Jump to content

After you have done your 20 miles then what?


Jstupot

Featured Posts

59 minutes ago, Athy said:

It doesn't stipulate by whom. So yes. Or does it?

It dies not stipulate by whom, but it does give a 'distance' and I am sure that 'the man on the Clapham Omnibus' would accept a person with 'average' vision capabilities.

 

The Law - not the T&Cs

(1) Every vessel on any canal shall have exhibited on the outside thereof so as to be clearly legible at all times at a distance of twenty yards

(i) her name and such index mark and number (if  any) as the Board shall have assigned to the vessel

(ii) ...............................

(iii)........................

(2)

(i) .............

(3) The requirements of paragraph (1) (ii) and (iii) and (2) of this Bye-law shall not apply to pleasure boats or any vessel of the Board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes no difference as I said CaRT do not and have never enforced any bylaws.

My speculation is that they wish to only promote the false idea of a licence terms and conditions contract, and quietly forget about the bylaws, cancellation of a contract requires no evidence or prosecution by a court, a lie told often enough becomes reality. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Makes no difference as I said CaRT do not and have never enforced any bylaws.

My speculation is that they wish to only promote the false idea of a licence terms and conditions contract, and quietly forget about the bylaws, cancellation of a contract requires no evidence or prosecution by a court, a lie told often enough becomes reality. 

:banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Makes no difference as I said CaRT do not and have never enforced any bylaws.

My speculation is that they wish to only promote the false idea of a licence terms and conditions contract, and quietly forget about the bylaws, cancellation of a contract requires no evidence or prosecution by a court, a lie told often enough becomes reality. 

Here is an excellent example of how CRT utilize this fact on their website - to be found in the "Cruising whilst away from a home mooring" link on the "How we monitor boat movement" page, but not one word of it to be found anywhere in the 1995 British Waterways Act  :

Cruising while away from your home mooring
In accordance with Condition 3.1 and 3.2 of the 2015 revised terms and conditions, if you have a home mooring, you must cruise on the waterway whilst you are away from your home mooring, stopping only for short periods (defined as 14 days or less if a local restriction applies). This requirement to cruise is the same as it's always been - it is not an amendment to the terms and conditions.
What it means to “cruise” on the waterway depends upon the period of time your boat is away from its home mooring. The longer it spends away from its home mooring, the greater the range of movement expected. As an extreme, if you never returned to your home mooring for the entire period of your licence, we would expect you to cruise continuously and therefore your pattern of movement should be the same as that of a boat without a home mooring. In contrast, however, if your boat spends the majority of the time on its home mooring and only leaves to cruise for short periods of time, then the range of movement expected for each cruise will be much more limited.
To explain further, every time you return to your home mooring (provided that this is not merely for a nominal period in an attempt to circumvent the rules), your cruise ends and “the clock” is effectively re-set. The next time you leave, you start on a new cruise, the extent of which will depend upon the time spent away from the home mooring. If you are away for just a weekend, that cruise will be quite short in terms of distance. On the other hand, if you are away from your home mooring for several months, we would expect to see a much greater range of movement.
By way of example, it would be perfectly acceptable to leave your home mooring for weekend, cruise a short distance and moor for 48 hours (at a legitimate mooring site) and then return to your home mooring, and this pattern of movement could be repeated on several weekends throughout the year. However, shuffling between two locations close together, neither of which is your home mooring, for an extended period is not permitted as that shuffling is not "cruising

Edited by PhilAtterley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Iain_S said:

Agreed, but a contract does not override statute if the statute is silent. What part of the licence conditions directly contradicts Section 17 of the Waterways Act 1995?

It is ridiculous to assert that no other conditions than these stated in that section can apply to the issue or revocation of a licence. The most obvious one is that payment must be made, or are you asserting that I can insist on the issue of a free licence, provided I have insurance , a BSS and a home mooring (to keep it simple!) ?

Section 17(9) of the Act states "Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent."

It is at least arguable that "other enactment" could be construed as the Transport Act 1962 Section 43(3).

 

The way in which BW and CRT's totally illogical claims for the all encompassing powers derived from Section 43 of the 1962 Act are so constantly perpetuated, and believed, is another excellent example of what can be achieved via the simple expedient of the constant, sustained repetition of a lie.

