Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 20:35:13 GMT
So how is it possible for CRT to keep logs of boats' locations when in some of the more congested areas they can be as much as 4 abreast on a single mooring spot. What would be the recourse if someone did cone aboard without permission? It may not be possible. It would not, however, be beyond the wit of man or woman to keep tabs on such boats and determine their identity, even from the shore [and in known ‘honey pot sites’ it would be sensible, as once was the case, to have patrol boats in the vicinity to espy from the water]. As I have said before: if it was determined that a boat or boats was obstructing the towpath by overstaying, then they can be physically moved on without having to board the boats [whether by bow-hauling or using a patrol boat]. If it proved necessary to serve a Notice respecting the boat, and it proved impossible to identify it or the owners, then fixing a Notice to the boat is not even necessary; affixing the Notice on the bank where they were boarded would be noticed, and that specifically suffices in law. The attempted circumvention of statute in the T&C’s is not even justifiable on that score. If a CaRT official stepped on my boat without asking, I would ever so politely suggest to them through gritted teeth, that debating the niceties of the law would best be accomplished off the boat, and invite them to disembark with all possible promptitude. If they failed to do so, I would formally notify them they were under arrest and should stay put until police arrived. At that point they would either leave of their own volition, stay put, or provide grounds for police attendance even if only on the basis of keeping the peace. I have before now gone onto boats delivered into my care, armed with copies of the MSA and a handful of heavy cable ties in the expectation of needing to restrain recalcitrant occupants, but fortunately never had occasion to use them. I also had the numbers of the Maritime Police on the Thames, in case of need. More pacific members of the boating fraternity could content themselves with politely requesting identification; inform Head Office on the instant of the situation, and let them know that a criminal prosecution of the offending officer will follow very shortly – in the hearing of the offender. On the other hand of course, if an officer asked politely for permission, for innocuous purposes, I would ordinarily be delighted to welcome them aboard. Letting them know well beforehand – if possible – of your position on the matter, is the best course of all. Peter Palmer, for example, once informed by the local management and the head legal officers of my position, always kept a very respectful distance from my boats when wanting to talk to me, for all that he tried to take the Mickey a bit over my ‘sensitivities’. I was putting together some conduit for my engine bay, made from black drainpipe. Palmer was walking past my boat and asked if I was OK, and what was I building. I went into great detail on how I was building a pair of mortars that would fire projectiles using gas, a battery and spark plug. The intention being to sink him, figgy, and their patrol boat. He never spoke to me again.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 20:47:31 GMT
That was very unkind of you.
Our pyromaniac marine engineer once constructed [very many years ago] a mortar that he experimentally deployed downstream at the entrance of the Brent with the Thames. Rumour has it that he very nearly sunk the BW patrol boat as it unexpectedly came around the corner.
I emphasise that this was entirely unintended.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 2, 2016 20:56:17 GMT
Out of interest Nigel is entering a vessel (which to the layman infers going inside) the same as boarding a vessel so as , for examp,e, to cross over to another boat moored alongside. Sorry tuscan, just twigged what your question really was. The 1983 phrase forbids an officer [except in the prescribed circumstances] to " enter upon", as distinct from " enter into". To me, that equates to the act of simply boarding a vessel.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 2, 2016 23:01:40 GMT
7.1 You may keep a Tender on the water at the Winter Mooring provided you obtain our PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT....
Strange that they should use those words "consent" is the legal term for a licence used in the legislation, and "prior written consent " is their version which they tried to deceive me into beleiving i could never have another licence for Tadworth without their permission. Unfortunately rewording it doesn't change the law as they found out.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 3, 2016 8:06:14 GMT
7.1 You may keep a Tender on the water at the Winter Mooring provided you obtain our PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.... Strange that they should use those words "consent" is the legal term for a licence used in the legislation, and "prior written consent " is their version which they tried to deceive me into beleiving i could never have another licence for Tadworth without their permission. Unfortunately rewording it doesn't change the law as they found out. I think consent just means their agreement and the licence is a formal statement/recognition of granting that agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 4, 2016 13:11:57 GMT
Consent to work on the boat? What would the effect of everyone asking for permission to tighten each and every screw on board, if done on different days would each small job need its own permission. Not that I would advocate such a DOS attack, of course.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Nov 4, 2016 13:19:51 GMT
In reality it's just ammo for CRT in case they have a more obviously illegal reason to move you, like your face doesn't fit.
