Story's a bit mixed up, who won again?

[Loafer]

 

 

 

 

 

Before the 1990 Bill nobody had a have a formal mooring at all.

 

BW, foreseeing that boats just left on the towpath could become a problem, and probably also looking at the potential income from moorings, tried to add a requirement that all boats should have a home mooring in the 1990 Bill. Boating groups, including IWA, responded that continuous cruising was a legitimate use of the waterways, and that such boats did not need a home mooring. Late in the progress of the Bill through Parliament BW conceded the point in order to get the Bill through, and the vague wording we have in the Act was the result.

 

For much of the 20 years since the Act, BW turned a blind eye to those without a home mooring not complying with the requirements, but increasing numbers of towpath shufflers, first on the western K&A and later in London, have led to the more recent BW/CRT clampdown.

 

Got that so far, thank you.

 

Great respect to the fighters on here. I'm struggling to follow it all, but remain very interested.

[Dave Payne]

Got a reply...

 

 

Yes, it does. Although there is not a set distance it is suggested you move from one location to another, which may mean going from one village to the next or a different borough if in a city location. If you find yourself unsure of a certain area then please do give us a call and we can pop you through to a local Enforcement officer for advice.

[Sir Nibble]

Got a reply...

 

 

Yes, it does. Although there is not a set distance it is suggested you move from one location to another, which may mean going from one village to the next or a different borough if in a city location. If you find yourself unsure of a certain area then please do give us a call and we can pop you through to a local Enforcement officer for advice.

 

"It is suggested" I note, not "It is required".

[Alan de Enfield]

Got a reply...

 

 

Yes, it does. Although there is not a set distance it is suggested you move from one location to another, which may mean going from one village to the next or a different borough if in a city location. If you find yourself unsure of a certain area then please do give us a call and we can pop you through to a local Enforcement officer for advice.

 

 

Interesting that they are now using "location" rather than "place".

 

Hopefully a step in the right direction. Changing location could be just 200 yards.

[Sir Nibble]

I don't think it gives anything away though does it? It's not an enforceable rule, just a wish.

[Dave Payne]

Yes, the words 'suggested' and 'may' confuse me.

[Gordias]

 

Interesting that they are now using "location" rather than "place".

 

Hopefully a step in the right direction. Changing location could be just 200 yards.

 

I think it demonstrates that they're learning to be extremely careful with their wording, rather than a change in policy.

 

In a way it's a bad sign when an organization starts doing that, because it's likely to be accompanied with stricter rules, and less inclination to allow exceptions where the requirement isn't exactly in line with the formal rules. The endgame (which hopefully won't be reached with CaRT, but it's not unlikely) is a highly bureaucratized process with fewer exceptions, more paperwork, and long lead-times for anything out of the ordinary.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Gordias

[Tony Dunkley]

Yes, the words 'suggested' and 'may' confuse me.

 

They're intended to.

C&RT have a well established, and well deserved track record of being as ambiguous and vague when going on record, . . . it makes things easier for them later on when they're inventing new 'rules and regulations' as and when they need them.

[KevMc]

 

They're intended to.

C&RT have a well established, and well deserved track record of being as ambiguous and vague when going on record, . . . it makes things easier for them later on when they're inventing new 'rules and regulations' as and when they need them.

 

Or an alternative view could be that when they try to do anything to provide firm information to their customers (eg mooring places map) some of those customers leap up and down screaming that they have no right to do it - after a while they have learnt to moderate the language they use to make life easier.

[David Mack]

They're intended to.

C&RT have a well established, and well deserved track record of being as ambiguous and vague when going on record, . . . it makes things easier for them later on when they're inventing new 'rules and regulations' as and when they need them.

Well they are stuck with vague and imprecise wording under the Act. Every time they have tried to set some 'rules and regulations' or 'guidelines' with a bit more precision, someone pops up and challenges their interpretation, and so it all gets rewritten. Even when they have set some fairly modest criteria, and said "if you comply with this it is unlikely that you will appear on the enforcement radar" they have been challenged. In the circumstances, when asked what is sufficient to "satisfy the Board", it is hardly surprising that the response is couched in such terms.

[Arthur Marshall]

They are making a suggestion for you to bear in mind to ensure you stay out of enforcement, without saying that this will or will not keep you out of trouble. It all depends on circumstance and whereabouts you are, how busy your area is and, of course, how many EOs there are about. As it's a suggestion, you can always argue your case. If you have a home mooring and are out for your summer cruise, which is the case of the majority to whom this applies, you really aren't very likely to want to stay in the same place for a fortnight. If you are a home moorer who wants to stay in the same place for six months, you are likely to end up in an argument as to where your home mooring should be.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Or an alternative view could be that when they try to do anything to provide firm information to their customers (eg mooring places map) some of those customers leap up and down screaming that they have no right to do it - after a while they have learnt to moderate the language they use to make life easier.