To put an end to this argument, one needs only to consider the answer to the question - if S.43 of the 1962 Transport Act did/does in fact have the broad ranging and virtually limitless effect that BW/CRT claim for it, then why was any of the subsequent waterways legislation necessary if the powers conferred under later Acts, for example 1971, 1983 and 1995, were already at their disposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

Here is an excellent example of how CRT utilize this fact on their website - to be found in the "Cruising whilst away from a home mooring" link on the "How we monitor boat movement" page, but not one word of it to be found anywhere in the 1995 British Waterways Act  :

Cruising while away from your home mooring
In accordance with Condition 3.1 and 3.2 of the 2015 revised terms and conditions, if you have a home mooring, you must cruise on the waterway whilst you are away from your home mooring, stopping only for short periods (defined as 14 days or less if a local restriction applies). This requirement to cruise is the same as it's always been - it is not an amendment to the terms and conditions.
What it means to “cruise” on the waterway depends upon the period of time your boat is away from its home mooring. The longer it spends away from its home mooring, the greater the range of movement expected. As an extreme, if you never returned to your home mooring for the entire period of your licence, we would expect you to cruise continuously and therefore your pattern of movement should be the same as that of a boat without a home mooring. In contrast, however, if your boat spends the majority of the time on its home mooring and only leaves to cruise for short periods of time, then the range of movement expected for each cruise will be much more limited.
To explain further, every time you return to your home mooring (provided that this is not merely for a nominal period in an attempt to circumvent the rules), your cruise ends and “the clock” is effectively re-set. The next time you leave, you start on a new cruise, the extent of which will depend upon the time spent away from the home mooring. If you are away for just a weekend, that cruise will be quite short in terms of distance. On the other hand, if you are away from your home mooring for several months, we would expect to see a much greater range of movement.
By way of example, it would be perfectly acceptable to leave your home mooring for weekend, cruise a short distance and moor for 48 hours (at a legitimate mooring site) and then return to your home mooring, and this pattern of movement could be repeated on several weekends throughout the year. However, shuffling between two locations close together, neither of which is your home mooring, for an extended period is not permitted as that shuffling is not "cruising

Exactly what the Judge said C&RT COULD NOT enforce, (I have mentioned a couple of times further up the thread.)

I will repeat it again for those 'hard of searching'

 

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. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. 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

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Exactly what the Judge said C&RT COULD NOT enforce...

So how is it (genuine question) that CaRT can get away with writing advice on their website (and presumably using that advice as justification for license refusal) that is in clear contradiction of a ruling passed down by a High Court judge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it would appear that the blind judges who rule on 'the law', and certain amateur (possibly even some professional) lawyers, would offer no comfort to those who would like to cruise on the canals, but are severely limited by the oscillating non-continuous cruisers who do not pay any council tax, but who clog up any useful moorings in popular places like, for example, the western K&A.  

it doesn't encourage me to cruise at a snail's pace past the miles of continuously moored boats (some with the fashionable rusty bikes and log piles on the cabin roof, and nettles growing from the rubber tyre fenders).   Of course if every bona-fide cruiser kept up a reasonable speed and kept said boats shaken up the occupants may eventually find that way of life to be intolerable and choose a different mode of cheap housing or, better still, decide to enjoy the delights of CONTINUOUS CRUISING. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Exactly what the Judge said C&RT COULD NOT enforce, (I have mentioned a couple of times further up the thread.)

I will repeat it again for those 'hard of searching'

 

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. The guidelines also have this effect. The boat is still subject to the restriction that it must not stay in the same place for more than 14 days but there is nothing whatever to stop it being shuffled between two locations quite close together provided they are far enough apart to constitute different places. 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

 

It should be noted that CRT have been in denial with regard to the contents and ramifications of this Judgment since it was handed down by HHJ Halbert on 22 November 2013, and have consistently refused to either publish it or acknowledge it's existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are on the subject of boaters only being obliged to constrain their behaviour in areas specifically controlled by law, does this mean it is also legally permissible to pass all moored boats at 4mph (or 7mph, even?), whilst on one's way to one's next 14 day VM?

Its curious that even the diehards like Onion Bargee still seem to feel an obligation to slow down past moored boats. Why, when there is no law requiring it?

If the answer is because it is good canal etiquette and manners, why does this not apply to CCing within the spirit of CCing, as opposed to CCing only to the letter of the law?

