for things like blood test results, or even just to get suitable doctors appointments.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Quinafloat

[Naughty Cal]

 

This bloke has had his licence revoked for not complying the the terms of his licencing contract with CRT I suspect, rather than for contravening one of the various acts governing mooring. I suspect CRT hold that he is not complying with mooring rules.

 

The whole affair threatens to shine a spotlight on the enormous logical black hole in most mooring signage, this being the absense of a properly defined "no return within" time limit.

 

MtB

P.S. For simplicity the 'No Return within" time limit should always be 14 days. IMHO.

It would be nice to have a simplistic No Return time limit but in some circumstances it just wont work.

[mayalld]

Why?

 

Because the purpose of having home moorings is (at least in part) to ensure that opportunities for casual mooring exist for boaters who are actually using their boat.

 

If a boater (whether he has a home mooring or not) habitually occupies the same mooring spot most of the time, he renders it unavailable to anybody else.

[MtB]

 

Nice to know your in such good health. I often have to return to the same place for things like blood test results, or even just to get doctors suitable appointments.

 

Ok then. 14 days without a doctor's note.

 

MtB

[Naughty Cal]

 

Ok then. 14 days without a doctor's note.

 

MtB

What if I want to go on the Trent on two consecutive weekends?

[Guest]

 

MtBP.S. For simplicity the 'No Return within" time limit should always be 14 days. IMHO.

Why?

 

That would pretty much scupper a lot of weekend boaters out and back cruising patterns. As long as they move off before the VM time limits and take their boat back to the mooring I see no reason to be so draconian.

 

Eg if I want too pootle up to Syke house junction from my mooring three weekends on a trot and stay a couple of nights each time what exactly am I doing wrong?

 

Nothing. Under you suggestion I would be.

[nicknorman]

Nice to know your in such good health. I often have to return to the same place for things like blood test results, or even just to get suitable doctors appointments.

 

Presumably you are too unwell to get a bus, train, bicycle or taxi to your doctor's surgery, or in the case of blood test results, unable to use the telephone? I do feel very sorry for you having such a poor quality of life, but how fortunate that you found a doctor's surgery on the canal bank that you can moor outside whilst visiting. How even more fortunate (if inexplicable) that despite these infirmities you manage to operate your boat. Edited July 9, 2014 by nicknorman

[Alan de Enfield]

What if I want to go on the Trent on two consecutive weekends?

 

This was my exact argument on a previous thread - I go up to Torksey, stay overnight, cruise down to Boston and return to Torksey a week later, Mr "enforcement officer" sees me on both occasions and not having checked in-between those dates assumes I've stayed theer all week. How can I prove otherwise ?

[Quinafloat]

 

Because the purpose of having home moorings is (at least in part) to ensure that opportunities for casual mooring exist for boaters who are actually using their boat.

 

 

I wouldn't mind betting that no one ever purchased a home mooring for that purpose.

[RLWP]

Presumably you are too unwell to get a bus, train, bicycle or taxi to your doctor's surgery, or in the case of blood test results, unable to use the telephone? I do feel very sorry for you having such a poor quality of life, but how fortunate that you found a doctor's surgery on the canal bank that you can moor outside whilst visiting. How even more fortunate (if inexplicable) that despite these infirmaries you manage to operate your boat.

 

Did you know that there is a punctuation mark for irony? It is this one: ؟

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

Presumably you are too unwell to get a bus, train, bicycle or taxi to your doctor's surgery, or in the case of blood test results, unable to use the telephone? I do feel very sorry for you having such a poor quality of life, but how fortunate that you found a doctor's surgery on the canal bank that you can moor outside whilst visiting. How even more fortunate (if inexplicable) that despite these infirmaries you manage to operate your boat.

 

I dont think that sort of response was either necessary or called-for

[Naughty Cal]

 

This was my exact argument on a previous thread - I go up to Torksey, stay overnight, cruise down to Boston and return to Torksey a week later, Mr "enforcement officer" sees me on both occasions and not having checked in-between those dates assumes I've stayed theer all week. How can I prove otherwise ?

 

Show him some photographs of your lovely trip up the Witham?

[nicknorman]

On the 14 day return thing, I disagree that 14 days is or should be a blanket no-return rule for the reasons of an out and return trip etc. However it is one thing to revisit a VM a day or two later as a one-off, it is another thing to stay on a VM over and over again with only a day (or less ) away between each visit. It is surely about common sense, and unfortunate that the pisstakers give weight to CRT's desire for ever more explicit signage such as at Foxton, Stoke Bruerne etc.