 

 

Well they are stuck with vague and imprecise wording under the Act. Every time they have tried to set some 'rules and regulations' or 'guidelines' with a bit more precision, someone pops up and challenges their interpretation, and so it all gets rewritten. Even when they have set some fairly modest criteria, and said "if you comply with this it is unlikely that you will appear on the enforcement radar" they have been challenged. In the circumstances, when asked what is sufficient to "satisfy the Board", it is hardly surprising that the response is couched in such terms.

 

 

They are making a suggestion for you to bear in mind to ensure you stay out of enforcement, without saying that this will or will not keep you out of trouble. It all depends on circumstance and whereabouts you are, how busy your area is and, of course, how many EOs there are about. As it's a suggestion, you can always argue your case. If you have a home mooring and are out for your summer cruise, which is the case of the majority to whom this applies, you really aren't very likely to want to stay in the same place for a fortnight. If you are a home moorer who wants to stay in the same place for six months, you are likely to end up in an argument as to where your home mooring should be.

 

They don't have any apparent difficulty in being very precise and specific after the decision to (unlawfully) terminate someone's boat Licence has been made, so why can't that same precise and specific information used in making that decision be made available to those seeking advice on how to 'stay out of enforcement' ?

There really isn't anything vague and imprecise about the wording of S.17 of the 1995 Act; the problem that C&RT have with it is that it doesn't say what they would like it to say.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[MtB]

 

They're intended to.

C&RT have a well established, and well deserved track record of being as ambiguous and vague when going on record, . . . it makes things easier for them later on when they're inventing new 'rules and regulations' as and when they need them.

 

 

 

Dave could always try following the suggestion in the email reply, and seeing if he ends up in enforcement. It doesn't look that difficult to me, and I predict he would get along just fine.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Mike the Boilerman

[KevMc]

 

 

 

 

 

They don't have any apparent difficulty in being very precise and specific after the decision to (unlawfully) terminate someone's boat Licence has been made, so why can't that same precise and specific information used in making that decision be made available to those seeking advice on how to 'stay out of enforcement' ?

There really isn't anything vague and imprecise about the wording of S.17 of the 1995 Act; the problem that C&RT have with it is that it doesn't say what they would like it to say.

 

If there is nothing vague or imprecise why do people keep asking for their interpretation of it?

[matty40s]

 

It's a "numbers game".

 

• If there are 100 "nice" mooring and 50 boats, there will be very few problems with access to moorings. Some of course, but not enough to cause real trouble.
• If there are 90 boats, there will be a significant amount of tension, but generally only minor problems
• With 100 moorings and 110 boats, any informal allocation system based on the assumption that everyone will act reasonably will collapse.

There's no reasonable external way to return it to the first state.

There is, it's called Winter.

I never struggle to find a mooring at tthis time of year.

[MtB]

There is, it's called Winter.

I never struggle to find a mooring at tthis time of year.

 

 

You should try it here on the K&A then! ALL the VMs are completely stuffed with overstayers. I mean Winter Mooring Permit holders.

[Sea Dog]

If there is nothing vague or imprecise why do people keep asking for their interpretation of it?

So that they can better exploit any loopholes, perhaps?

[Graham.m]

So that they can better exploit any loopholes, perhaps?

 

Some of us are lucky and feel safe etc but people like security and safety. When they don't know the rules they are supposed to operate by then they fight to get themselves into a safe area. Hence all the queries about how far etc

Edited December 24, 2015 by Graham.m

[blackrose]

I don't disagree that there needs to be enforcement but only for over staying. If someone is to be denied a licence because they've had to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc. that is something of a ridiculous line that's being drawn, don't you think Mike?

 

Keith

Agreed. That seems a reasonable view to me.

[MtB]

Agreed. That seems a reasonable view to me.

 

 

So do you think shuffling back and forth between two bridges is ok behaviour for a CCer?

 

If not, how should CRT differentiate between the bridge hoppers and boaters who need to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc ?

[Graham.m]

 

 

So do you think shuffling back and forth between two bridges is ok behaviour for a CCer?

 

 

 

If not, how should CRT differentiate between the bridge hoppers and boaters who need to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc ?

Maybe by asking at the time

[jenlyn]

 

If not, how should CRT differentiate between the bridge hoppers and boaters who need to turn back to get fuel/water/ empty their toilet etc ?

Using a bit of common sense.

[Graham.m]

Even a cop asks before acting

[MtB]

Using a bit of common sense.

 

 

Who? CRT or the boater?

[jenlyn]

 

 

Who? CRT or the boater?

You need me to detail that???

Ok, CRT, the boater, and you