Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 8:12:16 GMT
I’m not spending the day explaining this to you, it just goes around in circles. There have been several cases whereby people have successfully reapplied and obtained a licence. A declaration of intent is sufficient. But each of those cases had other factors at play. Can you cite one case where a boater with long history of persistent overstaying for no good reason, won a case against CRT for the renewal of a licence with no home mooring? No, I thought not. Tadworth
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 8, 2021 8:15:55 GMT
But each of those cases had other factors at play. Can you cite one case where a boater with long history of persistent overstaying for no good reason, won a case against CRT for the renewal of a licence with no home mooring? No, I thought not. Tadworth In that one, the issue was about whether the bit of water on which the boat was moored was actually under CRT control IIRC Edit: no, he was an overstaying CCer, got the CRT treatment, then got a mooring and then CRT wouldn’t give him a licence. That was illegal because the section I quoted above no longer applies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 8:21:23 GMT
In that one, the issue was about whether the bit of water on which the boat was moored was actually under CRT control IIRC I’m not wasting a day discussing this issue with someone who is clueless.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 8, 2021 8:22:09 GMT
In that one, the issue was about whether the bit of water on which the boat was moored was actually under CRT control IIRC I’m not wasting a day discussing this issue with someone who is clueless. See my edit above. You are pedalling misinformation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 8:24:19 GMT
I’m not wasting a day discussing this issue with someone who is clueless. See my edit above. You are pedalling misinformation You’re wrong again.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 8, 2021 8:38:31 GMT
See my edit above. You are pedalling misinformation You’re wrong again. Such a convincing argument! I’m sure everyone is very impressed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 8:43:13 GMT
I’m not wasting a day discussing this issue with someone who is clueless. See my edit above. You are pedalling misinformation Peddling
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 8, 2021 8:48:05 GMT
See my edit above. You are pedalling misinformation Peddling No, he was definitely on his bike at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2021 9:36:24 GMT
Such a convincing argument! I’m sure everyone is very impressed! *whatever*
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 8, 2021 11:53:09 GMT
I’m not wasting a day discussing this issue with someone who is clueless. See my edit above. You are pedalling misinformation It's a cyclical argument.
|
|
|
Post by Isambard Kingdom Brunel on Jun 8, 2021 11:59:02 GMT
Its a boring one.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 8, 2021 12:02:46 GMT
Just found this ' . Have you lost it?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Jun 8, 2021 12:28:37 GMT
Was it not Andrew that said earlier "I think I have failed to satisfy the bored."
|
|
|
Post by bantock on Jun 8, 2021 15:47:08 GMT
It’s illegal. Satisfying the board means you have to supply the three things legislation dictates to obtain a licence. CRT interpretation is irrelevant on this issue, as Nigel stated many times. The legislation on this is very clear, hence why several people have successfully reapplied and received a licence. No, you have to satisfy the board specifically that you will “CC”. If you have persistent history of saying in writing that you will CC, but then not doing so, IMO the board couldn’t reasonably be expected to be satisfied that you are suddenly going to change your spots and be a good little CCer. Legal cases won have been based on whether someone was actually CCing, not whether “the board” can refuse CCing on the basis of past behaviour. (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.I have a vague recollection that Nigel made some clarification of "bona fide for navigation" in the past. I seem to recall that Nigel indicated the phrase refers to the CRAFT itself inasmuch as it is capable of navigating the system rather than the licence holder being required to make a journey of some distance which has become the subject of such ideas as A to B to C to D etc and not A to B to A, and also the setting of a value of a range in which CRT has determined shall constitute continuus cruising. Of course the 14 day rule is clear in the legislation Does anyone else recall this pronouncement from Nigel ?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 8, 2021 16:15:37 GMT
No, you have to satisfy the board specifically that you will “CC”. If you have persistent history of saying in writing that you will CC, but then not doing so, IMO the board couldn’t reasonably be expected to be satisfied that you are suddenly going to change your spots and be a good little CCer. Legal cases won have been based on whether someone was actually CCing, not whether “the board” can refuse CCing on the basis of past behaviour. (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.I have a vague recollection that Nigel made some clarification of "bona fide for navigation" in the past. I seem to recall that Nigel indicated the phrase refers to the CRAFT itself inasmuch as it is capable of navigating the system rather than the licence holder being required to make a journey of some distance which has become the subject of such ideas as A to B to C to D etc and not A to B to A, and also the setting of a value of a range in which CRT has determined shall constitute continuus cruising. Of course the 14 day rule is clear in the legislation Does anyone else recall this pronouncement from Nigel ? No, I thought it meant something like a reasonable journey, like to the water point and back, or a Mersey ferry, never necessarily going far but having an intent. Not an intent to move just far enough to avoid the rules.
|
|