Court Case Quotation - Can you Identify It ?

[Loafer]

Weird because last night you said you were still there

 

(Apart from where I am now, which I'm not revealing 'cos I've been here more than 14 days. Well I did say 'decent' CC-ing, not 'perfect'!

 

You need to really make up your mind where you are and when you moved

 

No I don't. I have a right to be forgetful, and my other post referred to a generalisation. Whatever you want to say, I overstay occasionally, not for very long, and move around 900 miles a year. Now buzz off and go and pester some REAL continuous moorers!

[cotswoldsman]

 

Now buzz off and go and pester some REAL continuous moorers!

I don't know any continuous moorers

[bassplayer]

As I understood it, pre-1995, one HAD to have a mooring in order to have a licence. The 'CC' thing started as a bit of assistance to those that wanted to cruise and not pay for a home mooring, didn't it? (Or to make something 'legal' that people were already doing anyway, since there weren't enough BW staff to police it all)

 

My feeling is that there's little or no rule 'creation', they've always been there, and worse, pre-1995.

 

I'm happy to be corrected here, I haven't looked it up for quite a while.

I think you're right about how the concept of CC'ing started but I was responding to the debate about potential new rules which may be created to make boaters move further in between moorings. I've never had a major problem with the way things are for years, why fix what ain't broke?

[Loafer]

I think you're right about how the concept of CC'ing started but I was responding to the debate about potential new rules which may be created to make boaters move further in between moorings. I've never had a major problem with the way things are for years, why fix what ain't broke?

 

Good question.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

For Mr Dodd's comments you need to refer to Hansards covering the debates of the 1995 Act I would happily provide a link but it would involve me in a lot of reading to find it so you might as well read it yourself and then maybe also learn why the wording is as it is. Allan might have a direct link if he has studied it recently.

 

 

The evidence given to the House of Commons Select Committee on the British Waterways Bill 1993-94 which became the 1995 Act is not yet available on the parliamentary website. Thus I can not give a link but anyone interested can obtain a copy from parliament or visit and do their own research.

 

The background (see below) to the exchange between the select committee's chair, George Mudie and BW's Marketing and Communication Manager Kenneth Dodd is as follows:-

 

In its Bill, BW wanted all boaters, by law, to have a home mooring. Parliament did not see a need for this. As such the Bill was amended to give boaters choice.

 

BW put forward the concept of a boat not requiring a 'home mooring' if it was being used 'bone fide for navigation' but this was unacceptable to Parliament because it allowed BW too much interpretation. BW then put forward a 'test' of the boat not remaining in one place for more than 14 days as what was required to 'satisfy the Board'.

 

Here is George Muddie quizzing Kenneth Dodd on why he went for 14 days rather than a higher number.

 

 

Mr George Mudie MP: I would have said from the user’s point of view 28 days would have given more flexibility for the user … What is of interest is, you tell us from an operational point of view why 28 days would be disastrous compared to 14?

 

Mr Dodd: I would be happy to have no period mentioned at all and rely upon the expression “bona fide used for navigation”. This is an attempt to clarify in the interests of boaters just what we reasonably mean by “bona fide used for navigation”, what are the parameters, that it appears to be eitherr necessary or helpful to put some indication of what genuinely “on the move” means. I think that to extend leaving a boat in one place as long as a month as, as it were, a test or an explanation as to what is acceptable for bona fide navigation, it would seem to me that as long a period as a month in any one place is not really a true reflection of “bona fide used for navigation".

 

Mr George Mudie MP: If I were being fair to you I would leave it there because I have not got from you any severe operational reasons that suggest 14 is absolutely necessary as opposed to 28.

 

Mr Dodd: With respect to the period, we were trying to respond to the test for “bona fide navigation” to give some measure of protection to a boater in those circumstances, so that he or she would be clear in their mind as to the point at which he would begin not to be regarded by British Waterways as using the boat bona fide for navigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KenK]

The evidence given to the House of Commons Select Committee on the British Waterways Bill 1993-94 which became the 1995 Act is not yet available on the parliamentary website. Thus I can not give a link but anyone interested can obtain a copy from parliament or visit and do their own research.

