Court Case Quotation - Can you Identify It ?

[adam1uk]

There is a requirement to 'cruise' under the licence terms and conditions. Are you saying that using a boat to 'cruise' has a different meaning to using one 'bone fide for navigation'?

 

I believe this is where intention comes in.

 

If you move a mile, you are cruising. But if the reason you've moved only that one mile is in order to stay close to work or a school, for example, it would be possible to argue that you weren't using the boat 'bona fide for navigation' -- you were doing the mile merely because you had to, not because you wanted to.

[KenK]

 

That's correct . . . . which means the Licence T&C's seek to impose the 'used bona fide for navigation' requirement on every boat, irrespective of whether it has a home mooring or is registered as a CC'er.

It clearly states the requirement in Schedule 2 Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring sub heading Navigation however it does not as far as I can see put any onus on me as a boater with a home mooring to comply with Bona Fide for Navigation. Indeed it cannot as the 1995 act clearly separates the two conditions, as I have a mooring I do not need to satisfy the board (trust).

 

Ken

[Tony Dunkley]

It clearly states the requirement in Schedule 2 Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring sub heading Navigation however it does not as far as I can see put any onus on me as a boater with a home mooring to comply with Bona Fide for Navigation. Indeed it cannot as the 1995 act clearly separates the two conditions, as I have a mooring I do not need to satisfy the board (trust).

 

Ken

C&RT demand that you 'cruise' when not at your home mooring, and if you don't 'cruise', then the Licence T&C's prohibit you from using C&RT moorings . . para. 2.1 (and 3.1) in the T&C's.

As you have already said in #73 . . . " the terms Bona Fide for Navigation and cruising are both used in the conditions and it states they mean the same thing.". . . . so, a home mooring doesn't get you out of the 'bona fide for navigation' requirement as far as C&RT are concerned . . . . according to the law, of course, it does.

[KenK]

C&RT demand that you 'cruise' when not at your home mooring, and if you don't 'cruise', then the Licence T&C's prohibit you from using C&RT moorings . . para. 2.1 (and 3.1) in the T&C's.

As you have already said in #73 . . . " the terms Bona Fide for Navigation and cruising are both used in the conditions and it states they mean the same thing.". . . . so, a home mooring doesn't get you out of the 'bona fide for navigation' requirement as far as C&RT are concerned . . . . according to the law, of course, it does.

I'm more than happy to obey the law but just like you I would not obey rules made up which do not comply with the 1995 act. When I take my boat out we do move most days and as we are on holiday and therefore time limited staying anywhere for more than a couple of days is all we want to do.

Many years ago the Police tried to prosecute me for speeding, I wasn't guilty but it took two years of court battles to prove it.

I'm not a fan of people like Mr Mayers who take the piss, and hanging around 3 kilometres of canal for five years without a mooring is just that, equally C&RT need to comply with the terms of the act and ensure their guidelines echo the intent and spirit of it.

 

Ken

[Tony Dunkley]

I'm more than happy to obey the law but just like you I would not obey rules made up which do not comply with the 1995 act. When I take my boat out we do move most days and as we are on holiday and therefore time limited staying anywhere for more than a couple of days is all we want to do.

Many years ago the Police tried to prosecute me for speeding, I wasn't guilty but it took two years of court battles to prove it.

I'm not a fan of people like Mr Mayers who take the piss, and hanging around 3 kilometres of canal for five years without a mooring is just that, equally C&RT need to comply with the terms of the act and ensure their guidelines echo the intent and spirit of it.

 

Ken

That's just it though, the Guidance for CCer's isn't in accordance with the 1995 Act, and it's being imposed on boats with a home mooring.

[Mike Todd]

The use or consideration of distance as evidence in support of establishing a purpose is not the same as making distance a condition of compliance.

My point!

[Mike Todd]

The question of what is the motive CRT and Mr Parry in wanting to clarify what constitutes acceptable behaviour can be debated - sans evidence - but I would hope that it is well-intentioned at least as they see it:

 

It is clear that the inherent ambiguities inlegislation drafted for a different era combines with the current housing pressure, as well as other life style choices, to lead to a higher level of alleged infringement than is healthy either for CRT (and its legal/enforcement budget) or the canal users taken as a whole. As a result, too many boaters are pushing at the boundary of what is compliant (let alone informally acceptable to their neighbours) and, as has been pointed out on another current thread, this leads to some infringements being prosecuted and some not.

