|
Post by dogless on Feb 20, 2024 18:44:49 GMT
Did you not read 'continuous voyage' in the definition YOU put a link to kris . The journey is continuous not the travel obviously. Rog
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Feb 20, 2024 20:24:07 GMT
Yes but you arrr allowed to stay for in one place for any such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. Satisfying the bored is a hard job. I have a job and moor in the same place for months on end so it is possible to do that, maybe just not in places where the wish to do this is massively higher. But you also use, (and pay for) a private mooring off the towpath.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Feb 20, 2024 20:47:52 GMT
The Canal & River Trust DOES NOT have ANY powers, statutory or otherwise, to seize, confiscate, or otherwise deprive people of their boats, their homes, or their possessions and property. Nor does the Canal & River Trust [C&RT] have the authority or powers, under any enactment, to 'evict' anyone from their boat or home, or evict or ban anyone or anyone's boat from any inland waterway under its control.The NBTA is, and always has, focussed on the wrong sections/parts/clauses of, mainly, the British Waterways Acts of 1971, 1983, and 1995. Specific sanctions authorizing/empowering, and strictly limiting, the action the C&RT may take against, and the penalties it may impose on the owners of unlicensed or unregistered (no current/valid Pleasure Boat Certificate) are clearly and concisely laid down in the aforementioned legislation.
NOWHERE in the British Waterways Acts of 1971, 1983, and 1995 is there any section, part, or clause that authorizes, empowers, or permits the seizing, confiscating, or otherwise depriving, permanently or otherwise, any boat owner of his vessel, possessions, or property. Nor is there any section, part, or clause of the British Waterways Acts of 1971, 1983, and 1995 that authorizes, empowers, or permits the evicting of any person from any vessel, or the evicting, or removing, of any vessel from any inland waterway under the control of the C&RT. They do have the legal power to remove boats that are not licensed, from their waters. That is a common, almost universal, misconception, . . brought about by C&RT, through its own retained lawyers at the Trust's so-called Legal & Governance Services, wilfully lying to the Courts and misleading/misdirecting the Judiciary by means of laying before them intentionally misworded draft Orders, . . the wording of which is known by C&RT's lawyers to be at serious variance with that which is laid down in statute. In other words the 'Court Orders' under the pretext of which boats are removed from C&RT controlled waters are worthless and unenforceable from the moment the Court makes them. The legal terminology for this is "void - ab initio", . . and such a Court Order, being irreparably and fundamentally flawed, cannot be put right or corrected in any way or by any process. It is in fact, completely worthless and unenforceable by the party in whose favour it was made. The wilful misleading of the Court is a very serious matter for any lawyer caught and proved to be a knowing participant. It is certainly professional misconduct, . . it may well extend to being held to be perjury, . . a real, and thoroughly well deserved, career ender - and possibly worse - for any lawyer convicted of the offence. As some erstwhile legal advisers and representatives to the Post Office are in the process of discovering.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 20, 2024 20:48:07 GMT
I have a job and moor in the same place for months on end so it is possible to do that, maybe just not in places where the wish to do this is massively higher. But you also use, (and pay for) a private mooring off the towpath. Yes, but anyone can do the same, and although my mooring is cheap, it's still massively more expensive than the continuous cruiser supplement. For some reason people seem to be drawn to London like flies to shit. And if it's because they can earn London wages then they have to accept London expenses.
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Feb 20, 2024 20:52:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 20, 2024 21:15:45 GMT
Did you not read 'continuous voyage' in the definition YOU put a link to kris . The journey is continuous not the travel obviously. Rog Arguing over the definition of βcontinuous voyageβ is pointless because that term does not exist in the relevant law. It simply says: β¦ 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.
