Jump to content

Section 8


wreckferret

Featured Posts

The spirit of the law?

 

Parliament may not have considered that home moorer would use the towpaths to camp out on in the way some are doing. It may also be the case that the towpaths being used in that way is detrimental to good management of the waterways. But the law is crystal clear that the requirement for the boat to be used, bona fide, for navigation applies only to those without a home mooring.

 

As well as the nebulous notion of the spirit of the law, there is also the idea of respect for the law. If the present law means CRT can't manage the waterways properly (and I tend to think it does) then they should lobby for a change and make their case to Parliament, rather than just attempt to ride roughshod over the law as it currently exists.


 

There is an implication that they need to be satisfied with the home mooring though frusty.gif

 

Even if that is implied, they would have to be able to provide a reasonable justification why they are not satisfied.

 

What next? "Your boat isn't pretty enough".

Edited by NilesMI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spirit of the law?

 

Parliament may not have considered that home moorer would use the towpaths to camp out on in the way some are doing. It may also be the case that the towpaths being used in that way is detrimental to good management of the waterways. But the law is crystal clear that the requirement for the boat to be used, bona fide, for navigation applies only to those without a home mooring.

 

As well as the nebulous notion of the spirit of the law, there is also the idea of respect for the law. If the present law means CRT can't manage the waterways properly (and I tend to think it does) then they should lobby for a change and make their case to Parliament, rather than just attempt to ride roughshod over the law as it currently exists.

 

Even if that is implied, they would have to be able to provide a reasonable justification why they are not satisfied.

 

What next? "Your boat isn't pretty enough".

Like the licencee openly admitting that they cant easily use their "home mooring", for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naughty Cal, on 06 Aug 2014 - 1:23 PM, said:

 

There is an implication that they need to be satisfied with the home mooring though frusty.gif

 

Thats not what the legislation says :

 

It says "..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"

 

They do not have to be "satisfied" with the mooring (they may not be satisfied if it doesnt have running wate, electricity etc) but they must be satisfied that a place exists that can accomodate the boat, if it is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thats not what the legislation says :

 

It says "..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"

 

They do not have to be "satisfied" with the mooring (they may not be satisfied if it doesnt have running wate, electricity etc) but they must be satisfied that a place exists that can accomodate the boat, if it is needed.

 

Which it would seem they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the licencee openly admitting that they cant easily use their "home mooring", for example?

 

I can't easily use my home mooring. It is 700 miles and a time zone away from where I live.

 

Should I expect a notice from CRT to say that my boat will be vapourised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No one has yet been able to provide evidence of that - maybe you can find it along with the 'bridge operating information' that you are looking for.

 

I like many others know that Mr Dunkley has publicly admitted he can not easily use his "home mooring".

 

As Im sure you already know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

People should avoid their attempts to find ways of doing things that are clearly not in the spirit of the law.

 

This should apply equally to the enforcer as to the enforced.

 

CRT should not be finding ways to subvert the law to suit their own agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely anyone who loses a case in court can claim it as a victory by saying "it demonstrates the law needs updating", but it doesn't necessarily mean it DOES need updating - the majority of us may well be absolutely happy with the way the law is written.

 

For example, if a husband murdered his wife because she had smelly feet, he would probably end up in court, lose, then claim "the law should be updated to allow people to murder others with smelly feet" but the public at large would disagree and think that no matter how smelly someone's feet are, its not a strong enough reason to kill them.

 

The fact is, the law is written as it is, it was drafted quite differently but evolved and what's ended up on the legislation books is deliberately vague to allow for certain types of boating usage which CRT (and some others) dislike. But in the grand scheme of things, out of the 60 million or so people in the country, 59,998,000 aren't bothered, leaving a vocal minority who think the law needs updating. It doesn't, and in all likelihood won't be anytime soon.

