Why do we need a law?

[boathunter]

I would say that was very reasonably argued well done that man can't give greenie as on phone

Thank you. I have a lot of respect for you from reading your posts, but not a lot of respect for greenies which sound a bit too like bogies to me. In the same way MIL (mother in law) is a little too close for comfort to MILF.

[Graham Davis]

If CRT ever succeeds in changing the law it will end up all in their favour, and we will be stuffed. CC'ing will probably be made very expensive, or outright banned. I would guess some kind of extra cost would creep in somewhere, it usually does. Probably best not to give them ideas.

 

So whose favour should it be? Which one of the numerous factions do you think should take precedent?

[sueb]

When the law was made there was no idea that parts of the canal system would become a linear housing estate.

Another problem is why should one person pay for on line moorings whilst their neighbour stays for weeks/months/years without paying a penny.

[cotswoldsman]

Thank you. I have a lot of respect for you from reading your posts, but not a lot of respect for greenies which sound a bit too like bogies to me. In the same way MIL (mother in law) is a little too close for comfort to MILF.

Hehe would not want to give you a bogie

[Midnight Rider]

 

Parlaimentary time is a "valuable" thing, and there would need to be a convincing argument to allow for the relevant parlaimentary time for a new/updated law to be drafted, consulted upon, debated, passed through Parlaiment etc. I believe BW/CRT have already said they don't want to change the law - and they're probably the greatest/most influential body which could ask for a change. Other groups who'd want a change probably don't have sufficient momentum to be able to get the parlaimentary time.

 

 

My bold. Not at the moment it's not. The buggers are working a couple of days a week at Westminster & this will continue until after the General Election.

[cotswoldsman]

When the law was made there was no idea that parts of the canal system would become a linear housing estate.

 

 

But but but CRT get a good income from online moorings

[mrsmelly]

I would say that was very reasonably argued well done that man can't give greenie as on phone

 

 

But but but Tim my licence does not mention the words continuous

 

Oh and nice to see you

 

Hi John

 

You and I both know that cmers are just that, no more no less How are you keeping/

[cotswoldsman]

 

Hi John

 

You and I both know that cmers are just that, no more no less How are you keeping/

not keeping to great at present but hey next week is another week

[GoodGurl]

When the law was made there was no idea that parts of the canal system would become a linear housing estate.

Another problem is why should one person pay for on line moorings whilst their neighbour stays for weeks/months/years without paying a penny.

without turning this thread into a CC bashing, the rules are the rules and should be adhered to.

[cotswoldsman]

without turning this thread into a CC bashing, the rules are the rules and should be adhered to.

That's it sorted then

[Alf Roberts]

.... how the phrase "or be making a continuousn journey...etc." became part of the Act.

 

 

you will, of course, have a reference for that statement David?

[Wanted]

Why do we need a law?

 

We don't, but the thought of one gives us enough ammo to disagree and fall out with each other so that nobody notices the infrastructure and facilities crumbling!

[GoodGurl]

Why do we need a law?

 

We don't, but the thought of one gives us enough ammo to disagree and fall out with each other so that nobody notices the infrastructure and facilities crumbling!

[jenlyn]

Why do we need a law?

We don't, but the thought of one gives us enough ammo to disagree and fall out with each other so that nobody notices the infrastructure and facilities crumbling!

Exactly. Greenie.

One day, others may notice as well, though it may end up being to late.

[cotswoldsman]

Why do we need a law?

 

We don't, but the thought of one gives us enough ammo to disagree and fall out with each other so that nobody notices the infrastructure and facilities crumbling!

Well said have a bogie

[Wanted]

T'would be hell of a day if everyone united. Maybe it needs to fall on its arse to remind the likes of the IWA what there use actually is. Sad it has to be like that though.

[Tony Dunkley]

without turning this thread into a CC bashing, the rules are the rules and should be adhered to.

