Anyone just received CRT letter 'reminding' CC'ers to move?

[jenlyn]

Not from his speech, but questions by others.Tim

Yes, sorry. Given I did not link to the article which stated that fact, I should have inserted something.

Thanks for doing so.

[Joelsanders]

"Joel Mobile phone companies, internet companies etc all have illegal contracts.

 

Surely the whole point of the CCer ticket is so you don't pay for that which you don't use ie if you are cruising around the country all the time and never going back to your home mooring. If you need to be in one place then you need a mooring.

But surely the distance thing is down to people being pedantic. There is a clue here, Continuous >Cruiser< It doesn't take much to work it out. Cruising is NOT bowhauling your boat 30 feet up the cut. Cruising involves distance if you need to ask how any boat lengths you need to move then that's a measure and you are not a CCer rather a Continuous Avoider of the checkerman."

 

 

Can you clarify your point about mobile phone / internet companies please? Are you saying that since Internet companies & phone companies break the law , then it should be OK for other organisations to do so as well ?

 

As for defining what "continuous cruising" means , the law (BW Act 95) refers to "boaters without a home mooring " , a legal term which makes no reference to movement.

 

By using the euphemism "continuous cruiser " instead of the legal term, an implication of movement does now exist. In terms of "law" however, it is irrelevant. The "clue" you mention is a red herring.

 

It comes down to an attempt (a successful one) to change language in order to alter perceptions and - over time - using the new perception to change reality.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Joelsanders

[cotswoldsman]

These two remarks below taken from John Dodwell's speech give good reason for some CCers to be concerned.

This is the mentality of some, and can often be seen promoted on this forum also.

10. Will C&RT bring in a code of practice for good house keeping i.e. No loose bags of rubbish on roofs of boats (waiting to get blown into the canal when it gets windy), not to use hedge rows and towing paths to store items, old batteries (which are a hazard) not to be left on boats (or towing paths), dinghy/canoes to be securely tied and not allowed to drift into the channel each time a boat passes. - these are just some examples. Licence terms and conditions – you’ve all read them avidly , haven’t you? – do cover not obstructing the towpath nor causing damage or nuisance. But it’s very subjective, isn’t it? One of our staff I asked said who would decide what’s tidy or untidy – and went on to say that his wife’s got different views to him.

12. I see some boats on the canal, which are (now) licensed, but I find it hard to believe that they have a BSS certificate, is there a black market in these, because how else could they get a certificate or are C&RT just glad of the licence money and are not checking out the BSS certificate? A BSS certificate is needed to get or renew a licence and the staff check the BSS database before issuing a licence. As you know, BSS certificates are required every four years. I wonder what items you have in mind in considering if the boat is BSS compliant.

I think it shows a lack of knowledge on the requirements for BSS

[matty40s]

EDITED BECAUSE i SHOULD HAVE RECOGNISED A MAFFI RANT .

 

 

As for defining what "continuous cruising" means , the law (BW Act 95) refers to "boaters without a home mooring " , a legal term which makes no reference to movement.

By using the euphemism "continuous cruiser " instead of the legal term, an implication of movement does now exists. In terms of "law" however the "clue" is therefore a red herring.

It comes down to an attempt (a successful one) to change language in order to alter perceptions and - over time - using that new perception to change reality.

 

TUTTTTT......

Edited March 4, 2015 by matty40s

[Joelsanders]

The two halves of your statement appear to contradict each other.......

The two halves of your statement appear to contradict each other.......

The blue is a quote from someone else's post. The red is my response. It formatted strangely due to my incompetence.

[Paul C]

 

The two halves of your statement appear to contradict each other.......

 

Matty, he quoted a previous poster, but the quote demarkation doesn't show.

[Higgs]

Can someone point me in the direction of the campaign that enabled continuous cruising? I would like see how it was argued for and how it was agreed upon. Thanks.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Higgs

[DeanS]

 

That's completely random, and I can't even understand why you'd say or suggest something like that - can you explain???

