Pre. CC1

[Barry]

 

I'm extremely uncomfortable with that. I thought I lived in a country where innocence was assumed, guilt had to be proved.

 

But you're not innocent are you? You've already been caught out. Now you need to take steps to get out from under as you've acknowledged. MtB's suggestion is just another one of those steps.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Bazza2

[kris88]

I really must find out how to post smileys

Regards kris

[mayalld]

 

I'm extremely uncomfortable with that. I thought I lived in a country where innocence was assumed, guilt had to be proved.

In criminal matters yes

 

In the matter of satisfying the board, the onus is on you

[MtB]

 

I'm extremely uncomfortable with that. I thought I lived in a country where innocence was assumed, guilt had to be proved.

 

As Bazza points out you've already admitted your guilt.

 

And the law requires you to 'satisfy the board'. Do keep up with your obligations.

[Captain Zim]

In criminal matters yes

In the matter of satisfying the board, the onus is on you

Which is a matter in civil law, yes? I wasn't aware that the burden of proof in civil law made you guilty until proven innocent but there you go, you learn something new every day.

 

I do enjoy reading posts from people who have obviously never done a thing wrong in their lives, giving hard time to a bloke who's put his hands up and admitted he should've known better. There's no better sport than kicking a man when he's down eh?

[mark99]

Steady Zim. Notwithstanding Ricco has been very honest, facts are being pointed out which will aid rather than flannel.

Edited April 2, 2015 by mark99

[Ricco1]

Steady Zim. Notwithstanding Ricco has been very honest, facts are being pointed out.

 

I have been honest, but I'm learning

[DeanS]

I have a solution to this whole T&Cs issue.

CRT should scrap it and only target people who have been on VMs over the allotted time, and leave everyone to just do what they like...go sit on towpaths ...move whatever distance....it would encourage more boaters, and still keep the VMs clear.

[Ricco1]

Yes but how will they ethnically cleanse the waterways that way, get rid of all the water gypsies with their tar stained shoddy paint and plants on the roof, so that the guy coming out of the marina wearing his top spec deck shoes can enjoy the views without it being stained by riff raff??

[NigelMoore]

CRT should scrap it and only target people who have been on VMs over the allotted time -

 

- and on waterpoints, and sanitary stations, etc.

[NigelMoore]

Yes but how will they ethnically cleanse the waterways that way, get rid of all the water gypsies . . .

 

Back in 1990 I used to keep my boat in Paddington basin; fairly deserted then, aside from a varied collection of boats and barges at the back of St Mary’s.

 

Talking to one of the boaters there one year, he told me of a time he noticed a whole bunch of foreign tourists bestrewed with cameras, looking lost, across the water from his boat. Being polite, he asked if he could be of assistance.

 

They said they were looking for the water gypsies their international guidebook had promised were moored up in the area. My chap said “Well, I know everyone on these boats; I am a consultant with the Ministry of Defence, but all the others work in the hospital. The one in the boat over there is the country’s leading ophthalmologist, the one over there is the consultant brain surgeon etc etc.”

 

If it would help, he told them, he could go below and see if he had a bandanna he could knot over his head to look the part for their photos. I can’t remember whether they took him up on it.

[wreckferret]

I have a solution to this whole T&Cs issue.

CRT should scrap it and only target people who have been on VMs over the allotted time, and leave everyone to just do what they like...go sit on towpaths ...move whatever distance....it would encourage more boaters, and still keep the VMs clear.

I would pay good money to see this.....Can't see it going down well at my local boat club.....This being bank holiday it will be like wacky races down to the 24hr mooring where they will stay all weekend sat round a bonfire on towpath...

Never mind, it will soon be Tuesday and they will be back to their "online" mooring that stretches for at least a mile and takes an age to drift past so as not to upset anyone ???

[weeble]

I have a solution to this whole T&Cs issue.

CRT should scrap it and only target people who have been on VMs over the allotted time, and leave everyone to just do what they like...go sit on towpaths ...move whatever distance....it would encourage more boaters, and still keep the VMs clear.