 

A better scenario is where the vast majority of boaters know, understand and accept what is permissible and what is not - and comply.

 

In my view, this is what CRT are seeking to achieve by a balance of clarifying the legal baseline through court cases and by consensus on what we would like to see happen, if the law permits. That to me seem s eminently sensible, given the inherited position.

[cuthound]

The question of what is the motive CRT and Mr Parry in wanting to clarify what constitutes acceptable behaviour can be debated - sans evidence - but I would hope that it is well-intentioned at least as they see it:

 

It is clear that the inherent ambiguities inlegislation drafted for a different era combines with the current housing pressure, as well as other life style choices, to lead to a higher level of alleged infringement than is healthy either for CRT (and its legal/enforcement budget) or the canal users taken as a whole. As a result, too many boaters are pushing at the boundary of what is compliant (let alone informally acceptable to their neighbours) and, as has been pointed out on another current thread, this leads to some infringements being prosecuted and some not.

 

A better scenario is where the vast majority of boaters know, understand and accept what is permissible and what is not - and comply.

 

In my view, this is what CRT are seeking to achieve by a balance of clarifying the legal baseline through court cases and by consensus on what we would like to see happen, if the law permits. That to me seem s eminently sensible, given the inherited position.

Have a greenie.

[Dave_P]

Sadly, we again see people discussing what they think the legislation should say and should mean, rather than what it actually says.

 

It's because CRT keep insisting on doing that, that we have the mess we currently find ourselves in.

[Alf Roberts]

As you well know if you have a mooring there is no requirement to comply with "bona fide for navigation", so cruising to the pub and back is acceptable.

If you do not have a mooring then cruising two miles between A and B and back, the pub is irrelevant, is not.

 

Ken

I didn't say I had to comply, I said I was using my boat 'bona fide for navigation' - and 3 judges so far have concurred - and if I was, then a boat without a mooring would also be using their boat 'bona fide for navigation'

 

I believe this is where intention comes in.

 

If you move a mile, you are cruising. But if the reason you've moved only that one mile is in order to stay close to work or a school, for example, it would be possible to argue that you weren't using the boat 'bona fide for navigation' -- you were doing the mile merely because you had to, not because you wanted to.

exactly. and if you were stupid enough to insist this was the only reason you would probably end up with the same judgement as Paul Davis.

 

as I say, distance has no place in this discussion (excuse the pun)

 

 

Completely missing the point.

 

IF CRT made a public declaration along the lines of my suggestion, you would fall in the category of 'may still comply'.

 

CCers who cruise the threshold distance CRT publish are 'guaranteed to comply'. Guaranteed safe from enforcement.

 

 

MtB

no, I'm not missing the point. it's a completely different point.

 

pragmatically you are right, as 'the board' must be 'satisfied'.

 

but that doesn't remove the fact that CRT would have to present a court case, if so minded, in which distance is not the crux. it is becoming obvious over time that the concept of distance is not within the 1995 Act, if CRT want to use distance as a criterion then it is purely a device to imply compliance with the law, not a reading of the law

Edited January 27, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Alf Roberts]

Sadly, we again see people discussing what they think the legislation should say and should mean, rather than what it actually says.

 

It's because CRT keep insisting on doing that, that we have the mess we currently find ourselves in.

exactly. though when people try to do it they are called 'piss takers' - why is it then that CRT are not do labelled?

[jenlyn]

Completely missing the point.

 

IF CRT made a public declaration along the lines of my suggestion, you would fall in the category of 'may still comply'.

 

CCers who cruise the threshold distance CRT publish are 'guaranteed to comply'. Guaranteed safe from enforcement.

 

 

MtB

So will you be following the new rules that will state that if you have a home mooring, you must not leave your boat "dumped" on the cut when you are not using it for bona-fide navigation?

[Loafer]

For goodness' sake. Why are we splitting all these hairs? If you want to live somewhere close to your work or school, then get a mooring or a flat.

 

If you want to live on water because you like boats, then get boating.

 

Perhaps one of you wise legal fanatics can explain the errors of my thinking (and my complying with stuff that I don't find confusing or difficult)

[Alf Roberts]

For goodness' sake. Why are we splitting all these hairs? If you want to live somewhere close to your work or school, then get a mooring or a flat.

