Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

Did you know Canal World is funded by our valued members? You may make a voluntary donation by clicking here


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


NigelMoore last won the day on November 10 2016

NigelMoore had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

542 Excellent


About NigelMoore

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,483 profile views
  1. GLA suing to evict London Marina

    Good to hear from you Leigh-Jayne, look forward to the update from your side.
  2. GLA suing to evict London Marina

    That’s a turn-up for the books – none of the Chinese consortiums with which Khan was flirting, instead, a UK company. I wonder how much should be read into “working on this project with the local community”, and whether that possibly includes the existing marina operators. At least they have undertaken large scale waterfront developments previously, although I do not know how far that incorporated water uses and boating facilities. I haven’t been able to discover what has been going on respecting Leigh-Jayne’s struggles.
  3. Sky News in Brentford

    Wow, that was a connection I hadn’t made – now I’ve made myself look all silly and prickly! I have not yet experimented with distilling my own whisky ( though I have been ear-marking certain stills that for some reason crop up on screen as though Google thinks I might be interested]. I keep good single malts for special occasions, and store whatever blend is cheapest in the supermarkets in a 3 litre oak cask. An idea passed on by my father for which I am grateful – it really does make a decent, interesting [and ever changing] glassful of an evening. Be happy to get your opinion if you venture back to Brentford betimes, and give me plenty of notice [I am away more these days, working on further flung boats].
  4. Sky News in Brentford

    That's nasty - what if HMRC monitor this site?
  5. Sky News in Brentford

    Boats surrendered to the Council for them to dispose of, firmly grounded now, come high tide or low – https://i.imgur.com/Jbc2L9B.jpg[/img] https://i.imgur.com/X7krToy.jpg[/img]
  6. Sky News in Brentford

    That is fair comment - and certainly there were [and are] 'freeloaders' at the site - but a majority of the boaters there actively sought over the years to legitimise their position, being willing to pay their way for mooring there, and to pay rates. Many of them joined in both organised clear-ups and their own, and promoted ways for the Council to achieve a satisfactory outcome and improvement of the area at minimal cost. The Council steadfastly refused, however, to countenance any suggestion of charging for the moored boats, being weirdly frightened of creating what they saw as an obstacle to interesting developers in establishing a high class 'marina'. In fact it would have eased their path considerably, because they could then have incorporated conditions enforceable as a contract, instead of wielding heavy legal cudgels of dubious worth when it came to the crunch. The current action has in fact succeeded in dispersing only the majority of of those most socially responsible and law-abiding, with the enormous legal costs likely to be irrecoverable against the 'remainers'. Meanwhile, the numbers of boats abandoned by those scarpering from the legal assault have made the area far worse because they have sunk, leaving a hugely expensive task of disposal for the Council.
  7. Sky News in Brentford

    The Evening Standard article of a few weeks back, regarding the then current proceedings against the remaining Watermans boats -
  8. Sky News in Brentford

    Knowing you cannot have been referring to liquor, I looked it up - "nonsense"; "foolish and untrue words"? I have lived in Brentford for over a quarter century, being - and remaining - active in all matters waterways at all levels throughout that time, including planning and legal issues. Some undoubtedly consider my views nonsense - including, to their cost, the waterways authorities - but in this thread I have merely informed of pertinent issues of presumed interest to boaters. The facts are verifiable. Even I cannot answer your question though, as to "how come" you have remained ignorant of my very public input over the decades before and after your brief tenure in the vicinity.
  9. Sky News in Brentford

    My "moonshine"? That went over my head, not sure what you refer to?
  10. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    Bit late then.
  11. Sky News in Brentford

    The 2 week hearing at London County Court has concluded, in which Hounslow Council are suing for boat removals. I am wholly unclear as to the basis of the action; ostensibly it seems an action for trespass, and yet they apparently have consistently denied that to be their case. Appeals have already been prepared.
  12. Middle levels, New Parliamentary Bill