 

So, if CRT lose, they need to take stock of it, adjust their expectations and allow or not pursue others' who engage in a similar way of boating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the present law means CRT can't manage the waterways properly (and I tend to think it does) then they should lobby for a change and make their case to Parliament, rather than just attempt to ride roughshod over the law as it currently exists.

 

But they can no longer do this. The price of independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is no 'spirit' to avoid :

 

The section of the act that refers to boats without a home mooring is extremely clear in its intent and meaning (apart from the definition of 'place') :

 

(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.

 

The section regarding boats with a home mooring, is similarly clear , and the absence of the 'clauses' in the above requirement show that they are not required.

 

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;

 

There is no implication, requirement, or 'spirit' that requires the boat to either 'bona fide' navigate, or, move to another 'place' .

 

It seems clear to me that the INTENT of the 1995 Act was that boats should, when not moving to and fro for the pleasure of the owner, when not being used as a boat, be returned to a home mooring, so as to ensure that mooring spots were available for people to-ing and fro-ing.

 

An addition was made, such that people who use their boat as a boat all the time don't have to have such a place.

 

It certainly wasn't the intent that having obtained a mooring, the boater would continue to moor elsewhere even when not moving the boat.

 

Now, we can argue until the cows come home that the Act doesn't say that, and so finding loopholes is fair game, and for so long as it lasts all well and good. However, in time, CRT will seek new powers.

 

So, if we all play fair, even when we could argue that we are legally entitled to do otherwise, we won't end up with new rules that may not suit us at all.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely anyone who loses a case in court can claim it as a victory by saying "it demonstrates the law needs updating", but it doesn't necessarily mean it DOES need updating - the majority of us may well be absolutely happy with the way the law is written.

 

For example, if a husband murdered his wife because she had smelly feet, he would probably end up in court, lose, then claim "the law should be updated to allow people to murder others with smelly feet" but the public at large would disagree and think that no matter how smelly someone's feet are, its not a strong enough reason to kill them.

 

The fact is, the law is written as it is, it was drafted quite differently but evolved and what's ended up on the legislation books is deliberately vague to allow for certain types of boating usage which CRT (and some others) dislike. But in the grand scheme of things, out of the 60 million or so people in the country, 59,998,000 aren't bothered, leaving a vocal minority who think the law needs updating. It doesn't, and in all likelihood won't be anytime soon.

 

So, if CRT lose, they need to take stock of it, adjust their expectations and allow or not pursue others' who engage in a similar way of boating.

 

But when the law was drafted I doubt they imagined the current situation where thousands of us live aboard and some wish to stretch the limits of the law as they see it to make their own lifes more tolerable.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, CRT have a reasonable argument that boats with home moorings which camp out on the towpath cause problems for their management of the waterways. They should be able to make a good case to Parliament on the reasonableness of that argument. It should't be necessary for them to take speculative action against individuals and cause them worry, stress and lumber them with a financial liability, just to make a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well as the nebulous notion of the spirit of the law, there is also the idea of respect for the law. If the present law means CRT can't manage the waterways properly (and I tend to think it does) then they should lobby for a change and make their case to Parliament, rather than just attempt to ride roughshod over the law as it currently exists.

 

 

I'm not sure you will have had the time to read my previous posts on this thread. Suffice it to say (and hopefully others will back me up here) I fully agree with your point above. Whilst I mostly disagree with Dave Mayall's view, I was merely pointing out that he made a good point and that if people do push certain behaviours, it inevitably becomes easier for the authority to prove the need for new legislation. Personally, I don't think new legislation is a good idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...in the process of achieving their separation from direct Parliamentary control and oversight, the BW power to promote primary legislation was stripped from them.

 

 

I don't doubt that this is right but I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012. Does anyone know exactly where it is set out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thee is

 

... if people do push certain behaviours, it inevitably becomes easier for the authority to prove the need for new legislation. Personally, I don't think new legislation is a good idea...