Same on the marina, piles of rules just in case, but in reality it's more simple, if you're not an arse you can break rules and stay, if you are an arse, bye bye.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 4, 2016 13:30:32 GMT
Email CaRT and ask if you can put the kettle on ?
Get a written agreement that covers both tea and coffee, and the deployment of hot chocolate after the hours of 8pm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 21:56:30 GMT
I was thinking about winter moorings today, surely if the reason for them is that the winter is unsuitable or " unreasonable" for boating for some people, then the moorings should be free, in theory CRT have already broken the law by accepting payment in exchange for breaking the law that requires only 14 days in one place, so the moorings would be slightly less unlawful if they were free. The CC'er has the statutory right to not move when there is a reasonable reason not to do so, CRT themselves are saying winter is a reason to stay in one place. Not that I care much as I would never waste my money paying to moor on the towpath at any time. So long as people are prepared to pay for winter moorings and nobody has reason to flag up the illegalities, it will continue. It's a very delicate position, but like most of these things, who ends up paying for it when the organisation gets sued? It certainly won't be the management!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 19, 2016 9:02:27 GMT
This just popped into my head reading about stopping for Winter - has no-one ever thought about constructing marinas that are entirely covered with a roof? Like a railway station? That would allow boaters to do all kinds of repairs to their boats without being rained/snowed on - such as painting the roof. Also, my old idea re-awakened, constructing a new canal from Bishop's Stortford to Cambridge and/or Bedford.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Nov 19, 2016 10:44:45 GMT
This just popped into my head reading about stopping for Winter - has no-one ever thought about constructing marinas that are entirely covered with a roof? Like a railway station? That would allow boaters to do all kinds of repairs to their boats without being rained/snowed on - such as painting the roof. Also, my old idea re-awakened, constructing a new canal from Bishop's Stortford to Cambridge and/or Bedford. Hi naughtyfox, please take my free advise, and don't hold your breath while this new canal is going to be constructed.
Unless volontiers can get all the autorisations to dig it themselfs, as if you would have to waite for CaRT, you will most likely have to waite a few years longer then forever.
They are much too busy finding independent businesses that are willing to do (less then) a minimum of work for a maximum of money.
Partly because of that, and as I see it, because of a great lack of real interest in the canals of the CaRT staff, they don't even keep up with the normal maintenance, and get further behind the schedule every year a bit ( I was going to write "a lot") more.
So the chances of them having a new canal built are in my opinion far below zero.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 19, 2016 14:11:11 GMT
This just popped into my head reading about stopping for Winter - has no-one ever thought about constructing marinas that are entirely covered with a roof? Like a railway station? That would allow boaters to do all kinds of repairs to their boats without being rained/snowed on - such as painting the roof. Also, my old idea re-awakened, constructing a new canal from Bishop's Stortford to Cambridge and/or Bedford. Cost of a vast steel framed roof structure, millions of squid. Covered hard standing would be more viable, but still going to cost a lot to rent, similar to an industrial unit ? MK to Bedford canal link has been going on for years, and nothing significant has happened.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 19, 2016 14:21:51 GMT
If I had the money I would give it a go. The canals are stuffed with wealthy boaters and I'm sure they'd love a cosy marina, all under cover. I think it would be a success.
The Government could have a go at making new canals - these would keep people occupied and happy. Not economically viable, perhaps, but does everything have to be about profit? There could be a re-introduction of freight carried by boats along the canals, of non-perishables, but proper planning and an an effort to make it all run smoothly would be required. Some people would have to move from their houses, or farmers have their fields rounded at the edge a bit, but I think the general effect would be beneficial to Britain. I like my idea of a Bishop's Stortford to Cambridge canal, as the scenery is delightful south of the chalk ridge - and - ooh, there's a thought - a great long tunnel through the chalk ridge! Stansted Airport is nearby. Bung in a hire boat base in Bishop's Stortford and Bob's Yer Uncle.
|
|