 

And increase everyone's licence by a grand or more to make up for the loss of mooring fees....... sounds a fair idea!

[Arthur Marshall]

Which is a matter in civil law, yes? I wasn't aware that the burden of proof in civil law made you guilty until proven innocent but there you go, you learn something new every day.

Seeing as how someone has just been charged with "engaging in conduct in preparation for giving effect to an intention to commit acts of terrorism", I'm afraid your idea that anyone is still innocent till proved guilty, or till they actually DO something, rather than just think about it, has been outdated for some years now. And considering that the terrorism acts have been used by Councils to check on people's right to send their kids to school or put things in their bins, I'm damn sure CRT could use them too!

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Thanks for taking the time to write that. I might just treat myself to a trip round the Cheshire ring. It would be just my look to not be spotted!

I do try to be constructive... you don't even need geotaged photos, just one of your boat by a milepost should do it. I do think (though I know there are those here who disagree with me) that CRT would much rather keep you on the water than have the hassle of the rest of it, but you do need to meet them halfway. The 4 counties is easier than the Cheshire ring if you're on your own...

[MtB]

Never mind, it will soon be Tuesday and they will be back to their "online" mooring that stretches for at least a mile and takes an age to drift past so as not to upset anyone

 

 

No, NO! Naught Cal says you must always go along at 4mph in order to cover at least 20 miles a day. Didn't she??

 

Any shouts of 'SLOW DOWN', refer them to Rachel.

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Yes that's what they meant. But, as someone who doesn't want to moor in the same place all the time, would that solve the problem? My understanding of the new t&c's is that if I take a home mooring I still have to cruise an acceptable path so to speak, as I would if I didn't have a mooring. So taking a mooring would make no difference! Having said that the person I spoke to earlier said I would be OK if I had a mooring, I could cruise whatever path I wished, as long as I moved every 14 days.

 

 

In making the above statement you have, in fact, made clear your reasons for moving your boat on any of the occasions that you do so. You're moving your boat to another 'place', not in order to comply with the requirements of C&RT and the 1995 Act, but simply because you want to, and your refusal to take a mooring on the grounds that you don't want to remain in the same place all the time is a further clear indication that both past and future movements of your boat have been, and will be, for the sole purpose of moving to a different 'place'.

The use of your boat in this manner, and for that reason, even over short distances between only two places, is congruent with the opinions of at least two County Court Judges on what complies with the 'will be used bona fide for navigation' requirement of Section 17(3){c}(ii) of the 1995 Act.

Provided that you are also fulfilling the BSS and Insurance requirements in the same Section of the Act, then C&RT cannot lawfully revoke or refuse to renew your Licence.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[wreckferret]

Seeing as how someone has just been charged with "engaging in conduct in preparation for giving effect to an intention to commit acts of terrorism", I'm afraid your idea that anyone is still innocent till proved guilty, or till they actually DO something, rather than just think about it, has been outdated for some years now. And considering that the terrorism acts have been used by Councils to check on people's right to send their kids to school or put things in their bins, I'm damn sure CRT could use them too!

I think "going equipped" has always been enough to get you nicked??

[Ricco1]

Thinking this through some more: Now I'm on the radar so to speak, I can expect my movements to be monitored more closely. I accept this, it seems reasonable. However, I have a feeling. It might be irrational but it's there, all the same. I feel that CRT have 2 acceptable patterns of mooring. One for general cc'ers who have not transgressed at this point. Another for people 'on the radar'. I feel that the requirements are different for the 2 different groups. If a pattern of movement, over a given period, of a boater who has always behaved acceptably is OK with CRT so should the same movements, over the same period, of a boater who is on the radar. There are no separate laws or guidelines for those who have transgressed in the past. So the transgresser could be watched differently, that's fine, but he/ she should not be judged differently.

 

Should my hunch be right I believe it's not just unfair, it's discriminatory.

 

Any thoughts whether I have a point here?

[Arthur Marshall]

Any thoughts whether I have a point here?