 

You characterise it as pushing on the part of the licencee by virtue of his behaviour, but CRT themselves have accepted that failing to CC is not actionable if the boat has a home mooring, even when that home mooring is never used as a place to keep the boat. How is the licencee "pushing" if he simply obtains a home mooring and abides by the other restrictions? He surely has a reasonable expectation that action won't be taken against him.

 

If anyone is "pushing" it is CRT, who having accepted that it was not neccessary to actually keep a the boat at the home mooring are now saying that failing to keep it there is evidence of bad faith or deliberate deception by the licencee. By the way, I don't think it's the case that they have said that they aren't satisfied the mooring is a place where the boat can reasonably be kept (and that TD has "admitted" this by saying he finds it difficult to access) however much others on here seem to think that is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems clear to me that the INTENT of the 1995 Act was that boats should, when not moving to and fro for the pleasure of the owner, when not being used as a boat, be returned to a home mooring, so as to ensure that mooring spots were available for people to-ing and fro-ing.

 

That is perfectly true.

 

It certainly wasn't the intent that having obtained a mooring, the boater would continue to moor elsewhere even when not moving the boat.

 

That is not so true. For so long as a boat utilises a legitimate mooring elsewhere, the object of the legislation is not violated, and the public facilities remain open to all. That applies to both HM’ers and CC’ers.

 

scccrulesa_zpsd7672161.jpg

 

 

So either class of boat can moor up when not Cruising or CC’ing, for so long as where they moor is legit and not interfering with the public facility.

The concern for BW was having boats with nowhere else to go being left on the towpath - and even more specifically, left on the towpath in front of facilities provided for all “to-ing and fro-ing” boats.

 

SCMinutesonreasonforhomemooring_zps425e8

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't doubt that this is right but I haven't been able to find any reference to it in the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012. Does anyone know exactly where it is set out?

 

Promoting primary legislation, which is something government departments do, is not the same as being permitted to lobby for a change to the law.

 

Providing CRT abide by the rules on lobbying and employing lobbying firms, not paying MPs to ask questions, etc. I don't see what rules would prevent them making a case. Other charities, trusts, companies, organisations do it all the time. Even bodies which could be described as offshoots of government, such as the police, often argue strongly for or against legislation and provide evidence to the Public Bill Comittees which scrutinise Bills in the HoC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You characterise it as pushing on the part of the licencee by virtue of his behaviour, but CRT themselves have accepted that failing to CC is not actionable if the boat has a home mooring, even when that home mooring is never used as a place to keep the boat. How is the licencee "pushing" if he simply obtains a home mooring and abides by the other restrictions?

 

A good example of 'pushing it' would be to have a home mooring but to leave your boat on a (nicer) VM for 14 days, then return to your jhome mooring for one day, then go back to the same VM for a further 14 days, then return to your home mooring for one day, and repeat this ad infinitum.

 

THAT would be 'pushing it'. Behaviour within the letter of the the law but taking the piss (to put it colloquially)? Definitely, IMO.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems clear to me that the INTENT of the 1995 Act was that boats should, when not moving to and fro for the pleasure of the owner, when not being used as a boat, be returned to a home mooring, so as to ensure that mooring spots were available for people to-ing and fro-ing.

 

I doubt that it was the intent of the 1995 act that people should return to their home mooring after cruising otherwise the act would say so, but it was probably the expectation that people would do so, and in reality that is what happens. This leaves the question of when a cruise starts or ends. That would seem to rest entirely with the boater as it is not defined in the Act. It is only when the boater deems that a cruise has ended that it actually ends. Similarly a cruise starts when the boater deems it so. If a boater with a home mooring goes on a cruise for e.g. 3 years I do not see that the boater is doing anything wrong. If they return to their mooring and start a new cruise the next day they are surely, perfectly entitled to do so.

 

The bit about about boaters returning to their home mooring to to ensure that there are mooring spots for people cruising is just a pure red herring as that was also not part of the Act. It is no more than coincidental that it is a consequence of boaters returning to their home mooring, as most do regularly.

  • Greenie 1
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.