The Vine Prog Today, Friday

[Dave_P]

You may well be correct although I suspect C&RT may have a different view. Fortunately it is not an issue for me when I leave my mooring overnight is usually long enough on a tow-path, then onward to pastures new.

 

Ken

CRT definitely have a different view. The question is 'what do the courts think?'

[Arthur Marshall]

CRT definitely have a different view. The question is 'what do the courts think?'

Of course the trouble is that most people don't have the time, money or the kind of combative personality that can tangle with the courts, so among all the justified turfing-off is some unfairness when people just give up. And the courts so far have never given any definitive answers, and I'm not sure they can because under the current legislation, there aren't any.

[Richard10002]

 

 

The fact remains you made erroneous assumptions about two people and then used those assumptions to state that they were breaking the law.

 

 

 

I seem to be having to qualify many of my words.

 

 

 

 

I cant remember what assumptions you are talking about, but I listened to the whole interview and didn't need to make any assumptions to conclude that the lady and her family were living on board their boat, and were not using it in such a way as to satisfy CRTs rules, which I believe are based on the 1995 Act. She stated several facts which I think were enough for me to reach my conclusion.. I didnt need to assume anything.

 

I also dont think this a matter of law breaking... it's a civil matter where a boater has a contract with CRT, breach of which has express penalties, (IIRC). As the situation escalates, these penalties can eventually result in the boat being physically removed from CRT waters, by CRT or their representatives. I would imagine CRT would need a court order to impose some of the more serious penalties, particularly the one where a boat is removed from their waters.

[Murflynn]

 

 

I cant remember what assumptions you are talking about, but I listened to the whole interview and didn't need to make any assumptions to conclude that the lady and her family were living on board their boat, and were not using it in such a way as to satisfy CRTs rules, which I believe are based on the 1995 Act. She stated several facts which I think were enough for me to reach my conclusion.. I didnt need to assume anything.

 

I also dont think this a matter of law breaking... it's a civil matter where a boater has a contract with CRT, breach of which has express penalties, (IIRC). As the situation escalates, these penalties can eventually result in the boat being physically removed from CRT waters, by CRT or their representatives. I would imagine CRT would need a court order to impose some of the more serious penalties, particularly the one where a boat is removed from their waters.

be careful or you'll confuse BMC by using logic and stating facts.

[Mike Todd]

 

But based on job title alone, Sally Ash and Mike Grimes were both "Head of Boating", so that I suggest is one extra layer not two. (I'm not suggesting its a good idea, even so).

 

I think there was probably some kind of at least part reporting relationship from Matthew to Sally in the past, (albeit when Matthew had a different job title), so I'm not sure his connection to "Head of Boating" has changed that much. I don't think I have seen any description of his current role though - is there one available?

You have to look at the whole of an organisation to see whether it has changed 'depth'. It might also be that CaRT are seeking to give a specific and higher profile (and hence better job satisfaction and focus) to people further down the food chain.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I'm not sure why you put such emphasis on what someone said *before* the Act was passed. I'm sure lots of people said lots of things at that stage, when the details were being wrestled with.

It is BW's representative telling the parliamentary committee how it expects boaters to demonstrate they are complying with the law.

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

I'm not sure why you put such emphasis on what someone said *before* the Act was passed. I'm sure lots of people said lots of things at that stage, when the details were being wrestled with.

 

The stuff Mr Dodd said is so significant because he was representing BWB and explaining to the select committee what BWB would like the law to say. The law was framed (broadly) in an attempt to meet BWB's requests.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

The stuff Mr Dodd said is so significant because he was representing BWB and explaining to the select committee what BWB would like the law to say. The law was framed (broadly) in an attempt to meet BWB's requests.

In a nutshell, Mr Dodd defined what boaters must do to comply with the 1995 Act ...

[MtB]

In a nutshell, Mr Dodd defined what boaters must do to comply with the 1995 Act ...

 

 

Yes. But it's terribly unfortunate that he did not happen to mention how many 14 day pauses in a 'bona fide navigation' BWB would consider reasonable.

 

I'm fairly sure had he thought to mention it, a 14 day pause every 15 days throughout the period of a cruise was not what BWB had in mind.

[Ange]

Yes. But it's terribly unfortunate that he did not happen to mention how many 14 day pauses in a 'bona fide navigation' BWB would consider reasonable.

 

I'm fairly sure had he thought to mention it, a 14 day pause every 15 days throughout the period of a cruise was not what BWB had in mind.

We did exactly that a couple of years ago when we gently pootled from Worcester to the Anderton Lift, spent a lovely time on the Weaver, then, after another trip to the Weaver after our son joined us, made our way to Macclesfield. My point is you shouldn't be compelled to charge around the system to be considered compliant. Gently pootling and enjoying and exploring each place enriched the experience. Yep we did spend 14 days at each mooring and then spent only a day travelling, but I'm 100% convinced that falls within the ethos that the cc exemption was intended for.

 

There's been some silly suggestions on here that would suck the heart and soul out of ccing if they were ever implemented.

 

I think this is the reason the guidelines were left deliberately vague - as soon as you start setting goalposts like 183 days per year or 70 miles every 3 months you add stress to those who don't consider it a race and just want to amble round the system at their own speed.

 

It's not an easy one is it?

Edited May 6, 2016 by Ange

[Sea Dog]

snip.....

It's not an easy one is it?

It's not Ange, and ambling you might be, but perhaps the key thing (and why your point and Mike's are probably not incompatible) is that you're ambling around the system and not just around the same fixed location.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

Yes. But it's terribly unfortunate that he did not happen to mention how many 14 day pauses in a 'bona fide navigation' BWB would consider reasonable.

 

I'm fairly sure had he thought to mention it, a 14 day pause every 15 days throughpout the period of a cruise was not what BWB had in mind.

