Jump to content

Continual cruising


Boston

Featured Posts

 

The OP came on here seeking to criticise CRT, and sought affirmation from people that what CRT was doing "isn't right"

 

Why would anybody here affirm that it isn't right without sufficient facts.

 

I suggest you read the OP before making a statement on it that is factually incorrect.

 

" in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance. Surely this isn't right?"

 

What facts do you need to make a judgement on this question?

 

But a judge has decided that 'shuttling up and down' is UN-acceptable

 

British Waterways v Davies in the Bristol County Court. The

 

Judge expressly found that Mr Davies’ movement

of his vessel every 14 days (whilst remaining on the same approximate 10 mile stretch of canal between Bath

and Bradford on Avon) was not bona fide use of the vessel for navigation

 

That's a misquoting of the judgement (a kind of Daily Mail synopsis - that's what you would like it to say). The distance was in no way salient to the judgement.

 

it is as a result of this judgement that BW removed the statement "progressive journey' from their guidance

 

Also, I'm always actually relieved that the vast majority of boat owners on the canals don't want to put in large numbers of miles traversed each year. I am very happy that many don't go far at all, whether marina based, with permanent on-line moorings, or with no home mooring.

 

I already spend far too much time following people, or queuing at locks, and the worst possible result would be to have far larger numbers of boats permanently on the move.

 

When we had major, major water shortages down here a few years ago, with many of the lock flights still on very restricted opening times, we faced the bonkers situation that on the one hand BW were locking up the canal at key points to stop those of us who wanted to go somewhere actually being able to go very far at all, but in the meantime they were still moving on boaters with no home mooring, hence using the dwindling water supplies for people who would happily have moved less.

 

Exactly this. At the close of the day there's still exactly the same number of boats moored.

 

I blame the misnomer "continuous cruising" - where did it come from? it always makes me picture the Flying Dutchman

Edited by phill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are on a line like the oxford and have need to be in the area for whatever reason but cannot afford to pay marina prices or even cannot get or afford a CRT mooring then you will have problems .

BUT if you are on for example the 4 counties ring then you can CC around it for ever and a day .

So somewhere between CCing the whole system and CMing a happy medium needs to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But a judge has decided that 'shuttling up and down' is UN-acceptable

 

British Waterways v Davies in the Bristol County Court. The

 

Judge expressly found that Mr Davies’ movement

of his vessel every 14 days (whilst remaining on the same approximate 10 mile stretch of canal between Bath

and Bradford on Avon) was not bona fide use of the vessel for navigation

 

Yes, but equally BW have made an open statement in the past that it is (for example) perfectly possible to satisfy "bona fide for navigation" without ever leaving the River Lee

 

This kind of leaved the uncomfortable situation that whilst in one case a judge has said 10 miles is not enough, elsewhere it is suggested that under 30 miles is more than enough.

 

So what number of miles do you believe satisfies it? That is the nub of the issue, because the original law was made non specific, (almost certainly deliberately!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, I'm always actually relieved that the vast majority of boat owners on the canals don't want to put in large numbers of miles traversed each year. I am very happy that many don't go far at all, whether marina based, with permanent on-line moorings, or with no home mooring.

 

I already spend far too much time following people, or queuing at locks, and the worst possible result would be to have far larger numbers of boats permanently on the move.

 

When we had major, major water shortages down here a few years ago, with many of the lock flights still on very restricted opening times, we faced the bonkers situation that on the one hand BW were locking up the canal at key points to stop those of us who wanted to go somewhere actually being able to go very far at all, but in the meantime they were still moving on boaters with no home mooring, hence using the dwindling water supplies for people who would happily have moved less.

 

That's definitely a POV I can understand. My long term boating plan is to CC and my pattern will fit with MTB's idea of CCing - I want to spend my time exploring the system - It'd be nice to be able to do that without being held up by people who don't want to even be cruising on a given day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many people have the means to take a photo that also gives geographical record of location, or will this is my boat near this hedge and this is my boat moored near another bit of hedge be valid evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's a misquoting of the judgement (a kind of Daily Mail synopsis - that's what you would like it to say). The distance was in no way salient to the judgement.

 

it is as a result of this judgement that BW removed the statement "progressive journey' from their guidance

 

 

The quote is a 'cut & paste' from C&RTs "Guidance to Boats without a Home Mooring" which all "CCers" sign up to say they agree to when applying for the boat licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

whilst in one case a judge has said 10 miles is not enough

 

Please don't you start perpetuating this myth. Judge O'Malley did not say "10 miles is not enough" - or imply it.

 

The quote is a 'cut & paste' from C&RTs "Guidance to Boats without a Home Mooring" which all "CCers" sign up to say they agree to when applying for the boat licence.

 

Your use of the quote implies a causal relationship where none exists - I accept this is CRT's intention.

 

I suggest you read the original (if you truly want to be educated) rather than rely of CRT's 2nd hand version

 

Download

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I suggest you read the OP before making a statement on it that is factually incorrect.

 

" in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance. Surely this isn't right?"

