New T&C's question

[Jerra]

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

I am well aware of that but the statement implied the law covered nothing but HM as I have already pointed out.

[Willber G]

I am well aware of that but the statement implied the law covered nothing but HM as I have already pointed out.

Well, as the thread is about T&Cs for those with a HM, I took Sabcat's comment to refer only to that excerpt. The para specifically referring to CCers is irrelevant in this discussion.

[BrumSaint]

 

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).

I've not misunderstood the arguments.

 

It is quite simple C&RT are bound by various Acts of Parliament, most people agree that these are not very clear and can lead to confusion or (for those so inclined) flagrant disregard of the Acts hoping to get away with their behaviour because of the ambiguity in the wording.

 

C&RT in an attempt to bring some clarity, publish guidance (or Terms & Conditions) [not as you imply 'changes to the law'], which they hope most boaters will agree with and abide by. It may be that some people will think that the guidance (T&Cs) goes a bit further than a strict interpretation of the act would require. Others will think it is in the spirit of the Acts and are prepared to go along with it.

 

Those who think the guidance (T&Cs) are wrong are perfectly at liberty to ignore it and when C&RT try to enforce the guidance (T&Cs) argue the matter out in court.

 

A bit like your analogy really. The police might advise that it is sensible to travel at 50mph on a 60mph stretch of road. Quite a lot of drivers would take their advice, however if the police chose to prosecute a driver who didn't then I should imagine a not guilty plea would be entered and a court would decide (in this case almost certainly in favour of the driver, but only because the Acts of Parliament regarding road speeds is very clear, unlike the Acts that govern C&RT and the waterways).

[BrumSaint]

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.

Glad to see you not in favour of people "...being allowed to moor wherever they like for as long as they like...".

 

It appears (from your second sentence) that although you agree people shouldn't be allowed to moor where they like for as long as they like you just don't like the way C&RT are going about it. Other than getting a new act of parliament (which will take years and then there's the question of what happens in the meantime) how do you propose that C&RT deal with people who think they can moor where they like for as long as they like?

[Iain_S]

 

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.

 

It must not only exist and be available, but be suitable. My post was in response to Tony's, who stated that they (C&RT) had no right to decide what they would be satisfied with.

 

If I had a non-seagoing widebeam in London, would a mooring in Leeds be suitable? It might exist and be available, but if I can only get the boat there by road, is the mooring suitable, or, rather, would C&RT be satisfied that it was? I think not!

 

Iain

[Paul C]

 

It must not only exist and be available, but be suitable. My post was in response to Tony's, who stated that they (C&RT) had no right to decide what they would be satisfied with.

 

If I had a non-seagoing widebeam in London, would a mooring in Leeds be suitable? It might exist and be available, but if I can only get the boat there by road, is the mooring suitable, or, rather, would C&RT be satisfied that it was? I think not!

 

Iain

 

You're both paraphrasing the actual wording, in a way which subtly changes the meaning. The key words are these:

 

 

 

(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

Basically, it is not enough that is simply exists, it must be reasonable that the boat could be kept there.

[Iain_S]

(snip)

Basically, it is not enough that is simply exists, it must be reasonable that the boat could be kept there.

 

And "the Board are satisfied".

 

There has been much debate about the definition of "place". IMO, a much bigger can of worms could be opened by "suitable" and "available".

 

Iain

[mayalld]

 

Your conclusion is wrong, . . . . . . they have already used the 1995 Act in conjunction with some fanciful and ridiculous interpretation of the existing T & C's to revoke the Licence of a boat with a home mooring, to see if they could get away with it. The changes now being made to the T & C's in respect of boat use are a consequence of that.

 

They have used it, then backed down, and reinstated the licence.

[mayalld]

There is quite a lot happening on Facebook including looking at Crowd Funding

 

Hmm, are potential funders aware of

 

Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others

[Sabcat]

 

Hmm, are potential funders aware of

 

Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others

 

How do you think that applies here?

[cotswoldsman]

 

Hmm, are potential funders aware of

 

Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and others

Nope and doubt they care like myself

[Sabcat]

Nope and doubt they care like myself

 

you don't need to, it has absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here at all.

[onionbargee]

How about we face reality and actually find out what boat owners want now, then we can make rules to suit everyone ?

 

Personally in the past I've found a place of about 25 miles where there is all the services I need, and stayed in the general area for a couple of years, I get itchy after 2 weeks and need a bit of boating, or a change of scenery, or theres work to do, so a mooring just doesn't suit me, I like to wake up and if its a nice day decide to move.

 

What is your actual cruising pattern ?

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes I like a place so much or need a rest that I would take a mooring there for a while, if it was a simple process, and not a pain in the arse auction.

 

Actual constant cruisers that travel non stop around the system are very rare. Usually retired with a decent income. The Diesel alone is a serious cost for this.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

They have used it, then backed down, and reinstated the licence.

 

In fact, they didn't reinstate the licence that was revoked, but instead stated, in writing, that they would not issue a new licence on the basis of the boat having a home mooring, but were prepared to do so only on the basis of continuous cruising.

So, a few months later the current proposals not to renew allegedly offending CC'ers licences leave C&RT looking even more like an organization that's lost it's way, and in urgent need of some anatomical diagrams.

[mayalld]

 

you don't need to, it has absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here at all.

Really?

 

It seems to me that it says that those who bankroll litigation because they perceive some advantage to themselves if that legislation succeeds can be liable for the other sides costs.

[Sabcat]

Really?

 

It seems to me that it says that those who bankroll litigation because they perceive some advantage to themselves if that legislation succeeds can be liable for the other sides costs.

 

You see what you want to see. In case anyone is even slightly worried about then there's a description of the case and the implications here

 

Suffice to say it applies to litigant funders who enter into a agreement where the funder gets a return - it could be crowdfunded via yet another third party - and it's regulated. Chipping a few quid to someone who's having their boat threatened by CRT doesn't even come close to applying. mayalld all ready knows that though.

[Jerra]

 

Chipping a few quid to someone who's having their boat threatened by CRT doesn't even come close to applying. mayalld all ready knows that though.

 

Do you have a reference for that as I prefer to have official confirmation just in case. With one person saying one thing and another the opposite it is best to check if possible.