Jump to content

After you have done your 20 miles then what?


Jstupot

Featured Posts

13 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

:rolleyes:

Oh Tim you do make me smile. I can see CRT getting fed up and resorting to a new act to sort things out, something like 200 miles per year and you must finish a minimum of 100 miles away from whence you started should do it, what do you think?

Hung, drawn and quartered for offenders that dont comply should thin out the CMERs! Of course I am joking but if people keep on taking the Michael it could happen.......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Oh Tim you do make me smile. I can see CRT getting fed up and resorting to a new act to sort things out, something like 200 miles per year and you must finish a minimum of 100 miles away from whence you started should do it, what do you think?

Hung, drawn and quartered for offenders that dont comply should thin out the CMERs! Of course I am joking but if people keep on taking the Michael it could happen.......................

Have you fitted that v8 petrol in your boat yet? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Oh Tim you do make me smile. I can see CRT getting fed up and resorting to a new act to sort things out, something like 200 miles per year and you must finish a minimum of 100 miles away from whence you started should do it, what do you think?

Hung, drawn and quartered for offenders that dont comply should thin out the CMERs! Of course I am joking but if people keep on taking the Michael it could happen.......................

Any such act has to be scrutinised by parliment, and hearings involving user groups, CaRT won't just be able to dictate an act and have it rubber stamped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Any such act has to be scrutinised by parliment, and hearings involving user groups, CaRT won't just be able to dictate an act and have it rubber stamped. 

A lot of organisations would support something like that just to get clarity of what is required.  I know whats required at the moment is quite clear but how to achieve it isn't. ie. You have to satisfy the board, is clear enough, what isn't is what you have to do to satisfy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Any such act has to be scrutinised by parliment, and hearings involving user groups, CaRT won't just be able to dictate an act and have it rubber stamped. 

I know but stranger things have happened in Parliament..................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So, the answer (if you want to shuffle about) is get a mooring somewhere and never use it.

 

The difficulties likely to arise for anyone choosing to do as you quite rightly suggest is that since mid to late 2013 CRT have sought to foist Continuous Cruising rules on boaters with moorings. They began this campaign to unofficially amend the 1995 BW Act and bring into effect the resulting self-conferred additional powers in early 2014 when they revoked Nottingham based boater Tony Dunkley's (Rivers only) Licence, served Section 8 papers on him, and then took him to Court. After having failed miserably in this attempt they then, in late 2015, turned their attention to another Nottingham based boater, Andy Wingfield, who was doing virtually the same thing as TD had been doing, but in this instance succeeding in getting a Court Order and having AW banned from their waters.

As far as I am aware, CRT are continuing with this policy of attempting to force boaters with moorings to comply with Continuous Cruising rules when away from their moorings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although CRT have had to allow Andy Wingfield back on to their waters for now as their licencing procedures cannot deny him one, I do hope they do continue to challenge his attitude while respecting waterways legislation as he is a complete and utter (Tomsks favourite word).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Although CRT have had to allow Andy Wingfield back on to their waters for now as their licencing procedures cannot deny him one, I do hope they do continue to challenge his attitude while respecting waterways legislation as he is a complete and utter (Tomsks favourite word).

I just hope that the system is adequately funded in terms of maintenance and navigation, how those income streams are structured I'm less concerned about.

The seemingly exponential increase in the number of live aboards that I have noticed over the last decade is undeniable/unignorable and sociologically significant.

Perhaps it will come down to either relaxing CC rules in some way, some sort of lease/licence over a clearly defined stretch, or more offline council registered residential moorings at sensible rates.

Or just fill them in and call it a day.

Edited by tomsk
Poor structure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Although CRT have had to allow Andy Wingfield back on to their waters for now as their licencing procedures cannot deny him one, I do hope they do continue to challenge his attitude while respecting waterways legislation as he is a complete and utter (Tomsks favourite word).