 

It was slightly tongue in cheek in response to Mango's post (#154 where he said all CC-ers should get only a 3month licence in the beginning and only get a 1yr licence if they've proved themselves

[Graham Davis]

These two remarks below taken from John Dodwell's speech give good reason for some CCers to be concerned.

This is the mentality of some, and can often be seen promoted on this forum also.

 

10. Will C&RT bring in a code of practice for good house keeping i.e. No loose bags of rubbish on roofs of boats (waiting to get blown into the canal when it gets windy), not to use hedge rows and towing paths to store items, old batteries (which are a hazard) not to be left on boats (or towing paths), dinghy/canoes to be securely tied and not allowed to drift into the channel each time a boat passes. - these are just some examples. Licence terms and conditions – you’ve all read them avidly , haven’t you? – do cover not obstructing the towpath nor causing damage or nuisance. But it’s very subjective, isn’t it? One of our staff I asked said who would decide what’s tidy or untidy – and went on to say that his wife’s got different views to him.

 

12. I see some boats on the canal, which are (now) licensed, but I find it hard to believe that they have a BSS certificate, is there a black market in these, because how else could they get a certificate or are C&RT just glad of the licence money and are not checking out the BSS certificate? A BSS certificate is needed to get or renew a licence and the staff check the BSS database before issuing a licence. As you know, BSS certificates are required every four years. I wonder what items you have in mind in considering if the boat is BSS compliant.

 

Interesting that you don't quote the answers he gave!

Perhaps it makes you as bad as the people who asked the questions?

(who I happen to DISAGREE with!)

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Interesting that you don't quote the answers he gave!

Perhaps it makes you as bad as the people who asked the questions?

(who I happen to DISAGREE with!)

 

10. Will C&RT bring in a code of practice for good house keeping i.e. No loose bags of rubbish on roofs of boats (waiting to get blown into the canal when it gets windy), not to use hedge rows and towing paths to store items, old batteries (which are a hazard) not to be left on boats (or towing paths), dinghy/canoes to be securely tied and not allowed to drift into the channel each time a boat passes. - these are just some examples. Licence terms and conditions – you’ve all read them avidly , haven’t you? – do cover not obstructing the towpath nor causing damage or nuisance. But it’s very subjective, isn’t it? One of our staff I asked said who would decide what’s tidy or untidy – and went on to say that his wife’s got different views to him.

 

12. I see some boats on the canal, which are (now) licensed, but I find it hard to believe that they have a BSS certificate, is there a black market in these, because how else could they get a certificate or are C&RT just glad of the licence money and are not checking out the BSS certificate? A BSS certificate is needed to get or renew a licence and the staff check the BSS database before issuing a licence. As you know, BSS certificates are required every four years. I wonder what items you have in mind in considering if the boat is BSS compliant.

 

Unfortunately in the post the answers were not differentiated from the questions.

 

The answers are highlighted in Red

[NigelMoore]

By using the euphemism "continuous cruiser " instead of the legal term, an implication of movement does now exist. In terms of "law" however, it is irrelevant. The "clue" you mention is a red herring.

 

It comes down to an attempt (a successful one) to change language in order to alter perceptions and - over time - using the new perception to change reality.

 

Very well put.

 

The situation with unlawful contracts is similar: because people believe the BW/CaRT hype that they are bound by such contracts, they achieve the practical effect that no court could sanction [and does not].

[NigelMoore]

Can someone point me in the direction of the campaign that enabled continuous cruising? I would like see how it was argued for and how it was agreed upon. Thanks.

 

The relevant records are held by the Parliamentary Archives behind Black Rod’s Gate in Westminster. You can only view them by personal visitation, which you must needs arrange beforehand.

 

There are well over a thousand pages of submissions and transcripts of evidence to wade through, because the proceedings took years before the final version of the 1990 Bill passed into the Act.

 

I have about 600 pages photographed [not all of good quality], and at some future point will put them online, but I have no time for that at present.

