Anouncement made on canal and river trust fb page by Damian Kemp

[Delta9]

 

And, purely in my imagination of course, there's the response of a judge who's expected to believe that travelling an average of less than half a mile per week in a boat is too far to cruise for someone who's stated their intention to be engaged in bona fide navigation for a year or so. Are they allowed to roll on the floor laughing their @rse off?

"if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence" not " if their movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence"

[jenlyn]

This below is from notes at an IWA meeting last week

 

""""Parry said that CRT are looking to find a 'watertight' test case to establish ground rules which may take years."""".

 

Now is the time to start making an effort. A court case is not the best way forward for any boat owner.

[Guest]

Nobody seems to have pointed out that a 'period of licence' can be anything between 3, 6, and 12 months.

 

So taken literally the shorter your licence period the further you need to move over a year.

Edited March 6, 2015 by MJG

[Captain Zim]

I worry for the future of this forum now that this range has finally been declared. What do we talk (argue) about now?

[kris88]

I wouldn't worry about that something will turn up I'm shure

Regards kris

[jenlyn]

I worry for the future of this forum now that this range has finally been declared. What do we talk (argue) about now?

Cliques?

[Delta9]

Dubstep

[jenlyn]

Dubstep

Lol

[Richard10002]

He didn't say that, if you move more than 15-20 miles a year, you will be complying.

 

He said that if you didn't move more than 15-20 miles a year, you almost certainly would not be complying.

 

Those who move less than 15-20 miles a year know who they are, and should not be surprised, or angry, if they do not get their license renewed.

 

He also said that there is no actual minimum, and that the rules require bona fide navigation, as ever.

 

Each boater could look at themselves and their travel and some could say that they are definitely not continously Cruising, or on a bona fide navigation, and some who could say they are definitely continuously Cruising or on a bona fide navigation.

 

The former should keep their heads down, make as little fuss as possible, and hope they get away with it. If they don't, they should accept that "it's a fair cop guv'", and take steps to comply.

 

The latter need not worry.. If accused, they will be able to show the truth. I was accused last year of being on the Llangollen Canal without a CRT licence. I emailed CRT to tell them I have not left the Bridgewater since 2011 and, unless I had a Tardis type vessel, I could not have been in both places at the same time. I received a humorous response, which confirmed that they believed me and I would hear no more... I heard no more.

 

I could guess that there will be enough of the former to keep CRT busy for a while, so those in between need not worry too much. If they are on the margins, CRT will take their action, and the boater can decide how to respond. I suspect that, in the event, CRTs actions will probably be seen as reasonable by the man on the Clapham Omnibus.

I worry for the future of this forum now that this range has finally been declared. What do we talk (argue) about now?

You have nothing to worry about. The range has not been declared

[Delta9]

He didn't say that, if you move more than 15-20 miles a year, you will be complying.

 

He said that if you didn't move more than 15-20 miles a year, you almost certainly would not be complying.

 

He didn't say either of those things, he said "it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence"

 

Several people here seem to be missing the word 'range'

[Graham Davis]

"if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence" not " if their movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence"

 

It looks like a few people have not noticed that word.

(Or have purposely chosen to ignore it!)

[Richard10002]

He didn't say either of those things, he said "it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence"

 

Several people here seem to be missing the word 'range'

Range or distance, if you move 40 miles, with a range of less than 20 miles, or even move 80 miles, with a range of less than 20 miles, he is saying you won't satisfy the rule. He isn't saying this is a minimum, and the gist of my post still stands, albeit with greater distances.

[MaryP]

seems that to move one boat length and moor up again is ok ?

A friend lived on a boat in Cambridge many years ago. They used to take out the pin, move it a couple of feet and put it back in!

[churchward]

I think it is good that CRT have now indicated a minimum distance and I must say it is a very generous minimum distance and IMO anyone who finds that distance difficult would get no sympathy from me

I agree. I can't see any reason for objections to such a cruising range in 12 months it is pretty small.

