Overstaying and Sighting Record

[Alan de Enfield]

That's brilliant.

3.1 You must cruise your boat unless it's moored. P.S. ignore that if your boat is not on the Waterways.

 

Will have to assume that "cruising" does not mean travelling slowly along the canal in the hope of soliciting some casual sex.

 

Mind you, it does put the mockers on, towing water-skiers, doing donuts in a winding hole for a laugh, entering a tug-of-war at an Historic-boat rally, and helping out a fellow boater by towing him off a sandbank.

 

Do you have knowledge of C&RTs definition of 'cruising' ?

 

As you seem to take such pleasure in mocking the points made - how about this one :

 

If your Licence is terminated in accordance with this Condition 8, you agree that for the remainder of what would have been the Licence period, you will not apply for a new Licence and you will remove the Boat from our Waterways. Should you apply for a new Licence during this period, we will not consider the application.

 

Ultra Vires.

C&RT are now completely going against the law which says they must grant a licence if you have :

Insurance

A BSSC

A Home Mooring, or are making a 'CC' declaration.

 

In the rules that you have 'signed up to', if for any reason C&RT withdraw your licence you cannot apply for another licence until after the expiry date of the licence they have revoked, and if you do apply they will just ignore your application.

 

Would you be so kind as to point out where that is covered in the Waterways legislation.

 

[tillergirl]

Try an app called Geospike for simplicity

[spadefoot]

 

Do you have knowledge of C&RTs definition of 'cruising' ?

 

As you seem to take such pleasure in mocking the points made - how about this one :

 

If your Licence is terminated in accordance with this Condition 8, you agree that for the remainder of what would have been the Licence period, you will not apply for a new Licence and you will remove the Boat from our Waterways. Should you apply for a new Licence during this period, we will not consider the application.

 

Ultra Vires.

C&RT are now completely going against the law which says they must grant a licence if you have :

Insurance

A BSSC

A Home Mooring, or are making a 'CC' declaration.

 

In the rules that you have 'signed up to', if for any reason C&RT withdraw your licence you cannot apply for another licence until after the expiry date of the licence they have revoked, and if you do apply they will just ignore your application.

 

Would you be so kind as to point out where that is covered in the Waterways legislation.

 

Mocking satirically is what the British are good at.

That rule 3.1, as you posted it is a clear example of someone writing a rule for the sake of it. So I mocked it.

Can you think of another way of interpreting it?

Can you think of anything other than cruising or mooring that is reasonable or even possible in a sodding great boat on a canal?

And no I don't know CRT's definition of cruising, but let me have a guess, as it involves a boat & a canal, would it be to do with moving the boat?

 

As for all the rest, there's very little I can do about it is there? That's probably why we have satire in this country, we're all stuffed, might as well laugh than cry.

If CRT are going against the law, surely it's they who should be worried. Unless you're suggesting that I and everyone else who ticks the "I agree" box, is somehow complicit in their law-breaking.

[Alan de Enfield]

Mocking satirically is what the British are good at.

That rule 3.1, as you posted it is a clear example of someone writing a rule for the sake of it. So I mocked it.

Can you think of another way of interpreting it?

Can you think of anything other than cruising or mooring that is reasonable or even possible in a sodding great boat on a canal?

And no I don't know CRT's definition of cruising, but let me have a guess, as it involves a boat & a canal, would it be to do with moving the boat?

 

 

 

C&RTs definition :

 

"The terms ‘cruise’ and ‘cruising’ are used to mean using a boat bona fide for navigation".

 

As an obviously educated man I presume you have read the 1995 Act where it outlines the requirements for the granting of a licence :

 

(c )either—

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that 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.

As you will note there is no mention that a boat WITH a home mooring must 'bona fide navigate', only that a boat WITHOUT a home mooring must 'bona fide navigate'

Now, as usual C&RT take powers that they do not have and now make boaters with a home mooring sign an agreement that they will 'bona fide navigate', no nipping up to the pub for the weekend, then 'pottering about' before returning to your home mooring - in fact in law there is actually no requirement that you should ever return to your mooring, as pointed out by the Judge HJJ Halyard

"6:3 There are clear anomalies in both positions, CRT clearly regard the occupation of moorings by permanently residential boat owners who do not move very much as a significant problem (see paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 above). However, neither the statutory regime in subsection 17(3) nor the guidelines can deal with this problem. A boat which has a home mooring is not required to be “bona fide” used for navigation throughout the period of the licence, but neither is it required to ever use its home mooring. The act requires that the mooring is available, it does not say it must be used".

"If those who are causing the overcrowding at popular spots have home moorings anywhere in the country the present regime cannot control their overuse of the popular spots. Such an owner could cruise to and fro along the Kennet & Avon canal near Bristol and the home mooring could be in Birmingham and totally unused".