I fail to see the relevance of someone's attitude, and for that matter, why CRT have any business in challenging it, especially if the person concerned has not contravened anything in either Byelaws or statute law to warrant any such sort of attention. If CRT have, as you say, been obliged to re-license his boat then that very fact suggests that he is at the very least currently fully compliant with the requirements of the licensing legislation, and calls into question the wisdom of spending vast amounts of money in trying to evict him from the waterways in the first place.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all in favour of the waterways being run according to Statute and value the efforts of all involved in testing dubious interpretations thereof.

I just wish for a viable, self-funding network embracing all comers be they cyclists, fisherfolk, or whatnot.

Maintaining navigation and boats however must be 'of the essence' surely, otherwise its all a bit pointless.

Whatever way you look at it the more people that use it the better for all Users.

I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the whole business model needs revisiting with regards accommodating 'short range' CC'ers needs, subject to strict criteria and sensible management.

Anything has got to be better than the current mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AndyV said:

There are many posts and many thousands of words on here about this subject when really the situation is very simple.

if you are fortunate enough to be without any commitments and with the time to be able to continuously cruise then you will not be in any way concerned with the "rules" because you will travel further and more often than you will need to to comply with them.

if you have anything that you are committed to that has to happen in one place (kids at school, job etc) then you CANNOT be a continuous cruiser. You need a permanent place to live.

Everybody knows and understands the above. There are some who try to avoid a mooring cost by pretending not to. Clearly the "rules" attempt to set parameters that prevent people who need to be in one place from living in one place whilst pretending that they don't. It is always the case that defining precise "rules" to impose common sense is difficult.

the fact that there are areas with too few moorings and ridiculous property prices is another problem and may need resolving. But trying to "bend" what should be simple rules is not the answer. I can't afford to live in, for example, central London. Why should I expect that to be different if I were to do it on a boat.

 

I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. 

I have a mooring and a job in Birmingham. I also cruise for at least a third of a year, within a range of an hour's commute of my work. This includes easily 300+ miles of canal and river. I've often wondered about going back to cc'ing but I like having a home base to return to. If I did give up my mooring, I'd be so far beyond the minimum cruising guidelines, I wouldn't even concern myself with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PhilAtterley said:

The difficulties likely to arise for anyone choosing to do as you quite rightly suggest is that since mid to late 2013 CRT have sought to foist Continuous Cruising rules on boaters with moorings. They began this campaign to unofficially amend the 1995 BW Act and bring into effect the resulting self-conferred additional powers in early 2014 when they revoked Nottingham based boater Tony Dunkley's (Rivers only) Licence, served Section 8 papers on him, and then took him to Court. After having failed miserably in this attempt they then, in late 2015, turned their attention to another Nottingham based boater, Andy Wingfield, who was doing virtually the same thing as TD had been doing, but in this instance succeeding in getting a Court Order and having AW banned from their waters.

As far as I am aware, CRT are continuing with this policy of attempting to force boaters with moorings to comply with Continuous Cruising rules when away from their moorings. 

Which is exactly why I alluded to these actions and quoted HJJ Halbert - I ill quote it again as there are now no post numbers to refer you to :

 

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.

 

So, taken at face value, a boater (with a recognised mooring) can tie up for 14 days, move 1001 metres into C&RTs next (accepted) location, stay for 14 days, go back to the 1st mooring for 14 days, repeat, repeat, repeat.

HHJ Halbert would suggest that this complies with the legislation and C&RT can do nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

SNIP

So, taken at face value, a boater (with a recognised mooring) can tie up for 14 days, move 1001 metres into C&RTs next (accepted) location, stay for 14 days, go back to the 1st mooring for 14 days, repeat, repeat, repeat.

HHJ Halbert would suggest that this complies with the legislation and C&RT can do nothing about it.