So the only reference to βcontinuousβ is βwithout remaining continuously in any one placeβ and I think we all know what that means.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 20, 2024 21:16:11 GMT
They do have the legal power to remove boats that are not licensed, from their waters. In other words the 'Court Orders' under the pretext of which boats are removed from C&RT controlled waters are worthless and unenforceable from the moment the Court makes them. The legal terminology for this is "void - ab initio" Good job you know a bit of Latin Tony, must make all the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Feb 20, 2024 21:21:50 GMT
They do have the legal power to remove boats that are not licensed, from their waters. That is a common, almost universal, misconception, . . brought about by C&RT, through its own retained lawyers at the Trust's so-called Legal & Governance Services, wilfully lying to the Courts and misleading/misdirecting the Judiciary by means of laying before them intentionally misworded draft Orders, . . the wording of which is knowingly at variation with that which is laid down in statute. In other words the 'Court Orders' under the pretext of which boats are removed from C&RT controlled waters are worthless and unenforceable from the moment the Court makes them. The legal terminology for this is "void - ab initio", . . and such a Court Order, being irreparably and fundamentally flawed, cannot be put right or corrected in any way or by any process. It is in fact, completely worthless and unenforceable by the party in whose favour it was made. But surely you can see just from a common sense viewpoint that it would be completely pointless to create a legal system for the issue of licences to use the waterways, if there were no sanctions for non-compliance. Why would anyone ever bother to pay for a licence?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Feb 20, 2024 21:27:47 GMT
That is a common, almost universal, misconception, . . brought about by C&RT, through its own retained lawyers at the Trust's so-called Legal & Governance Services, wilfully lying to the Courts and misleading/misdirecting the Judiciary by means of laying before them intentionally misworded draft Orders, . . the wording of which is knowingly at variation with that which is laid down in statute. In other words the 'Court Orders' under the pretext of which boats are removed from C&RT controlled waters are worthless and unenforceable from the moment the Court makes them. The legal terminology for this is "void - ab initio", . . and such a Court Order, being irreparably and fundamentally flawed, cannot be put right or corrected in any way or by any process. It is in fact, completely worthless and unenforceable by the party in whose favour it was made. But surely you can see just from a common sense viewpoint... Let me stop you right there.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Feb 20, 2024 21:39:35 GMT
Did you not read 'continuous voyage' in the definition YOU put a link to kris . The journey is continuous not the travel obviously. Rog Arguing over the definition of βcontinuous voyageβ is pointless because that term does not exist in the relevant law. It simply says: β¦ 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.
So the only reference to βcontinuousβ is βwithout remaining continuously in any one placeβ and I think we all know what that means. Yes you are of course correct. But I was suggesting a lay man signing up for a licence without a home mooring must surely, clearly comprehend what is required of him/her and whether they are complying. The boat is expected to be on a continuous journey around the system ... that's how this discussion arose ... not focussed on the actual words in the legislation. Not moving to stay near work would likely, and rightly draw attention. Rog
|
|
|
Post by β on Feb 20, 2024 21:54:36 GMT
many yars ago when I was young free single and rich tall dark and handsome with a lot of cash and a great Boat and a fit canine for company.
British Waterways sent out literature with explanations around having jobs, children, caring for relatives etc and it was described as "this defines what continuous cruising is not"
We did laugh about this but it seems to be rather prescient as there is some confusion about "what continuous cruising is"
I can understand why people would like this to be clarified but it seems to be asking for trouble.
My best yars are behind me unless I can get my hands on the
|
|
|
Post by fi on Feb 20, 2024 21:57:26 GMT
Arguing over the definition of βcontinuous voyageβ is pointless because that term does not exist in the relevant law. It simply says: β¦ 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.
So the only reference to βcontinuousβ is βwithout remaining continuously in any one placeβ and I think we all know what that means. The boat is expected to be on a continuous journey around the system ... that's how this discussion arose ... not focussed on the actual words in the legislation. Really...
