Continual cruising

[Paul C]

Exactly - its a poor example to compare to. There is little/no value of extracting 4 words from the legislation which relates to CRT waters and applying it to a different type of waterway under different regulations to create a "comparison".

[Tony Dunkley]

Hmm just to muddy the waters slightly, the Mersey Ferry would have a ' home mooring" when she remained overnight when not working........but as its not on CaRT waters its an odd point to discuss over!

 

I believe that vessels based on other Navigation Authority waters have on occasions been subject to the attention of C&RT's Enforcement Orifices, and I've heard a rumour that C&RT are considering taking action against the Mersey Ferries for not 'cruising' the requisite amount when away from their home moorings.

Exactly - its a poor example to compare to. There is little/no value of extracting 4 words from the legislation which relates to CRT waters and applying it to a different type of waterway under different regulations to create a "comparison".

 

I hope you're going to write to Judge Halbert at Chester and tell him so.

[Guest]

I think the OP is gonna be totally bemused by the size this thread has grown to, should they ever sign in again to check it.

 

MtB

I doubt it.

 

Start any thread titled as so or similar and you are virtually guaranteed to get one that expands into multiple pages whilst all the old predjidices, mis information, and sometimes down right rubbish gets hashed, rehashed and rehashed yet again.

Edited October 5, 2014 by The Dog House

[Paul C]

 

I hope you're going to write to Judge Halbert at Chester and tell him so.

 

Tongue-in-cheek point taken, but only if I could decipher the cryptic comment - give us a clue which case this relates to please!

[cotswoldsman]

Exactly - its a poor example to compare to. There is little/no value of extracting 4 words from the legislation which relates to CRT waters and applying it to a different type of waterway under different regulations to create a "comparison".

Sorry I know that even though I went to some of the best schools my education is lacking. So what you are saying is the words changing their meaning depending what waterway you are on? So for example how many times is "bona fide" listed in the Oxford Dictionary?

[Dharl]

A slightly better comparison would be with a CaRT work boat like a dredger........however suspect they are not CC!

[cotswoldsman]

Hmm just to muddy the waters slightly, the Mersey Ferry would have a ' home mooring" when she remained overnight when not working........but as its not on CaRT waters its an odd point to discuss over!

Would it where are they registered. When I was working for a major shipping line the company was British and all the ships were registered in Liberia where are the ferries registered and do they return to there place of registration every night?

Oh and the ships never went anywhere near Liberia we even bought one that was registered in Switzerland

A slightly better comparison would be with a CaRT work boat like a dredger........however suspect they are not CC!

Going by the dredging that happens would think they are over stayers

[Dharl]

Port of registration would / could be different to a " home mooring". My current ship is registered in Panama, however we might only pass there once a year or twice a year ( Canal Transit) and very rarely actually call in the port itself.

 

I suspect the Mersey Ferry flys the " red duster" and is registered in Liverpool. However my point is it is a vessel operating in Waters which are controlled by Port of Liverpool Authority and is registered under the MCA so has no relevance in a discussion on Continuous Cruiser vs Boat with a Home Mooring on the inland waters.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Dharl

[cotswoldsman]

Port of registration would / could be different to a " home mooring". My current ship is registered in Panama, however we might only pass there once a year.

 

I suspect the Mersey Ferry flys the " red duster" and is registered in Liverpool. However my point is it is a vessel operating in Waters which are controlled by Port of Liverpool Authority and is registered under the MCA so has no relevance in a discussion on Continuous Cruiser vs Boat with a Home Mooring on the inland waters.

Again the issue is being confused unless the words "bona fide" change meaning for every waterway

Port of registration would / could be different to a " home mooring". My current ship is registered in Panama, however we might only pass there once a year.

 

I suspect the Mersey Ferry flys the " red duster" and is registered in Liverpool. However my point is it is a vessel operating in Waters which are controlled by Port of Liverpool Authority and is registered under the MCA so has no relevance in a discussion on Continuous Cruiser vs Boat with a Home Mooring on the inland waters.

Again the issue is being confused unless the words "bona fide" change meaning for every waterway

[Dharl]

John,

 

It doesn't matter if there is bona fida navigation or not, ( though Crossing the Mersey River just there certainly is a skill of Seamanship and Navigation!) this ferry does not use CaRT waters and so has no merit in the discussion! We might as well be comparing the Dover-Calis ferry to the OP situation! Pointless

 

David

[Paul C]

Sorry I know that even though I went to some of the best schools my education is lacking. So what you are saying is the words changing their meaning depending what waterway you are on? So for example how many times is "bona fide" listed in the Oxford Dictionary?

 

The words have the same meaning in isolation but a 4 word phrase can't be extracted from the 55 words of the relevant section of legislation and be used in a meaningful comparison because the other words are important and must also be considered.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Tongue-in-cheek point taken, but only if I could decipher the cryptic comment - give us a clue which case this relates to please!

 

It was C&RT v Geoff Mayers. The Judge himself used the example of the Mersey Ferries make the point that 'bona fide navigation' is very definitely not dependent on distance travelled.

[Dharl]

It was C&RT v Geoff Mayers. The Judge himself used the example of the Mersey Ferries make the point that 'bona fide navigation' is very definitely not dependent on distance travelled.

I now understand why Mersey Ferry has been brought into the discussion. Still seems an odd comparison in this particular case though! :-)

[cotswoldsman]

 

It was C&RT v Geoff Mayers. The Judge himself used the example of the Mersey Ferries make the point that 'bona fide navigation' is very definitely not dependent on distance travelled.

Sorry I thought people realised why I was using Mersey Ferry bit silly of me I guess

[Alan de Enfield]

Not a 'Gerry & The Pacemakers' fan then ?

