Jump to content

Enforcement


onionbargee

Featured Posts

That might encourage CRT to make their online moorings more appealing

I agree - but this line of logic doesn't seem to have occurred to them yet. Instead I see an increasing number of empty spaces. I don't have one or want one BTW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you keep a boat in one place and travel a couple of miles to work or the shop and back everyday would that constitute bone fide navigation? I think it would.

 

This is a good point, I think.

 

If "navigating" is just travelling by water from one place to another, surely it would be more than reasonable to claim that you were using your boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence" if you were making a half-hour journey to work and back every weekday, 48 weeks of the year (say). So long as you weren't returning to the same overnight mooring more than 14 days running, then, I can't see how you'd end up on the wrong side of the law.

 

Would you likewise be using your boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence" if you were moving twice a week, or twice a month, rather than twice a day - say, to the Elsan point, the water point, or just a new mooring? I have to say I don't see why not - you wouldn't question whether someone was using their car or bike "bona fide for transportation throughout the year" if they only used it to make a few short journeys every month.

 

OK, I think I've just talked myself into a more sympathetic position to those CCers who think the law is on their side if they just ensure that they don't stay for more than 14 days consecutively in any one place. Previously I was inclined to think that navigating "bona fide" was at odds with only doing short trips within a limited area, but in the absence of any legal basis for thinking that "navigating" implies being on a long, progressive journey, in a way that "driving" or "cycling" (say) do not, I don't see why that should be the case.

 

Of course, it remains perfectly possible that even if that is a reasonable interpretation of the law as drafted, that law is itself responsible for failing to prevent problems caused by a high concentration of "bridge-hopping" liveaboards in certain areas. But I'm not going to get into that because I don't want to give too much weight to anecdotes and assumptions about the movement patterns and home mooring status of the boats on any given stretch of canal at any one time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you keep a boat in one place and travel a couple of miles to work or the shop and back everyday would that constitute bone fide navigation? I think it would. So the question then is do you have a 'right to keep your boat' in one place? In CRT opinion only if you have a mooring. But if you accept the distance argument above constitutes bone fide navigation then why not be allowed to moor in different places if not exceeding the stated mooring period, even if they are near each other.

 

I would respectfully diagree, as in looking at the purpose of the law/rules, then any distance requirement seems less about defining what constitutes bona fide navigation, and more to do with allowing genuine continuous cruising, with as little restriction as possible.

 

I therefore think it's easier to try and understand what bona fide navigation means by looking at the alternative, and at the two choices one would appear to have; which are either to have a home mooring, or to be a continuous cruiser. The first seems to imply that you wish to base yourself in one location, whilst the second implies that you wish to continually navigate the system. In other words, you're either a bona fide navigator, or you have a home mooring.

 

If one then looks, not just at the meaning of "bona fide navigation", but at the bona fide intentions of the boat owner, then the intention of nipping to the shops, or work, and back, is ultimately to be based in one place. Which would then suggest that it more closely matches the definition of someone requiring a home mooring.

 

The problem then that any management body have to face, is to set rules that allow bona fide navigators to go about their travels as freely as possible, even if they genuinely only wish travel short distances, whilst making it difficult for others to exploit any short distance requirements in order to claim CC status, when their preferred intention is actually to remain in one place.

 

The fact that it may be difficult to police, is not simply a matter of ineptitude by CRT, but as much due to the honesty, or lack thereof, of people's bona fide intentions. Put simply, some wish to genuinely navigate the system, and others wish to stay in one place, and I guess most openly declare as such. However, some wish to do the latter but don't wish to take a home mooring, and so attempt to achieve their aim by simply fulfilling the bare minimum requirements of the former.

 

I don't really have a view whether they should be allowed to do so or not, or whether it's necessary, apprpropriate or worthwhile managing such activity. But it does seem that the point of the law is to require people who wish to remain in one location to have a home mooring, whilst removing such a requirement from those who wish to genuinely navigate the system. As such, those who simply fulfill the minimum requirememts may be able to argue that they're following the letter of the law, but certainly appear to be breaking the spirit and intention of it.

Edited by abraxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I therefore think it's easier to try and understand what bona fide navigation means by looking at the alternative, and at the two choices one would appear to have; which are either to have a home mooring, or to be a continuous cruiser. The first seems to imply that you wish to base yourself in one location, whilst the second implies that you wish to continually navigate the system.

