BBC reports on CC

[Lysander]

 

Very true.

 

I have tried to think of any similar licences that have conditions attached that means the licence can be revoked and, there are not many :

 

TV licence - No

Car 'tax disc' - No

Firearms licence- Yes

 

There are various 'commercial' licences (such as selling alcohol, running a waste tip. etc etc) but very few for 'Joe public'.

 

In fact - as a nation we have very few 'licences'.

Maybe that is because basically a licence is permission to do something that it would be illegal to do without that permission, and, in this country country everything is allowable unless specifically declared illegal.

You have failed to mention the big one - driving licence which can most certainly be revoked or removed altogether.

[Alan de Enfield]

How about prisoners released on licence. Break the conditions and you're put in jail.

 

Thanks - I bow to your greater knowledge of the subject.

[Richard Fairhurst]

The BBC have now changed "like most of the 32,000 canal boats" to "like 5,000 of the 32,000 canal boats".

[Alan de Enfield]

You have failed to mention the big one - driving licence which can most certainly be revoked or removed altogether.

 

I had considered this - but - I cannot think of any 'conditions' that must be met to be granted a licence that could then be used to revoke the licence Even 'medical conditions it is the responsibility of the holder to inform DVLC, not for DVLC to decide to remove the licence.

 

Yes Licences can be removed / revoked but as a result of breaking the law (ie drink driving, multiple speeding offences etc) not as a result of DVLC claiming non-compliance.

[Dave_P]

The BBC have now changed "like most of the 32,000 canal boats" to "like 5,000 of the 32,000 canal boats".

That's better. There's a difference between a minor error and an error which shifts the tone of the whole article. I'd be interested in the source of those figures though. Anyone?

[Alan de Enfield]

That's better. There's a difference between a minor error and an error which shifts the tone of the whole article. I'd be interested in the source of those figures though. Anyone?

 

Source C&RT

 

Boaters without a home mooring Monitoring review – March 2016

Headlines: 

During the first year just over 5600 licences for boats without a declared home mooring became due for renewal, so in line with the new process their movement patterns were reviewed 

Just under 40% were subject to a more detailed review for a variety of reasons, of which 1130 were offered a restricted licence. 

652 boats have so far taken out a restricted licences as a result of this process 

220 are still within that restricted licence period 

432 have reached the end of their restricted licence - 268 showed improvement and allowed further licence - 96 sold boat or obtained home mooring or moved away from our waters - 68 were refused a further CC licence, of which 45 remain in the enforcement process

[NBDensie]

I find myself wondering why the "CC" clauses were included in the law in the first place.

 

Perhaps it was intended to accommodate what was left of the fleet of working boats. If that is the case (I don't know), then the people who lived and worked on these boats would, generally speaking, be on a "journey" as they moved cargo from one place to another.

 

Did the authours of the original legislation envisage that families might want to convert a boat into living accommodation and live permanently on the same few miles of canal?

 

Somehow I think not. If they had, then the legislation would surely have been written in a more clear and specific manner.

 

Perhaps members that have researched this aspect may be able to shed some light?

 

 

My understanding is that BWs original intention was to insist that all boats had a home mooring. At that time however a small number of people were genuinely CCing across the system. The CC bits in the legislation arent there to impose unfair restrictions on CCers, but rather to explicitly permit CCing under controlled conditions. I think you are right that the current problems werent predicted.

[Dave_P]

 

Source C&RT

 

Boaters without a home mooring Monitoring review – March 2016

Headlines: 

During the first year just over 5600 licences for boats without a declared home mooring became due for renewal, so in line with the new process their movement patterns were reviewed 

Just under 40% were subject to a more detailed review for a variety of reasons, of which 1130 were offered a restricted licence. 

652 boats have so far taken out a restricted licences as a result of this process 

220 are still within that restricted licence period 

432 have reached the end of their restricted licence - 268 showed improvement and allowed further licence - 96 sold boat or obtained home mooring or moved away from our waters - 68 were refused a further CC licence, of which 45 remain in the enforcement process

and the 32000?

