Why do we need a law?

[Tony Dunkley]

So much talk of C/cruiser rules and laws or lack of them plus I remember mention of the BW act of whatever year.

My question is why does CRT need a law re these C/C rules. At the moment all you get is what is the lawful definition of this and that rule, you know what comes up and personally I`m sick of it all. Everyone knows the basics.

CRT runs the waterways so why can`t they just make the rules issue them to each boater and let that be the end of it.

 

Take car tax just as an example, try to read the rules/terms & conditions of your car being on the road in a way to suit yourself and see how far you get. Try parking in a restricted place and see how long you get away with it.

 

So just to be clear, not interested in any ones interpretations of present wording I just want to know why CRT can`t just say what their rules are and everyone accept or get out of town. No more court battles.

 

Now if there is some ancient stuff written in stone causing problems can anyone tell me why CRT can`t get their rules set in stone also.

Why has all this dragged on through BW and now CRT.?

 

 

 

I think that's a very good comparison to make . . . the rules/laws and the penalties for breaking them should follow similar lines. Problem is they don't and the powers that be within C&RT are convinced, and trying also to convince the entirety of the boat using public, that they can dream up laws, rules and penalties as they go along and as it suits them, however inappropriate, unreasonable, disproportionate or unwarranted they may be.

[GoodGurl]

but the difference between CRT and the GOV is the GOV make money out of fines.

[Tony Dunkley]

but the difference between CRT and the GOV is the GOV make money out of fines.

 

 

Very true, C&RT's taste and love for inappropriate and misdirected litigation costs us all dearly.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

General comment not aimed at anyone in particular...

 

I think it's sad that some people's lives are so unfullfilling that they have nothing better to do than try to interfere with the way other people live theirs.

 

The law is quite clear but if you don't like it, I suggest you try to get elected, then try and change it. If you don't think it's clear I suggest that's because it doesn't suit your outlook, but as it does suit many people's, perhaps your outlook is at fault rather than the law.

 

There are lots of laws I don't like. Laws that actually impact on me. I personally think alcohol should be illegal just as other drugs are, but I put up with drunken people because that's what they like and it's legal. Perhaps it's legal because law makers didn't invisage town and city centres being out of control areas avoided by sober, reasonable people at the weekend?

 

That's the way of laws.

 

 

The 1995 act is clear to me, and I abide with it.

Some choose to question it's meanings, including CRT, and that's the problem. It could all quite easily be solved, but CRT choose not to do this, and so it will droll on, year in, year out.

For those of you who find the Act 'quite clear' can you then give me an exact, unequivocal definition of either what 'bona fide navigation' means or exactly what a 'place' is? if you can I will be astonished and if you cannot then the Act cannot be clear, can it?

Edited January 17, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Alf Roberts]

in legal terms 'bona fide for navigation' defines a boat that is not a houseboat ( or any other kind of non navigating structure like a pontoon ) and in the context of the Act 'place' is the place where a boat is left.

 

it's really quite simple if people would stop trying to bend it.

 

I trust you are suitably astonished.

 

(ps my definitions are those used by a judge, just in case you thought I made them up )

Edited January 17, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Wanderer Vagabond]

in legal terms 'bona fide for navigation' defines a boat that is not a houseboat ( or any other kind of non navigating structure like a pontoon ) and in the context of the Act 'place' is the place where a boat is left.

 

it's really quite simple if people would stop trying to bend it.

 

I trust you are suitably astonished.

 

(ps my definitions are those used by a judge, just in case you thought I made them up )

Since the term 'bona fide navigation' is contained within the Act, what part of the act (since this is the bit that people are saying is quite clear) defines what bona fide for navigation means. It's a shame really because Section 2 of Part 1 of the Act gives all sorts of helpful definitions, just not the one's we need.Could you also clarify which judge gave your definition since the only reference I was previously aware of was the one where the judge advised us what was NOT bona fide navigation.

 

Place within the Act reads,".. without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days.." so how big or small is a place? One boat length? two boat lengths? 10 boat lengths? a mile? any real idea????

Edited January 17, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Alf Roberts]

it was the judge in the judicial review of the mooring guidance. 'bona fide for navigation' is defined in the 1971 Act ( I think) and thus the 1995 uses it as an already defined term - as I say 'not a houseboat'.

 

'place' is not a measure of distance, it quite simply means the place where the boat is left. if you try to make it mean something else you get the confusion you seem to be labouring within.

[onionbargee]

The ground rules do need to change, because the use of the canal system is now totally different. Though I wouldn't want CRT to be driving that, because in my opinion their management style involves lying and money grabbing, over the needs of thousands of people living on their waters. You would have credit card operated locks if they had their way.

[jenlyn]

For those of you who find the Act 'quite clear' can you then give me an exact, unequivocal definition of either what 'bona fide navigation' means or exactly what a 'place' is? if you can I will be astonished and if you cannot then the Act cannot be clear, can it?

I'm not really interested in finding definition's for wording of the act.

As I have said before, many times, if someone is asking how far is far enough, perhaps they should be looking for a mooring.