 

I'm really only just getting my head around these issues, but for what it's worth: the problem there, as I understand it, is that the law doesn't say anything about having to make a choice between having a home mooring, or else "continuously cruising" in the sense of always being on some sort of progressive journey around the system. All it says is that if you don't have a home mooring, you must use your boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence" (and observe the 14 day limit on mooring in one place).

 

The CRT, I think, take the view that that the requirement to be on a continuous, progressive journey is implicit in the requirement to use one's boat "bona fide for navigation", but it's surely at least arguable that a boat making a few short journeys each month within a limited area is nonetheless being used "bona fide for navigation" (just as a car doing a few trips to the supermarket is being used "bona fide for transportation").

 

I think there is some case law that CRT cite as supporting their view, but I don't know the ins and outs of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you on this Magictime I thought the topic from Boston a while ago put it right, moving before time limits expired to other areas within a 18 mile distance to me seems to be within the spirit of boating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm really only just getting my head around these issues, but for what it's worth: the problem there, as I understand it, is that the law doesn't say anything about having to make a choice between having a home mooring, or else "continuously cruising" in the sense of always being on some sort of progressive journey around the system. All it says is that if you don't have a home mooring, you must use your boat "bona fide for navigation throughout the period of the licence" (and observe the 14 day limit on mooring in one place).

 

The issue is that there's no clear and unambiguous definition of what "bona fide navigation" means.

 

I don't know the ins and outs of any case law either, but from a practical point what should matter is what was intended in the first place. Some think it means continual navigation throughout the system, whilst others think it means just making a few short journeys within a month,whilst maintaining an efffective base in one location. In other words, was the law intended to allow effectively fixed location abodes for all, albeit with a mandatory movement requirement for some, or was it to require those who wish to dwell in one location to take a home mooring, whilst requiring the rest to remain transient throughout the system?

 

Pretty much the only way to fix it would be to properly define what "bona fide navigation" means, but not in terms of distances travelled, as that would probably just result in ever shifting goalposts, and instead in terms of the intentions behind the activity it's supposed to represent. At the moment it can be interpreted differently by either side, depending on their preference/agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pretty much the only way to fix it would be to properly define what "bona fide navigation" means, but not in terms of distances travelled, as that would probably just result in ever shifting goalposts, and instead in terms of the intentions behind the activity it's supposed to represent. At the moment it can be interpreted differently by either side, depending on their preference/agenda.

 

Perhaps, my dear, it actually means all of those things.

 

The only problem is that one group wants to deny another group the benefit of the alternatives.

 

In my opinion, i.e. according to my research, the law was intentionally left vague in order to encompass rather than facilitate. It is CRT and the leisure lobby who cannot accept this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years back 10 lock miles was suggested and was not accepted then CRT came up with the K&A sections trial .

Until some one gets to grips with the problem or CMers start moving then we will be in the same situation in 10 years time.

At the moment talking to CMers in my travels there is no consistency from CRT so first thing then CRT need to sort themselves out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps, my dear, it actually means all of those things.

 

The only problem is that one group wants to deny another group the benefit of the alternatives.

 

In my opinion, i.e. according to my research, the law was intentionally left vague in order to encompass rather than facilitate. It is CRT and the leisure lobby who cannot accept this.

 

Perhaps, but leaving it vague the leaves it open for CRT to make rules and regulations to suit its own interpretation., as equally it could have been intended to require home moorings for those who wish to live in one location, and to require those who don't have a home mooring to move more widely and not be tied to one place.

 

In that regard, those who share the CRT interpretation, see the only problem as being that one group wish to try and interpret the letter of the law, in order to break the spirit of it. Consequently the ambiguity suits neither side, and so I'd have thought both sides would prefer clarity, so that they know where they stand and can just deal with it, whatever "it" may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps, but leaving it vague the leaves it open for CRT to make rules and regulations to suit its own interpretation., as equally it could have been intended to require home moorings for those who wish to live in one location, and to require those who don't have a home mooring to move more widely and not be tied to one place.

 

In that regard, those who share the CRT interpretation, see the only problem as being that one group wish to try and interpret the letter of the law, in order to break the spirit of it. Consequently the ambiguity suits neither side, and so I'd have thought both sides would prefer clarity, so that they know where they stand and can just deal with it, whatever "it" may be.

 

It would be a sad world where boating was regulated to that extent. Compare and contrast with keeping a boat in estuarine waters.

 

Your 'equally' is patently not the case. If that was the case it would have been stated clearly and unambiguously. Whatever you may think of our legislators and their advisors they are not idiots. They wrote the law that made the best case between BW - who indeed wanted it as you state - and the wishes of a wide range of boaters who wanted something difference.