 

The background (see below) to the exchange between the select committee's chair, George Mudie and BW's Marketing and Communication Manager Kenneth Dodd is as follows:-

 

In its Bill, BW wanted all boaters, by law, to have a home mooring. Parliament did not see a need for this. As such the Bill was amended to give boaters choice.

 

BW put forward the concept of a boat not requiring a 'home mooring' if it was being used 'bone fide for navigation' but this was unacceptable to Parliament because it allowed BW too much interpretation. BW then put forward a 'test' of the boat not remaining in one place for more than 14 days as what was required to 'satisfy the Board'.

 

Here is George Muddie quizzing Kenneth Dodd on why he went for 14 days rather than a higher number.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Allan, I think, now that you have reminded me, that I have read this before, possibly on the forum in another of threads of this type.

 

Given the current difficulties some boaters seem to have complying with what is to my mind straightforward guidance, if no time limit had been put in place then we would just spend the time arguing about the meaning of Bona Fide for Navigation.

 

Ken

[Loafer]

I don't know any continuous moorers

 

There are plenty up the Shroppie, at least one of them unlicensed (and oft-reported). There are also those who have taken up on the offside without approval, giving just a shrug of their shoulders and sporting a 'who cares' look about them. I doubt they'll get their licence renewed. I'm not about to be specific with locations and boat names because it's none of my business, and I'm guessing there's kids and schooling involved, from the number of broken toys lying around.

 

Life on the waterways is such a joy, innit!

 

If I owned a waterway, I'd certainly want to see it kept in good order, with a set of rules designed to keep it that way, with users paying me for the privilege of using it with my permission.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

If I owned a waterway, I'd certainly want to see it kept in good order, with a set of rules designed to keep it that way, with users paying me for the privilege of using it with my permission.

Well I have some good news for you!!!

You do own the waterway as does everyone else

[Loafer]

Wow thanks!

 

Right, there's going to be some changes now....

[Alf Roberts]

You are very good at misinterpreting things and now you have got yourself all muddled. I said none of the above as you well know. The majority are likely to be silent on this subject because it does not affect them, unlike the minority who want to push the boundaries of the act.

 

The only people I see trying to 'push the boundaries of the act' are CRT.

 

There are some, a small minority, boats who don't conform to the law - but they don't need to 'push the boundaries', they are simply taking no notice and breaking the law.

 

CRT/IWA are trying to encompass far more boaters, those that specifically, BW gave undertakings to Parliament that they wouldn't.

[Paul C]

There's still the same number of boats and potential moorings however far a boat has to move. Doesn't it just mean more queues at locks due to traffic moving for longer periods? Even if the objective of a small minority is to rid the system of CM'ers by creating rules some can't or won't abide with, who's going to pick up the bill to re-home the live-aboards?

 

 

 

This is a very simplistic assumption, and not true.

 

If a distance requirement were to be brought in as you suggest, the vast majority of CCers would be completely unaffected because they already move far enough, often enough. Out of the handful of (lets call them for argument's sake) CMers, some would move more, some would take up a home mooring, some would give up boating and some would still ignore the rules.

[bassplayer]

 

This is a very simplistic assumption, and not true.

 

If a distance requirement were to be brought in as you suggest, the vast majority of CCers would be completely unaffected because they already move far enough, often enough. Out of the handful of (lets call them for argument's sake) CMers, some would move more, some would take up a home mooring, some would give up boating and some would still ignore the rules.

Err....where did I suggest that a distance requirement should be brought in? Where's the assumption and untruth while I'm at it? Strange reply to say the least...

[Paul C]

Ok, what DID you mean then? I read it as: traffic moving for longer periods --> more distance covered by a boat, because one would cruise and do locks at a relatively similar speed.

