Boater With Home Mooring - Court Action Started.

[MtB]

 

I have been looking at the instant case from the hypothetical standpoint that the mooring/movement pattern was in fact unlawful. I see far greater significance in the way unlawful mooring is dealt with, than there is to whether it is unlawful to start with. [This is not to belittle the more ‘popular’ area of concern, which is naturally also of considerable interest].

 

If the mooring behaviour is something the authority wish to stop, then the first question is whether it is “legal” or merely undesirable. If illegal, why bypass the legal sanctions in favour of the most draconian of responses; why, in other words, as I said before, give preference to losing the customer rather than dealing with them?

 

 

 

I see what you mean, but...

 

My perception from your posts (where my eyes haven't glazed over ) is that CRT have three enforcement options when boaters 'piss-take' i.e. moor in an unlawful manner.

 

1) Physically move the boat on

2) Fine the boater

3) Rescind the licence and commence removal of the boat from CRT waters

 

 

You (or is it others?) have on many occasions pointed out that CRT as a matter of policy are unwilling to physically move on a boat, as it would put CRT staff in direct personal conflict with the boater if present. So they have no wish to do this without a police presence, for which the police would attach low priority and the cost would be prohibitive.*

 

Fining the boater is tricky because if the boater simply sails off, how do CRT find the boater to enforce it?

 

Which leaves using Section 8 to remove the boat. Or are there further options you've suggested that I've not noticed?

 

 

MtB

 

 

*'Prohibitive' cost is a weak argument given the money they burn through using the Section 8 process.

[Mike Todd]

Not sneering at all Nigel. You just seem to spend an awful lot of time quoting facts and figures yet we never seem to get any posts from you regarding actual cruising or other more relaxing boating passtimes.

 

Isn't boat ownership supposed to be about enjoying yourself?

 

There are far more enjoyable aspects to boat owner ship than the legal nitty gritty!

You are being unreasonable:

 

From time to time I am moved to find Nigel's obvious passion sometimes borders on obsession. He is clearly wll read in respect of the subject he is interested in and it very much gives him the incentive to get out of bed of a morning. I often disagree with either his interpretation or his intent but rarely am I bored by his contributions here.

 

In any case, people like nIgel are the stuff of the richness of humankind, without which we would all be grey and bored to tears.

 

I doubt your sarcasm will dent his commitment to a cause.

 

I am obsessed with collecting geo-located photos of every CRT Asset (ie bridges, tunnels, locks, aqueducts). I trust I will not also be at the end of your vitriol!

[Naughty Cal]

You are being unreasonable:

 

From time to time I am moved to find Nigel's obvious passion sometimes borders on obsession. He is clearly wll read in respect of the subject he is interested in and it very much gives him the incentive to get out of bed of a morning. I often disagree with either his interpretation or his intent but rarely am I bored by his contributions here.

 

In any case, people like nIgel are the stuff of the richness of humankind, without which we would all be grey and bored to tears.

 

I doubt your sarcasm will dent his commitment to a cause.

 

I am obsessed with collecting geo-located photos of every CRT Asset (ie bridges, tunnels, locks, aqueducts). I trust I will not also be at the end of your vitriol!

I doubt it very much also.

 

But yes I would agree with the obsessive remark. Very much so.

 

I have made this remark and I will make it again. It confuses the hell out of me why some folks, and Nigel seems to be one of them, would want to keep their boats in CRT waterways if they are so obviously so very not happy with the way they are operated.

 

Other options are there for the taking.

 

Again. Boating is supposed to be an enjoyable pastime.

[MtB]

 

I am obsessed with collecting geo-located photos of every CRT Asset (ie bridges, tunnels, locks, aqueducts). I trust I will not also be at the end of your vitriol!

 

 

Swerving off topic for a second, have you noticed they are now wasting money on signs pointing out their assets?

 

For example:

 

 

 

What's that all about then? Maybe you can shed some light given your interest in CRT assets?

 

MtB

[Rich]

Other options are there for the taking.

 

 

I can't think of any with the coverage of the canals. Could you list a few please?

[mark99]

 

 

Swerving off topic for a second, have you noticed they are now wasting money on signs pointing out their assets?

 

For example:

 

 

 

What's that all about then? Maybe you can shed some light given your interest in CRT assets?

 

MtB

 

Clearly that asset sign also needs a sign.

[Naughty Cal]

 

I can't think of any with the coverage of the canals. Could you list a few please?

EA

Broads Authority

 

And if you are really fed up with authority in general head to the coast.

 

Clearly that asset sign also needs a sign.

Does the bollard count as an asset?

[mark99]

EA

Broads Authority

 

And if you are really fed up with authority in general head to the coast.

 

Does the bollard count as an asset?

 

 

Steal it and find out

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

Steal it and find out

Where is it?

[MtB]

Where is it?

 

 

Just to the left of the asset.

 

MtB

Edited July 18, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Ronniesonic]

Another thumbs up to Nigel from me . I enjoy trying to decipher some of the points being made. However I was always a 7 out of 10'er at School LOL.

 

Anyway, can we get back to the alleged pisstaker in question??

[NigelMoore]

Which leaves using Section 8 to remove the boat. Or are there further options you've suggested that I've not noticed?

 

No, those are the options I am aware of. Part of my point is that the reasons why CaRT don’t implement the direct and economic options are invalid; they have a duty, and if competent staff to perform that duty are currently unavailable, then hire some.