 

It is CRT who refuse to give up what BW demanded. Given the amount of power, money and legal authority they command, it is completely and utterly out of order for them to repeatedly try and subvert what Parliament laid down.

 

The spirit and the letter say, I paraphrase, "use your boat as intended, don't leave it anywhere more than two weeks without a good reason, if you really need to leave your boat for longer get a mooring" - That's it, none of the rubbish and nonsense we hear here or outfrothing form CRT, no 'distance, no 'something for nothing' no progressive journey,' none of that.

 

A simple law that is not difficult to obey and I will fight for ever to prevent CRT or you making more of it than is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know the ins and outs of any case law either, but from a practical point what should matter is what was intended in the first place. Some think it means continual navigation throughout the system, whilst others think it means just making a few short journeys within a month,whilst maintaining an efffective base in one location. In other words, was the law intended to allow effectively fixed location abodes for all, albeit with a mandatory movement requirement for some, or was it to require those who wish to dwell in one location to take a home mooring, whilst requiring the rest to remain transient throughout the system?

 

Well, according to the K&A Boating Community website, "Parliament intended that the test for whether boats are complying with this requirement should be whether the boat has stayed for longer than 14 continuous days in one place without a longer stay being reasonable in the circumstances. Parliament specifically rejected any requirement for a ‘no return within’ period or a ‘progressive journey’."

 

But they don't cite any sources to back that up. Presumably CRT would argue that they're not going against Parliament's intentions by treating "bona fide navigation" as entailing a progressive journey of some sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, according to the K&A Boating Community website, "Parliament intended that the test for whether boats are complying with this requirement should be whether the boat has stayed for longer than 14 continuous days in one place without a longer stay being reasonable in the circumstances. Parliament specifically rejected any requirement for a ‘no return within’ period or a ‘progressive journey’."

 

But they don't cite any sources to back that up. Presumably CRT would argue that they're not going against Parliament's intentions by treating "bona fide navigation" as entailing a progressive journey of some sort.

 

This is recorded in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that scrutinised the British Waterways Bill between 1991 and 1994. These minutes are available for public inspection in the Parliamentary Archives and in the House of Lords Select Committee Special Report on the British Waterways Bill (1991).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is recorded in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that scrutinised the British Waterways Bill between 1991 and 1994. These minutes are available for public inspection in the Parliamentary Archives and in the House of Lords Select Committee Special Report on the British Waterways Bill (1991).

 

And are inadmissable in court...... just because it didn't make it into law, doesn't mean it can't be tested as a reasonable interpretation in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And are inadmissable in court...... just because it didn't make it into law, doesn't mean it can't be tested as a reasonable interpretation in the courts.

 

Not necessarily. There are tests to be applied to determine whether such material will be helpful or admissible or not.

 

In fact, respecting the point giving rise to this, elements of a Bill that do not survive passage into Statute are specified as pertinent material for the courts to take note of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is recorded in the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committees that scrutinised the British Waterways Bill between 1991 and 1994. These minutes are available for public inspection in the Parliamentary Archives and in the House of Lords Select Committee Special Report on the British Waterways Bill (1991).

 

Thanks for that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your 'equally' is patently not the case. If that was the case it would have been stated clearly and unambiguously. Whatever you may think of our legislators and their advisors they are not idiots. They wrote the law that made the best case between BW - who indeed wanted it as you state - and the wishes of a wide range of boaters who wanted something difference.

 

The spirit and the letter say, I paraphrase, "use your boat as intended, don't leave it anywhere more than two weeks without a good reason, if you really need to leave your boat for longer get a mooring" - That's it, none of the rubbish and nonsense we hear here or outfrothing form CRT, no 'distance, no 'something for nothing' no progressive journey,' none of that.

 

Yes, but realistically it seems that the issue relates to a narrow range of boaters, not a wide one. Those being boaters who, given the choice, would largely not move at all, and only do so every two weeks to comply with the letter of the law.

 

If both the spirit, and the letter, of the law were intended to accomodate people who didn't wish to move, and who simply "drove round the block" once a fortnight, and then came back again the next day, then why bother with a 14 day restriction in the first place? If, as you say, the law wishes to accomodate those who want to stay in one place without a home mooring, then why inconvenience them by making them shuffle off and back every couple of weeks?

 

It is, as you say, an attempt at a compromise, between the opposing desires of two groups. One that allows both sides to exploit any perceived loopholes, interpretations and ambiguities surrounding the meaning of "bona fide navigation".