I sense a certain hypocrisy here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not understand why you people insist on feeding these trolls. You are never going to get the free riders to admit that what they are doing is wrong and against all the terms and conditions of The Canal and River Trusts licence. I honestly do not know how any of you have any time to cruise the system. It seems to me that most of you spend the vast majority of your time arguing the toss with people who will NEVER admit that what they are doing is wrong and sometimes, even illegal. I stopped posting here because of this. There is absolutely no point in arguing with these people or even trying to point out in a reasoned and sound way that all they want to do is take the p**s. I do still read this forum. Occasionally, and at the moment it is only very occasionally, there is some useful information but mostly it is just keyboard warriors banging on and banging on about things they will not, nor cannot, do anything about. Until C&RT decides to go all out to deny the free loaders their day, and we all know that isn't going to happen any time soon,  there is no point in shouting about it on a forum.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No wonder some of you don't have time to move far enough with threads like this going on.

 

If I knew how to insert a smiley, it would be whichever one you felt appropriate for the above comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

so it would appear that the blind judges who rule on 'the law', and certain amateur (possibly even some professional) lawyers, would offer no comfort to those who would like to cruise on the canals, but are severely limited by the oscillating non-continuous cruisers who do not pay any council tax, but who clog up any useful moorings in popular places like, for example, the western K&A.  

it doesn't encourage me to cruise at a snail's pace past the miles of continuously moored boats (some with the fashionable rusty bikes and log piles on the cabin roof, and nettles growing from the rubber tyre fenders).   Of course if every bona-fide cruiser kept up a reasonable speed and kept said boats shaken up the occupants may eventually find that way of life to be intolerable and choose a different mode of cheap housing or, better still, decide to enjoy the delights of CONTINUOUS CRUISING. 

You show your true colours in that post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

While we are on the subject of boaters only being obliged to constrain their behaviour in areas specifically controlled by law, does this mean it is also legally permissible to pass all moored boats at 4mph (or 7mph, even?), whilst on one's way to one's next 14 day VM?

Its curious that even the diehards like Onion Bargee still seem to feel an obligation to slow down past moored boats. Why, when there is no law requiring it?

If the answer is because it is good canal etiquette and manners, why does this not apply to CCing within the spirit of CCing, as opposed to CCing only to the letter of the law?

I sense a certain hypocrisy here.

 

There is no such thing as the "spirit of constant cruising" it is an opinion, the term is an invention. The word "constant" is not part of any of the legislation. If you want to find out what the intent of the legislation is you need to read the minutes to the 1995 act, there was never any intent that anyone covers huge distances, or only cruises in one direction, or is involved in a constant cruise to cover the entire system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

You show your true colours in that post. 

TWIT !

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

There is no such thing as the "spirit of constant cruising" it is an opinion, the term is an invention. The word "constant" is not part of any of the legislation. If you want to find out what the intent of the legislation is you need to read the minutes to the 1995 act, there was never any intent that anyone covers huge distances, or only cruises in one direction, or is involved in a constant cruise to cover the entire system. 

TWIT !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

You show your true colours in that post. 

Funny, and you've been showing yours all the way through.

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

There is no such thing as the "spirit of constant cruising" it is an opinion, the term is an invention. The word "constant" is not part of any of the legislation. If you want to find out what the intent of the legislation is you need to read the minutes to the 1995 act, there was never any intent that anyone covers huge distances, or only cruises in one direction, or is involved in a constant cruise to cover the entire system. 

Must be a lot of inventors on this forum then.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, the words 'continuous' and 'constant' are NOT used with reference to navigation, 'bona fide' or any other sort for that matter, anywhere in the wording of the 1995 BW Act - so the 'inventors' on this Forum may well outnumber the CRT personnel who are paid to 'invent' all the untruths and nonsense about all the powers that, in reality, CRT do not have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Iain_S said:

Agreed, but a contract does not override statute if the statute is silent. What part of the licence conditions directly contradicts Section 17 of the Waterways Act 1995?

It is ridiculous to assert that no other conditions than these stated in that section can apply to the issue or revocation of a licence. The most obvious one is that payment must be made, or are you asserting that I can insist on the issue of a free licence, provided I have insurance , a BSS and a home mooring (to keep it simple!) ?

Section 17(9) of the Act states "Nothing in this section shall affect any power of the Board under any other enactment to refuse or withdraw a relevant consent."

