Why do we need a law?

[Alan de Enfield]

Alf Roberts, on 18 Jan 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:Alf Roberts, on 18 Jan 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

sorry, I thought he was disussing the 1995 Act.

 

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

 

Yes you are correct - we were discussing the 1995 Act, which states :

 

 

(i ) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Athy]

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

Leave British Waterways?

[Alf Roberts]

 

Yes you are correct - we were discussing the 1995 Act, which states :

 

 

(i ) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

Exactly so.

 

Best to be precise about these things of one wants to understand the law.

 

if only CRT wouldn't keep bowing to pressure groups they would have no need to come up with imaginative definitions of these terms. ( or conflate 'bona fide for navigation' with 'bona fide navigation' though, having done so, it's not really surprising people who would rather not do their own thinking use them to bolster their views.)

Edited January 18, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[David Schweizer]

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

 

No. I coud not find my copy of the Act at the time. The two relevant paragraphs actuially read:-

 

Section 17 (3) C (i) "The Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably

be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or"

 

Section 17 (3) C (ii) "The applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances"

 

But then you already knew that!

Edited January 18, 2015 by David Schweizer

[Felshampo]

I don't want to get involved in the political debate about what is and what isn't meant by the act as this always reminds me of the kids argueing about school uniform. However what does the team think might happen in London where due to boats being moored three deep in places the local residents are complaining of the pollution and noise. Could this lead to a change in local bylaws that could effect the canals?

[jenlyn]

I don't want to get involved in the political debate about what is and what isn't meant by the act as this always reminds me of the kids argueing about school uniform. However what does the team think might happen in London where due to boats being moored three deep in places the local residents are complaining of the pollution and noise. Could this lead to a change in local bylaws that could effect the canals?

I very much suspect that is what will eventually happen.

[Arthur Marshall]

This has got itself concentrated on the CC issue again, but it isn't the only one where rules seems to be changed at the whim of CaRT - changing unmarked, 14 and 7 day moorings to 48 hour ones and changing the definition of what a 48 hour mooring actually is seems to be going on as well. The charging for towpath moorings at Llangollen always struck me as a trial for doing the same elsewhere in popular places, the "no mooring" signs going up outside new build houses are another issue. There's a lot more tampering with the system than just the argument over what comprises continuous cruising or a home mooring, which while it may be the noisest argument (quite rightly, of course, as it affects people's homes), probably has less effect on the system as a whole than the other changes. You can't just shut up, say "the trustees know best" and hope for the best.

[David Schweizer]

I don't want to get involved in the political debate about what is and what isn't meant by the act as this always reminds me of the kids argueing about school uniform. However what does the team think might happen in London where due to boats being moored three deep in places the local residents are complaining of the pollution and noise. Could this lead to a change in local bylaws that could effect the canals?

 

Didnt someone recently post that one local Authority has already done, or is considering doing that? although there was some differentiation between boats on which people lived, and recreational boats passing through.

Edited January 18, 2015 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

This has got itself concentrated on the CC issue again, but it isn't the only one where rules seems to be changed at the whim of CaRT - changing unmarked, 14 and 7 day moorings to 48 hour ones and changing the definition of what a 48 hour mooring actually is seems to be going on as well. The charging for towpath moorings at Llangollen always struck me as a trial for doing the same elsewhere in popular places, the "no mooring" signs going up outside new build houses are another issue. There's a lot more tampering with the system than just the argument over what comprises continuous cruising or a home mooring, which while it may be the noisest argument (quite rightly, of course, as it affects people's homes), probably has less effect on the system as a whole than the other changes. You can't just shut up, say "the trustees know best" and hope for the best.

This is very much my view.

The association - CRT meetings over the last twelve months have largely evolved around cc, owing to CRT, IWA and AWCC insisting on doing so.

I am wary to the fact that if the associations stopped discussing the issue in favour of other problems suggested by their members, the joint meetings would stop.

[bassplayer]

This is very much my view.

The association - CRT meetings over the last twelve months have largely evolved around cc, owing to CRT, IWA and AWCC insisting on doing so.

I am wary to the fact that if the associations stopped discussing the issue in favour of other problems suggested by their members, the joint meetings would stop.

... but isn't it nice that they all care so much about us?