 

I'm not trying to make more of it than it is, as I don't really care either way. I'm just saying that, from a logical perspective, and without any preference one way or another, it at least appears that the intention is for those who wish to remain in one place to have a home mooring, and for those without to be expected to be genuinely cruising around a bit, rather than just facing the inconvenience of firing the engine up and going round the block and back.

 

I just think that it would be better for both sides to have clarity on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spirit and the letter say, I paraphrase, "use your boat as intended, don't leave it anywhere more than two weeks without a good reason, if you really need to leave your boat for longer get a mooring" - That's it, none of the rubbish and nonsense we hear here or outfrothing form CRT, no 'distance, no 'something for nothing' no progressive journey,' none of that.

 

A simple law that is not difficult to obey and I will fight for ever to prevent CRT or you making more of it than is there.

 

As I said, I'm not trying to make more of it, as I don't have a preference one way or another. I just don't think it's as clear or simple as you claim.

 

The letter of the law, I believe, says: "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."

 

This in no way seems to define "bona fide navigation" as simply not remaing in one place for more than 14 days, and instead treats them as two separate things. ie one must bona fide navigate and, in the course of doing so, one cannot remain in the same place for more than a fortnight.

 

Therefore it's not just about not staying anywhere for more than two weeks, but is also about one's purpose with regards to what the boat is intended for, and whether that fits the definition of "bona fide navigation". In other words, does bona fide navigation solely mean that the intention is to genuinely navigate the canals, which thus requires a vessel to live on whilst doing so; or does it allow for one's intention to mean living almost statically on a specific part of the canal, with any navigation not being the intended purpose, but merely a necessary means to comply with the other part of the law? In the case of the latter, then it certainly does appear that the letter and spirit can be taken in different ways; as to most people "bona fide navigation" would imply that the primary goal was a genuine intention to navigate, and not simply enforced navigation because one has to every now and then, in order to effectively stay put.

 

That's why I feel that it's less about distance moved, or amount of time in any one place, and more to do with what defines bona fide navigation.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very clear and concise analysis Mr Abraxus. Greenied.

 

I thought at first you might be a Santana fan, but on reflection probably not.

 

Haha, good guess, well done. Funnily enough it's a user name I've used elsewhere, which people assumed was to do with mythology or something, when in fact it was exactly because I was listening to Santana at the time. I know the album's spelled differently, but the right spelling was already taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Tis a truly great album I listened to incessantly when I was at skool.

 

Along with Deep Purple In Rock, Led Zep II and III, Wishbone Ash Wishbone Ash, and Paranoid. All timeless works of art.

 

Dark Side of the Moon was quite good too... ;)


(But came out a bit later IIRC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Therefore it's not just about not staying anywhere for more than two weeks, but is also about one's purpose with regards to what the boat is intended for, and whether that fits the definition of "bona fide navigation". In other words, does bona fide navigation solely mean that the intention is to genuinely navigate the canals, which thus requires a vessel to live on whilst doing so; or does it allow for one's intention to mean living almost statically on a specific part of the canal, with any navigation not being the intended purpose, but merely a necessary means to comply with the other part of the law? In the case of the latter, then it certainly does appear that the letter and spirit can be taken in different ways; as to most people "bona fide navigation" would imply that the primary goal was a genuine intention to navigate, and not simply enforced navigation because one has to every now and then, in order to effectively stay put.

 

That's a pretty fair expression of what I suppose I always took the "bona fide for navigation" requirement to be about: you're navigating in good faith if your purpose in having a boat is to travel around the system, and in bad faith if your purpose in having a boat is something else and such navigating as you do is just a means to that end.

 

But on reflection, that's clearly too strong. I could buy a boat with the purpose of living on it mortgage-free and decide that as a means to that end, I would move at least ten miles every fortnight in a progressive journey around the system, in order to be sure of avoiding any trouble with the CRT over compliance. I'd then, surely, be complying with CRT's requirements, completely regardless of my purpose or intention in owning the boat.

 

So it does seem as if "bona fide navigation" can't mean something like "navigation for its own sake", but rather must mean something as simple as "genuine navigation". The question then becomes whether regular cruises of two miles to the water point, or to a new mooring, etc., are nonetheless instances of genuine navigation. And I don't see why they're not. It's not as if there's something conceptually special about "navigation", as opposed to land-based forms of travel, such that it must involve progressive journeys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's a pretty fair expression of what I suppose I always took the "bona fide for navigation" requirement to be about: you're navigating in good faith if your purpose in having a boat is to travel around the system, and in bad faith if your purpose in having a boat is something else and such navigating as you do is just a means to that end.

