Jump to content

Real narrowboat living battle with CRT


narrowboatham

Featured Posts

 

Rose Tinted Spectacles Alan. Whilst there may be a few people who have consulted BW/C&ART staff before deciding to live on a boat, My experience on the K&A suggests that the majority have bought a boat and listened to others already living on boats to discover how much they might get away with. Most of the the boats and boaters featured in the Video along with at least a hundred more, have spent the past 15 years piddling about between Bathampton and Widbrooke (about 8 miles) pretending that they are continuously cruising, and despite C&ART's efforts to accomodate their requirements , they continue to flout the rules.

Totally agree , first saw this a very long time ago . Not new news. Have found the local enforcement officers(that end of the K and A ) pretty approachable when we have needed to contact her admittedly not for us overstaying . Bunny

Edited by Bunny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doesn't look like there any live aboard continuous cruisers here to defend themselves. Maybe they have left this forum (or been banned) because they don't agree.

Not quite sure of the point you are making hereunsure.png . I'm a liveaboard continuous cruiser, still here and not knowing what I'm supposed to be defending myself against?? If you are saying that the liveaboard continuous non-cruisers have all left, I couldn't possibly comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doesn't look like there any live aboard continuous cruisers here to defend themselves. Maybe they have left this forum (or been banned) because they don't agree.

 

 

Well you've been banned for disruptive posting I suspect.

 

You bassplayer's latest doppel aren't you?

Agree with what, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite sure of the point you are making hereunsure.png . I'm a liveaboard continuous cruiser, still here and not knowing what I'm supposed to be defending myself against?? If you are saying that the liveaboard continuous non-cruisers have all left, I couldn't possibly comment.

 

Well this is your first post on this thread. What's your view?

 

 

Well you've been banned for disruptive posting I suspect.

 

You bassplayer's latest doppel aren't you?

 

Agree with what, exactly?

I'm more interested in this 'debate', you just seem interested in banning me. Pity really.

 

I've never hidden the fact I'm bassplayer either FYI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my view would be that prior to coming onto the waterways I made myself aware of what was required. If I had wanted to live in a particular area it would be necessary for me to get a mooring but if I was free to go where I like (which I am) then, provided that I didn't overstay my welcome anywhere (colloquially known as the 14 day rule) I didn't need a mooring since, travelling the system, I would have little use for it. That is pretty much what I have done, Three and a half years without any detrimental contact from CRT or even a patrol notice, I suppose I must be doing something wrong but I'm not sure what:unsure:

Same here really but for nearly 5 years. I would say though, contrary to what a couple of others say here, CRT have tightened up on enforcement over the time I have been living aboard. There is also a lot more signage and new 48h restrictions. The rubbish logging system has caught a few very genuine CC'ers out due to the poor sampling. To be fair CRT do seem to accept the errors so long as the boater can prove they have met CRT's idea of a reasonable cruising pattern.

 

The law however hasn't changed so anyone who got into being a live aboard CC'er on the basis of the law alone may now feel a bit aggrieved by CRT's tightening of the noose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here really but for nearly 5 years. I would say though, contrary to what a couple of others say here, CRT have tightened up on enforcement over the time I have been living aboard. There is also a lot more signage and new 48h restrictions. The rubbish logging system has caught a few very genuine CC'ers out due to the poor sampling. To be fair CRT do seem to accept the errors so long as the boater can prove they have met CRT's idea of a reasonable cruising pattern.

 

The law however hasn't changed so anyone who got into being a live aboard CC'er on the basis of the law alone may now feel a bit aggrieved by CRT's tightening of the noose.

I'm not sure how one can feel aggrieved because enforcement has become more effective.

 

The closest example I can think of would be the drink driving law in the UK. The 1925 Criminal Justice Act, the 1930 Road Traffic Act and the 1960 Road Traffic Act all made it an offence to be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst drunk. The level of disregard of all of these acts was quite staggering and driving whilst drunk was commonplace. The Road Safety Act of 1967 however made enforcement a whole lot easier and suddenly people were being taken to court and losing their licences. All it was was a change in enforcement since being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst drunk had been an offence since 1925. Could the drinkers complain that the goalposts were being moved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how one can feel aggrieved because enforcement has become more effective.

 

The closest example I can think of would be the drink driving law in the UK. The 1925 Criminal Justice Act, the 1930 Road Traffic Act and the 1960 Road Traffic Act all made it an offence to be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst drunk. The level of disregard of all of these acts was quite staggering and driving whilst drunk was commonplace. The Road Safety Act of 1967 however made enforcement a whole lot easier and suddenly people were being taken to court and losing their licences. All it was was a change in enforcement since being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst drunk had been an offence since 1925. Could the drinkers complain that the goalposts were being moved?

Hardly a close example. Many live aboards committed a lot of, if not, all their funds on a boat in the belief that all they had to do was abide by the law.

 

I really don't see what drinking and driving has got to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how one can feel aggrieved because enforcement has become more effective.

 

The closest example I can think of would be the drink driving law in the UK. The 1925 Criminal Justice Act, the 1930 Road Traffic Act and the 1960 Road Traffic Act all made it an offence to be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst drunk. The level of disregard of all of these acts was quite staggering and driving whilst drunk was commonplace. The Road Safety Act of 1967 however made enforcement a whole lot easier and suddenly people were being taken to court and losing their licences. All it was was a change in enforcement since being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst drunk had been an offence since 1925. Could the drinkers complain that the goalposts were being moved?