[Paul C]

 

It was C&RT v Geoff Mayers. The Judge himself used the example of the Mersey Ferries make the point that 'bona fide navigation' is very definitely not dependent on distance travelled.

 

I was 90% sure but just wanted to confirm. Agreed, the "bona fide for navigation" isn't the issue here (or in most cases, in fact), the bit that's the issue is "without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days".

[Tony Dunkley]

I now understand why Mersey Ferry has been brought into the discussion. Still seems an odd comparison in this particular case though! :-)

 

The Judge used the Mersey Ferry example to illustrate the fallacy in C&RT's assertion that 'bona fide navigation' can be determined on the basis of distance travelled.

[Alf Roberts]

 

I was 90% sure but just wanted to confirm. Agreed, the "bona fide for navigation" isn't the issue here (or in most cases, in fact), the bit that's the issue is "without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days".

 

The words have the same meaning in isolation but a 4 word phrase can't be extracted from the 55 words of the relevant section of legislation and be used in a meaningful comparison because the other words are important and must also be considered.

But 12 can? If it suits your position.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I was 90% sure but just wanted to confirm. Agreed, the "bona fide for navigation" isn't the issue here (or in most cases, in fact), the bit that's the issue is "without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days".

 

Are you sure about that? The OP said C&RT wanted the photos to prove she had moved the required distance.

[Paul C]

But 12 can? If it suits your position.

 

I'm not saying its only those 12 words I've highlighted which need to be considered - which is why in my original post quoting the legislation, I quoted the entire section.

 

 

Are you sure about that? The OP said C&RT wanted the photos to prove she had moved the required distance.

 

I'd say the two issues to do with the OP's situation is 1) that it is the OP's responsibility to satisfy the board (not the other way round) (first 9 words) and the movement requirement (the highlighted bit). I don't think we're debating in this thread, for example, whether the OP has exceptional circumstances such as illness etc which she can liase with CRT about and gain permission to stay longer than 14 days. Or whether it relates to a 2nd boat; or that even though she's made the application for the licence, someone else other than her is responsible for the cruising.

[NBDensie]

The question is is it "Bona Fide Navigation" and that as they say is the question no one except a Judge can answer. Is the Mersey Ferry that just covers a 2 mile stretch of river every day backwards and forwards "Bona Fide Navagation"?

 

 

Clearly the ferry is undertaking bona fide navigation as the sole purpose of it crossing the Mersey is to travel from one side to the other and can be reasonably shown to be the case. This seems to me quite different from a bridge hopper moving two miles up and down the cut as his/her purpose is probably not to enjoy the regular journey but rather to avoid having to move further as they have commitments which requires them to remain close to a particular location. "bona fide navigation" is primarily a question of motive rather than distance.

 

Motive is a little difficult to prove, but that is a problem also faced in criminal cases where motive is also important. Lack of motive for bona fide navigation can be indicated by the circumstances, one of which is distance. Others could be regular employment, children at school and more generally the inability of a boater to provide a convincing alternative purpose for the navigation.

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

Clearly the ferry is undertaking bona fide navigation as the sole purpose of it crossing the Mersey is to travel from one side to the other and can be reasonably shown to be the case. This seems to me quite different from a bridge hopper moving two miles up and down the cut as his/her purpose is probably not to enjoy the regular journey but rather to avoid having to move further as they have commitments which requires them to remain close to a particular location. "bona fide navigation" is primarily a question of motive rather than distance.

 

Motive is a little difficult to prove, but that is a problem also faced in criminal cases where motive is also important. Lack of motive for bona fide navigation can be indicated by the circumstances, one of which is distance. Others could be regular employment, children at school and more generally the inability of a boater to provide a convincing alternative purpose for the navigation.

Most of the people I know in your latter category thoroughly enjoy the boating so I'm afraid your test fails at the first hurdle even though I realise it is the test of choice for many in this debate.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I'm not saying its only those 12 words I've highlighted which need to be considered - which is why in my original post quoting the legislation, I quoted the entire section.

 

 

I'd say the two issues to do with the OP's situation is 1) that it is the OP's responsibility to satisfy the board (not the other way round) (first 9 words) and the movement requirement (the highlighted bit). I don't think we're debating in this thread, for example, whether the OP has exceptional circumstances such as illness etc which she can liase with CRT about and gain permission to stay longer than 14 days. Or whether it relates to a 2nd boat; or that even though she's made the application for the licence, someone else other than her is responsible for the cruising.

 

The wording of the OP is not particularly clear on exactly what C&RT do want the photos for. Perhaps their request to Boston was badly or ambiguously worded, possibly for the reasons I gave in Post 342 on this thread . . . we really haven't got enough information to get a clear idea of what the issues are.

Edited October 5, 2014 by tony dunkley

[jenlyn]

The whole matter is a bit of a joke really. CRT are beginning to look like rank amateurs with all of this. They really need to get their act together on collecting data in a way that's reliable, and gives accurate output. Watching their antics can be funny, but ultimately they are more often than not making pillocks of themselves.

Asking folk to provide pictures to substantiate their claims is the thin end of the wedge. It's all becoming a bit silly.

[Naughty Cal]

The whole matter is a bit of a joke really. CRT are beginning to look like rank amateurs with all of this. They really need to get their act together on collecting data in a way that's reliable, and gives accurate output. Watching their antics can be funny, but ultimately they are more often than not making pillocks of themselves.

Asking folk to provide pictures to substantiate their claims is the thin end of the wedge. It's all becoming a bit silly.

Is it really when the onus is on the licence holder to prove their compliance?