Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 9:05:53 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs. How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money? Blimey, . . a stunning grasp of common law rights of navigation reaching back over several centuries, AND, advanced mathematics ! No flies on you, . . . are there ? Incidentally, there's no such thing as a "River Licence", except of course, in the warped minds of the megalomaniacs who run C&RT, and mugs like you who swallow all the garbage they dream up and publish. I think we all know stabbys argument here centres solely on his personal dislike of you, and not on any facts related to your issues. He's pretty much clueless on these matters given Haynes never did a manual on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 9:07:53 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens as TD does appear to be technically correct. Eta however it would seem to me to be a less stressful route to simply pay the protection money. Yawn, the London shuffler speaks. Nothing here, next!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 9:18:04 GMT
the London shuffler. I like that.
I think that would make a good little signature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 9:21:33 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens as TD does appear to be technically correct. Eta however it would seem to me to be a less stressful route to simply pay the protection money. Yawn, the London shuffler speaks. Nothing here, next! Have you got any views on the current TonyDunkley situation ? Or are you just interested in suggesting other people's views are worthless? Is that your role? I'm confused as it seems to be your MO. It does seem to be quite interesting if he does win and proves that you do not need to pay CRT anything at all if you are moored outside of the MNC on privately owned land on a scheduled river navigation. I assume because you don't need to pay for a "relevant consent" you would also not need bss or insurance.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 23, 2019 9:38:03 GMT
IMO it is wrong that you can keep a boat on the Trent and not pay for a licence (using the umbrella term!), in part because it makes it very difficult to police and enforce - Tony can sneak off his mooring in the dead of night and move into the MNC, drop his trousers and do a big shit onto a photograph of Richard Parry, without any risk of being caught. Essentially the argument favoured by Asplin J, following Mr Stoner QC, in maintaining that Parliament would never consider such a situation (deliberately ignoring the inconvenient fact that this was a private Act drafted by BW themselves). While it is true that unregistered boats outside of the MNC could sneak into the MNC with little chance of being caught, that situation DOES obtain anyway, for all boats recognised as being outside the MNC, even on CaRT’s interpretation of the term. The situation was even more tricky for the navigation authority on the non-tidal Thames – prior to the 2010 legislation. Boats were not required to be registered – even if kept in the middle of the MNC - so long as they were not used for navigation, but remained simply moored. The rationale for the 2010 legislation made no mention of difficulty of enforcement, just pled the desirability of increased income. Aside from that, many examples of primary and secondary legislation engage the same ‘problem’, where certain rules apply that are limited to specified but unmarked areas of the same body of river or other waterway. Perhaps the most ‘extreme’ example would be the tidal Thames, wherein pleasure boats need neither licence nor registration, yet numerous byelaws apply to their conduct on the river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 9:41:55 GMT
I personally would find it quite an attractive proposition to locate a mooring outside of the MNC of a scheduled river navigation and only have to answer to and/or pay the actual land owner for the privilege of keeping my boat on the waterway.
That would be great.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 23, 2019 9:44:26 GMT
Yawn, the London shuffler speaks. Nothing here, next! I assume because you don't need to pay for a "relevant consent" you would also not need bss or insurance. interesting point, of course insurance could be required by the landholder as a condition. It can be a problem with uninsured boats on PRN rivers which become derelict or sink and cause an increased risk of flooding. That can require the council/environment agency/local flood prevention authority to remove at public expense
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 23, 2019 9:45:40 GMT
It will be interesting to see what happens as TD does appear to be technically correct. Eta however it would seem to me to be a less stressful route to simply pay the protection money. Yawn, the London shuffler speaks. Nothing here, next! I would not say there was nothing there – the characterisation of payment - even where not obligated - as “protection money” is insightful.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 23, 2019 9:57:10 GMT
I personally would find it quite an attractive proposition to locate a mooring outside of the MNC of a scheduled river navigation and only have to answer to and/or pay the actual land owner for the privilege of keeping my boat on the waterway. That would be great. Well this is the law, so why not?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 23, 2019 9:59:30 GMT
If you have a boat on any waterway in the UK, then it needs a licence. God alone knows how much it is going to cost the rest of us through our licence fees to get this through to you because I would be highly surprised if the scrap value of your boat covered even a tenth of CRTs legal costs. How much would a River Licence have been, a couple of hundred quid? Surely to a Commercial Vessel Operator and Marine Engineer that is just pocket money? I find myself siding with Nick on this one. SHOCK HORROR!!!!! CRT should not be compensating for the failing of the current law by making up their own laws. This is exactly why regardless of what we might think of Tony personally all boaters should be supporting him in his quest to keep an out of control navigation authority in check.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 10:03:05 GMT