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 20, 2024 22:16:28 GMT
Itβs the term continuous cruiser that has caused a lot of the confusion. Who coined the term, bw/bwb ? If the term boater without a home mooring was used there wouldnβt be so much confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Feb 24, 2024 7:38:18 GMT
That is a common, almost universal, misconception, . . brought about by C&RT, through its own retained lawyers at the Trust's so-called Legal & Governance Services, wilfully lying to the Courts and misleading/misdirecting the Judiciary by means of laying before them intentionally misworded draft Orders, . . the wording of which is knowingly at variation with that which is laid down in statute. In other words the 'Court Orders' under the pretext of which boats are removed from C&RT controlled waters are worthless and unenforceable from the moment the Court makes them. The legal terminology for this is "void - ab initio", . . and such a Court Order, being irreparably and fundamentally flawed, cannot be put right or corrected in any way or by any process. It is in fact, completely worthless and unenforceable by the party in whose favour it was made. But surely you can see just from a common sense viewpoint that it would be completely pointless to create a legal system for the issue of licences to use the waterways, if there were no sanctions for non-compliance. Why would anyone ever bother to pay for a licence? There are sanctions - clearly and concisely laid down statutory sanctions - for non compliance with statutory licensing rules and requirements, . . but C&RT shun the use of them in the same way they shun the use of Byelaws as a basis for prosecution. The shameful truth is that C&RT's senior management, in what is surely an attempt to divert attention from the Trust's own ever growing record of abyssmal failures, exhibit a repugnant taste for selecting and making a public example of a few carefully chosen targets, . . chosen targets whose boats are unlawfully seized/confiscated, along with the owners personal property and possessions.
These thefts, . . because that IS in truth exactly what they are, . . are accomplished on C&RT's behalf through its much favoured crooked contractors, Commercial Boat Services, deploying their own sub-contracted bogus, uncertificated Bailiffs unlawfully enforcing what are in fact 'void' - ie. worthless and legally unenforceable Court Orders - usually resulting in leaving the boat owner victims homeless without shelter on the towpath.
C&RT, it seems, simply cannot come to terms with the fact that the clearly and concisely laid down statutory sanctions for dealing with those who offend against the boat licensing rules, DO NOT extend to seizing, confiscating, or permanently or otherwise depriving the rightful owner of the vessel in question of their boat, goods and possessions, whilst at the same time, illegally removing the vessel from C&RT controlled waters.
C&RT's well practised routine for dealing with the perceived (by C&RT) problem of boats, and their owners who don't keep to the rules, is to lie to and mislead the Courts into making Court Orders that in fact are a legal nullity, ie. void and legally unenforceable, simply because they, these 'void' Orders, are misworded - by intent and design on the part of C&RT's dishonest and corrupt lawyers - to the extent that the meaning and intention of certain key clauses in the relevant Act has been fundamentally altered and distorted.
These fundamentally defective (Court) Orders therefore have no foundation in the Acts of Parliament by which C&RT is, or rather SHOULD, be governed and strictly limited in its actions and conduct. The legislation that C&RT has routinely abused and misused since it came into being in July 2012 is Section 8 of the British Waterways Act 1983. The extent of C&RT's wilful and habitual contempt of Court and abuse of due process, in the cause of what are quite simply instances of fraud and theft, is both appalling and breathtaking, . . and now it's well documented too.
All in all, there are some quite notable similarities and comparisons in C&RT's preference for taking an illegal, and in some respects truly criminal approach to deal with what are in fact lawfully sanctionable transgressions of the statutorily enforceable licensing rules, . . and the way the Post Office, through its own dishonest contractors/suppliers, its own dishonest senior managers, and its own bent lawyers, has treated so many Subpostmasters for so very long, . . and, apparently, still is doing !
The Post Office's senior management regarded itself as being above the law, . . C&RT's senior management does too, . . and has been getting away with it for far too long !
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 24, 2024 12:36:00 GMT
It must be great to be one of the Chosen. An honour, Shirley.
|
|