Except they can and it seem will do. It seems CaRT's fall back position is to try to circumvent statute by imposing contractual terms and conditions and then try to use the courts to enforce them.  This is irrespective of the strict legality of their actions. As Mr Moore says the courts tend to believe everything a "public" body tells them so unless a boater is very rich or can get competent free aid they face a very heavy financial penalty if they decide to challenge CaRT because the  court dice is stacked against them.

Right or wrong ordinary boaters are in an exceptionally weak position when faced with the likes of CaRT driving a coach and horses through legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion - the first bends the law as far as it can while not breaking it, while obviously and deliberately breaking the spirit of the law, while the second just breaks it.

Renting a cheap (probably northern) mooring while bridge shuffling in London penalises two sets of people - those dahn sarth who find everywhere clogged up, and those up north whose moorings are unavailable due to absentee boats.  Same as the govt trying to plug tax loopholes, CRT end up paying a daft amount of money to lawyers to stop the custom spreading and cocking it up for everyone, although the numbers actually doing it are probably tiny and the current effect miniscule.

I suspect that the usage of constantly amended advice and T&Cs is CRT's way of testing the waters while someone in a back offfice drafts a new Act - as this government seems to be happy bringing in new laws adminsitatively, without actually bothering to consult parliament, this would probably be easy enough to do.  Again, it would probably have the support of the vast majority of boaters who only nip out for a few weeks here and there and have no intention of ever stopping in the same place for more than a day or two.

As far as 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 is concerned, that may be true of the K&A, but it is arguable that "London" or "Birmingham" comprise a single place, and that would be another day out for the lawyers and another colossal waste of everyone's licence fees.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As far as 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 is concerned, that may be true of the K&A, but it is arguable that "London" or "Birmingham" comprise a single place, and that would be another day out for the lawyers and another colossal waste of everyone's licence fees.

Agreed - but - it appears that C&RTs enforcement measuring is set up in 1km increments, if you move from Kilometer "X" to Kilometer "Y" then you are in another place.

I am sure that even in London or Birmingham it is possible to move 1km.

Or - are C&RT suggesting that the 'KM' is flexible - a bit like the meaning of 'place', or 'main navigable channel' (depending on what context C&RT are using it in)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Agreed - but - it appears that C&RTs enforcement measuring is set up in 1km increments, if you move from Kilometer "X" to Kilometer "Y" then you are in another place.

I am sure that even in London or Birmingham it is possible to move 1km.

Or - are C&RT suggesting that the 'KM' is flexible - a bit like the meaning of 'place', or 'main navigable channel' (depending on what context C&RT are using it in)?

Certainly a data checker told me last year whilst moored at Holiday Wharf that the whole of Birmingham was 'one place'. However my own sightings over this winter would imply it is not.

Edited by pearley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, for the majority of people, common sense keeps you out of trouble, as it does in most of life. For those who for one reason or another need or want to push the boundaries, they have to be prepared to cope with the hassle and, as Tony says above, for the fact that they are generally less regarded by the courts than a public body.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pearley said:

Certainly a data checker told me last year whilst moored at Holiday Wharf that the whole of Birmingham was 'one place'. However my own sightings over this winter would imply it is not.

CRT checkers may have marked you down as having moored in different individual kilo-defined places  within an over-riding area-defined place. I suspect "place" may have different interpretation in different contexts (I've got a place mat on my dinner table, which is within the place which is my house which is in the place called Macclesfield...).  I can almost see Shoosmith's eyes lighting up...

Ah well, two months on the boat beckons, assuming nothing falls off the engine for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pearley said:

Certainly a data checker told me last year whilst moored at Holiday Wharf that the whole of Birmingham was 'one place'. However my own sightings over this winter would imply it is not.

Your data checker is at odds with CRT guidance.  

"What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made."

I'd suggest you contact their supervisor and point out that some training is required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DaveP said:

Your data checker is at odds with CRT guidance.  

"What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village or hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made."

I'd suggest you contact their supervisor and point out that some training is required.

 

Doesn't bother me. 14 days at one time in Birmingham is more than enough

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.