[Arthur Marshall]

All you can do, if the Act just says an undefined "bona fide navigation" is to try and state what you as the navigation authority think is a situation where it defintiely does not apply, which is what they've done. CRT think this will stand up in court if they have to take it there, and I supect it will as you can't really argue that however many time you do it in a year, if you are just going backwards and forward over an area you can cover in half a day, you are really navigating. Commuting, yes, cruising, no. And it's a fuzzy definition, which is sensible as well as it maks it harder for someone to argue they've gone 1 mile outside the limit so it doesn't apply. It's an attempt to define the spirit of the law, and about time they did.

[jenlyn]

The comparison with fb and this site is remarkable.

On fb, the CCer's are generally accepting the statement for its written value. Whereas here, "some" non CCer's are dissecting and interpreting it to find fault.

Hilarious.

[BlueStringPudding]

Boaters without a Home Mooring: How far is far enough?

Following our recent communication, a number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trusts Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

 

We recognise that boaters want clarity over this. However the BW Act 1995 does not stipulate a minimum distance. It does set out the requirement to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and the Trusts Guidance is our interpretation of this requirement.

Whilst this means that we cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we can advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this.

 

We will be advising those boaters without a home mooring whose range of movement falls short of this distance that their movement needs to increase or we may refuse to renew their licence. Our statutory right to refuse to renew a licence arises from section 17 of the BW Act 1995 which states that we can refuse to issue a licence if we are not satisfied that a boat either has a home mooring or intends to continuously cruise.

 

At ruddy last! A number to support their use of terms like "far enough".

 

So do they mean 7.5 miles one way and 7.5 miles back again Or 15 miles in one direction?

[Arthur Marshall]

 

At ruddy last! A number to support their use of terms like "far enough".

 

So do they mean 7.5 miles one way and 7.5 miles back again Or 15 miles in one direction?

It's a range, not a distance. If you keep zooming up and down within a 15/20 mile range it means you're in trouble!

[mark99]

It's a range, not a distance. If you keep zooming up and down within a 15/20 mile range it means you're in trouble!

 

 

Yes - do 500 miles in a 14 mile stretch and you could be on the radar.

 

It's going to affect a few of the locals I see who move all the time but between about 5 miles range all year round.

Edited March 6, 2015 by mark99

[David Mack]

 

At ruddy last! A number to support their use of terms like "far enough".

 

So do they mean 7.5 miles one way and 7.5 miles back again Or 15 miles in one direction?

Surely they mean that over the period of the licence the furthest apart points you have travelled between must be at least 15-20 miles apart.

 

Which raise the question that if over 12 months you do one trip to a point 21 miles away and immediately return back again, but otherwise shuffle betwee 2 or 3 bridges, are you compliant?

[BlueStringPudding]

It's a range, not a distance. If you keep zooming up and down within a 15/20 mile range it means you're in trouble!

 

Ah! So it's 21 miles a year, then.

Surely they mean that over the period of the licence the furthest apart points you have travelled between must be at least 15-20 miles apart.

 

Which raise the question that if over 12 months you do one trip to a point 21 miles away and immediately return back again, but otherwise shuffle betwee 2 or 3 bridges, are you compliant?

 

[mark99]

 

Ah! So it's 21 miles a year, then.

 

 

 

Well no cos I think CaRT have anticipated this with their rider below:

 

"In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this"

 

​As some else wisely said the moment CaRT quantify a min movement, the minimisers (not you BSP) will jump on it and squeeze the boundary rules to a minimum to comply.

Edited March 6, 2015 by mark99

[Willber G]

I'm not a CCer so this doesn't directly affect me, but CRT's attempt to quantify their policy at least seems like a step in the right direction.

[mark99]

I'm not a CCer so this doesn't directly affect me, but CRT's attempt to quantify their policy at least seems like a step in the right direction.

 

I tend to agree in that "do nothing" is going to end in tears apart from the anarchists and free-whotsits.

Edited March 6, 2015 by mark99

[onionbargee]

Why is it so hard to just change the act and bring it up to date, and a clear and precise distance to comply with ?

 

Moses didn't hand down the act on stone tablets.