 

What facts do you need to make a judgement on this question?

 

Well,

 

I would need;

 

1) Evidence that this is ACTUALLY what was said, as opposed to it being suggested that this would make it easier to demonstrate compliance.

2) An account of what pattern of movement is taking place. If the OP is annoyed about needing photos because they aren't actually complying then this isn't harrasment, it is legitimate enforcement action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well,

 

I would need;

 

1) Evidence that this is ACTUALLY what was said, as opposed to it being suggested that this would make it easier to demonstrate compliance.

2) An account of what pattern of movement is taking place. If the OP is annoyed about needing photos because they aren't actually complying then this isn't harrasment, it is legitimate enforcement action.

 

1 ) As someone with an amateur interest in the law you will realise that evidence of hearsay is impossible to obtain. We either believe the OP or we do not.

 

2 ) You are simply answering the question 'no' (in your opinion)

 

You see, no pattern of movement required. Unless, of course, you suggest that if the movement have been far and wide and suiting your concept of compliance, you think that the OP should not have to take photos to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how many people have the means to take a photo that also gives geographical record of location, or will this is my boat near this hedge and this is my boat moored near another bit of hedge be valid evidence.

Yes it's a good point, lots of phones and cameras do actually offer a geo tagging facility though and if you don't feel you would be able to take a suitably distinguishing photo at each location one would prove very useful in this type of situation.

 

They real question though is should somebody feel in any way obliged to use one or in fact buy one if they don't have one? The rebellious side in me would like to say no, stuff 'em but TBH if I was under such close scrutiny by the Trust and potentially at risk of losing my boat or home even I would very inclined to go down that route. They are not that expensive and considered as an investment against possibly being homeless would in my view be a wise one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP was about the behaviour of CRT

This is true but it is impossible to judge CRT's behaviour without knowing the cruising pattern It is like the parent turning up at school complaining little Jonny was wrongly disciplined without having heard the teachers side of the situation.

 

IMO there is no point starting a thread about CRT's behaviour if you only give one side of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it's a good point, lots of phones and cameras do actually offer a geo tagging facility though and if you don't feel you would be able to take a suitably distinguishing photo at each location one would prove very useful in this type of situation.

 

They real question though is should somebody feel in any way obliged to use one or in fact buy one if they don't have one? The rebellious side in me would like to say no, stuff 'em but TBH if I was under such close scrutiny by the Trust and potentially at risk of losing my boat or home even I would very inclined to go down that route. They are not that expensive and considered as an investment against possibly being homeless would in my view be a wise one.

 

 

If you have an Android device, it defaults to log your history, you can then view this for the last 30 days, screen shot the map and save them.

 

Just log in here,

 

https://maps.google.com/locationhistory/b/0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the usual arguments on here from the usual vocal "people" we still do not know what pattern the OP is making, and until that is known you can shout and scream as much as you like.

 

So to Boston, are you just going A - 18 miles - B - 18 miles - A every 14 days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Judge O'Malley did not say "10 miles is not enough" - or imply it.

 

The key element in the Davies judgment [an interpretation on which the High Court judge in Brown v CaRT had a differing perspective] was –

 

The phrase ‘used bona fide for navigation’ involves consideration of the purpose of the use, rather than the extent of the movement.” [my emphasis]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread some suggested that keeping a record of engine hours would in some way 'prove' movement, how does that work? My engine meter runs whenever the engine is running, it doesn't stop just because the boat isn't moving. I do keep a daily internet record of where I am and that is what I'd refer to if challenged by CRT, but since I am making progress around the system that hasn't happened.

 

My own take on the Continual Cruising situation is that the probable reason for the concession is that if you are moving around the system there is no purpose in having a Home Mooring since you will never be there. Last year I was on the Kennet and Avon, this year I am on the Trent and Mersey and Shropshire Union, next year who knows? Where would it be sensible to have a home mooring? If however you want to stay in the same area permanently then I would suggest that you need a mooring. When buying boats people are often advised to get a mooring first as that can be the most difficult part (if they are going to stay in one area). It seems to me that a lot of people complaining about enforcement came onto the canals knowing what the requirement would be but hope that they can get around it because if they can it is a cheap way of living. I'm afraid that I don't feel a lot of sympathy for those who came on knowing of the requirement but now complaining that someone is trying to enforce it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boaters Responsibility.

The law requires the boater to satisfy the Trust that the bona fide navigation requirement is and will be met.

 

It is not for the Trust to prove that the requirement has not been met.

 

This is best done by keeping a cruising log, though this is not a compulsory requirement. If however, the Trust has a clear impression that there has been limited movement insufficient to meet the legal requirements, it can ask for more information to be satisfied in accordance with the law.

 

Failure or inability to provide that information may result in further action being taken, but only after fair warning.

 

 

So C&RT has an impression that the OP is not complying and has asked for proof and suggested that a photograph could be one way to do this.

 

Where is the problem. (rhetorical)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 ) As someone with an amateur interest in the law you will realise that evidence of hearsay is impossible to obtain. We either believe the OP or we do not.

