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

[jenlyn]

you would have been entitled to place him under arrest and detain him until the police could collect him.

 

I'm sure the police would just release him. Isn't trespass a civil matter not a criminal offence.

Depends on whether the eo was invited aboard, if he refuses to leave when asked, his behaviour. The police will turn up if it becomes a disturbance of the peace etc.

[NigelMoore]

I'm sure the police would just release him. Isn't trespass a civil matter not a criminal offence.

 

There is ‘trespass’ which is a civil offence, and ‘aggravated trespass’ which is criminal. However neither is what I referred to. The criminal offence is boarding a vessel without the Master’s consent, and/or refusing to leave when told to.

 

There are very limited situations wherein a BW/CaRT officer is empowered to board a boat, and only one where they may do so without either consent or forewarning. The situation described does not qualify, hence the officer is not an authorised person and so was committing the relevant offence.

 

I would agree that the police would probably do nothing about it; they wouldn’t know anything of the relevant law. On somewhere like the Thames you would call on the maritime police, but they would probably just caution him and send him on his way. The MCA would take no action on the MSA unless very significant damage was done &/or placing people at risk.

 

Still would be a good wake-up call to the officer concerned; make him think twice next time perhaps [especially if he had resisted]. A follow-up report to the bosses, or even at the time, could shake things up a bit too.

 

In my case I called for the Chairman to be held responsible, but as I say, the whole thing was swept under the judicial carpet. As long as a few ulcers were engendered I must rest content I suppose.

[Steilsteven]

 

 

I was just responding to your opinion stated earlier that overstaying is the only type of offending that should be subject to enforcement. An opinion subsequently supported by Blackrose.

 

I was trying to clarify, and therefore asked if this meant you supported another type of offending (bridge hopping).

 

Here's your post I should also have quoted.

 

 

There's no such offence as bridge hopping, as far as I know.

 

Keith

[Graham.m]

In my opinion, you should "advise" them of any need to overstay, even as a courtesy. Its no hardship to ring or email and give your intentions. Attempting to abuse the use of the equality act merely to suit "your" agenda is ridiculous.

If your having issues with an EO, file a complaint.

 

Agreed; not only is it both courteous and sensible, if it came to any judicial dispute it would weigh in your favour that you so acted beyond the demands of perceived necessity.

 

What one does as a courtesy is voluntary, not a requirement. I am sorry that you consider that I would be abusing the Equality Act, I can assure you that I would not, CRT have already been informed that I am disabled and seen proof, which I should not need to show.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Graham.m

[NigelMoore]

 

 

 

What one does as a courtesy is voluntary, not a requirement. I am sorry that you consider that I would be abusing the Equality Act . . .

I do hope that you recognised that my agreement was specific to the excerpt I chose to respond to.

[jenlyn]

 

 

What one does as a courtesy is voluntary, not a requirement. I am sorry that you consider that I would be abusing the Equality Act, I can assure you that I would not, CRT have already been informed that I am disabled and seen proof, which I should not need to show.

 

Hey. I'm disabled, and when, if, I use a disable parking space, I have to prove I am entitled. Its not a big deal. Its a simple and normal part of life.

[Graham.m]

Hey. I'm disabled, and when, if, I use a disable parking space, I have to prove I am entitled. Its not a big deal. Its a simple and normal part of life.

 

Like you I have not problem with using a Blue Badge which does not identify me personally to the public nor any unauthorised person. However CRT has no recognise form of identification for the use of disabled moorings. It was once suggested to me that I should carry a copy of my DLA award and display that.

 

Although I am not sure of the reason for your comments.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Graham.m

[Graham.m]

I do hope that you recognised that my agreement was specific to the excerpt I chose to respond to.

 

 

I do hope that you recognised that my agreement was specific to the excerpt I chose to respond to.

 

Nigel, not sure I did but rest assured no insult or other word was taken. Mind is buzzing from reading the Skeleton

[NigelMoore]

 

I believe that MtBs statement was referring to 'shuffling between two bridges' rather than overstaying on 14 day moorings.

