C&RT Enforcement Procedure Document

[Naughty Cal]

Your like a stuck record Rachel. Would you like to have a bet about wether or not I'll have a boat . Oh no I forgot you don't pay up on bets that you lose!

Regards kris

I do indeed pay up on bets I lose. You first have to lose them to make them payable though.

 

What bet would you like to make?

 

Should be a sure fire winner if ever there was one this one.

[kris88]

No your alright I've already witnessed you welch on a bet.

Regards kris

[NigelMoore]

2 . . . having space for 10 boats but "selling" moorings for many more than this. Or having an arrangement that they stay only part of the mooring period . . .

 

As I see it . . . 2 is illegal.

 

Interestingly enough, not only is that incorrect, but the possibility of sharing home moorings, and obtaining cheaper rates for only occasional use, was specifically presented to Parliament as part of BW’s justification for the requirement to have a home mooring, by way of answering protests over what was seen by some of the public as an imposition of unreasonable expense.

 

The existence of these clear public records is now an embarrassment as the authority seeks to reinvent the law, and this example is but one of many reasons why BW and now CaRT always fiercely object to the use of Parliamentary materials for elucidating the purpose of their legislation. They do not care to have their own words thrown back at them.

[churchward]

Yes I understand now he was saying I am a piss taker as is anyone else who pays for a home mooring but prefers to use their boat for the purpose it was built. I wonder how many other boaters he cares to aim his prejudice at

Indeed having a mooring and not using it is an individual choice and one that is perhaps not liked by CRT but at present (at least) legal.

[Naughty Cal]

No your alright I've already witnessed you welch on a bet.

Regards kris

How do you figure that one out?

 

Perhaps you time today would be better spent fixing your boat and complying with your licence terms and conditions?

Edited July 1, 2015 by Naughty Cal

[cotswoldsman]

Indeed having a mooring and not using it is an individual choice and one that is perhaps not liked by CRT but at present (at least) legal.

And I presume also by those who have been on the canal since age 19 and choose to call them piss takers

[Jerra]

as is anyone else who pays for a home mooring but prefers to use their boat for the purpose it was built.

A bit of a sweeping statement don't you think. Many many people with home moorings use the boats for the purpose it was built - erm ........ boating!

 

A few have home moorings and don't use them because they genuinely (to use a colloquialism) continuously cruise. A few use the home mooring as an excuse/get out to allow them to bridge hop in an area many miles from their home mooring. They are in some peoples view piss taking.

[cotswoldsman]

A bit of a sweeping statement don't you think. Many many people with home moorings use the boats for the purpose it was built - erm ........ boating!

 

A few have home moorings and don't use them because they genuinely (to use a colloquialism) continuously cruise. A few use the home mooring as an excuse/get out to allow them to bridge hop in an area many miles from their home mooring. They are in some peoples view piss taking.

So now we are down to some people's views. They pay for a mooring they pay for a licence and they are still piss takers.....interesting

[Jerra]

So now we are down to some people's views. They pay for a mooring they pay for a licence and they are still piss takers.....interesting

Keep in mind I did say some people's view, so I am perhaps not the best to try to answer this.

 

I can see that a proportion of the population may consider having a cheap mooring many days cruise away from where you are in fact living piss taking. CCers (Yes I know there is no such legal phrase but it would save typing if people accepted such easy colloquialisms) might consider it piss taking as they are doing something that they are being hassled about. Those who dislike CMers (see note in brackets above) might have the same opinion as CCers (see note in brackets above) for similar reasons. A few might even consider them piss takers just because they consider what they see as bending the rules as taking the piss.

[Paul C]

 

Interestingly enough, not only is that incorrect, but the possibility of sharing home moorings, and obtaining cheaper rates for only occasional use, was specifically presented to Parliament as part of BWs justification for the requirement to have a home mooring, by way of answering protests over what was seen by some of the public as an imposition of unreasonable expense.