 

If the 'rules' that you are referring to are the ones made by Parliament within all the Acts relevant to the canals and navigable rivers of this country then I totally agree with what you say, but it must apply equally to C&RT as well as to the users of the waterways. As things stand now C&RT believe they can disregard at will any provisions within those Acts which don't happen to suit them.

[bassplayer]

Why do we need a law?

 

We don't, but the thought of one gives us enough ammo to disagree and fall out with each other so that nobody notices the infrastructure and facilities crumbling!

Yes, good post. Keep the masses occupied with crap so they don't notice the elephant in the room.

 

Of course the law is less than half the story. You need enough evidence to prove the rules are being broken in the first place. Then ultimately someone has to approve the cost of court action. Then it depends what judge you get and what side of bed they got out of.

 

There are bigger crimes than not moving a boat!

[GoodGurl]

 

If the 'rules' that you are referring to are the ones made by Parliament within all the Acts relevant to the canals and navigable rivers of this country then I totally agree with what you say, but it must apply equally to C&RT as well as to the users of the waterways. As things stand now C&RT believe they can disregard at will any provisions within those Acts which don't happen to suit them.

i was referring to the original rules, not the rules they have added/twisted and hoped to go un-noticed ie overstaying charges.

[Southern Star]

Why do we need a law?

 

We don't, but the thought of one gives us enough ammo to disagree and fall out with each other so that nobody notices the infrastructure and facilities crumbling!

Can you think of any reason why the infrastructure and facilities might be under such enormous pressure at the moment compared to, say, ten years ago?

[valrene9600]

A lot of interesting views that have really got me thinking. I am glad I started this as it has made me look from different angles.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Can you think of any reason why the infrastructure and facilities might be under such enormous pressure at the moment compared to, say, ten years ago?

In 2003/04 Defra grant was £82 millions. In 2013/14 in was £39 million.

 

Up to 2003/04 government was happy to give grant to reduce its backlog of maintenance. However, Hales/Evans were convinced that they could both reduce that maintenance backlog over time whilst reducing dependance on government grant.

 

In 2009 they finally admitted that it would not work and told government that they had a £200m backlog which would grow unless grant was increased. CaRT will not say what the backlog is now but I estimate it at about £400m.

 

 

[Tom Richmond]

Hold on....

 

The country needs laws, because we live in a democracy and that is how we run the place.

 

As far as I am aware the only law in question is the 1995 act (or whatever) which states that a boat must have a home mooring or be involved in a bona fide navigation. Or is there another (potential) law being questioned here?

 

C&RT do make up rules. Most people do stick to them. Some people will always try to bend the rules (or just break them outright), and so we will be bought back to the law, which underwrites the rule...

 

It is not a case of needing or not needing a law. We have laws, it is a case of how we work within that framework. While I agree with the sentiment of the OP, I think that the actual question is flawed.

[Tony Dunkley]

i was referring to the original rules, not the rules they have added/twisted and hoped to go un-noticed ie overstaying charges.

 

In truth many of the original rules in the form of the Enabling Acts that authorized the construction of the canals are still on the Statute books and effective today. C&RT want to keep that as quiet as possible, of course, while continuing to pretend that amendments arising from subsequent legislation have conferred upon them powers that they simply don't have.

[Tony Dunkley]

Hold on....

 

The country needs laws, because we live in a democracy and that is how we run the place.

 

As far as I am aware the only law in question is the 1995 act (or whatever) which states that a boat must have a home mooring or be involved in a bona fide navigation. Or is there another (potential) law being questioned here?

 

C&RT do make up rules. Most people do stick to them. Some people will always try to bend the rules (or just break them outright), and so we will be bought back to the law, which underwrites the rule...

 

It is not a case of needing or not needing a law. We have laws, it is a case of how we work within that framework. While I agree with the sentiment of the OP, I think that the actual question is flawed.

 

They certainly do, frequently in spite of the law though, rather than underwritten by it.