 

But now C&RT are insisting that a HMer must return to his mooring so the 'clock can be reset'.

 

Unfortunately not enough people seem to realise the number of new 'conditions' that have been inserted into the licence T&Cs.

[Tuscan]

CRT can insist all they like but unfortunately they can not rewrite an act of Parliament

[DHutch]

The Harecastle records have never been included on the CRT records, same as the Anderton Lift ones aren't. I think the tunnel record is for their H&S purposes only - they aren't supposed to let you through without safety cert, and the only way to know if you have one is if you have a licence.

ETA I agree it's daft, though!

 

Indeed. Seems an obvious point at which you could track movement in effect for free.

 

 

Daniel

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

Now, as usual C&RT take powers that they do not have and now make boaters with a home mooring sign an agreement that they will 'bona fide navigate', no nipping up to the pub for the weekend, then 'pottering about' before returning to your home mooring - in fact in law there is actually no requirement that you should ever return to your mooring, as pointed out by the Judge HJJ Halyard

 

"[size=

Much snipped, but there's nothing to stop me from nipping out to the pub at the weekend, pottering about for the next ten days and then pottering home, all in the same area, and not getting any grief from CRT. And then doing it again the next weekend. More or less what I've been doing for the past 30 years.

What I can't do is have my mooring on the Macc and go and live in London for the rest of my life without shifting. And whether that's legal under the act, it's certainly ethically valid.

Maaybe it's the Act which isn't fit for the purpose, or the boaters who try it on, not CRT.

[Tony Dunkley]

...... ........ ........ .......

Can you think of anything other than cruising or mooring that is reasonable or even possible in a sodding great boat on a canal?

And no I don't know CRT's definition of cruising, but let me have a guess, as it involves a boat & a canal, would it be to do with moving the boat?

.......... ........... ......... . . . .

 

C&RT don't really see things in such uncomplicated ways.

 

Back in 2014, in the process of groping for a plausible sounding reason for revoking the boat Licence I didn't have, they first went for~ " mooring [too much] whilst not cruising ", shortly afterwards to be changed to~ " cruising [too much] whilst not mooring ".

 

Both of these somewhat unfathomable examples of utter nonsense, were then dispensed with in favour of claiming that my [home] mooring was a "ghost" mooring which did not in fact exist.

By way of supporting evidence for this, they then produced various print-outs detailing many sightings of my boat at the mooring [that they claimed didn't exist] and a list of Invoices for Mooring Permits dating back some 6 years prior to me owning the boat and acquiring the mooring !

[MissMax]

No one from the local CRT has contacted me

I think that's rather rude that they didn't even email or pop over

Maybe my boat is to stealthy and they just walked on by

[biggles47]

I believe it suits C&RT to have a logging system which is unfit for purpose. It creates the desired fear and worry as can be seen in this discussion.

[Stilllearning]

I believe it suits C&RT to have a logging system which is unfit for purpose. It creates the desired fear and worry as can be seen in this discussion.

Isn't that what Cardinal Fang tried to use, but in fact just caused people to laugh?

[MtB]

I believe it suits C&RT to have a logging system which is unfit for purpose. It creates the desired fear and worry as can be seen in this discussion.

 

 

Who was is said "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" (or something along those lines)?

 

Good advice in this case in my opinion. I remain to be convinced CRT staff go to work with the attitude 'we are at war with the boaters', despite vice versa being the case where a minority of boaters are concerned.

[Tony Dunkley]

I believe it suits C&RT to have a logging system which is unfit for purpose. It creates the desired fear and worry as can be seen in this discussion.

 

It certainly does suit them, . . . . what could be better than a duff computer records system for an organization that falsifies written evidence to use in legal actions against selected boaters ?

[biggles47]

 

 

Who was is said "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" (or something along those lines)?

 

Good advice in this case in my opinion. I remain to be convinced CRT staff go to work with the attitude 'we are at war with the boaters', despite vice versa being the case where a minority of boaters are concerned.

I'm not stating there is malice in it, If there was, it would be management policy not CRT staff in general.

 

I'm just suggesting it suits them. I certainly don't see anyone laughing about it.

[Horace42]

Isn't that what Cardinal Fang tried to use, but in fact just caused people to laugh?

I imagine much of the laughter comes from CRT personnel reading this thread.

 

PS: Are any members contributing to this forum known to be employed by CRT?

[alan_fincher]

At least one fully paid up member of CRT staff is likely to be reading this thread, I suspect.

 

They do monitor CWDF and Facebook postings as a fairly regular activity, even though we are declared as being unrepresentative of all those that own boats on their waters.

At least one fully paid up member of CRT staff is likely to be reading this thread, I suspect.