 

Or did you mean that a time cruising requirement would be introduced?

[bassplayer]

Ok, what DID you mean then? I read it as: traffic moving for longer periods --> more distance covered by a boat, because one would cruise and do locks at a relatively similar speed.

 

Or did you mean that a time cruising requirement would be introduced?

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at but if a rule is made that boats must move further they will encounter more locks than they would have done if they only had to move say 1 mile every 14 days. I was being slightly tongue in cheek.

 

My main emphasis was in my second paragraph. I'm against any new rules so I don't understand why you think I'm trying to propose any new requirement.

[jenlyn]

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at but if a rule is made that boats must move further they will encounter more locks than they would have done if they only had to move say 1 mile every 14 days. I was being slightly tongue in cheek.

My main emphasis was in my second paragraph. I'm against any new rules so I don't understand why you think I'm trying to propose any new requirement.

Quite simple. He wishes to keep the momentum, thus allowing him to further promote his agenda. That's my view anyway.

[bassplayer]

Quite simple. He wishes to keep the momentum, thus allowing him to further promote his agenda. That's my view anyway.

What's Paul's agenda...Paul?

[Paul C]

There's still the same number of boats and potential moorings however far a boat has to move. Doesn't it just mean more queues at locks due to traffic moving for longer periods? Even if the objective of a small minority is to rid the system of CM'ers by creating rules some can't or won't abide with, who's going to pick up the bill to re-home the live-aboards?

 

The vast majority of the population don't want to live on a boat for all sorts of reasons (lack of space being the common one). The waterways system will not become one giant ghetto despite this fear being driven by a small minority. In the meantime the majority of boaters enjoy things as they are and don't have a problem.

 

Let's rewind a bit - to post #123 as quoted above. Bassplayer, can you clarify what you meant in the first paragraph. What is the "more queues at locks" based on?

[MtB]

 

The only people I see trying to 'push the boundaries of the act' are CRT.

 

There are some, a small minority, boats who don't conform to the law - but they don't need to 'push the boundaries', they are simply taking no notice and breaking the law.

 

CRT/IWA are trying to encompass far more boaters, those that specifically, BW gave undertakings to Parliament that they wouldn't.

 

 

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 

Attributed to various people over the centuries.

 

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/abditorium/nonesoblind.htm

 

 

As an example of someone testing the boundaries, how about that mega-thread a couple of months ago where the OP was complaining about CRT suggesting they produce photos to support their claim to be CCing, where they only cruise up and down between Oxford and Aynho?

 

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to add the example.)

Edited January 29, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 

Attributed to various people over the centuries.

 

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/abditorium/nonesoblind.htm

 

 

As an example of someone testing the boundaries, how about that mega-thread a couple of months ago where the OP was complaining about CRT suggesting they produce photos to support their claim to be CCIng, where they only cruise up and down between Oxford and Aynho?

 

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to add the example.)

exactly. you are right on both counts.

 

thank you for agreeing with me but don't do it too often, people will begin to talk

[MtB]

Oh dear. I have got it wrong then...

[bassplayer]

 

Let's rewind a bit - to post #123 as quoted above. Bassplayer, can you clarify what you meant in the first paragraph. What is the "more queues at locks" based on?

Simple. If you force boaters to move further distance and more often...they are likely to encounter more locks over the year increasing the overall demand at locks.

 

As I said I was slightly tongue in cheek but I seem to have rattled a cage. Maybe you can tell me what your problem is then I'll try to give you an opinion.

[Paul C]

I agree there would be slightly more demand at locks. Basically, lets consider those who would be affected IF a (greater) distance requirement were to be introduced (I'm not saying I support this, I'm the same as you, in that I think the rules are fine as they are). Out of those affected:

 

(1) some will move more

(2) some will seek a home mooring

(3) some will leave the canals, ie live elsewhere than on their boat. (I believe you touched upon this too, in the last sentence of your first paragraph).