 

If you want to live on water because you like boats, then get boating.

 

Perhaps one of you wise legal fanatics can explain the errors of my thinking (and my complying with stuff that I don't find confusing or difficult)

unfortunately for you, though luckily for the people who want to boat in ways you disapprove of, it's not up to you.

[Loafer]

unfortunately for you, though luckily for the people who want to boat in ways you disapprove of, it's not up to you.

 

I don't necessarily disapprove of those people, I just wonder why they do it if they can't abide by the rules.

 

If you don't like the rules of the game, you should take your bat & ball home.

 

'Unfortunately for me'? The only things unfortunate for me is that I'm bald, ugly and becoming decrepit!

[cotswoldsman]

For goodness' sake. Why are we splitting all these hairs? If you want to live somewhere close to your work or school, then get a mooring or a flat.

 

If you want to live on water because you like boats, then get boating.

 

Perhaps one of you wise legal fanatics can explain the errors of my thinking (and my complying with stuff that I don't find confusing or difficult)

Because as far a I am aware but sometimes I do miss things so please correct me if I am wrong, people still have freedom of choice.

 

I don't necessarily disapprove of those people, I just wonder why they do it if they can't abide by the rules.

 

If you don't like the rules of the game, you should take your bat & ball home.

 

'Unfortunately for me'? The only things unfortunate for me is that I'm bald, ugly and becoming decrepit!

Ah that's rule I must have missed "you must not boat if you have children or work" Where will I find that rule?

[Loafer]

Because as far a I am aware but sometimes I do miss things so please correct me if I am wrong, people still have freedom of choice.

 

Ah that's rule I must have missed "you must not boat if you have children or work" Where will I find that rule?

 

You do indeed have the freedom of choice, even the choice 'to boat' if you have children or work. You don't though, have freedom to bend the rules of the game you're trying to play.

 

Get a mooring if you want to boat and have children. Like it says in the book.

[cotswoldsman]

 

You do indeed have the freedom of choice, even the choice 'to boat' if you have children or work. You don't though, have freedom to bend the rules of the game you're trying to play.

 

Get a mooring if you want to boat and have children. Like it says in the book.

What book says if you have children you need to have a mooring?

 

What game are you talking about? Is this some game with your rules you want people to play?

[Loafer]

What book says if you have children you need to have a mooring?

 

What game are you talking about? Is this some game with your rules you want people to play?

 

Ok for the unimaginative and pedantic amongst us, there is no book that says you must have a mooring if you have children. There is also no game in play, nor bats, nor balls involved.

 

There!

 

I'm off now, the missus has just turned up in a short skirt.

[jenlyn]

 

I'm off now, the missus has just turned up in a short skirt.

You sure it's for you? Given the statement you made;

 

'Unfortunately for me'? The only things unfortunate for me is that I'm bald, ugly and becoming decrepit!'

[Loafer]

You sure it's for you? Given the statement you made;

 

'Unfortunately for me'? The only things unfortunate for me is that I'm bald, ugly and becoming decrepit!'

 

Yes, but fortunately for me, so's she!

[jenlyn]

Yes, but fortunately for me, so's she!

Lol

[mango]

What book says if you have children you need to have a mooring?

 

What game are you talking about? Is this some game with your rules you want people to play?

CRT has helpful guidance for those who don't have a mooring.

 

"Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study (e.g. a school or college)."

 

That makes good sense to me. Anyone who wants to stay in one place needs a mooring.

[Loafer]

CRT has helpful guidance for those who don't have a mooring.

 

"Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study (e.g. a school or college)."

 

That makes good sense to me. Anyone who wants to stay in one place needs a mooring.

 

At last! Someone else who has read the book!

[cotswoldsman]

CRT has helpful guidance for those who don't have a mooring.

 

"Unacceptable reasons for staying longer than 14 days in a neighbourhood or locality are a need to stay within commuting distance of a place of work or of study (e.g. a school or college)."

 

That makes good sense to me. Anyone who wants to stay in one place needs a mooring.

Yes that does say 14 days in one place and don't think anyone disagrees with that. But a ccer can still work and have children and keep to the Acts of Parliament

 

At last! Someone else who has read the book!

I thought you said in another post you were overstaying the 14 days time for you to practice what you preach