[Tony Dunkley]

I don't want to get involved in the political debate about what is and what isn't meant by the act as this always reminds me of the kids argueing about school uniform. However what does the team think might happen in London where due to boats being moored three deep in places the local residents are complaining of the pollution and noise. Could this lead to a change in local bylaws that could effect the canals?

C&RT inherited Byelaws and powers under Acts of Parliament, in addition to the much quoted 1995 Act, from BW that would be effective in dealing with the problems specific to the London area and any other similar but less severe problems elsewhere. For some inexplicable reason they ignore the existence and availability of these Byelaws and powers, preferring instead to create the illusion that they are addressing the problems by coming up with half baked, and frequently illegal, mooring plans, shorter time limits for VM's and anything else they can think of, such as blaming and harassing CC'ers and ridiculous interpretations of the wording and purposes of the 1995 Act, which in reality is not at all difficult to understand or to implement in a fair and effective manner.

[Alan de Enfield]

C&RT inherited Byelaws and powers under Acts of Parliament, in addition to the much quoted 1995 Act, from BW that would be effective in dealing with the problems specific to the London area and any other similar but less severe problems elsewhere. For some inexplicable reason they ignore the existence and availability of these Byelaws and powers, preferring instead to create the illusion that they are addressing the problems by coming up with half baked, and frequently illegal, mooring plans, shorter time limits for VM's and anything else they can think of, such as blaming and harassing CC'ers and ridiculous interpretations of the wording and purposes of the 1995 Act, which in reality is not at all difficult to understand or to implement in a fair and effective manner.

 

Whilst I accept that C&RT do not have the powers to define distances travelled (as an example), could anyone argue, that asking "Continuous Cruisers" on the K&A to travel 20km (12 miles) within a 12 month period is unreasonable ?

 

It appears to some that it is :

 

In the first six months of the Local Plan 169 boats have attracted the attention of enforcement officers for not moving sufficiently, 57 of which have entered the enforcement process.

 

C&RT are never going to "win" are they ?

The 'Hounds' are baying for more enforcement

The Fox says "you dont have the powers"

[boathunter]

 

Whilst I accept that C&RT do not have the powers to define distances travelled (as an example), could anyone argue, that asking "Continuous Cruisers" on the K&A to travel 20km (12 miles) within a 12 month period is unreasonable ?

 

It appears to some that it is :

 

In the first six months of the Local Plan 169 boats have attracted the attention of enforcement officers for not moving sufficiently, 57 of which have entered the enforcement process.

 

C&RT are never going to "win" are they ?

The 'Hounds' are baying for more enforcement

The Fox says "you dont have the powers"

Difficult to argue with that, 12 miles is not onerous, though perhaps the opinions of those affected is that even so, it's not legal to enforce this and they wish to fight on that point. It will be interesting to see what happens if the 57 boat owners club together and go to court.

[Bod]

 

Yes you are correct - we were discussing the 1995 Act, which states :

 

 

(i ) the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

This argument will never be settled until "the Board" (C&RT) publish what is needed to be "satisfied" in the 1995 act.

This I believe was started with the "places map" but due to so much conflict was withdrawn, before any consultation was started, let alone completed.

 

Bod

I will say no more, as I might be considered, putting ideas into heads, that may not be the best for most concerned.

[boathunter]

 

This argument will never be settled until "the Board" (C&RT) publish what is needed to be "satisfied" in the 1995 act.

This I believe was started with the "places map" but due to so much conflict was withdrawn, before any consultation was started, let alone completed.

 

Bod

I will say no more, as I might be considered, putting ideas into heads, that may not be the best for most concerned.

But they cannot do this based on the relevant acts without shooting themselves and their plans in the foot. I think that's why it's been withdrawn.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Whilst I accept that C&RT do not have the powers to define distances travelled (as an example), could anyone argue, that asking "Continuous Cruisers" on the K&A to travel 20km (12 miles) within a 12 month period is unreasonable ?

 

It appears to some that it is :

 

In the first six months of the Local Plan 169 boats have attracted the attention of enforcement officers for not moving sufficiently, 57 of which have entered the enforcement process.

 

C&RT are never going to "win" are they ?

The 'Hounds' are baying for more enforcement

The Fox says "you dont have the powers"

 

I don't agree that C&RT can't 'win', the point I was making is that they in fact do have the necessary powers but choose not to use them. I'm not entirely sure what they mean when they talk about 'the enforcement process', but I doubt that there are any Byelaw prosecutions pending, but just more of their usual severely limited repertoire . . . . disproportionate and a very long time in taking effect whilst at the same time being extremely expensive and ultimately resulting in loss of income from Licence fees.