 

The existence of these clear public records is now an embarrassment as the authority seeks to reinvent the law, and this example is but one of many reasons why BW and now CaRT always fiercely object to the use of Parliamentary materials for elucidating the purpose of their legislation. They do not care to have their own words thrown back at them.

 

What was the wording of the intended legislation at the time bw accepted a home mooring could be a part time one?

[KenK]

 

I have been and looked again at your post to which I responded, and as far as I can see you have made your remarks about people with a home mooring, but have not added anything to those remarks about having one, but never using it.

 

 

So if I have a home mooring that I do regularly use, but (hypothetically!) still sometimes choose to exhibit the behaviour that you have postulated above, would I then be a "piss taker" or not, in your view of the world?

I think anyone who causes problems for others by their behaviour is indeed taking the p**s. It does not matter if you are in a boat, a car, a plane or just in everyday life.

 

You need to read my post more carefully, I said I didn't understand why someone who has a home mooring wouldn't use it, not that I care one way or another but I could understand why C&RT might.

 

Ken

[NigelMoore]

What was the wording of the intended legislation at the time bw accepted a home mooring could be a part time one?

 

It wasn't so much what they "accepted", but what they positively urged upon Parliament as their explanation for the reasonableness of the improved wording compared to the original. The wording BW argued for, as allowing for such economical variations that would still meet the re-worded criteria, is the wording of the Act as we have it today.

 

The 1990 Draft Bill stated in what was then s.13(3):

 

“Notwithstanding anything in any enactment the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless –

( c ) the Board are satisfied that a suitable permanent mooring will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere.”

 

The “Filled Bill” as it left the House of Lords and came before the Commons Select Committee, had altered the wording to include, in what had then become s.14(3):

 

“( c ) either –

(i) the Board are satisfied that a suitable permanent mooring or other place where the vessel can lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or . . .”

 

This was amended for the Commons Committee to omit the words “suitable permanent”, and to interpolate the words “reasonably be kept and may” between “can” and “lawfully”.

 

So that is what we now have in the 1995 Act as passed, under s.17(3), which was the amended version for which BW argued as I have said. I could find and post the relevant section of the SC Minutes, but do not have time to look them up at present.

[KenK]

 

That’s interesting. Did she explain how she managed to acquire adverse possession of a public highway, and in less than year at that?

The lady in question was moored on the Forbury Loop on EA waters on the River Kennet. Reading Borough Council, the EA and the K&A Trust hold a Waterfest there every year.

Notices were posted two weeks prior to the festival asking all boaters to vacate the mooring by 8.00 am Thursday, festival on Saturday. All but one boater complied. This lady first said her engine wouldn't work, no problem we said we'll move you on your ropes. Then that she was disabled, wasn't obvious but I asked in what way, she said partly sighted, given that I had just watched her drive up in a car! Then we had squatters rights!

I wouldn't mind but we only asked her to move back about 100 feet just so we could get the boats in and out of that end of the moorings.

 

As to her riparian rights your guess is as good as mine.

 

Ken

[NigelMoore]

As to her riparian rights your guess is as good as mine.

 

My guess is that she was ignorant &/or bluffing, presuming on your ignorance.

[cotswoldsman]

Keep in mind I did say some people's view, so I am perhaps not the best to try to answer this.

 

I can see that a proportion of the population may consider having a cheap mooring many days cruise away from where you are in fact living piss taking. CCers (Yes I know there is no such legal phrase but it would save typing if people accepted such easy colloquialisms) might consider it piss taking as they are doing something that they are being hassled about. Those who dislike CMers (see note in brackets above) might have the same opinion as CCers (see note in brackets above) for similar reasons. A few might even consider them piss takers just because they consider what they see as bending the rules as taking the piss.

Could you tell me where these cheap moorings are? Secondly if they have a home mooring then it is impossible to be a ccer (ccer being a term used for someone without a home mooring) what rule are they bending if they have a home mooring but choose not to use it for extended periods.