On saying that, it's just my own personal opinion, and I recognise it's not my job, or any of my business what others do, it's CRT's job.

The sooner others get the same outlook, the quicker all the nonsense will stop.

 

Just a quick note to add.

Between 2009 - 2012, CRT relaxed their enforcement, to concentrate on licence evasion. I consequently watched the problem in the south east develop from this, in fact, I was already asking the then BW if they were happy with the situation they were developing.

I'm not complaining that they were concentrating on licence evasion, and I am not suggesting it was not half a dozen of one, and six of the other with boaters and BW both ignoring the obvious.

I do feel however, that the result of their actions at that time is not for me or other boat owners to clear up now.

Edited January 17, 2015 by jenlyn

[mark99]

Surely CART has rules, not laws?

Laws in this country can be created only by the government and the M.C.C.

I like it. LBW. Finger in the air. Get off the waterway.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

it was the judge in the judicial review of the mooring guidance. 'bona fide for navigation' is defined in the 1971 Act ( I think) and thus the 1995 uses it as an already defined term - as I say 'not a houseboat'.

 

'place' is not a measure of distance, it quite simply means the place where the boat is left. if you try to make it mean something else you get the confusion you seem to be labouring within.

Before helpfully coming forward with suggestions it may be pertinent to read the act you are quoting. Once again all that is says in the 1971 Act is,' "houseboat" ..... does not include any boat, barge,vessel or structure (a) which is bona fide used for navigation......." doesn't say what constitutes 'bona fide navigation'.

 

The 'confusion' concerning the definition of the term place is precisely what those who wish to take the P take fullest advantage of. To see what the smallest distance they can move to be able to say that they've not stayed in one 'place' for more than 14 days. Without a definiton of what a 'place' is the Act becomes meaningless. Since they have helpfully given lots of other definitions wonder why they left that one out, except to give expensive laywers something to argue about.

[jenlyn]

Before helpfully coming forward with suggestions it may be pertinent to read the act you are quoting. Once again all that is says in the 1971 Act is,' "houseboat" ..... does not include any boat, barge,vessel or structure (a) which is bona fide used for navigation......." doesn't say what constitutes 'bona fide navigation'.

 

The 'confusion' concerning the definition of the term place is precisely what those who wish to take the P take fullest advantage of. To see what the smallest distance they can move to be able to say that they've not stayed in one 'place' for more than 14 days. Without a definiton of what a 'place' is the Act becomes meaningless. Since they have helpfully given lots of other definitions wonder why they left that one out, except to give expensive laywers something to argue about.

Why does it bother you so much?

[cotswoldsman]

 

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

From the rumours I am hearing CRT think they can change the Rules (sometimes called T&C) by simply going to a quango appointed by themselves known as NAG and getting their approval

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I'm not really interested in finding definition's for wording of the act.

As I have said before, many times, if someone is asking how far is far enough, perhaps they should be looking for a mooring.

On saying that, it's just my own personal opinion, and I recognise it's not my job, or any of my business what others do, it's CRT's job.

The sooner others get the same outlook, the quicker all the nonsense will stop.

 

Just a quick note to add.

Between 2009 - 2012, CRT relaxed their enforcement, to concentrate on licence evasion. I consequently watched the problem in the south east develop from this, in fact, I was already asking the then BW if they were happy with the situation they were developing.

I'm not complaining that they were concentrating on licence evasion, and I am not suggesting it was not half a dozen of one, and six of the other with boaters and BW both ignoring the obvious.

I do feel however, that the result of their actions at that time is not for me or other boat owners to clear up now.

But you originally said that the Act was quite clear yet now it is down to personal opinion, not really the best way to enact legislation.

 

I assume that the period you refer to between 2009 and 2012 was exclusively under BW since CRT only came into being in 2012. The problem is that whatever the policy may have been under BW it seems that if CRT try to resume enforcement they will be constantly opposed, so why not let the place just go to anarchy and let everyone moor wherever they want for as long as they want and to hell with the consequences.

[cotswoldsman]

 

The 'confusion' concerning the definition of the term place is precisely what those who wish to take the P take fullest advantage of. To see what the smallest distance they can move to be able to say that they've not stayed in one 'place' for more than 14 days. Without a definiton of what a 'place' is the Act becomes meaningless. Since they have helpfully given lots of other definitions wonder why they left that one out, except to give expensive laywers something to argue about.

The other reason might be to give people like you a reason to moan about how others choose to live their lives

[jenlyn]

But you originally said that the Act was quite clear yet now it is down to personal opinion, not really the best way to enact legislation.

 

I assume that the period you refer to between 2009 and 2012 was exclusively under BW since CRT only came into being in 2012. The problem is that whatever the policy may have been under BW it seems that if CRT try to resume enforcement they will be constantly opposed, so why not let the place just go to anarchy and let everyone moor wherever they want for as long as they want and to hell with the consequences.

I've no idea what makes you think CRT will get stick for enforcement, and if you say "from posts" on here, I won't take you at all seriously.

