Jump to content

Continual cruising


Boston

Featured Posts

 

No, not really Johnny, I thought your reply beneath comment. I know how to use a dictionary thanks, I asked you to point me to the place in the law or even in the guidelines that requires a progressive journey.

 

But you knew that. I expect you and your little friend one-L had a childish little giggle over that.

 

Missing the point. If they weren't making themselves obnoxious for no reason it wouldn't cost them anything. I see no reason to support these absurdities that waste their and everyone else's time. Look at Cotswoldman's experience. That doesn't fit your model.

 

Where the OP was (within 18 miles or 100 miles) they are still somewhere.

 

To turn it around are you happy to stamp your feet and demand CRT chases him up and down the Oxford canal to absolutely no effect?

If it's a charity with bugger-all money, why is it spending so much on these ineffectual and derisory processes?

So you will be taking your boat elsewhere to ensure that your licence fee doesn't fund them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting. It seems to me it's exactly the opposite. It seems to me to be CRT and its apologists that are continually rewriting the 1995 Act to gain what they believe to be their advantage. Even though experience is beginning to show it's anything but - it's your favourites, the marina moorers who are falling foul of a lot of the recent tinkering.

 

Aside: funny that your favoured pattern should be exactly the same as your pattern. Why do you think that might be?

 

The opponents of this, who in the main are just wanting to get on with their boating lives, find that all they have to fall back on is the bare minimum of the laws.

 

 

Now why do you think that two people who hold such opposing views should argue the same position?

 

 

To deal with your assertions about the debate behind the 1995 Act, all I can say is that your analysis is deeply flawed by its attempt at twisting the debate to fit your chosen stance. There have been many expositions as to exactly why you are wrong not least by Nigel Moore on this forum.

 

And of course you aren't trying to do exactly the same thing, but to continually criticise CRT?

 

Now I expect I'll get a personal insult from you, because that is what usually happens when someone disagrees with your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair CRT deserve criticism, they are pissing away what money they do have on completely ineffectual and immaterial matters. The case in this post is an example and Tony Dunkley's experience is an example of monumental proportions. Some might defend them, some might be positively seething with rage at the twin bogeymen CMers and licence avoiders but that won't help the system. CRT to my mind have completely skewed priorities and we're all going to lose as a result.

Edited by Sabcat
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And of course you aren't trying to do exactly the same thing, but to continually criticise CRT?

 

 

If you had read my post instead of leaping on it you would realise I was drawing comparison at the similarity in the opposing points of view, but you, when you have no coherent argument would rather take exception at my style instead - with some kind of weasel "I didn't insult him Miss"

Don't worry Rachael, You always know when Phill is on the ropes.....that's when the arguments stop and the drivel begins

 

Now there's an unholy alliance. "that's when the arguments stop and the drivel begins" - indeed Johnny - like your post here - it comments on the discussion exactly how?

 

Like with your recent pathetic spat with Carlt you don't know how to keep your mouth shut when you've nothing to say.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair CRT deserve criticism, they are pissing away what money they do have on completely ineffectual and immaterial matters. The case in this post is an example and Tony Dunkley's experience is an example of monumental proportions. Some might defend them, some might be positively seething with rage at the twin bogeymen CMers and licence avoiders but that won't help the system. CRT to my mind have completely skewed priorities and we're all going to lose as a result.

 

I agree constructive criticism preferably, They have certainly got it spectacularly wrong on at least a couple of occasions. It has certainly wasted a lot of money that is needed for the the systems support.

The problem comes when their failings are used to try to support a use of the system that breaks the spirit if not the actual letter of the rules.

This is not an answer that helps the situation at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find interesting about the endless discussions of the rules/guidance on CCing are these two points;

 

First

====

 

The law is vague, resting upon the boater having to "satisfy the board". It seems to be a matter of dispute as to whether that gives the board any right of interpretation.

 

Some claim that the board cannot expect anything other than strict observance of those words in the Act that admit no dispute as to their meaning, and that in consequence, whilst the Act requires Bona Fide Navigation, the mere fact that this is undefined means that the board cannot require anything in respect of the Bona fide element for satisfaction

 

Others (me included) contend that in requiring that the board be satisfied, the Act allows the board to determine what is required (subject of course to legal challenge).

 

Second

======

 

Given a vague law, and endless arguing as to meaning and intent, there appears to be a lack of a level playing field.

 

Those who would neuter the powers to regulate anything feel that they can introduce anything that was ever discussed that is to their advantage, and claim it as sacrosanct, but their opponents are to have nothing but the bare minimum of powers that it can be reduced to.

 

 

Let us consider the BW Act 1995, and the reasoning behind the relevant powers.

 

 

BW sought, originally, to require every boat to have a home mooring. Its ostensible reasoning being that an uncontrolled right for boaters to simply nab a bit of towpath for themselves was no way to run a canal system, and would lead to the canals being an unattractive destination for leisure (as opposed to residential) users. It may well be that they had an eye to the income possibilities, but the presence of an ulterior motive doesn't negate the presence of a legitimate purpose.

 

Clearly that was opposed by those who travel the canals, and for whom having a home mooring was a nonsense. They were travelling and couldn't actually make use of a home mooring.

 

Thus the concept of the CCer was born. A CCer was a boater who needs no home mooring, because he is moving on.

 

Over time, boaters have declared themselves CCer with a clear intent, not of travelling far and wide, but of paying out no mooring fees, and finding the limit of what they can do and remain CCers.