    I received a response to my own objections from the Middle Level Commissioners a couple of days ago. I need to go through this response carefully when I have the time, but at first glance it seems to side-step matters. Others may have relevant observations - Petitioner’s Comment Definition of ‘waterways’ seeks to extend the Commissioner’s powers to all adjacent waters including private waters outside the Commissioner’s jurisdiction (Clause 1). Commissioner’s Response It is not necessary for a body to be the riparian owner of a waterway for which it is navigation authority, nor is it unusual for this to be the case. The definition of ‘waterway’ included in the Bill has been drafted in this way for three reasons: (1) In the Middle Level, all of the later-constructed marinas and other watercourses connected with the Commissioners’ own waterways are part of the same artificially managed system. There are no gates or similar structures to block off water levels, and so management activities carried out in one part of the system directly affect all connected waters. Those connected waters therefore directly benefit from the Commissioners’ activities and it is appropriate for them to be regulated in the same way as the Commissioners’ own waterways. (2) It is important to ensure that the provisions of the Bill which relate to issues such as insurance and boat safety extend to marinas and adjacent waters. It is important to note that the Commissioners have not received any objections to this wording from marina owners. Following discussions with Petitioners, the Commissioners have considered the exemptions granted by the Broads Authority to vessels moored on waters adjacent to the Broads. However, these relate only to unpowered vessels, and the Broads Authority do not exempt small powered vessels in adjacent waters. The situation with adjacent waters in the Broads is therefore different from that in the Middle Level system. (3) The current definition of ‘waterway’ is also necessary to ensure the powers included in the Bill would apply to other waterways which are not yet navigable but which might become so in the future, for example, if the Commissioners deepen the channel at Fenton Lode. If the powers included in the Bill did not extend to these waterways then further legislation would be needed to ensure the Commissioners could properly regulate the use of new waterways. This would be costly and time-consuming. Petitioner’s Comment Power to remove vessels includes wording ‘without lawful authority’ which is inapplicable to refer to boats on public navigable waters. Wording in [article] 16 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2012 would be preferable (Clause 8(3)). Commissioner’s Response The situation differs from that in the Thames, which is a natural river with much less modification than the Middle Level waterways. Further, article 16 of the EA’s Order deals with the removal of unregistered vessels, whereas clause 8(3) of the Bill is intended to deal with vessels that have been left or moored in the waterways without lawful authority, so it is not an issue of whether the vessel has authority to navigate but to be left or moored. Because the relevant landowner in the Middle Level will be able to prove trespass and the public authority will be able to prove whether or not the vessel is in breach of the relevant terms and conditions, the Commissioners therefore consider that the wording of clause 8(3) is appropriate for its circumstances.
  13. Paragraph 7 is really the be-all and end-all of her reasoning respecting construing the term ‘main navigable channel’. As I have noted elsewhere, if her ‘reasoning’ was correct, then every piece of legislation including the numerous byelaws of various authorities around the country – relating to ‘main navigable channels’ - not to mention international legislation respecting national river boundaries and seaward limits, would likewise be “a nonsense” and according to her unworkable. It is simply untrue. As a readily available example of ‘strict offences’ relating to defined but unmarked areas of water within a larger area, none is clearer than the new Loch Lomond byelaws of only 10 years ago – http://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/industry-news/loch_lomond_sets_speed_zones
  14. Pity is, that the judge at this level thought otherwise, and though I had expected Leigh would lose at this stage, never imagined so comprehensive a dismissal of all claims - especially that concerning CaRT's use of possession to extort the disputed fees. I received a transcript of the handing down of judgment today. Sparse, and contemptuously dismissive of everything argued. The gender assignments are those of the transcribers, approved by the judge. As much attention was evidently paid to this as there was to the case argued - MR JUSTICE ASPLIN DBE: 1 I dismiss the claims brought by the claimant, Mr. Ravenscroft in relation to first, a breach of his human rights under the Human Rights Act, 1998 and, in particular, under Art.1 of the first protocol and, secondly, his claims in relation to breaches of the Statute of Marlborough for wrongful or excessive distress in respect of arrears of license fees and thirdly, for breaches of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007 and the Tort Interference with Goods Act, 1997 for the reasons set out in my judgment. 2 I also decline to make a declaration in the form sought as to the proper construction of the phrase, “main navigable channel” in section 4 of the British Waterways Act, 1971 for the reasons which are also set out in the judgment which I have handed down. 3 That judgment, however, has not been available for typographic corrections for today and if there are any typographical corrections they should be submitted to my clerk by email by 4.00 p.m. tomorrow. Those amendments will then be made and a finalised version will then be made available. 4 I have to consider whether to give permission to appeal in relation to this matter and there are three heads. The construction of the provision in s.4 of the British Waterways Act, 1971 secondly, the matters raised under the Human Rights Act and thirdly, the matters in relation to distress, for the most part, under the Statute of Marlborough. 5 In relation to the distress issues under the Statute of Marlborough and in relation to the breach of the Human Rights Act in relation to proportionality, it seems to me that there is no real prospect of success of an appeal and there is no other compelling reason why those matters should be heard on appeal. 6 In relation to construction, construction as Mr. Stoner pointed out is generally considered to be something which is possibly arguable, one way or the other and so often permission to appeal is granted. 7 It seems to me in this case that as I have found the way in which it is suggested that the provision should be construed, is one which would make a nonsense of the remainder of the legislation that, in fact, the test for permission to appeal is not met. Therefore, I decline to give permission to appeal in relation to each of the heads of this claim and it will be necessary for Mrs. Ravenscroft to seek permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal if he wishes to proceed further.
  15. Bother! You are correct, thought I had corrected those but obviously hadn't. Section 30 of the 1995 Act adds a final stretch of river to Schedule 1 of the 1971 Act - "River Weaver to be river waterway Section 4 (Extent of Part II) of the Act of 1971 shall have effect as if there were included in Schedule 1 to that Act the following additional paragraph:— “The river Weaver from Winsford Bridge to Shrew Bridge in the County of Cheshire.”.