 

This would mean that there would be less boats overall, due to (3). Thus there would be less demand on "potential moorings". If we look at point (2) also, there would be even less demand on towpath transit moorings (ie not permanent moorings) there would be the converse increase in demand for home/permanent moorings.

 

 

There's still the same number of boats and potential moorings however far a boat has to move.

 

I hope I've explained it clearly enough.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Paul C

[Alf Roberts]

classic scenario - to be played out on a canal near you in a few weeks:

 

Easter bank holiday, boats come streaming out of their winter moorings straight to the hot spot locks and visitor moorings.

 

result; queues at locks and over-demand on choice moorings.

 

the sensible CC goes nowhere that weekend, far too sensible

 

result; said leisure boats, now wound up by congestion, look around and throw insults at 'boats that never move'

Simple. If you force boaters to move further distance and more often...they are likely to encounter more locks over the year increasing the overall demand at locks.

 

As I said I was slightly tongue in cheek but I seem to have rattled a cage. Maybe you can tell me what your problem is then I'll try to give you an opinion.

I agree there would be slightly more demand at locks. Basically, lets consider those who would be affected IF a (greater) distance requirement were to be introduced (I'm not saying I support this, I'm the same as you, in that I think the rules are fine as they are). Out of those affected:

 

(1) some will move more

(2) some will seek a home mooring

(3) some will leave the canals, ie live elsewhere than on their boat. (I believe you touched upon this too, in the last sentence of your first paragraph).

 

This would mean that there would be less boats overall, due to (3). Thus there would be less demand on "potential moorings". If we look at point (2) also, there would be even less demand on towpath transit moorings (ie not permanent moorings) there would be the converse increase in demand for home/permanent moorings.

 

 

 

I hope I've explained it clearly enough.

I think you 1. over estimate your 3. and 2. fail to take into account that they will sell their boats to new people who will become your 1 and 2.

 

 

it's already considered to be only a few boats that would be affected by any requirements over distance. the headline figures on the K and A, for instance, given by CRT, are being strenuously challenged by boats who have received letters based on laughably inaccurate records of their movements - the coal boat is one, apparently doesn't move enough because the boat checker always turns up on his loading day.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Paul C]

 

I think you 1. over estimate your 3. and 2. fail to take into account that they will sell their boats to new people who will become your 1 and 2.

 

 

it's already considered to be a few boats that would be affected by any requirement over distance. the headline figures on the K and A, for instance, given by CRT, are being strenuously challenged by boats who have received letters based on laughably inaccurate records of their movements - the coal boat is one, apparently doesn't move enough because the boat checker always turns up on his loading day.

 

I agree there's further complexities than simply less boats, but at the same time we can't assume 100% of the boats of those ex-CCers who "sell up" would immediately find a new owner and be used. Effectively, more and-of-life boats would be scrapped and the "stock pool" of boats for sale among brokers and private sellers would increase.

 

I don't believe I overestimated (2) and (3) because I didn't put any figures on the split. I just said "some".

[bassplayer]

classic scenario - to be played out on a canal near you in a few weeks:

 

Easter bank holiday, boats come streaming out of their winter moorings straight to the hot spot locks and visitor moorings.

 

result; queues at locks and over-demand on choice moorings.

 

the sensible CC goes nowhere that weekend, far too sensible

 

result; said leisure boats, now wound up by congestion, look around and throw insults at 'boats that never move'

 

 

I think you 1. over estimate your 3. and 2. fail to take into account that they will sell their boats to new people who will become your 1 and 2.

 

 

it's already considered to be a few boats that would be affected by any requirement over distance. the headline figures on the K and A, for instance, given by CRT, are being strenuously challenged by boats who have received letters based on laughably inaccurate records of their movements - the coal boat is one, apparently doesn't move enough because the boat checker always turns up on his loading day.

I agree with this, thanks for saving me the trouble Alf.