|
Post by tadworth on Mar 17, 2017 14:18:19 GMT
Is 7.1 really an extension of statute, though? On a working narrowboat, the obvious place to display a licence would be the front of the cabin, or on the cratch board, where it would be visible from the towpath no matter what side the boat was moored on. Under the 1975 Byelaw, would the licence have been judged to be clearly visible if it was on the offside of the boat? Not sure of the answer, but there are more important things to worry about! There were many different types of craft using our waterways in the 70's including my first cabin cruiser ... I suggest you read 7.1 again. Any working narrowboat displaying a licence in a traditional position complies with the 75 Act and bye-laws but fails to comply with the licence terms and conditions which now require the licence to be displayed on both sides of the boat. Whilst, perhaps a minor point in itself, it shows how the authority attempts to change statute. There is no lawful penalty for not complying with arbitrary rules invented by CRT. Despite the blatant lie in the first paragraph of that fictional document.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 18, 2017 2:10:31 GMT
There were many different types of craft using our waterways in the 70's including my first cabin cruiser ... I suggest you read 7.1 again. Any working narrowboat displaying a licence in a traditional position complies with the 75 Act and bye-laws but fails to comply with the licence terms and conditions which now require the licence to be displayed on both sides of the boat. Whilst, perhaps a minor point in itself, it shows how the authority attempts to change statute. Just out of curiosity, what is the traditional position?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Mar 18, 2017 7:13:48 GMT
There were many different types of craft using our waterways in the 70's including my first cabin cruiser ... I suggest you read 7.1 again. Any working narrowboat displaying a licence in a traditional position complies with the 75 Act and bye-laws but fails to comply with the licence terms and conditions which now require the licence to be displayed on both sides of the boat. Whilst, perhaps a minor point in itself, it shows how the authority attempts to change statute. Just out of curiosity, what is the traditional position? I was accepting the two places you stated as the traditional position on a narrowboat. However, this practice would have been introduced post 1975 as a result of the legislation. Paperwork needing to be produced on demand, rather than displayed, was traditionally kept in the ticket drawer
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 18, 2017 7:38:23 GMT
There were many different types of craft using our waterways in the 70's including my first cabin cruiser ... I suggest you read 7.1 again. Any working narrowboat displaying a licence in a traditional position complies with the 75 Act and bye-laws but fails to comply with the licence terms and conditions which now require the licence to be displayed on both sides of the boat. Whilst, perhaps a minor point in itself, it shows how the authority attempts to change statute. Just out of curiosity, what is the traditional position? Back in the days when there were still enough working narrowboats on the canals to label common, every day practices as 'traditional', there weren't any Licences to display !
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 19, 2017 21:26:18 GMT
Just out of curiosity, what is the traditional position? Back in the days when there were still enough working narrowboats on the canals to label common, every day practices as 'traditional', there weren't any Licences to display !
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 19, 2017 21:32:35 GMT
Just out of curiosity, what is the traditional position? I was accepting the two places you stated as the traditional position on a narrowboat. However, this practice would have been introduced post 1975 as a result of the legislation. Paperwork needing to be produced on demand, rather than displayed, was traditionally kept in the ticket drawer And, in either of these places, it would have been equally visible from either side of the boat. BW perhaps thought they were making it easier to comply with existing rules, rather than creating new conditions, when they started issuing two licence (or registration!) discs/squares. With two bits of paper, it makes sense to display one each side.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 20, 2017 18:04:06 GMT
Back in the days when there were still enough working narrowboats on the canals to label common, every day practices as 'traditional', there weren't any Licences to display ! Going by your post made responding to 'Allan' immediately after this one (above), it appears you perhaps thought I was joking when I said - "Back in the days when there were still enough working narrowboats on the canals to label common, every day practices as 'traditional', there weren't any Licences to display !", . . . . I wasn't, . . . 'traditional' carrying by narrowboat (ie. long distance transporting of various goods and materials) ended in 1970 when the last loads of Warwickshire mined coal were delivered to Kearley and Tonge's factory at Southall, and prior to, and up to, that date no 'Licences' were ever issued for working boats. British Waterways did introduce a sort of 'licensing' scheme in the last few years of commercial carrying in the form of a one-off annual payment of £25.00 in place of paying tolls calculated on tonnage carried per trip, but no actual 'Licences' were ever issued or displayed, and the scheme was only made available to Willow Wren who had considerable numbers of boats from the disbanded BWB carrying fleet on hire at a peppercorn rent. The positions that have been suggested for displaying these 'licences that never were' on either the deckboard ('cratchboard') or the cabin-end ('front of the cabin') would not have been suitable in any event. With the exception of the surviving Barlow's boats, all the other pairs ran with fixed cratches and a full set of cloths covering and obscuring the deckboard, when empty, or both deckboard and cabin-ends on both motor and butty when fully clothed-up, which was necessary with wheat, or coal that had to be kept dry, such as that delivered to Colne Valley Works from Newdigate (Bedworth). The Blue Line (ex-Barlows) boats didn't have fixed cratches, but when loaded ran with deckboards, without a deckcloth, and just sidecloths pulled up over the top-planks. When empty, the sidecloths were rolled up all the way along and the deckboard was taken down and stood in the hold, either uspside down against the deck bulkhead or right way up leant against the mast. To get a full load on the ex-Barlow's butties (small 5xplank sided wooden boats) the coal had to be 'rucked' up to cabin top height between 'slackboards', and completely covered and obscured the whole of the cabin-end.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 21, 2017 21:16:47 GMT
