|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 9:03:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Aug 3, 2016 9:03:25 GMT
I find it amazing that an organization like Crt think it's exceptable to try and take away common law rights of navigation. I suppose what is even more amazing is some boaters support them in this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 9:18:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 9:18:35 GMT
I find it amazing that an organization like Crt think it's exceptable to try and take away common law rights of navigation. I suppose what is even more amazing is some boaters support them in this. I agree Kris. There has been a gradual creep of this over the years so nobody notices it get worse. The mistake I think many boaters are making is the assumption that CRT are acting purely on behalf of boaters. The CEO's priorities are more likely to be driven by those pulling the strings of government sources.
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 9:26:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Aug 3, 2016 9:26:19 GMT
I suppose like anything it's the gradual creep, the boiling frogs come to mind. I think any boater that things the ceo is acting in the interests of boaters wants to check their head. He has been put into position with an agenda to push forward,unfortunately the interests of boaters come pretty low on that agenda.
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 10:11:08 GMT
Post by bills on Aug 3, 2016 10:11:08 GMT
What common law rights of navigation have been removed? I'm not aware of any. As far as I am aware, I can still navigate all the places which I could 25 years ago (except perhaps that bit through the Olympic village - or has that now been reinstated?)
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 11:06:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Aug 3, 2016 11:06:34 GMT
Sorry bill I'm no expert so will have to refere you to this thread www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78861&page=67#entry1859824 for the acts of parliament therefore exact wording. I think the word you missed in my post is "trying." As I understand it, the removal of someone's boat for not being "liscenced" whilst it was moored outside of the main navigational channel. Is an impingement of the common law rights on the scheduled waterways. But as it's not been heard in the high court yet we will have to wait and see if a judge agrees.
|
|
|
Post by bills on Aug 3, 2016 13:00:48 GMT
Ah - ok. So its mooring you are referring to, rather than actual navigation.
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 14:56:30 GMT
Post by haulierp on Aug 3, 2016 14:56:30 GMT
Ah - ok. So its mooring you are referring to, rather than actual navigation. So it would seem,I thought I was going to be enlightened
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 15:06:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Aug 3, 2016 15:06:12 GMT
For the pedants on the thread, public rights of navigation are concerned with mooring as well. Ie use of the scheduled waterways. If you want any moor enlightening I suggest use of a toilet or do your own research.
|
|
|
Post by haulierp on Aug 3, 2016 15:16:01 GMT
For the pedants on the thread, public rights of navigation are concerned with mooring as well. Ie use of the scheduled waterways. If you want any moor enlightening I suggest use of a toilet or do your own research. You come on here,start a thread,can tell us nothing about it and accuse me of posting bollox.Think yourself lucky Martin and his missus are hoovering the caravan carpet or you would be savaged
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 15:23:07 GMT
Post by bills on Aug 3, 2016 15:23:07 GMT
Does such a right of navigation exist on the canals anyway? I know it does on the sea and on tidal rivers, but the fact that I have to pay CRT and the EA for licences to navigate their waters suggests that it doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 15:31:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 15:31:13 GMT
Does such a right of navigation exist on the canals anyway? I know it does on the sea and on tidal rivers, but the fact that I have to pay CRT and the EA for licences to navigate their waters suggests that it doesn't. Yes, that right disappeared in 1968. That's what I'm trying to say. We have gradually been losing rights and freedom to do what we like (within reason) for years.
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 15:31:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Aug 3, 2016 15:31:53 GMT
Does such a right of navigation exist on the canals anyway? I know it does on the sea and on tidal rivers, but the fact that I have to pay CRT and the EA for licences to navigate their waters suggests that it doesn't. The only person who has mentioned canals is yourself bill
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 15:44:33 GMT
Post by bills on Aug 3, 2016 15:44:33 GMT
Does such a right of navigation exist on the canals anyway? I know it does on the sea and on tidal rivers, but the fact that I have to pay CRT and the EA for licences to navigate their waters suggests that it doesn't. The only person who has mentioned canals is yourself bill OK, so I infer that you are referring to rivers then.
That's an interesting point. I have my own garden mooring on a river managed by CRT. I don't have to pay CRT to moor a boat there, but one year when I wasn't planning to use the boat, I didn't licence it. They chased me up on that one on the basis that the boat was on my mooring but on their waters.
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 3, 2016 16:03:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by kris on Aug 3, 2016 16:03:41 GMT
It relates to the scheduled waterways, I don't know if the river where you have a mooring is on a scheduled waterway. Look through the thread I linked to all the details are there. Would you consider that your boat is moored in the main navigable channel? If not you might have been had by Crt. Worth looking into I would have thought.
|
|
|
Prn
Aug 4, 2016 16:10:03 GMT
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 4, 2016 16:10:03 GMT
The only person who has mentioned canals is yourself bill OK, so I infer that you are referring to rivers then.
That's an interesting point. I have my own garden mooring on a river managed by CRT. I don't have to pay CRT to moor a boat there, but one year when I wasn't planning to use the boat, I didn't licence it. They chased me up on that one on the basis that the boat was on my mooring but on their waters.
If you're on one of the river navigations listed in C&RT's T&C's, then you are on a River Navigation listed in Schedule 1 of the 1971 BW Act, and all those navigations are PRN waterways. Googling 'MOC Dimensions British Waterways' gets access to a 2010 BW document that gives the width and depth of the [allegedly maintained] navigable channel. The nonsense re. your being on 'their waters' when moored to privately owned land outside of the MNC of a PRN waterway is the basis for their latest futile legal proceedings against me. C&RT claim that the MNC extends over the full width of their river navigations, from bank to bank, but Byelaw 19(1) of the General Canal Byelaws demonstrates very clearly that this claim is utter nonsense, as the following extract from a statement recently filed for a forthcoming Directions Hearing at Nottingham County Court explains :~ "C&RT's erroneous beliefs as to the extent of the main navigable channel [MNC] of a river navigation, and the unsupportable assertion that it extends over the full width of the river from bank to bank are shown to be incorrect in the wording of their own General Canal Byelaws.
Byelaw 19(1) states :~
Navigation of Pleasure boats:
19. (1) A pleasure boat when meeting, overtaking or being overtaken by a power-driven vessel other than a pleasure boat shall as far as possible keep out of the main navigable channel.
If, as C&RT claim, the MNC did extend for the full width of the navigation, then it would not be possible for any conventional vessel to comply with this Byelaw, and the only type of craft capable of compliance when confronted by either an oncoming or overtaking commercial vessel would be an amphibious vessel able to remove itself onto dry land under it's own power, or a canoe or similar craft which could be manhandled out of the water.
As either type of craft is in a very small minority of the vessels that customarily use, or have used, C&RT's navigable waterways, it is not conceivable that this Byelaw was drafted with such vessels in mind."
|
|