 

To arrange your own visit [photograph permit is £5/visit] check out –

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-practical/archives-planning-your-visit/

[Higgs]

 

The relevant records are held by the Parliamentary Archives behind Black Rod’s Gate in Westminster. You can only view them by personal visitation, which you must needs arrange beforehand.

 

There are well over a thousand pages of submissions and transcripts of evidence to wade through, because the proceedings took years before the final version of the 1990 Bill passed into the Act.

 

I have about 600 pages photographed [not all of good quality], and at some future point will put them online, but I have no time for that at present.

 

To arrange your own visit [photograph permit is £5/visit] check out –

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-practical/archives-planning-your-visit/

 

 

Thank you for that link. For the moment, I would be more interested in the general discussions and articles that may have been around at the time. It must have been a pretty hot topic in canal publications, I'd have thought.

 

Maybe it's possible to read the Bill. How is it titled? Thank you. I think "Waterways Bill-1990" got me there.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Higgs

[bassplayer]

 

 

Thank you for that link. For the moment, I would be more interested in the general discussions and articles that may have been around at the time. It must have been a pretty hot topic in canal publications, I'd have thought.

I don't know if you are in a position to up roots and explore the system but if you were, would you be happy to pay for a mooring you have no intention of using? The reasoning is very simple.

[jenlyn]

Interesting that you don't quote the answers he gave!

Perhaps it makes you as bad as the people who asked the questions?

(who I happen to DISAGREE with!)

Yes, sorry. It's a direct cut and paste. I had worked out that the answers were there amongst the paragraph, I did not think to presume some such as yourself would not be able to work it out.

Apologies.

[Higgs]

I don't know if you are in a position to up roots and explore the system but if you were, would you be happy to pay for a mooring you have no intention of using? The reasoning is very simple.

 

 

This is something I've thought about. I have a mooring, it's residential. And yes, I would be happy to cruise all over the place and keep a mooring, even if I thought it would be impractical to use it for some period of time. But, then again, I have every intention of using it at some point. If I had no intention of using a mooring, I would declare CC and not have one. In my case, I want to keep the option of a mooring.

 

I don't want to find out what right boaters should have to CC, I support that right. But, I would like to understand, not only what was being asked for by the campaign but how it was delivered as an idea and on what grounds the agreement was secured.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

Thank you for that link. For the moment, I would be more interested in the general discussions and articles that may have been around at the time. It must have been a pretty hot topic in canal publications, I'd have thought.

 

It's logical enough not to have been argued over that much, I'd have thought. Some of us need a home mooring, some of us don't. The licence is the crucial thing, that lets you onto the system in the first place - you don't need a mooring if you're going to cruise. The letter that's going out just seems to be a reminder of that and that you need to be aware that the category you're in is subject to change with your circumstances.

[Higgs]

It's logical enough not to have been argued over that much, I'd have thought. Some of us need a home mooring, some of us don't. The licence is the crucial thing, that lets you onto the system in the first place - you don't need a mooring if you're going to cruise. The letter that's going out just seems to be a reminder of that and that you need to be aware that the category you're in is subject to change with your circumstances.

 

 

I would like to go back to the beginning, I'm curious. Before the campaign, a home mooring was required. Now it isn't. I would like to know what conditions changed the minds of the authorities.

[Paul C]

I don't know if you are in a position to up roots and explore the system but if you were, would you be happy to pay for a mooring you have no intention of using? The reasoning is very simple.

 

Are you saying that only those people who are prepared to have no local roots and explore a widespread part of the system, shouldn't need a home mooring?

 

If not, then how extensive do they need to explore before the requirement for a home mooring is waived? 12 miles? 5 miles? 200 yds?

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Are you saying that only those people who are prepared to have no local roots and explore a widespread part of the system, shouldn't need a home mooring?

 

If not, then how extensive do they need to explore before the requirement for a home mooring is waived? 12 miles? 5 miles? 200 yds?