It is at least arguable that "other enactment" could be construed as the Transport Act 1962 Section 43(3).

 

Edited to add : True, CaRT has no powers to levy fines. Neither do private parking companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/britains-biggest-parking-fine-motorist-told-must-pay-24500-ignored/

 

21 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

1. The first paragraph of the licence conditions contradicts the 95 act "Any breach of these Conditions would entitle the Trust to terminate your Licence which may result in the removal of your Boat from our Waterways "

2. Don't be daft.

3.17 ( 9) , if you can find some other legislation that allows revocation of a licence, if you can find any mention of the issue or revocation of licences in the 62 act, I can't think of any, but I'm no expert, I find it very hard to accept that the 62 act created 12 / 14  years before licences were created is relevant to licences, or that BW's lawyers, Parliament, and all the user groups involved in the 95 bill forgot to mention the 62 act already gives BW unlimited powers to create bylaws without the consent the secretary of state, or revoke licences as they see fit, with no due process, and no rights for the licence holder to appeal.  BW returned to parliment after 1962 for 4 further changes to bylaws, and eleven further BW acts, thousands of hours of hearings, legal work, and drafting legislation all for nothing ?

 (4)It doesn't matter how you interpret section 43, the fact is that there is no historical evidence that BW ever believed or that parliment ever intended that they had these powers. If they do have this power to create a licence contract then you have zero rights, and your licence can be cancelled without notice at any time, and they can refuse to ever issue you with another one. Is that what you want ?
 

A judge. ( not a Chinese one )

1 : I did say, "It is at least arguable that "other enactment" could be construed as the Transport Act 1962 Section 43(3)." As far as I know, that has never been tested in Court.  If that was held to be the case, then breach of conditions would allow the licence to be terminated under 17(9).

2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

3 : Obviously no mention of licences in the 62 Act, as it predates licences. However, the 95 Act does not state that previous provisions regarding waterways use do not apply.

The 62 Act does NOT  "give BW unlimited powers to create bylaws without the consent the secretary of state, or revoke licences as they see fit, with no due process, and no rights for the licence holder to appeal", and I did not suggest it did.

Section 43(8) specifically states that "The services and facilities referred to in subsection (3) of this section include, in the case of the British Waterways Board, the use of any inland waterway owned or managed by them by any ship or boat", and I cannot find anything that repeals this. Subsequent legislation adds to that gone before, and only subtracts if it includes a repeal of the previous legislation. 

4 : Your second sentence does not follow on from the first. Where in the licence conditions does it state that CaRT can revoke it without reason or notice, or that they can refuse another one (apart from during the period of a revoked licence)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The meaning of section 43 is disputed, and Nigel has gone into it in detail, more than I can.

 

If BW could create its own mandatory terms and conditions for licences why did they spend years drafting the 1995 act when they could have added the BSC, insurance, and mooring as conditions to their licence contract ?

 

If they could create their own " navigation rules" in 1962 why did they then return to parliment for the 1965 canal bylaws ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you hit the nail right on the head there pete.i some people like the sound of there own finger ...for those within the law enjoy the sunshine .for those who are not look over your shoulder ...did not the great john lennon say sumat like that lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

1)The meaning of section 43 is disputed, and Nigel has gone into it in detail, more than I can.

 

2)If BW could create its own mandatory terms and conditions for licences why did they spend years drafting the 1995 act when they could have added the BSC, insurance, and mooring as conditions to their licence contract ?

 

3)If they could create their own " navigation rules" in 1962 why did they then return to parliment for the 1965 canal bylaws ?

 

 

 

1: Indeed so. Fairly detailed discussion here, for those interested.

 

2 : But as some enabling Acts provided for use without charge, further legislation was required, otherwise, by virtue of Sec.43(2) of the Transport Act 1962, the licence could not be charged for.

3: Section 43 does not contain any penalties for breach of conditions, other than the implied withdrawal of permission to use the services or facilities. Bye Laws do contain penalties.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, haza said:

you hit the nail right on the head there pete.i some people like the sound of there own finger ...for those within the law enjoy the sunshine .for those who are not look over your shoulder ...did not the great john lennon say sumat like that lol

If that's aimed at me, apologies, but claims that CaRT are unable to set any conditions to usage of the canals, and that contracts are unenforceable, need, IMO, to be challenged. It might not be the person making the claim who ends up proving it wrong! :huh:

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.