New T&C's question

[Paul C]

so, tell me, what's the difference between (above) " people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in another place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath" and "people taking a home mooring then spending months on end in nearby place, shuffling up and down (eg) 200 yards of towpath." legally speaking?

 

 

 

Legally speaking, there is no difference.

 

Not restricting to strict legalities, there's 2 differences:

 

1) the far away home mooring costs less than a nearby mooring. Probably much less, and possibly there simply isn't an available/suitable nearby mooring.

2) CRT are (guessing) satisfied with one, but not satisfied with the other.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Legally speaking, there is no difference.

 

Not restricting to strict legalities, there's 2 differences:

 

1) the far away home mooring costs less than a nearby mooring. Probably much less, and possibly there simply isn't an available/suitable nearby mooring.

2) CRT are (guessing) satisfied with one, but not satisfied with the other.

Firstly, I don't understand what piece of magic makes moorings cheaper when boats are a long distance away from them, and secondly C&RT don't have the right, or the powers, to decide what they're going to be satisfied with, it's not a matter of anything other than the stipulations in the 1995 Act.

[Paul C]

Firstly, I don't understand what piece of magic makes moorings cheaper when boats are a long distance away from them, and secondly C&RT don't have the right, or the powers, to decide what they're going to be satisfied with, it's not a matter of anything other than the stipulations in the 1995 Act.

 

We're talking about people/boaters who typically take up a cheap mooring but moor/live in an area known for its popularity - which with it brings expensive moorings. For example (just an example...) boaters who seek the cheapest possible mooring because they won't be using it, but instead moor on the towpath around eg London.

[Alf Roberts]

and this is illegal exactly how?

[Paul C]

and this is illegal exactly how?

 

See post #102 - I acknowledge that it is not illegal.

[BrumSaint]

Something that actually is 'enshrined' in law is the fact that if you've got a home mooring the boat doesn't have to be used 'bona fide for navigation' at any time, but the new T & C's are an attempt to circumvent that.

C&RT equate 'cruise' with 'used bona fide for navigation', and therefore the new T & C's requirement to 'cruise' when away from the home mooring is an attempt to place a use 'bona fide for navigation' obligation on boats with a home mooring that is not required by the 1995 Act, that requirement being specifically limited to boats without a (home) mooring.

Are you saying you are in favour of people with a home mooring, being allowed to moor wherever they like for as long as they like? If you are not saying this why are you opposed to C&RT trying to do something that will stop it? (no matter how small a problem it is)

[Alan de Enfield]

Are you saying you are in favour of people with a home mooring, being allowed to moor wherever they like for as long as they like? If you are not saying this why are you opposed to C&RT trying to do something that will stop it? (no matter how small a problem it is)

 

You are totally misunderstanding the situation and the arguments.

 

It is against the law for C&RT to impose such restrictions and C&RT do not have the powers to change the law, only Parliament can do that.

 

If this change is 'accepted' it will allow C&RT to do whatever they want and will become the 'thin edge of the wedge' - maybe their next foray into law changing will be to say that no petrol powered boats are allowed on C&RT waters, or to say that they have decided that in future there will be no such thing as CCing (boat without a home mooring) and that every boat must have a mooring.

 

Who knows where it would stop.

 

Edit

 

I have been trying to think of an analogy - the nearest I can come up with is :

 

The national speed limit on single carriageway roads is 60mph, however the Police consider this to be too fast and so decide to prosecute everyone doing in excess of 50mph

 

The Police are there to enforce the law - not to put their own interpretation on it (or try to amend it).

Edited February 18, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Alf Roberts]

.. or to say that they have decided that in future there will be no such thing as CCing (boat without a home mooring) and that every boat must have a mooring.

That's a very good point. I wonder where in the addled 'brain' of CRT they decided to stop short of this given how many other instances there are of them riding roughshod over the legislation.

 

Mind, the tone of their enforcement policy statements does go a mile down this road, telling boaters who they believe don't comply to get a mooring.

 

Translated into real world terms - if you are subject to this kind of enforcement you have two choices; take Nigel Moore's suggested 'attack first' legal policy - expensive and complicated or get a mooring.

[Tony Dunkley]

That's a very good point. I wonder where in the addled 'brain' of CRT they decided to stop short of this given how many other instances there are of them riding roughshod over the legislation.

 

Mind, the tone of their enforcement policy statements does go a mile down this road, telling boaters who they believe don't comply to get a mooring.

 

Translated into real world terms - if you are subject to this kind of enforcement you have two choices; take Nigel Moore's suggested 'attack first' legal policy - expensive and complicated or get a mooring.

 

I don't think C&RT's corporate brain is just addled, there's more to it than that . . . they are devious and ill intentioned, but in common with most things they do, they're not very good at it, and I'm convinced that they're trying, by using their own special overt and bungling version of stealth, to bring about what they hope will appear to the majority of boaters to be 'law changes'.

I also think that they are greatly encouraged to continue with more of the same by the confusion and gullibity exhibited by a great many of the boating community on Forums such as this one.