A good analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a close example. Many live aboards committed a lot of, if not, all their funds on a boat in the belief that all they had to do was abide by the law.

 

I really don't see what drinking and driving has got to do with it.

The drink driving analogy was an example of a law widely flouted until it was enforced.

 

I can see this thread just becoming another vehicle to discuss what a 'place' is and how far from that 'place' it is necessary to move to be compliant with British Waterways Act, Section 17(3)( c) (ii) and, to be honest, I can't be arsedfatigue.gif

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drink driving analogy was an example of a law widely flouted until it was enforced.

 

I can see this thread just becoming another vehicle to discuss what a 'place' is and how far from that 'place' it is necessary to move to be compliant with British Waterways Act, Section 17(3)( c) (ii) and, to be honest, I can't be arsedfatigue.gif

 

I agree so I too am out of here as when you need to ask what a place is? or how far? then you have no intention of being a bone fide navigator.

Bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doesn't look like there any live aboard continuous cruisers here to defend themselves. Maybe they have left this forum (or been banned) because they don't agree.

 

 

well I'm a live aboard continuous cruiser and I'm here. I don't see anything I need to defend myself about.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started looking at buying a boat to live on six or seven years ago, I didn't have a clue of BW's requirements for moving as a CC'er. Actually, I didn't even know what the term continuous cruiser meant. Anyway, having looked at several builders, decided on a Viking, who arranged a viewing of one of their boats owned by a couple on th GU at Hemel Hempstead. I was sold straight away to the boat life. I was told by the new owners that you can stay here as long as you like, and no one worries you, no need for a mooring, the most you need to move is a mile or so in a year etc etc. Seemed too good to be true, and as I suspected, it was. Having read the terms of BW, and the continuous navigation of the system rule, I realised I needed a mooring in case they actually start to enforce the rules, so made sure I had a mooring before getting a boat. In the six years I have owned a boat, I don't feel that the rules have changed, just that, as I feared the enforcement of the rules have changed.

Edited by LoneEcho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree so I too am out of here as when you need to ask what a place is? or how far? then you have no intention of being a bone fide navigator.

Bye.

I think many bone fide navigators do worry about being targeted or incorrectly accused of not moving enough due to the poor logging system. So it's not unreasonable to ask these questions.

 

I think a better test is to ask yourself whether you'd take up and regularly use a permanent mooring if it was free. If the answer is yes, the chances are that you aren't currently that interested in exploring the inland waterways and living in the spirit of the 1995 act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many bone fide navigators do worry about being targeted or incorrectly accused of not moving enough due to the poor logging system. So it's not unreasonable to ask these questions.

 

 

 

But if they are being 'incorrectly accused' then they have nothing to worry about - just give C&RT their log and its all over and done with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But if they are being 'incorrectly accused' then they have nothing to worry about - just give C&RT their log and its all over and done with.

Which is basically what I said in my Post 32. However they may well worry before CRT accept their log. Some of that worry may cause genuine CC'ers to avoid stopping at the same places on a return journey in the fear that CRT will log them as being there for over 14 days.

 

Like I say, maybe it's not so much a worry for those of us who still have a house to go back to if the worse did happen. I think that's why I jumped onto this thread really. It seemed in danger of going down the armchair judgement route. Then again I should know better really. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is basically what I said in my Post 32. However they may well worry before CRT accept their log. Some of that worry may cause genuine CC'ers to avoid stopping at the same places on a return journey in the fear that CRT will log them as being there for over 14 days.

 

Like I say, maybe it's not so much a worry for those of us who still have a house to go back to if the worse did happen. I think that's why I jumped onto this thread really. It seemed in danger of going down the armchair judgement route. Then again I should know better really. sad.png

 

Oft times the reply seems to be 'its an infringement of my civil rights to be expected to keep a log - its up to C&RT to prove I have not met the requirements, its not up to me to prove I have'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oft times the reply seems to be 'its an infringement of my civil rights to be expected to keep a log - its up to C&RT to prove I have not met the requirements, its not up to me to prove I have'

"Innocent until proved guilty" is indeed a cornerstone of British law. Is there a reason for it to have no validity when applied to CART and boaters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Innocent until proved guilty" is indeed a cornerstone of British law. Is there a reason for it to have no validity when applied to CART and boaters?

 

Yes.

 

It is known as the British Waterways Act 1995, which as (I thought) we all know, puts the responsibility for 'satisfying the board' onto the boater.

 

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment but subject to subsection (7) below, the Board may refuse a relevant consent in respect of any vessel unless—

(a)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel complies with the standards applicable to that vessel;

(b )an insurance policy is in force in respect of the vessel and a copy of the policy, or evidence that it exists and is in force, has been produced to the Board; and

©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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of other areas of legislation put the onus onto the person to satisfy some criteria.........for example driving licences, there is a requirement to satisfy the DSA that you have the required skills to drive, before they issue a driving licence. Not really a case of "innocent before proven guilty". There's tons of others too numerous to mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of other areas of legislation put the onus onto the person to satisfy some criteria.........for example driving licences, there is a requirement to satisfy the DSA that you have the required skills to drive, before they issue a driving licence. Not really a case of "innocent before proven guilty".

In that case, how is it relevant to the subject under discussion? That is proof of competence, not of innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.