 

They do monitor CWDF and Facebook postings as a fairly regular activity, even though we are declared as being unrepresentative of all those that own boats on their waters.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

Although thre has been the odd exception since, widespread actual posting by CRT employees actively identifying themselves as such largely ended with Eugene Baston. Sally Ash did make occasional forays, but she has also long since also gone. I did cross swords with someone else more recently, but would have to work hard now to remember who - it was certainly not one of my usual contacts with CRT.

It is perhaps not hard to understand why few of them choose to throw themselves into the lion's den, but I applaud those who in the past have felt they wanted to do so.

Edited September 15, 2016 by alan_fincher

[Tony Dunkley]

At least one fully paid up member of CRT staff is likely to be reading this thread, I suspect.

 

They do monitor CWDF and Facebook postings as a fairly regular activity, even though we are declared as being unrepresentative of all those that own boats on their waters.

 

They don't just 'monitor' Forums such as this, . . . . they recently included the content of some postings in written material submitted to the High Court.

[MtB]

I'm not stating there is malice in it, If there was, it would be management policy not CRT staff in general.

 

I'm just suggesting it suits them. I certainly don't see anyone laughing about it.

 

 

I think you must be confusing my comment with that made by stilllearning.

[Naughty Cal]

 

They don't just 'monitor' Forums such as this, . . . . they recently included the content of some postings in written material submitted to the High Court.

And why shouldn't they?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

PS: Are any members contributing to this forum known to be employed by CRT?

 

Rumour has it that TD is a 5th columnist.

His posts and up coming court case are just a screen so he can get access to the 'inner core' & assess the 'grass roots' feelings.

It appears that his cover has been blown as so many do not accept / bite at what he posts.

[biggles47]

 

Rumour has it that TD is a 5th columnist.

His posts and up coming court case are just a screen so he can get access to the 'inner core' & assess the 'grass roots' feelings.

It appears that his cover has been blown as so many do not accept / bite at what he posts.

Says the sixth columnist.

[TheBiscuits]

... I think the kilometre length thing is being taken wrongly. As far as I understand it, the position of a boat is taken to the nearest kilometre, the towpath isn't divided up into kilometre sections.

Alan is right to correct you on this assumption, but it may be helpful if more people knew WHERE the boundaries are.

 

In a few locations we like to spend time at, knowing which mooring sites are logged as different locations can make a lot of difference.

 

The official map is available for public viewing:

 

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5

 

Zooming in to a section and clicking on the line of the canal/river gives you the functional location code of that stretch, and highlights where it runs from and to.

[Mike Todd]

At least one fully paid up member of CRT staff is likely to be reading this thread, I suspect.

 

They do monitor CWDF and Facebook postings as a fairly regular activity, even though we are declared as being unrepresentative of all those that own boats on their waters.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

 

Although thre has been the odd exception since, widespread actual posting by CRT employees actively identifying themselves as such largely ended with Eugene Baston. Sally Ash did make occasional forays, but she has also long since also gone. I did cross swords with someone else more recently, but would have to work hard now to remember who - it was certainly not one of my usual contacts with CRT.

 

It is perhaps not hard to understand why few of them choose to throw themselves into the lion's den, but I applaud those who in the past have felt they wanted to do so.

It would be quite normal for an organisation (indeed pretty much any company) specifically to bar employees from doing so without authority. It is not unreasonable as the 'name' or brand belongs to the company not the individual. More contentious if the ban extends to private contributions that do not in any way allow the comment to be associated with the company. (ie not someone whose name is already in the public domain as someone who speaks on behalf of the organisation)

[MtB]

Alan is right to correct you on this assumption, but it may be helpful if more people knew WHERE the boundaries are.

 

In a few locations we like to spend time at, knowing which mooring sites are logged as different locations can make a lot of difference.

 

The official map is available for public viewing:

 

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5

 

Zooming in to a section and clicking on the line of the canal/river gives you the functional location code of that stretch, and highlights where it runs from and to.

 

 

Interesting map I've not seen before. Thanks for posting that.

 

Do we know this is officially for public consumption, rather than a CRT internal link that has escaped into the wild?

[dogless]

I believe it suits C&RT to have a logging system which is unfit for purpose. It creates the desired fear and worry as can be seen in this discussion.

I strongly suspect that the 'fear' you identify as being expressed in this thread, is as unrepresentative of the majority of boaters views, as the general content of the forum is.

 

The vast majority of boaters I meet have either not heard of, or have totally dismissed the forum.

 

I suspect it is just we sad few who are 'into it'.

 

And I come here cos I can't do computer games

 

Rog

 

PS What about that for a logo for a window sticker 'The Sad Few'

Edited September 15, 2016 by dogless