[Richard Fairhurst]

That's better. There's a difference between a minor error and an error which shifts the tone of the whole article. I'd be interested in the source of those figures though. Anyone?

 

CRT quotes 5,600 CC licences and 32,000 boats in a few places, so I'm guessing they came from CRT. Certainly in my email to the BBC this morning asking for a correction I did advise them to ask CRT.

[Mike Todd]

The BBC have now changed "like most of the 32,000 canal boats" to "like 5,000 of the 32,000 canal boats".

It would helped even further if they had distinguished between the greater part of that 5K who are either retired or (possibly) single who quite happily tootle around the system in a way that even the most hard-nosed shiny boater would be hard pushed to deny as entirely within the spirit of the legislation.

[alan_fincher]

It would helped even further if they had distinguished between the greater part of that 5K who are either retired or (possibly) single who quite happily tootle around the system in a way that even the most hard-nosed shiny boater would be hard pushed to deny as entirely within the spirit of the legislation.

 

I know the quality of CRT's boat tracking, and hence the accuracy of the resulting data have regularly been challenged.

 

However I don't think it is necessarily true of that those licence holders without a home mooring, the greater part are necessarily behaving in a way that they have no chance of ever being on CRT's radar.

 

Certainly one set of data a year or two back, (which I acknowledge was challenged), indicated that there were more who might make it onto the radar, than those who might not. However, because at the time CRT made it clear they were starting with what they believed to be the very least compliant, the fact that over half of those without home appeared to actually have a pretty small range of overall movement in a year didn't actually mean that CRT started to go after 2,000 plus people.

 

My personal guess, (but is no more than that I admit), is that considerably less than half of all licences to boats without a home mooring actually represent those where a boat ranges far and wide over large parts of the system. I think an awful lot relate to boats that spend much of their time in a much smaller geographical area - but where there movement pattern is sufficient that CRT chooses to pursue instead those who move less.

[tidal]

It would helped even further if they had distinguished between the greater part of that 5K who are either retired or (possibly) single who quite happily tootle around the system in a way that even the most hard-nosed shiny boater would be hard pushed to deny as entirely within the spirit of the legislation.

That gets a green thing from me

[Dave_P]

 

I know the quality of CRT's boat tracking, and hence the accuracy of the resulting data have regularly been challenged.

 

However I don't think it is necessarily true of that those licence holders without a home mooring, the greater part are necessarily behaving in a way that they have no chance of ever being on CRT's radar.

 

Certainly one set of data a year or two back, (which I acknowledge was challenged), indicated that there were more who might make it onto the radar, than those who might not. However, because at the time CRT made it clear they were starting with what they believed to be the very least compliant, the fact that over half of those without home appeared to actually have a pretty small range of overall movement in a year didn't actually mean that CRT started to go after 2,000 plus people.

 

My personal guess, (but is no more than that I admit), is that considerably less than half of all licences to boats without a home mooring actually represent those where a boat ranges far and wide over large parts of the system. I think an awful lot relate to boats that spend much of their time in a much smaller geographical area - but where there movement pattern is sufficient that CRT chooses to pursue instead those who move less.

I think you might be right, but it's hard to know. We certainly shouldn't start assuming that most cc'ers are retired folk who are criss-crossing the system. Blind conjecture does no-one any favours.

[RLWP]

I think you might be right, but it's hard to know. We certainly shouldn't start assuming that most cc'ers are retired folk who are criss-crossing the system. Blind conjecture does no-one any favours.

 

It doesn't. And it isn't easy to work out how many are unoccupied boats that have moved out of marinas to save money. This isn't a binary argument, it has a lot of nuances

 

Richard

[Paul C]

I think you might be right, but it's hard to know. We certainly shouldn't start assuming that most cc'ers are retired folk who are criss-crossing the system. Blind conjecture does no-one any favours.