I think you've gone back to page 1 of the debate. Which I think has more or less come down to the concept that it isn't distance that matters, but cruising pattern. But once you admit that you want local roots, you probably need a mooring. Roots aren't designed for moving about, they are there to keep you in one place. Unless you're a triffid.

[bassplayer]

It's logical enough not to have been argued over that much, I'd have thought. Some of us need a home mooring, some of us don't. The licence is the crucial thing, that lets you onto the system in the first place - you don't need a mooring if you're going to cruise. The letter that's going out just seems to be a reminder of that and that you need to be aware that the category you're in is subject to change with your circumstances.

The problem with the letter is that it could cause distress to those who don't have a home mooring. CRT are basically saying that they will remove your boat if I they feel like it. I'll try to explain this...

 

CRT say they will not issue a licence if they feel you haven't moved enough, but don't (for whatever reason) say what 'enough' is. Logically you could have explored 500 miles of the system but be deemed not moving enough. They could then refuse to licence you and consequently remove your boat (and home for many!).

 

Of course I understand how fear tactics work but unfortunately by targeting every boater without a home mooring they are distressing those who are trying to comply. Some of these boaters are vulnerable and it surmounts to bullying.

[Higgs]

I think you've gone back to page 1 of the debate. Which I think has more or less come down to the concept that it isn't distance that matters, but cruising pattern. But once you admit that you want local roots, you probably need a mooring. Roots aren't designed for moving about, they are there to keep you in one place. Unless you're a triffid.

 

Can't agree with that. Only if you're literally a plant.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

I think you've gone back to page 1 of the debate. Which I think has more or less come down to the concept that it isn't distance that matters, but cruising pattern. But once you admit that you want local roots, you probably need a mooring. Roots aren't designed for moving about, they are there to keep you in one place. Unless you're a triffid.

 

The "Chair" of the NBTA's take on the matter :

 

Complying with the 1995 Act by using the boat 'bona fide for navigation without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days' does not mean that we are prohibited from having a job, sending our children to school or receiving health care in one place. We will not be bullied into complying with unlawful 'rules' that go beyond what is stated in the 1995 Act.

[Paul C]

Logically you could have explored 500 miles of the system but be deemed not moving enough.

 

Disagree

 

Unless paranoid, I think those boaters who have done 500+ miles KNOW that there's other CCers who have done less, including a minority who have done very little actual cruising compared to being moored in one place at a time. So they'll know why CRT need to put this into a letter.

 

Of course, there's a middle point somewhere where someone's not done 500 miles, but has moved around. The principle remains though - those who know they're compliant, won't worry and those who know they aren't compliant, will probably either dismiss it, worry, or change their behaviour.

 

If you don't know if you're compliant, and given that the law is based upon "bona fide for navigation" then you'e basically saying you don't know if you use the boat for cruising.

[Arthur Marshall]

The problem with the letter is that it could cause distress to those who don't have a home mooring. CRT are basically saying that they will remove your boat if I they feel like it. I'll try to explain this...

 

CRT say they will not issue a licence if they feel you haven't moved enough, but don't (for whatever reason) say what 'enough' is. Logically you could have explored 500 miles of the system but be deemed not moving enough. They could then refuse to licence you and consequently remove your boat (and home for many!).

 

Of course I understand how fear tactics work but unfortunately by targeting every boater without a home mooring they are distressing those who are trying to comply. Some of these boaters are vulnerable and it surmounts to bullying.

They are probably distressing those who are trying to just comply, but you could argue that it's probably a good thing that they are being warned that cruising is actually definable, even if it's going to take a court in the end to define it. i don't think they'd get far with arguing a 500 mile cruise is overstaying in an area. As i've said before, issuing this to everyone is a bit like using a sledge to deal with a nut, but if they hadn't made it a universal issue, it would have been said they were picking on certain people in certain places and ignoring others. On the K&A, for example, they seem to have defined what they mean by enough fairly tightly, although I'm not sure that this has pleased everybody.