One thing C&RT are very good at is making use of the presumed mantle of probity and respectability that their name and patronage confer on them.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Tony Dunkley]

Are you saying you are in favour of people with a home mooring, being allowed to moor wherever they like for as long as they like? If you are not saying this why are you opposed to C&RT trying to do something that will stop it? (no matter how small a problem it is)

 

No, I'm saying what the wording used in the Post says. The issue is the attempt to impose something on boats with home moorings which Parliament would not.

[Iain_S]

(snip), and secondly C&RT don't have the right, or the powers, to decide what they're going to be satisfied with, it's not a matter of anything other than the stipulations in the 1995 Act.

 

 

 

©either— .

(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.

 

Who else is going to decide what they're going to be satisfied with, if C&RT don't have the right to decide?

 

Iain

[Sabcat]

 

 

 

Who else is going to decide what they're going to be satisfied with, if C&RT don't have the right to decide?

 

Iain

 

Erm, read what you posted. They have to be satisfied that the mooring exists and is available. No more, no less. The act specifies what they are to be satisfied with.

[Jerra]

 

Erm, read what you posted. They have to be satisfied that the mooring exists and is available. No more, no less. The act specifies what they are to be satisfied with.

Erm so this bit which comes after the words satisfies the board in the quote above means a mooring exists/

 

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.

 

It appears to me that is more than just deciding a mooring exists.

[Willber G]

Erm so this bit which comes after the words satisfies the board in the quote above means a mooring exists/

 

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.

 

It appears to me that is more than just deciding a mooring exists.

But the bit you highlighted details the conditions for those without a home mooring. The bone of contention is that these conditions will be applied to those WITH a home mooring.

[Tony Dunkley]

Erm so this bit which comes after the words satisfies the board in the quote above means a mooring exists/

 

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.

 

It appears to me that is more than just deciding a mooring exists.

You're confusing the requirements for boats without a mooring with those for a boat with one, and in doing so you're demonstrating why C&RT are correct to believe that the majority of the boating public are sufficiently gullible and stupid to accept their new T & C's.

[PaulG]

You're confusing the requirements for boats without a mooring with those for a boat with one, and in doing so you're demonstrating why C&RT are correct to believe that the majority of the boating public are sufficiently gullible and stupid to accept their new T & C's.

 

The great majority of the boating public will accept the new t & c's as they will have no effect on them whatsoever.

[Jerra]

You're confusing the requirements for boats without a mooring with those for a boat with one, and in doing so you're demonstrating why C&RT are correct to believe that the majority of the boating public are sufficiently gullible and stupid to accept their new T & C's.

I am confusing nothing thank you. I am drawing attention to the fact that Sabcat implied with the words No more, no less that the law prohibited anything other than what was stated about HM. What was stated after the words satisfies the board were clearly far more than the situation with HM and yet it was implied they had no say over anything else. Try considering what I am saying before jumping to conclusions.

 

Please don't read into what I say things I haven't said. Incidentally I won't be rude enough to imply you are stupid in thinking that anyone who is prepared to accept CRTs current position is gullible. They may have considered the situation and agree it is a reasonable position to take.

[Tony Dunkley]

Jerra, on 18 Feb 2015 - O4:43 PM, said:

I am confusing nothing thank you. I am drawing attention to the fact that Sabcat implied with the words No more, no less that the law prohibited anything other than what was stated about HM. What was stated after the words satisfies the board were clearly far more than the situation with HM and yet it was implied they had no say over anything else. Try considering what I am saying before jumping to conclusions.

Please don't read into what I say things I haven't said. Incidentally I won't be rude enough to imply you are stupid in thinking that anyone who is prepared to accept CRTs current position is gullible. They may have considered the situation and agree it is a reasonable position to take.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All you've done there is to confirm that your confusion is even more extensive than it first appeared.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

Jerra, on 18 Feb 2015 - 3:54 PM, said:

I am confusing nothing thank you. I am drawing attention to the fact that Sabcat implied with the words No more, no less that the law prohibited anything other than what was stated about HM. What was stated after the words satisfies the board were clearly far more than the situation with HM and yet it was implied they had no say over anything else. Try considering what I am saying before jumping to conclusions.

Please don't read into what I say things I haven't said. Incidentally I won't be rude enough to imply you are stupid in thinking that anyone who is prepared to accept CRTs current position is gullible. They may have considered the situation and agree it is a reasonable position to take.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All you've done there is to confirm that your confusion is even more extensive than it first appeared.

ROFLMAO

[Tony Dunkley]

ROFLMAO

 

Your spelling's not up to much either.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Jerra]

 

Your spelling's not up to much either.

May I direct you to the urban dictionary it appears you need to be brought into the 21st century.

 

Again ROFLMAO

[Tony Dunkley]

May I direct you to the urban dictionary it appears you need to be brought into the 21st century.

 

Again ROFLMAO

 

Is this some special Dictionary for the terminally confused ?

[Jerra]

 

Is this some special Dictionary for the terminally confused ?

ROFLMAO

[Tony Dunkley]

ROFLMAO

 

GAFYYBC

[Willber G]

I am confusing nothing thank you. I am drawing attention to the fact that Sabcat implied with the words No more, no less that the law prohibited anything other than what was stated about HM. What was stated after the words satisfies the board were clearly far more than the situation with HM and yet it was implied they had no say over anything else.

But the highlighted statement applies to CCers only, so is irrelevant wrt those with home moorings.