 

In arguing for an exemption for those who had no use for a home mooring because they were travelling, did those who did so represent that some of those travellers were actually moving over a distance that they could easily travel in a couple of days by canal?

 

My view is that they didn't.

 

The CCing element of the 1995 Act is there for the benefit of those who couldn't use a home mooring if the obtained one, not those whose use of the canals in a very limited range would be accommodated just as well on a home mooring.

Bingo I think you have it sir have a cigar icecream.gif

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, not really Johnny, I thought your reply beneath comment. I know how to use a dictionary thanks, I asked you to point me to the place in the law or even in the guidelines that requires a progressive journey.

 

But you knew that. I expect you and your little friend one-L had a childish little giggle over that.

 

Missing the point. If they weren't making themselves obnoxious for no reason it wouldn't cost them anything. I see no reason to support these absurdities that waste their and everyone else's time. Look at Cotswoldman's experience. That doesn't fit your model.

 

Where the OP was (within 18 miles or 100 miles) they are still somewhere.

 

To turn it around are you happy to stamp your feet and demand CRT chases him up and down the Oxford canal to absolutely no effect?

If it's a charity with bugger-all money, why is it spending so much on these ineffectual and derisory processes?

Because if it didnt the whole of the cut would be a boat park with nobody paying and then one day you would realize that you cant move your boat. In the distant future I want go constant cruising and the only way to do that is if everyone plays the game and moves properly ie start at one end of the cut and finish at the other end in a few years or so captain.gif

 

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any figures to show how many people have had their boat removed by CRT for not CCing?

I've seen several clearly abandoned boats pulled out and guess they come under not having a licence rather than not moving.

 

All boats removed by C&RT are removed for not having a licence.

 

The process is that C&RT revoke your licence for not complying with the licence conditions, then remove your boat from their waters because you dont have a licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any figures to show how many people have had their boat removed by CRT for not CCing?

I've seen several clearly abandoned boats pulled out and guess they come under not having a licence rather than not moving.

 

There are none.

 

What happens is the license is revoked or renewal refused because the board is not satisfied the boat is being used bona fide for navigation throughou the whole term of the license THEN the boat is hooked out for no license.

 

So you are asking the wrong question. You need to be asking CRT how many boats have had their license rescinded or refused for failing to "satisfy the board"...

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that so would they keep a record as to how many boats have their licence refused for not complying as against those that just don't renew their licence for whatever reason? Or would they all be lumped together. Just curious as to if CRT see none compliance as a huge problem .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North.

 

 

You do realise that by making the above statement on a public forum you have admitted that you are not cruising in accordance with the law, you fall foul of the "bonafide for navigation" part, as your intent is to stay near your work.

That is a similar argument that Davies put forward in his case and he lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least Boston is moving tackle the non movers and unlicenced first then move onto the short distance boaters.

It would be interesting to know a job description for these patrollers like are they reporting the trees taking root between the towpath and canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are in fact only navigating an 18 mile stretch of water I would guess that it is very hard to describe that as progressing round the system

 

There is simply no such requirement, so this comment is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that by making the above statement on a public forum you have admitted that you are not cruising in accordance with the law, you fall foul of the "bonafide for navigation" part, as your intent is to stay near your work.

That is a similar argument that Davies put forward in his case and he lost.

 

Careful now saying things like that or you'll have half the forum on your back.

 

Even though you are right.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise that by making the above statement on a public forum you have admitted that you are not cruising in accordance with the law, you fall foul of the "bonafide for navigation" part, as your intent is to stay near your work.

That is a similar argument that Davies put forward in his case and he lost.

 

Although the odd thing here, (perhaps!) is that a CRT enforcement person has actually told him he needs to move 18 miles. They have, I suspect, no good reason for citing 18 miles, but provided OP does that, and can prove they are, then presumably they have got past the "satisfy the board" bit that Dave keeps coming up with, because that is what "the board" says they need to be doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well at least Boston is moving tackle the non movers and unlicenced first then move onto the short distance boaters.

It would be interesting to know a job description for these patrollers like are they reporting the trees taking root between the towpath and canal.

 

How do you know the non-movers are not being tackled? They may have all come to individual negotiated arrangements with CRT to stay put. But we just don't know.

 

To prevent resentment such as expressed by the OP about the "blue boat" moored at Pigeon's Lock since the dawn of time, it would be an idea if CRT issued something like the "POLICE AWARE" stickers that get attached to abandoned/crashed cars to prevent a continuous stream of calls from the public about them. Issuing a "CRT AWARE" sticker to display instead of a Mooring License and/or Boat License would stop the suspicion and resentment without giving anything away.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is simply no such requirement, so this comment is irrelevant.

 

I understood A-B-A was not allowed A-B-C-D was the reccomended way to move this in fact is progressing a system

Edited by John V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Although the odd thing here, (perhaps!) is that a CRT enforcement person has actually told him he needs to move 18 miles. They have, I suspect, no good reason for citing 18 miles, but provided OP does that, and can prove they are, then presumably they have got past the "satisfy the board" bit that Dave keeps coming up with, because that is what "the board" says they need to be doing?

Unfortunately, it is not the CRT Board that have mentioned a distance to the OP, but (only) an Enforcement Occifer, whose verbal instruction may, or may not, be sufficient to satisfy the CRT Board should the issue progress further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it is not the CRT Board that have mentioned a distance to the OP, but (only) an Enforcement Occifer, whose verbal instruction may, or may not, be sufficient to satisfy the CRT Board should the issue progress further.

 

I think it is reasonable for the OP to expect an Enforcement Officer to know the official policy on 'how far is enough'

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.