CRT "Functional Location" Codes (like GU-164-003, for example).

[mayalld]

And there, Mr Todd, we are in total agreement.

 

my proof, incidentally, was a corollary of Cantor's uncountability proof and very well founded (speaking mathematically)

 

Speaking legally however;

 

"Mr Justice Lewis also observed that “Place” could be as small as an individual boat length, by stating that the mooring or other “place” to keep a boat required by s.17(3)©(i) has the same meaning as the “place” used in s.17(3)©(ii)."

 

Which rather proves what I said.

 

If we take these judicial musings (and they are not IIRC a judgement, but things the Judge said that are outwith any judgement handed down), the Judge has set a lower limit for the size of a "place" as it applies to any boat. The place cannot be smaller than the boat.

 

Accepting that these remarks merely define the lower limit of what could be argued to be a place, rather than a decision that this was indeed a place, we would have a situation where there was indeed an infinite number of places, of a determinate size, for every boat, and those places overlapped.

 

In such a scenario, a move of less than the length of the boat would be to a new place, BUT remaining partly in the original place, such that the boat had "remained in the same place"

[Alan de Enfield]

From the irelevant, and out of context. drivel being discussed - it may as well be 'Plaice'

 

I'm sure that when C&RT are looking at defining place (irrspective of their legal right to do so) they are unlikely to be getting down to the sub-atomic level to define the 'edges' between place A and place B.

[jenlyn]

Which rather proves what I said.

 

If we take these judicial musings (and they are not IIRC a judgement, but things the Judge said that are outwith any judgement handed down), the Judge has set a lower limit for the size of a "place" as it applies to any boat. The place cannot be smaller than the boat.

 

Accepting that these remarks merely define the lower limit of what could be argued to be a place, rather than a decision that this was indeed a place, we would have a situation where there was indeed an infinite number of places, of a determinate size, for every boat, and those places overlapped.

 

In such a scenario, a move of less than the length of the boat would be to a new place, BUT remaining partly in the original place, such that the boat had "remained in the same place"

I still cannot see a definition, or come to that, mention of boundaries in the legislation. Have you wandered off a bit?

[Alf Roberts]

Which rather proves what I said.

 

If we take these judicial musings (and they are not IIRC a judgement, but things the Judge said that are outwith any judgement handed down), the Judge has set a lower limit for the size of a "place" as it applies to any boat. The place cannot be smaller than the boat.

 

Accepting that these remarks merely define the lower limit of what could be argued to be a place, rather than a decision that this was indeed a place, we would have a situation where there was indeed an infinite number of places, of a determinate size, for every boat, and those places overlapped.

 

In such a scenario, a move of less than the length of the boat would be to a new place, BUT remaining partly in the original place, such that the boat had "remained in the same place"

I would suggest Mr Justice Lewis rather contradicts your assertion.

 

If this theoretical boat is moored in a place, within the limits A and B, and then moves off a distance (greater than its length) to place C, it has moved (by Mr Justice Lewis) to another place (or plaice if you prefer Alan de Enfield's spelling). If it subsequently moves back to the original plaice but overlaps A then it both 1, is in a different plaice and 2, negates any boundary for our original plaice.

[Naughty Cal]

Is it not all a bit irrelevant what you, I, Alf, Jenyln or anyone else on here sees as the definition of a place?

[Alf Roberts]

I'm sure that when C&RT are looking at defining place (irrspective of their legal right to do so) they are unlikely to be getting down to the sub-atomic level to define the 'edges' between place A and place B.

If you support CRT breaking the law, how is it you don't support boaters breaking the law also?

[Naughty Cal]

If you support CRT breaking the law, how is it you don't support boaters breaking the law also?

Where are CRT breaking the law?

[Alan de Enfield]

If you support CRT breaking the law, how is it you don't support boaters breaking the law also?

 

1) Which law are C&RT breaking by looking at maps and marking boundaries ?

2) What evidence do you have that I don't ?

[Paul C]

And there, Mr Todd, we are in total agreement.

 

my proof, incidentally, was a corollary of Cantor's uncountability proof and very well founded (speaking mathematically)

 

Speaking legally however;

 

"Mr Justice Lewis also observed that “Place” could be as small as an individual boat length, by stating that the mooring or other “place” to keep a boat required by s.17(3)©(i) has the same meaning as the “place” used in s.17(3)©(ii)."

 

What case did Mr Justice Lewis rule on? Please provide a link.

I still cannot see a definition, or come to that, mention of boundaries in the legislation. Have you wandered off a bit?

 

Can you see the mention of "place" in the legislation?

[jenlyn]

 

Can you see the mention of "place" in the legislation?

Now your being stupid. Doing the same dance as mayall to get out of the pit you have both dug.

[mayalld]

I still cannot see a definition, or come to that, mention of boundaries in the legislation. Have you wandered off a bit?

 

Nope.

 

There is no need for them to be mentioned.