 

But on reflection, that's clearly too strong. I could buy a boat with the purpose of living on it mortgage-free and decide that as a means to that end, I would move at least ten miles every fortnight in a progressive journey around the system, in order to be sure of avoiding any trouble with the CRT over compliance. I'd then, surely, be complying with CRT's requirements, completely regardless of my purpose or intention in owning the boat.

 

So it does seem as if "bona fide navigation" can't mean something like "navigation for its own sake", but rather must mean something as simple as "genuine navigation". The question then becomes whether regular cruises of two miles to the water point, or to a new mooring, etc., are nonetheless instances of genuine navigation. And I don't see why they're not. It's not as if there's something conceptually special about "navigation", as opposed to land-based forms of travel, such that it must involve progressive journeys.

 

I see what you're saying, and agree that your example of navigating as a means to an end operates outside of the spirit of what I (we?) understand to be bona fide navigation, and yet complies with CRT movement regulations.

 

However, it doesn't automatically follow that you can change the definition of bona fide navigation, just because you can do something else that happens to mimic the requirements imposed on bona fide navigators. After all, I could buy someone dinner, in order to get into their knickers, and say that my actions are the same as those who feed the hungry, but that doesn't mean I can claim to be a bona fide charity.

 

Complying with CRT's movement requirements, and your purpose/intention are two separate things, with the former just being a requirement placed on the latter, rather than a definition of it. Therefore you can comply with those movement requirements, but technically still be in breach of the bona fide navigation requirement, if your actual intention is not to navigate.

 

So, what you appear to be trying to do is to is re-define bona fide navigation to mean those who merely comply with the distance/time rules, and then trying to apply that false definition to everyone, by claiming that time/distance travelled is irrelevant. Intentional or not, it's just a bit of linguistic sleight of hand.

 

I don't think it is intentional though, and is instead assumimng that bona fide navigation can be simply defined by how far, and for how long, one travels, and that such distances/times are arbitrary, whereas I don't believe either to be the case, as "bona fide" refers as much (if not more) to intent as it does action. As I see it, the purpose of the distance/time rules isn't to define bona fide navigation, but an additional requirement that is placed on those who are bona fide navigators, in large part to minimise the number of people who wish to claim they're continuous cruisers, when in fact their intention is to stay put and move as little as possible.

 

Either way though, the reality is the law doesn't just state that one must move after 14 days, it states that one must also satisfy "the board" that the vessel will be used for bona fide navigation. In which case, if one states that their intention is to live in one place, and only pop down the canal to top up supplies every couple of weeks, I think they would have trouble satisfying any reasonable person that their intention is bona fide navigation.

Edited by abraxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see what you're saying, and agree that your example of navigating as a means to an end operates outside of the spirit of what I (we?) understand to be bona fide navigation, and yet complies with CRT movement regulations.

 

It seems to me that the problem with appealing to "the spirit of the law" in this instance is that the law was drafted with a view to balancing the wishes of different groups. British Waterways wanted an unambiguous requirement for boaters without a home mooring to be on a lengthy, progressive journey around the system; their supporters and successors take that to be the spirit of the "bona fide navigation" requirement. Others wanted such boaters to be allowed to cruise however they wish (long journeys, short journeys, progressive journeys, out-and-back journeys) so long as they do cruise and not just take root in one spot; their supporters and successors take that to be the spirit of the "bona fide navigation" requirement.

 

You misunderstand what my example (of someone moving ten miles a fortnight in a progressive journey around the system, in order to live mortgage- and hassle-free on a boat) was supposed to illustrate. I wasn't saying "this isn't bona fide navigation, even though it complies with the CRT's guidance"; I was saying "this is bona fide navigation (and even the CRT wouldn't deny it); so whether a boater is 'bona fide' navigating can't be about whether he navigates with some particular purpose in mind, but must just be about whether he genuinely navigates".

 

"bona fide" refers as much (if not more) to intent as it does action.

 

This is what our disagreement boils down to, I think. I don't see that intent comes into it. Suppose I buy a vintage car with the intention of enjoying the challenge of doing it up, and the pride of displaying it on my driveway. Do these ulterior motives mean that I am then not using it "bona fide" for transportation if I pop to the shops in it?

 

I'm suggesting that it's at least reasonable to think that the "bona fide" in "bona fide navigation" means nothing more nor less than "genuine", implying a minimal requirement to do regular, real journeys (of whatever length and in whatever pattern) - as opposed, say, to keeping a fake cruising log, or pulling your boat twenty yards up and down the towpath every fortnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.