You do have a point, but unortunately it's normal... if you've had one affair, your wife is more likely to suspect you of having another if you start wearing clean underpants every day, while if you've never had one, she'll just think you've discovered cleanliness at last! If anyone said that much of life is based on what's fair, I've missed it. And the law is written by those in charge to make sure they stay there and the rest of us know our place, I'm afraid. Sadly, the world is what it is and we have to live in it.

[Ricco1]

You do have a point, but unortunately it's normal... if you've had one affair, your wife is more likely to suspect you of having another if you start wearing clean underpants every day, while if you've never had one, she'll just think you've discovered cleanliness at last! If anyone said that much of life is based on what's fair, I've missed it. And the law is written by those in charge to make sure they stay there and the rest of us know our place, I'm afraid. Sadly, the world is what it is and we have to live in it.

 

Sure, and nice example! However it matters of law it's different. If someone is being tried for say rape and he/ she has previous convictions for the same that fact will not be disclosed to the jury as it could influence them to make the wrong decision. Because someone has been guilty in the past does not mean he is guilty today. He/ she is tried fairly, based on evidence, in the same way someone would be if they have no previous convictions. The sentencing could be different, of course...

 

Should we expect what is basically a public body to behave with the mind set of a jilted wife, or the law, do you think?

[Arthur Marshall]

 

Sure, and nice example! (snip)

 

Should we expect what is basically a public body to behave with the mind set of a jilted wife, or the law, do you think?

Again sadly, and just before I vanish for the day, the law is run by people, which is one of the reaons it doesn't work very well. In my younger days I got picked on by policemen because I had long hair and a beard, black people get stopped because of their colour, it's just the way of the world. It's not right, but it's what is. You have to protect yourself against the reality, not against what ought to be. Or you can be prepared to fight your corner and you have to dcide whether it's worth the effort - we all have lines we refuse to cross as some on here have proved, and some have won and some haven't. Doorbells ringing - must go...

[Captain Zim]

Seeing as how someone has just been charged with "engaging in conduct in preparation for giving effect to an intention to commit acts of terrorism", I'm afraid your idea that anyone is still innocent till proved guilty, or till they actually DO something, rather than just think about it, has been outdated for some years now. And considering that the terrorism acts have been used by Councils to check on people's right to send their kids to school or put things in their bins, I'm damn sure CRT could use them too!

I doubt it since those laws (nothing to do with terrorism) can only be used for offenses carrying a minimum jail term of 6 months. We're not headed that way yet are we?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Captain Zim

[LankyStreak]

I doubt it since those laws (nothing to do with terrorism) can only be used for offenses carrying a minimum jail term of 6 months. We're not headed that way yet are we?

 

A couple of years ago I received a police summons for illegally parking in Gloucester and not paying the fixed penalty for the ticket that was allegedly stuck to my car's windscreen. Fair enough except for one thing: I've never been to Gloucester in my life. I phoned them up and explained that it must be someone else but the police line was that unless I could prove I was somewhere else I would have to attend court, and the court will always believe a police officer rather than a motorist. By pure luck my car was in a garage in Basingstoke all that week to have a new gearbox fitted so the garage could confirm that the car wasn't in Gloucester on the day in question. It still needled me that I had to prove my innocence. I guess the traffic warden wrote the wrong registration number down or someone else was using false number plates.

[cotswoldsman]

Thinking this through some more: Now I'm on the radar so to speak, I can expect my movements to be monitored more closely. I accept this, it seems reasonable. However, I have a feeling. It might be irrational but it's there, all the same. I feel that CRT have 2 acceptable patterns of mooring. One for general cc'ers who have not transgressed at this point. Another for people 'on the radar'. I feel that the requirements are different for the 2 different groups. If a pattern of movement, over a given period, of a boater who has always behaved acceptably is OK with CRT so should the same movements, over the same period, of a boater who is on the radar. There are no separate laws or guidelines for those who have transgressed in the past. So the transgresser could be watched differently, that's fine, but he/ she should not be judged differently.

 

Should my hunch be right I believe it's not just unfair, it's discriminatory.

 

Any thoughts whether I have a point here?

Yes I think you are correct