I suggest you reread the exchange. Mr Dodd was having difficulty convincing the select committee why boats should have to move every 14 days.

 

However, that aside, is it right that BW/CaRT should attempt to change this very simple test?

[Arthur Marshall]

I suggest you reread the exchange. Mr Dodd was having difficulty convincing the select committee why boats should have to move every 14 days.

 

However, that aside, is it right that BW/CaRT should attempt to change this very simple test?

But of course it isn't a simple test. Does "move" mean shift your boat fifty yards down the cut and then back again? Because that's moving it. Or to a different place? So what's a "place"? And there we are, neatly back at square one.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

But of course it isn't a simple test. Does "move" mean shift your boat fifty yards down the cut and then back again? Because that's moving it. Or to a different place? So what's a "place"? And there we are, neatly back at square one.

I disagree. It is a simple test because it does not place additional restrictions such as distance, return rules, being on a journey etc.

 

[MtB]

I suggest you reread the exchange. Mr Dodd was having difficulty convincing the select committee why boats should have to move every 14 days.

 

 

 

 

I don;t have it to hand right this second to review, but my memory of it is that Mr Dodd was not "having difficulty convincing the select committee why boats should have to move every 14 days" or anything of the sort.

 

The point being discussed was when a boat being bona fide used for navigation needs to stop for a break in that navigation, whether that stop could be for up to 28 days (as the select committee were minded to grant) or up to 14 days (as BWB would prefer).

 

The thought that a boater might move for a few hours, moor for 14 days, move for a few hours, stop for 14 days in perpetuity then be able to claim their boat is being bona fide used for navigation was so ludicrous at the time it never crossed either of their minds.

 

The stops were envisaged on both sides as being occasional as I read/understood the exchanges. The debate as I understood it was about how long one of these occasional stops should be, not whether boats should have to move every 14 days at all, as you seem to imply.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Athy]

 

 

.

 

The stops were envisaged on both sides as being occasional as I read/understood the exchanges. The debate was about how long one of these occasional stops should be, not whether boats should have to move every 14 days at all, as you seem to imply.

Isn't that as broad as it is long? If a boat is allowed to stop at one mooring for 14 days, what does it matter whether it does so once every year or once every 15 days? It's still occupying that particular mooring for the same length of time. As I noted earlier, everyone has their own reasons for boating and their own waterway behaviour patterns.

[BMC problems]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The thought that a boater might move for a few hours, moor for 14 days, move for a few hours, stop for 14 days in perpetuity then be able to claim their boat is being bona fide used for navigation was so ludicrous at the time it never crossed either of their minds.

 

 

this sounds like an interesting point, you'll have some evidence for it?

[MtB]

Isn't that as broad as it is long? If a boat is allowed to stop at one mooring for 14 days, what does it matter whether it does so once every year or once every 15 days? It's still occupying that particular mooring for the same length of time. As I noted earlier, everyone has their own reasons for boating and their own waterway behaviour patterns.

 

 

We were analysing the thoughts of BWB and the select committee in their interchanges on the detail of how long a stop should be.

 

Your comment is on the bigger picture, so I think not really relevant. The reasons why is it desirable for a boater wishing to remain in broadly one place should have a formal mooring is a different debate.

this sounds like an interesting point, you'll have some evidence for it?

 

 

Of course I have no evidence. It's just me expressing an opinion.

 

I'll posit that equally, you have no evidence they did discuss it.

[Athy]

 

 

 

Your comment is on the bigger picture, so I think not really relevant.

No, it commented on your post which I quoted in part, and to which it was entirely relevant.

[MtB]

No, it commented on your post which I quoted in part, and to which it was entirely relevant.

 

Yes but the bit of my post you picked out to comment on, was me quoting Allan and denying it was the subject being discussed by the select committee!!

[Athy]

 

Yes but the bit of my post you picked out to comment on, was me quoting Allan and denying it was the subject being discussed by the select committee!!

I don't think so, but I'm not going to argue - the debate is becoming complex!

[MtB]

Just to summarise, we were discussing BWB's argument to the select committee that the length of a stop should be 14 days not 28 days.

 

Not whether there was any harm is stopping in the first place, which appears to be the point you came in to make.

[Athy]

Just to summarise, we were discussing BWB's argument to the select committee that the length of a stop should be 14 days not 28 days.

 

Not whether there was any harm is stopping in the first place, which appears to be the point you came in to make.

Don't be so daft. If a boat never stopped in the first place, how would we ever get to the pub?

[BMC problems]

 

 

We were analysing the thoughts of BWB and the select committee in their interchanges on the detail of how long a stop should be.

 

Your comment is on the bigger picture, so I think not really relevant. The reasons why is it desirable for a boater wishing to remain in broadly one place should have a formal mooring is a different debate.

 

 

 

Of course I have no evidence. It's just me expressing an opinion.

 

I'll posit that equally, you have no evidence they did discuss it.

The English language has a wealth of phrasal verbs intended to express the uncertainty when expressing an opinion. 'it never crossed their minds' is a statement. In an intelligent debate it's usual, as Allan has done, to show evidence to back up statements rather than categorically state something that is purely in your imagination but, hey, what do facts matter when dogma is involved?

 

there's plenty of evidence to show the converse interpretation but you, and CRT, have spent 20 years putting ever more fanciful spin to obscure those simple facts.

[Dave_P]

It is a statement, yes. But it's a statement about what others are thinking. Assuming Mike doesn't have psychic abilities and cannot time travel, it seem pretty self evident that it was his opinion, even if expressed in the form of a statement. It does feel like you're trying to pick holes in other people's arguments to distract from the fact that you've lost yours.

 

(That's just an opinion, mind).