Good effort, Nick, . . you almost managed a reasoned, sensible post there. Began and ended well, but a pity you had to foul it up towards the middle. Would you care to enlighten me about precisely what C&RT needs to 'police' and 'enforce' along a privately owned river bank to which no-one except a boat owner who happens to moor his boat to it ever does, or needs to do, any sort of maintenance or work ? Yes I would care to enlighten you. Well someone has to I suppose. The point is that if it were generally accepted practice to be able to keep a boat on the river outside the MNC without a “licence”, it would become popular amongst certain categories of boater. And when those people decided to take their boat out for a sunny afternoon into the MNC, the chances of being caught would be virtually zero unless they wanted to transit through locks. Of course I am not saying you would do/have done that. Well to be honest, I have no idea whether you have or haven’t/would or wouldn’t. But the point is to see the big picture. It is not just all about your specific circumstance, it is about the effect your campaign might have on others. But as I said earlier, you do probably have the law on your side. It’s not a good law and it should IMO require anyone having a boat on the river, to have a “licence” regardless of which bit of the river it is kept. But it doesn’t. A laughable argument, which if extended to SORN'd motor vehicles would see owners of laid-up vehicles, including non-runners undergoing restoration work, having to pay Road Tax to keep any kind of vehicle off-road on private land or inside a garage or workshop. There are prescribed penalties for using untaxed vehicles on the road, and there are prescribed penalties for using unlicensed or unregistered boats on C&RT waters, which incidentally, extend beyond a mere fine to the recovery of unpaid fees and/or charges as a civil debt plus costs - a fact which is consistently ignored by C&RT, and it's apologists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 10:03:50 GMT
I personally would find it quite an attractive proposition to locate a mooring outside of the MNC of a scheduled river navigation and only have to answer to and/or pay the actual land owner for the privilege of keeping my boat on the waterway. That would be great. Well this is the law, so why not? It is a good question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 10:06:24 GMT
Yes I would care to enlighten you. Well someone has to I suppose. The point is that if it were generally accepted practice to be able to keep a boat on the river outside the MNC without a “licence”, it would become popular amongst certain categories of boater. And when those people decided to take their boat out for a sunny afternoon into the MNC, the chances of being caught would be virtually zero unless they wanted to transit through locks. Of course I am not saying you would do/have done that. Well to be honest, I have no idea whether you have or haven’t/would or wouldn’t. But the point is to see the big picture. It is not just all about your specific circumstance, it is about the effect your campaign might have on others. But as I said earlier, you do probably have the law on your side. It’s not a good law and it should IMO require anyone having a boat on the river, to have a “licence” regardless of which bit of the river it is kept. But it doesn’t. A laughable argument, which if extended to SORN'd motor vehicles would see owners of laid-up vehicles, including non-runners undergoing restoration work, having to pay Road Tax to keep any kind of vehicle off-road on private land or inside a garage or workshop. There are prescribed penalties for using untaxed vehicles on the road, and there are prescribed penalties for using unlicensed or unregistered boats on C&RT waters, which incidentally, extend beyond a mere fine to the recovery of unpaid fees and/or charges as a civil debt plus costs - a fact which consistently ignored by C&RT, and it's apologists. An obvious difference being a SORN vehicle is on private land and does not require something as basic as a pound full of water in order to fulfil its purpose. A boat does require that (arguably) and it is usually the navigation authority who ensure water is kept at a suitable level in waterways such as canalised rivers. Oh dear I'm arguing both sides again. Must stop that !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2019 10:22:32 GMT
A laughable argument, which if extended to SORN'd motor vehicles would see owners of laid-up vehicles, including non-runners undergoing restoration work, having to pay Road Tax to keep any kind of vehicle off-road on private land or inside a garage or workshop. There are prescribed penalties for using untaxed vehicles on the road, and there are prescribed penalties for using unlicensed or unregistered boats on C&RT waters, which incidentally, extend beyond a mere fine to the recovery of unpaid fees and/or charges as a civil debt plus costs - a fact which consistently ignored by C&RT, and it's apologists. An obvious difference being a SORN vehicle is on private land and does not require something as basic as a pound full of water in order to fulfil its purpose. A boat does require that (arguably) and it is usually the navigation authority who ensure water is kept at a suitable level in waterways such as canalised rivers. Oh dear I'm arguing both sides again. Must stop that ! No, that’s a good thing I was thinking that the SORN analogy is not a good one really. We have cameras everywhere on the roads, so very little time or money needs to be used to enforce judgement on those who abuse the situation. I don’t want to see CRT use the same technology to do the same with boaters, but if some boaters decided to take the piss, then it will give them the excuse! I do understand Tony’s desire to push for justice and although the ‘navigable channel’ stuff may seem irrelevant to some of us, things like this can be the thin edge of the wedge. It is concerning when a charity do things which seem more akin to a power crazed multi-national company who believe they are above the law.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 23, 2019 10:55:10 GMT
An obvious difference being a SORN vehicle is on private land and does not require something as basic as a pound full of water in order to fulfil its purpose. A boat does require that (arguably) and it is usually the navigation authority who ensure water is kept at a suitable level in waterways such as canalised rivers. Oh dear I'm arguing both sides again. Must stop that ! I was thinking that the SORN analogy is not a good one really. We have cameras everywhere on the roads, so very little time or money needs to be used to enforce judgement on those who abuse the situation. Cameras don't 'enforce' anything, . . they merely provide photographic evidence to speed up the Court proceedings. Without the will and resolve on the part of the relevant authorities offenders aren't pursued. The relevant authorities for the regulation of vehicle use DOES exhibit the necessary resolve to pursue offenders and apply the penalties prescribed by Parliament, the relevant authority for the regulation of boat use on canals and 'river waterways' DOES NOT possess that same resolve. It really is as simple as that !
|
|