 

2 ) You are simply answering the question 'no' (in your opinion)

 

You see, no pattern of movement required. Unless, of course, you suggest that if the movement have been far and wide and suiting your concept of compliance, you think that the OP should not have to take photos to prove it.

 

At no point does the OP claim that this "requirement" was communicated verbally.

 

The CRT pre-CC1 letter says;

 

We are now asking you to commence genuine navigation as described in the Guidance. We will continue to

monitor your movements and if it appears that you are continuing to ignore the Guidance, we will commence

enforcement proceedings which could result in court action and the potential removal of your boat from our

waterways. In these circumstances, documentary evidence of your boat’s movements would help and I therefore

recommend you begin recording this evidence.

 

Which is rather different to;

 

I found out that this was due to the warden's patrol range being limited and in order to stop being harassed by Canal & River Trust I had to take a photo of every place I moored to prove I was moving the required distance

 

CRT certainly suggest recording your movements in their formal communications, but they don't require it.

 

Now, it seems a reasonable question to ask the OP;

 

"Has CRT actually TOLD you that you MUST take photos, or are you applying this gloss to their pre-CC1 letter"

 

And a pattern of movement IS required by the guidance. Where the line between OK and not OK is drawn is very much open to debate, but A>B>A>B is explicitly NOT OK.

 

Whilst the law is vague in places, one area that it is NOT vague on is that it is up to the boater to "satisfy the board". the onus is on the boater to demonstrate bona fide navigation. It may well be that in many cases CRT observations are sufficient to satisfy them without seeking proof from the boater, but that doesn't alter the fact that the boater needs to show that he is compliant.

 

It isn't harrasment to say "based on our observations, we are not satisfied that you are obeying the rules, please provide evidence to satisfy us".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The key element in the Davies judgment [an interpretation on which the High Court judge in Brown v CaRT had a differing perspective] was –

 

The phrase ‘used bona fide for navigation’ involves consideration of the purpose of the use, rather than the extent of the movement.” [my emphasis]

Doesn't this open another whole can of worms since, if you are leaving a boat moored up for 14 days at a time (or only moving it 26 times a year!) does that really constitute 'Navigation'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't this open another whole can of worms since, if you are leaving a boat moored up for 14 days at a time (or only moving it 26 times a year!) does that really constitute 'Navigation'?

 

It might be natural to think not, but it doesn’t open any such cans, because the 14 day at a time stay was arrived at by BW and approved of by Parliament after years of debate, as being a useful, albeit wholly artificial touchstone for determining the bottom-line minimum movement for what constituted “bona fide navigation”.

 

I might think a boat is scarcely in the course of “navigating” while moored up for so long at frequent intervals, but it doesn’t matter for so long as that is what Parliament accepted and laid down for the specific purpose of this legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The key element in the Davies judgment [an interpretation on which the High Court judge in Brown v CaRT had a differing perspective] was –

 

The phrase ‘used bona fide for navigation’ involves consideration of the purpose of the use, rather than the extent of the movement.” [my emphasis]

 

Exactly so.

Ignoring the usual arguments on here from the usual vocal "people" we still do not know what pattern the OP is making, and until that is known you can shout and scream as much as you like.

 

So to Boston, are you just going A - 18 miles - B - 18 miles - A every 14 days?

 

Ignoring the usual arguments on here from the usual vocal "people" we do not need to know what pattern the OP is making, and they will probably, as usual, shout and scream as much as they usually do.

So to Boston, ignore the crap, this really isn't the place to get a sensible answer. My suggestion would be to raise a complaint with CRT.

Edited by phill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that CRT go about this all wrong. There is legislation in place and there is an enforcement procedure but that doesn't mean it needs to be used in the way that they do. Surely the point of the legislation is to provide tools to CRT (or whichever body is charged with care of the system at the time) to ensure the smooth running of the system. Where someone is in breach of the letter or the spirit of the rules but is causing no problems to other users, what is the point of directing resources at pursuing them? In Tony Dunkley's case they've burnt through a pile of cash trying to prove a point and because he wouldn't wear it they've achieved nothing beyond spending that cash and looking vindictive and foolish.

 

It seems to me that where no harm is being done and no one being unduly inconvenienced money could be better spent on solving actual problems on the system and legal and enforcement action reserved for those cases where a problem is being caused.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that CRT go about this all wrong. There is legislation in place and there is an enforcement procedure but that doesn't mean it needs to be used in the way that they do. Surely the point of the legislation is to provide tools to CRT (or whichever body is charged with care of the system at the time) to ensure the smooth running of the system. Where someone is in breach of the letter or the spirit of the rules but is causing no problems to other users, what is the point of directing resources at pursuing them? In Tony Dunkley's case they've burnt through a pile of cash trying to prove a point and because he wouldn't wear it they've achieved nothing beyond spending that cash and looking vindictive and foolish.

 

It seems to me that where no harm is being done and no one being unduly inconvenienced money could be better spent on solving actual problems on the system and legal and enforcement action reserved for those cases where a problem is being caused.

What would happen if they didnt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.