Tony, I didn't think you were joking! My smileys were an attempt to display appreciation of the point you made. I do realise that licences are a relatively recent innovation. However, when the legislation states that they should be displayed so as to be visible, it makes sense to display one each side, and I do not regard that, as Allan does, as an attempt to change statute.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Mar 22, 2017 16:29:50 GMT
Tony, I didn't think you were joking! My smileys were an attempt to display appreciation of the point you made. I do realise that licences are a relatively recent innovation. However, when the legislation states that they should be displayed so as to be visible, it makes sense to display one each side, and I do not regard that, as Allan does, as an attempt to change statute. If 7.1 is not an attempt to change statute, what do you consider its purpose to be?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 22, 2017 18:33:24 GMT
Both sides of the boat so as they are always easily visible as against "such a manner and position as to be clearly visible at all times". If displayed on only one side, the licence is not visible from the other side, and could be said to not comply with the 1975 Act or bylaw, as appropriate. OTOH, a suggestion from CaRT, or an employee, that there is no need to display the licence really IS an attempt to change statute! .
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Mar 23, 2017 8:53:58 GMT
Both sides of the boat so as they are always easily visible as against "such a manner and position as to be clearly visible at all times". If displayed on only one side, the licence is not visible from the other side, and could be said to not comply with the 1975 Act or bylaw, as appropriate. OTOH, a suggestion from CaRT, or an employee, that there is no need to display the licence really IS an attempt to change statute! . You are attempting to sidestep the question - If 7.1 is not an attempt to change statute, what do you consider its purpose to be?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 23, 2017 14:01:24 GMT
You are attempting to sidestep the question - If 7.1 is not an attempt to change statute, what do you consider its purpose to be? It clarifies what is accepted by CaRT to comply with the statute. Would consider the statute to be complied with if a licence was displayed only on the off side of the boat, such that it could not be seen from the towpath?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Mar 23, 2017 16:10:18 GMT
You are attempting to sidestep the question - If 7.1 is not an attempt to change statute, what do you consider its purpose to be? It clarifies what is accepted by CaRT to comply with the statute. Would consider the statute to be complied with if a licence was displayed only on the off side of the boat, such that it could not be seen from the towpath? Immediately post '75, BW issued single certificates rather than pairs. One of the very few photos I have of my first boat shows it displayed in the front window. Fairly, obviously C&RT is not clarifying statute as understood by BW back in the 70's. What they are doing is using the powers they claim under S43 to alter a statutory requirement by making it a licencing condition.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 23, 2017 19:28:20 GMT
Immediately post '75, BW issued single certificates rather than pairs. One of the very few photos I have of my first boat shows it displayed in the front window. Fairly, obviously C&RT is not clarifying statute as understood by BW back in the 70's. What they are doing is using the powers they claim under S43 to alter a statutory requirement by making it a licencing condition. So would you class Home Office Guidelines as altering criminal and road traffic statutes? Perhaps someone in C&RT realised that the statute was impossible to comply with, when only one copy was available? We're really straining at a gnat here, aren't we?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 23, 2017 21:40:15 GMT
Immediately post '75, BW issued single certificates rather than pairs. One of the very few photos I have of my first boat shows it displayed in the front window. Fairly, obviously C&RT is not clarifying statute as understood by BW back in the 70's. What they are doing is using the powers they claim under S43 to alter a statutory requirement by making it a licencing condition. So would you class Home Office Guidelines as altering criminal and road traffic statutes? Perhaps someone in C&RT realised that the statute was impossible to comply with, when only one copy was available? We're really straining at a gnat here, aren't we? I think it's the fact that they are making these statutes a licence condition. When it has nothing to do with it and a breach of it should be dealt with by a magistrate not s 8'ing a boat.
However I agree that ignoring a statute is different to altering it. Other wise I would be in Australia now under a local bylaw. If i wilfully injure a part of a local bridge, upon conviction I could be transported for life.
I don't call ignoring that rule changing anything, just common sense. Just like many things in life some things are illegal but you will not be arrested for breaking those laws.
|
|