 

My understanding ( but welcome your views as you generally have a better understanding of these things) is that a CCer must be bona fide navigating, but a HMer does not need to be, and as noted by HHJ Halbert :

 

I know it was. My elliptical quote from MtB was made to provide a hook on which to hang observations not especially relevant to what he was saying - I had hoped that was clear, but apologies if not.

 

Again, the broader picture becomes clearer when substituting the definition of bona fide navigating for the phrase. Adding the implicit application of that to the towpath which is to be available to all users in turn [it also being implicit in the legislation that there are places where boats may lawfully be left – which will be offside], then both similarities and differences become more obvious.

 

No boat may stay beyond 14 days in any one place along the public towpath [unless exceptional circumstances obtain]; when not moving according to that restriction, the boat must be left at a place where it may lawfully be left.

 

HM’ers have such a place available to them at all times throughout the period of their licence, CC’ers will not. Either are free to take up alternative legitimate moorings for a time, where-ever they may be obtained along the way if desired or needed. The stated intent of the legislation was simply to ensure that ALL boats when left for longer than 14 days in any one place, are left at places where to do so is lawful – and particularly NOT where leaving the boat obstructs others from using the publicly available facilities at that place.

 

For so long as the boat is left at a place where to do so is lawful, the intent of the legislation is achieved. So for a CC’er who never takes advantage of such a place, they need to abide by the 14 day restriction while navigating throughout the period for which the licence is valid; the HM’er can leave their boat at their own or any other lawful long term mooring without ever having to navigate at all.

 

Looked at that way, there is validity to CaRT’s stance that when off their home mooring, boats must abide by the same restrictions as applying to CC’ers. The tension only arises when the needlessly contentious phrase is applied to CC'ers to mean something more than what it says.

 

This is why it was correct for Andy Wingfield’s lawyers at his first hearing, to argue that Moore v BW [CA] applied: a boat entitled to be on the water [whether under PRN or by virtue of a valid licence] but not at their declared home mooring [or, of course, having none] is not doing anything wrong if moored long term elsewhere than at that declared home mooring, for so long as the place where they are moored is itself a legitimate long term mooring [whether under CaRT’s control or not].

 

Setting aside the distractions of the situation on canals, BW always recognised that this applied to rivers where the riparian owner has sole say-so over users of their facility. That was Andy’s situation, and whether as HM’er or CC’er, he was doing nothing wrong that could justify being s.8’d.

 

The excerpt of the Halbert judgment that you highlighted red can be applied to both situations [no matter that he dealt explicitly with the HM’er viewpoint], when the meaning of the relevant phrase is understood.

 

I am engrossed in other stuff at the moment, so hope that I haven't tangled myself and anyone else up here. I have not given myself time to go over this more carefully.

[Graham.m]

Nigel, appreciate deadlines for papers but once in I have a question, not before

[NigelMoore]

I have a question . . .

 

Ask it now Graham, I am nearing completion on the first of the deadlines, and while I may not be able to answer immediately, it is better to have a little side distraction to ponder over in the interim.

[Tecka]

 

I think there by lays the problem. I can find no authority for CRT to impose 14 days on HM'ers and I can find no authority for CRT trying to impose revocation of licences on HM'ers. I have written to Mr Parry so we will see what that brings.

 

 

 

Having been around the block a few times I do not accept verbal assurances about such things and enforcement are loath to confirm in writing. Under the Equalities Act there should be no need for me to advise them, Trust is something that CRT have lost certainly in my case after being threatened by an enforcement bod when he was totally out of order. He was told to leave my boat and tried to stay saying he had the right. He left.

Hi Graham, pure curiousness here but why do you feel you don't have to let anyone know about your overstaying? My understanding is that adjustment for disabilities should be made where possible but surely you can see that by overstaying without letting someone know makes it difficult if not impossible for the adjustment to be made.

[carlt]

You don't, you get a licence for a boat with no home mooring.

CC is a new term invented by Sally Ash or Carlt.

Not Guilty!

 

Unless you mean my loose claim to have invented "clonecraft" which, iirc, I first started using in the early 80s.

 

"Continuous cruising" had nowt to do with me.

[carlt]

Removing double post.

Edited January 4, 2016 by carlt