 

I don't think it would be possible to say there's 2 groups, one of which sticks around in a small area and the other which cruises extensively. I think if you plotted "cruising distance per year" you'd get a fairly broad flat spread from one extreme of those who have done pretty much all the corners of the navigable & connected network, to those who have done a few yards or less.

[Dave_P]

 

I don't think it would be possible to say there's 2 groups, one of which sticks around in a small area and the other which cruises extensively. I think if you plotted "cruising distance per year" you'd get a fairly broad flat spread from one extreme of those who have done pretty much all the corners of the navigable & connected network, to those who have done a few yards or less.

I think you're probably right.

 

We're all agreeing too much. It's making me nervous.

[Mike Todd]

 

I know the quality of CRT's boat tracking, and hence the accuracy of the resulting data have regularly been challenged.

 

However I don't think it is necessarily true of that those licence holders without a home mooring, the greater part are necessarily behaving in a way that they have no chance of ever being on CRT's radar.

 

Certainly one set of data a year or two back, (which I acknowledge was challenged), indicated that there were more who might make it onto the radar, than those who might not. However, because at the time CRT made it clear they were starting with what they believed to be the very least compliant, the fact that over half of those without home appeared to actually have a pretty small range of overall movement in a year didn't actually mean that CRT started to go after 2,000 plus people.

 

My personal guess, (but is no more than that I admit), is that considerably less than half of all licences to boats without a home mooring actually represent those where a boat ranges far and wide over large parts of the system. I think an awful lot relate to boats that spend much of their time in a much smaller geographical area - but where there movement pattern is sufficient that CRT chooses to pursue instead those who move less.

You may well be correct but, of course, given the inability of the law to support a clear distinction between compliant and non-compliant, it is bound to be a bit of an estimate. I may also have erred on the side of generosity but I was rather going on the basis of the figures recently released by CaRT on enforcement. (Of course, that is bound to give a lower bound rather than an upper bound) but 'greater part' was only intended to imply >50%. I did not say, nor intended to imply something like 'very much the greater part' which would indicate >>50%

[Hawthorn]

and the 32000?

 

You have to search through it, but eventually on p 40 of the CRT Annual report and Accounts published annually, last one either June or July last year you will find these figures

 

'As at 31 March 2015 there were 32,773 (2014: 32,440) boats with a licence issued to use the Trust’s waterways (excluding boat licences for one month or less). This represents a small increase of 0.9% compared with the equivalent figure as at 31 March 2014. Boating and mooring statistics for the years ended 31 March:'

 

[alan_fincher]

You may well be correct but, of course, given the inability of the law to support a clear distinction between compliant and non-compliant, it is bound to be a bit of an estimate. I may also have erred on the side of generosity but I was rather going on the basis of the figures recently released by CaRT on enforcement. (Of course, that is bound to give a lower bound rather than an upper bound) but 'greater part' was only intended to imply >50%. I did not say, nor intended to imply something like 'very much the greater part' which would indicate >>50%

 

I don't think we are actually disagreeing.

 

I suspect if CRT had the resources and were determined to try and enforce an increased range of movement on as many people as they would really like to then this could be up to about half of all those boats where the license specifies no home mooring.

 

I doubt even CRT really know the breakdown of usage of all the boats that move least, but I would certainly agree that from my own experience far from all are live aboard boats. I certainly know of quite a few that are not full time lived on, but where a permanent mooring has been given up, (presumably almost entirely to save the cost), and the boat then gets moved around the local area. However in terms of which boats are on their radar, and may or may not be being issued restricted licences, I doubt there is any publicly available breakdown between live-aboard and non live-aboard, (even assuming CRT know).

[ditchcrawler]

I think you're probably right.

 

We're all agreeing too much. It's making me nervous.

That's so we don't all get wrong for arguing

[Dave_P]

 

 

You have to search through it, but eventually on p 40 of the CRT Annual report and Accounts published annually, last one either June or July last year you will find these figures

 

'As at 31 March 2015 there were 32,773 (2014: 32,440) boats with a licence issued to use the Trust’s waterways (excluding boat licences for one month or less). This represents a small increase of 0.9% compared with the equivalent figure as at 31 March 2014. Boating and mooring statistics for the years ended 31 March:'

 

 

Thanks. Of course, the BBC article fails to draw a distinction between CRT waters and all other waters.