 

There is no definition of "Place" that you doesn't include the concept of a boundary which defines the point at which that place ends. The concept of a boundary is implicit.

[Paul C]

Now your being stupid. Doing the same dance as mayall to get out of the pit you have both dug.

 

Its a closed question - and not too complicated - either you can see for yourself that the word "place" IS in the relevant legislation, or you've missed it. Its there in black and white, and you KNOW the relevant legislation is British Waterways Act 1995, section 17 (3) © (ii).

 

If you want to argue upon simple issues such as denying a word is in the relevant legislation (link here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted) and make personal insults rather than have a mature debate on the topic, then of course that's your choice but it weakens your position a lot.

[Alf Roberts]

What case did Mr Justice Lewis rule on? Please provide a link.

 

Go google it.

 

He might not have made case law but his opinion carries a whole lot more weight than yours.

[jenlyn]

Its a closed question - and not too complicated - either you can see for yourself that the word "place" IS in the relevant legislation, or you've missed it. Its there in black and white, and you KNOW the relevant legislation is British Waterways Act 1995, section 17 (3) © (ii).

 

If you want to argue upon simple issues such as denying a word is in the relevant legislation (link here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted) and make personal insults rather than have a mature debate on the topic, then of course that's your choice but it weakens your position a lot.

You were asked specifically to link to boundaries in the legislation. You couldn't, so you then attempt distraction by going into another load of baloney about place. Rolling out the same age old bumph as mayall. Your not debating. Get real.

[Paul C]

Okay, explain how you can have "places" but "place boundaries" do not exist on a linear canal or river.

[Alf Roberts]

Okay, explain how you can have "places" but "place boundaries" do not exist on a linear canal or river.

Easy. You are now (exactly now) in a place. Get up, move 3 feet*. you're in another place.

 

Now point to the boundary. (Clue: you can't)

 

 

* with respect to Mr Justice Lewia, I am assuming you are less than 3 feet wide.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[jenlyn]

Its a closed question - and not too complicated - either you can see for yourself that the word "place" IS in the relevant legislation, or you've missed it. Its there in black and white, and you KNOW the relevant legislation is British Waterways Act 1995, section 17 (3) © (ii).

 

If you want to argue upon simple issues such as denying a word is in the relevant legislation (link here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted) and make personal insults rather than have a mature debate on the topic, then of course that's your choice but it weakens your position a lot.

Its a closed question - and not too complicated - either you can see for yourself that the word "place" IS in the relevant legislation, or you've missed it. Its there in black and white, and you KNOW the relevant legislation is British Waterways Act 1995, section 17 (3) © (ii).

 

If you want to argue upon simple issues such as denying a word is in the relevant legislation (link here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/section/17/enacted) and make personal insults rather than have a mature debate on the topic, then of course that's your choice but it weakens your position a lot.

[Paul C]

you're in another place.

 

 

 

No you're not!

 

No worries, if you can't actually argue constructively on the issues but choose to make daft personal insults.

[Naughty Cal]

[jenlyn]

No you're not!

 

No worries, if you can't actually argue constructively on the issues but choose to make daft personal insults.

Well to be honest, you bring it on yourself. The easy answer was " no, there is no specific mention of boundary in the legislation", but you chose to dig in. (shrugs)

 

The problem as I see it, yourself, mayall and CRT think that if you interpret, and make the rules more difficult, you will get people to move.

The fact is however, you don't need to interpret the legislation to make people move, you have to action the movement. Which I might add is covered by the legislation already. At this stage of the game, it matters not "how far" they move, as long as they move every 14 days, to another place.

 

There are a small number who obviously do not move even under current legislation, how do you propose to move them with new guidance?

Edited November 20, 2014 by jenlyn

[mayalld]

Go google it.

 

He might not have made case law but his opinion carries a whole lot more weight than yours.

 

He didn't actually offer it as an opinion though did he?

 

He merely opined that this was the absolute lower limit that was even arguable.

[jenlyn]

He didn't actually offer it as an opinion though did he?

 

He merely opined that this was the absolute lower limit that was even arguable.

He stated it, offered it, suggested it, mentioned it, perhaps it was his view, or god forbid his "opinion".

[Paul C]

He stated it, offered it, suggested it, mentioned it, perhaps it was his view, or god forbid his "opinion".

 

But it didn't make it even to the end of a trial which could be ruled upon, therefore is almost meaningless.

 

. At this stage of the game, it matters not "how far" they move, as long as they move every 14 days, to another place.

 

 

 

Of course it matters how far they moved.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

Of course it matters how far they moved.

Why?

[jenlyn]

But it didn't make it even to the end of a trial which could be ruled upon, therefore is almost meaningless.

 

 

 

Of course it matters how far they moved.

And there lies your problem. You do not understand the issue, so you cannot give an answer.

It's simple to sound off on here, however, it's slightly more difficult sitting around a table attempting to find answers.