I was talking to a couple last week in there late 60's who had been cruising for a number of years they have a home mooring near Foxton somewhere but have not used it for 3 years. When I asked them why they keep it they told me it was because she had cancer that was now ok but should it return they would want to return to the hospital where she was before so it was a safety thing, not as some who have been on the canal since 19 would say a "piss take"

[Sabcat]

Some might call it piss taking but if I choose to keep my home mooring and bridge hop around London for a couple of years I'm perfectly entitled to.

[magnetman]

Some might call it piss taking but if I choose to keep my home mooring and bridge hop around London for a couple of years I'm perfectly entitled to.

Maybe its the fact that you are allowed to do that (take a mooring up north and bridge hop down south (where a mooring would be considerably more expensive and difficult to find) which "takes the piss" and not the act of you actually doing it making you a "pisstaker" ?

[Sabcat]

Maybe its the fact that you are allowed to do that (take a mooring up north and bridge hop down south (where a mooring would be considerably more expensive and difficult to find) which "takes the piss" and not the act of you actually doing it making you a "pisstaker" ?

 

It's just the reality of the situation. There are rules, we must follow them, CRT must also follow them. The rules are that a boater with a home mooring can bridge hop anywhere on the system to their hearts content for as long as they wish and CRT can bloody well leave them alone to do it.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Sabcat

[cotswoldsman]

 

It's just the reality of the situation. There are rules, we must follow them, CRT must also follow them. The rules are that a boater with a home mooring can bridge hop anywhere on the system to their hearts content for as long as they wish and CRT can bloody well leave them alone to do it.

Just a slight point hope you don't mind.

There are Laws that we must follow. Rules are what some invent thinking that that overrides the Law or on this forum some like to invent rules as the Law does not fit their agenda.

Edited July 1, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Sabcat]

Just a slight point hope you don't mind.

There are Laws that we must follow. Rules are what some invent thinking that that overrides the Law or on this forum some like to invent rules as the Law does not fit their agenda.

 

True. Don't mind at all

[Jerra]

Could you tell me where these cheap moorings are? Secondly if they have a home mooring then it is impossible to be a ccer (ccer being a term used for someone without a home mooring) what rule are they bending if they have a home mooring but choose not to use it for extended periods.

I was talking to a couple last week in there late 60's who had been cruising for a number of years they have a home mooring near Foxton somewhere but have not used it for 3 years. When I asked them why they keep it they told me it was because she had cancer that was now ok but should it return they would want to return to the hospital where she was before so it was a safety thing, not as some who have been on the canal since 19 would say a "piss take"

As I said I am not the best person to answer this. However John I have noticed you have a growing trend of not taking posts at face value and assuming everyone is not just having a discussion but attacking certain types of boater. A sad state of affairs in my opinion.

 

Perhaps I should have used words more carefully and said cheaper or comparatively cheap. However I assumed you were sensible enough to get the gist of what I said.

 

See post #67

[mark99]

Really? I own 2 moorings on L&Ĺ one is rented out one is empty I have never moored there. I am about to take a mooring on G&S I have no intention of mooring there unless my Mother becomes very poorly and needs me about for extended stay. So 3 moorings I have no intention of using I guess that makes me a piss taker if you have been on the canals since you were 19. The 1995 Act is quite clear about what the requirements are for people with a home mooring and it certainly is not spending time on your home mooring.

 

Now I know it was quite a good post

 

 

A ccing, dumping, p!isstaking ghost moorer squared.

 

I like your credentials!

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

A ccing, dumping, p!isstaking ghost moorer squared.

 

I like your credentials!

Hehe I intend to keep my no home mooring licence I like being a CCer

[peterboat]

Just a slight point hope you don't mind.

There are Laws that we must follow. Rules are what some invent thinking that that overrides the Law or on this forum some like to invent rules as the Law does not fit their agenda.

I am not sure about this when they were made a charity were they allowed to make rules, just a thought somewhere in the small print someone might have slipped it in. I am sure it would then be allowed in court when the judge made a ruling on the rules ha ha

 

Peter

[mark99]

Hehe I intend to keep my no home mooring licence I like being a CCer

 

 

Good luck whatever you do John. NB I thought your tub was sold?