[Horace42]

It's to do with raising money. Making you pay twice for the same service. Whether you have a home base or not, you are forced to moor up overnight wherever you are. There is no such things a Continuous Cruisers (CC's) - you have to stop. It would be more correct to call us all Continuous Moorers (CM's),

 

It's just that some of us pay for a CM home base (a bay of water for our exclusive use) where we are most of the time - and occasionally cruise - where we moor up somewhere - if we can get in.

 

Unfortunately this is where the trouble starts. There are not enough places for all of us to moor all the time in popular spots - made worse for 'passing' boats if spaces are permanently occupied by others - who classified as CC's, without a home base, pay nothing extra for the moorings. But just paying extra by itself does not create mooring places.

The whole license charging system needs an overhaul. Instead of a cruising license and a mandatory mooring license - with all the complications of CC's - being policed and moved on - a single combined license is needed - with a discount for those who have a home base.

The extra money would then pay for more and better long-term residential mooring facilities. Which becomes a local authority planning matter rather than a CRT cruising/mooring matter.

The unfortunate family might then somehow be accommodated - eventually. Today they have a problem that is not easy to solve.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Unfortunately this is where the trouble starts. There are not enough places for all of us to moor all the time in popular spots - made worse for 'passing' boats if spaces are permanently occupied by others - who classified as CC's, without a home base, pay nothing extra for the moorings. But just paying extra by itself does not create mooring places.

The whole license charging system needs an overhaul. Instead of a cruising license and a mandatory mooring license - with all the complications of CC's - being policed and moved on - a single combined license is needed - with a discount for those who have a home base.

The extra money would then pay for more and better long-term residential mooring facilities. Which becomes a local authority planning matter rather than a CRT cruising/mooring matter.

The unfortunate family might then somehow be accommodated - eventually. Today they have a problem that is not easy to solve.

 

Whilst I have no figures to justify the comment, it is my belief, that CCers do not have any problem 'keeping moving' and complying with the 'wooly' legislation, they do not need a mooring, and should not be forced to pay for one (which your proposal suggests - ie a discounted licence fee if you declare a home mooring).

One of the reasons for 'problems' with enforcement on non-moving CCers generally appears to be because they are not really CCers, but 'Boats with a home mooring' who have decided that they can 'get away' without paying for a 'home mooring', whether it be because they cannot afford one, or other reasons.

 

Increasing the on-line long term residential moorings would just increase the frustration of cruising past 'miles' of moored boats and produce linear housing estates,

"Real Boaters" (add your own definition) claim not to want to utilise marinas because of the 'back-to-back' slum like cramped 'housing' (a bit emotive, I grant you) and want the open spaces.

 

The real answer is for C&RT to clamp-down hard on the 'alleged' (non/little moving) CCer and allow boats that comply with the 'intent' of the legislation, (both boats with a home mooring and those without) to 'go about their business' with little regulation and interference.

[Best Mate]

Interesting which way this tread has developed. My opening question was do you think this article will help or hinder the family?

Imo CRT cannot now back down, as they have to be seen as following there enforcement procedures in this. As soon as they don't follow there enforcement procedures, it would be reported in the press and it would have a consequence for every other enforcement case.

 

Is there any way CRT could back down now it's in the national press?

[Tam & Di]

Is there any way CRT could back down now it's in the national press?

 

Indeed if they did then the "problem" would only escalate totally out of control very rapidly. There is a de facto admission by the non-compliant CCers that living on a boat is because they like boating is a sham - they demand the "right" of being close to all the services with some notional movement if they really have to.

 

There are a lot more groups who want somewhere free to live who presently have not really cottoned on to boats, but the publicity will draw their attention to it. There are also already people buying up a couple of craft and letting them out as airbnb - that would also become simpler too.

 

Tam