[Retardedrocker]

 

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

 

I guess this is why we need laws rather than rules. How often do we see the legality of 'rules' challenged in court?

 

Banks, insurance companies, the government, even social clubs have been challenged in court over 'unlawful' rules and you are back to the expensive and wasteful litigation, that everyone deplores .

 

No one, or should I say very few people, obey rules, so what's the answer?

 

T.

[madcat]

there are things that affect the waterways which are far more serious than a few boats that collect in odd corners of the system .

 

We need more visitor moorings that offer stays of longer than 48 hrs, we need CRT to stick up for boaters and stop allowing newly built canal side housing to adversely affect the navigation. We need dredging and repairs to infrastructure.

 

If the IWA and other associations cannot see past the end of their noses and concentrate on the real issues the future is well on its way to hell in a handcart.

 

CC bashing is a waste of time and effort with a side order of nasty and spiteful .

 

I spend some of my Sunday mornings fishing rubbish and obstructions out of the cut or pruning trees for the good of all that pass our way. I'm interested in building community and engaging people with the joys of their local canal not picking on sections of society because they do things different to me.

[sueb]

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.

 

 

But but but CRT get a good income from online moorings

Only from the ones that pay. Hope you are better soon

[Wanted]

there are things that affect the waterways which are far more serious than a few boats that collect in odd corners of the system .

We need more visitor moorings that offer stays of longer than 48 hrs, we need CRT to stick up for boaters and stop allowing newly built canal side housing to adversely affect the navigation. We need dredging and repairs to infrastructure.

If the IWA and other associations cannot see past the end of their noses and concentrate on the real issues the future is well on its way to hell in a handcart.

CC bashing is a waste of time and effort with a side order of nasty and spiteful .

I spend some of my Sunday mornings fishing rubbish and obstructions out of the cut or pruning trees for the good of all that pass our way. I'm interested in building community and engaging people with the joys of their local canal not picking on sections of society because they do things different to me.

Greedy for seeing the wood for the trees

[boathunter]

Greedy for seeing the wood for the trees

I thought a greenie more appropriate so gave her one of those.

[mrsmelly]

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.

I do have to agree with you. I became a liveaboard in 1989 and quite simply realised that I had to pay for a mooring or move around the system. Rocket science it certainly is not. At the moment I am living and working in one area so I pays a mooring fee 3k to be precise. Next year I intend to do the country again and so will not pay for a mooring. Recently in the past 15 or so years many new people have moved on to boats many of whom care not one jot about the long standing rules or indeed the waterways they just want a cheap housing solution and will rty to wriggle round the very obvious and very very few rules we have to abide by. I have never had any trouble or notices from CART...BW...or BWB.

 

Tim

[Galeomma]

I'm probably going to get stick for this but (as a CC) I would be quite happy if I HAD to buy a towpath mooring permit with my licence that lasted for a full year and allowed me to moor where I want (within the rules of a tow path licence) for as long as I want.

 

CRT get money. Stop having to chase people for staying in one place (except for visitor moorings) and I don't have to worry about moving or not moving.

[MtB]

I'm probably going to get stick for this but (as a CC) I would be quite happy if I HAD to buy a towpath mooring permit with my licence that lasted for a full year and allowed me to moor where I want (within the rules of a tow path licence) for as long as I want.

 

CRT get money. Stop having to chase people for staying in one place (except for visitor moorings) and I don't have to worry about moving or not moving.

 

 

Ok here's some of the stick you mentioned...

 

I don't think this would be fair at all as boaters with your imaginary licence would clog up all the best VMs in perpetuity.

 

I imagine it would work fine if official VMs were excluded from the licence though but I can't see it happening. If it did though, I'd certainly buy one of your new style licenses!

 

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

I'm probably going to get stick for this but (as a CC) I would be quite happy if I HAD to buy a towpath mooring permit with my licence that lasted for a full year and allowed me to moor where I want (within the rules of a tow path licence) for as long as I want.

 

CRT get money. Stop having to chase people for staying in one place (except for visitor moorings) and I don't have to worry about moving or not moving.

You already have one...it's called a boat licence!