The only time I see CRT get any stick over enforcement, is when they get it wrong, or attempt to go outside of the legislation. Are you saying people should not moan about that, and CRT should have free reign?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I've no idea what makes you think CRT will get stick for enforcement, and if you say "from posts" on here, I won't take you at all seriously.

The only time I see CRT get any stick over enforcement, is when they get it wrong, or attempt to go outside of the legislation. Are you saying people should not moan about that, and CRT should have free reign?

Since there is no clear definition to work to CRT will always 'get it wrong' when they advise people that they aren't complying with the requirements. This is why it will invariably end out for the Courts to decide then raising crys of how CRT are wasting their resources on expensive lawyers. If the legislation was clearer this would not arise.

[jenlyn]

Since there is no clear definition to work to CRT will always 'get it wrong' when they advise people that they aren't complying with the requirements. This is why it will invariably end out for the Courts to decide then raising crys of how CRT are wasting their resources on expensive lawyers. If the legislation was clearer this would not arise.

I'm afraid your wrong. CRT has the powers to enable them to enforce, the problem is, they don't have the power to do it as they would like.

I'll ask you once again, because you did not reply before, why are you so bothered by it?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I'm afraid your wrong. CRT has the powers to enable them to enforce, the problem is, they don't have the power to do it as they would like.

I'll ask you once again, because you did not reply before, why are you so bothered by it?

Because I'm sick to death of people coming on here whinging about CRT enforcement and how 'so unfair' it is. I knew what the rules were when I came upon the canals and generally abide by them.If I didn't want abide by them I'd go and do something else (it's a big world out there with lots of other opportunities). So to listen to people who have their own particuar take on what the rules are and how they should be interpreted (for their benefit) just becomes repetitive. I have not had any grounds to cross CRT, I don't anticipate that I will but if I had I would deal with it myself not constantly whine on these threads about it.

[GoodGurl]

[cotswoldsman]

Because I'm sick to death of people coming on here whinging about CRT enforcement and how 'so unfair' it is. I knew what the rules were when I came upon the canals and generally abide by them.If I didn't want abide by them I'd go and do something else (it's a big world out there with lots of other opportunities). So to listen to people who have their own particuar take on what the rules are and how they should be interpreted (for their benefit) just becomes repetitive. I have not had any grounds to cross CRT, I don't anticipate that I will but if I had I would deal with it myself not constantly whine on these threads about it.

So you are having a whine because you have nothing to whine about, and bore the rest of us. Maybe you need to get a life and stop whining

[jenlyn]

Because I'm sick to death of people coming on here whinging about CRT enforcement and how 'so unfair' it is. I knew what the rules were when I came upon the canals and generally abide by them.If I didn't want abide by them I'd go and do something else (it's a big world out there with lots of other opportunities). So to listen to people who have their own particuar take on what the rules are and how they should be interpreted (for their benefit) just becomes repetitive. I have not had any grounds to cross CRT, I don't anticipate that I will but if I had I would deal with it myself not constantly whine on these threads about it.

Well, it's not for me to suggest what you should do, but I know if it bothered me that much, I wouldn't participate.

Why get embroiled in something that makes you sick to death?

[Alf Roberts]

Before helpfully coming forward with suggestions it may be pertinent to read the act you are quoting. Once again all that is says in the 1971 Act is,' "houseboat" ..... does not include any boat, barge,vessel or structure (a) which is bona fide used for navigation......." doesn't say what constitutes 'bona fide navigation'.

 

The 'confusion' concerning the definition of the term place is precisely what those who wish to take the P take fullest advantage of. To see what the smallest distance they can move to be able to say that they've not stayed in one 'place' for more than 14 days. Without a definiton of what a 'place' is the Act becomes meaningless. Since they have helpfully given lots of other definitions wonder why they left that one out, except to give expensive laywers something to argue about.

ah, I see. you weren't actually interested in learning the legal definitions of those terms. you just wanted to deliver a 'clever' rhetorical question before delivering your same-old same-old tired rant against anyone who doesn't boat how you want them to.

 

I am sorry it fell flat. ( not )

 

Yes, thank you, despite your sneer I have actually read that passage. Unlike you I have understood it. 'bona fide used for navigation' means a vessel whose purpose is other than moored permanently in one place. 'bona fide' in this context refers to the fact that it is possible to move (navigate) a houseboat ( by towing for instance ) from one mooring to another.

 

You have also failed to understand the definition of 'place'. It is obvious from your little rant that this is intentional. After all, your nastiness would be meaningless without it.

 

As I say, there is no confusion. There are simply attempts to make a simple set of conditions mean something other than they were intended to. This is not confusion.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

....definition of either what 'bona fide navigation' means ............

 

 

in legal terms 'bona fide for navigation' defines a boat that is not a houseboat ( or any other kind of non navigating structure like a pontoon ) and in the context of the Act 'place' is the place where a boat is left.

 

 

Alf - I think you may have misread the question, and by adding an extra word have totally changed the context.

 

'Bona fide navigation' is the act of navigating in good faith, whilst 'bona fide for navigation' refers to the suitability of vessel itself

[Alf Roberts]

sorry, I thought he was disussing the 1995 Act.

 

and what has 'bona fide navigation' got to do with anything?