 

Disinclination to face up to their responsibilities in performing their function is no excuse. As has been pointed out by others, the fines don’t go to CaRT, so no need to chase the debt, that is others’ problem, while CaRT DO get the relatively minimal costs – and if there is difficulty with that, there is, as you have observed, all the more reason to keep the costs minimised instead of going the s.8 route.

 

Also, as can be identified from the quote posted by phill #534, s.8 cannot properly be regarded as valid under the HRA UNLESS the “less onerous” options are attempted first. It isn’t even as though the HRA has created anything new in this field - s.8 was ALWAYS regarded as a last resort; you should try the first resort weaponry before even contemplating going there.

 

Besides, if the boat is to be moved [whether just moved or removed] then what’s the difference? The teams of observers and contractors necessary to remove a boat from the water altogether, are far greater than those needed to just tow a boat along the towpath with a bow rope, even if a police presence is called for.

 

[NigelMoore]

Ok, I'm being nosey again but I would love to know what the reasons were....

 

I think this will work, to save repeating myself -

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2704&page=38#entry844793

[mayalld]

 

For myself, I am totally disinterested in mooring and cruising patterns and “rules” which can never affect me. Only very rarely would I wish to use a visitor mooring, and if someone is blocking a facility I need to use I will probably use it anyway over the top of them, or travel on to the next one.

 

I have been looking at the instant case from the hypothetical standpoint that the mooring/movement pattern was in fact unlawful. I see far greater significance in the way unlawful mooring is dealt with, than there is to whether it is unlawful to start with. [This is not to belittle the more ‘popular’ area of concern, which is naturally also of considerable interest].

 

If the mooring behaviour is something the authority wish to stop, then the first question is whether it is “legal” or merely undesirable. If illegal, why bypass the legal sanctions in favour of the most draconian of responses; why, in other words, as I said before, give preference to losing the customer rather than dealing with them?

 

If the mooring behaviour is “legal yet piss-taking”, then surely the most draconian of actions is so much the more inappropriate, to the extent that it is a worse illegality than the perceived problem sought to address?

 

The category of "legal yet piss-taking" usually involves a law being drafted so as to achieve a particular aim, and subsequently those who find themselves not wishing to play the game by those rules looking for ways in which they can arrange things so as to comply with the letter of the law whilst acting well outside the spirit of it.

 

Broadly speaking, we are talking about people who are highly creative in reading what the law says so as to gain an advantage for themselves.

 

It is somewhat inexplicable that those self same people should be so upset when the authority starts to take a similarly creative approach to interpreting the act.

[Jerra]

 

 

Swerving off topic for a second, have you noticed they are now wasting money on signs pointing out their assets?

 

For example:

 

 

 

What's that all about then? Maybe you can shed some light given your interest in CRT assets?

 

MtB

I have seen one or two and have assumed they are marking assets so that people who are bot CRT employees e.g. contractors can readily identify what it is they are supposed to be working on. The one I have seen have pointed to things not readily seen from the tow path e.g. culverts down the embankment.

[NigelMoore]

As a definition of MtB’s phrase, that is unexceptional, yet I thought the phrase self-explanatory.

 

The legislation provides that any interference with another boater’s use of the waterways can be construed as obstruction, hence unlawful. Any behaviour therefore that, however creatively evading the spirit of the law is yet lawful, must by definition be behaviour that, however much it might rile you, is not adversely affecting you.

 

If another boater’s behaviour riles you even though not adversely affecting you or anyone else, take some prozac.

 

The consequences of the governing authority getting “creative” with the law is, on the other hand, something that gives genuine ground for concern, for every user of the waterway.

 

Throughout this topic I have advocated the proper exercise of authority in dealing with problems that directly and adversely affect other users. Criticism of the authority for taking unlawful measures is as much a part of that as is criticism for failing to take lawful measures.

 

Those who favour “creative” interpretation and application of the law by the authority, are responsible for encouraging that which could well turn around and bite them, for all the virtuous feelings of immunity cherished. I personally find that outlook inexplicable - but I am grateful for thought provoking input from angles that could never have occurred to me. Saves me having to utilise "Po".

[mark99]

Saves me having to utilise "Po".

 

Cassette is better.

[valrene9600]

I would love to see their log of where we have been.......

 

You can request a list of where you have been spotted.

 

http://boatlife.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/edited-edition-of-have-you-been-spotted.html

 

[Rich]

EA

Broads Authority

 

And if you are really fed up with authority in general head to the coast.

 

 

Oh dear.

[RLWP]

Oh dear.

[Rich]

 

Would that guard against sickness being caused by things nautical, regardless as to how it is spelled.

[magpie patrick]

 

If another boater’s behaviour riles you even though not adversely affecting you or anyone else, take some prozac.

 

 

 

You've posted a lot of very sensible and learned stuff Nigel, but this gets to the root of so much bickering, both on and off the waterways.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Would that guard against sickness being caused by things nautical, regardless as to how it is spelled.

 

That went way over my head, It was tough but I kept at it and eventually got it (I think)

Have a boogie

[b0atman]

That is rich Rich lol sorry run out of todays greenies

[NigelMoore]

are there further options you've suggested that I've not noticed?

 

My apologies for my previously inaccurate answer MtB, I just recalled a couple of options I had raised in an earlier thread –

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=67361#entry1329705