>Steve Wood wrote: > >> Apparently this is not the case, though I also believed it to be so >> until a thread on this list some months ago. A close reading of the >> relevant act apparently implies that boats with moorings can stay >> pretty much anywhere else for as long as they like. Whether by >> accident or design is another matter. > >I've heard that argument before - that because the 1995 Act only talks >about time-restrictions in the context of continuous cruisers, it does not >impose any restrictions on other boats. That's true up to a point - it >doesn't impose any *new* restrictions on non-cc boats. But the blanket >restriction I referred to was in force long before the 1995 Act. I've known >about it from the 1970s, and (assuming it had any legal force then, such as >from the 1948, 1963 or 1967 Acts or regulation-making powers that might have >been given to BW in any of them) have not heard of it being repealed. > >Mike Stevens >nb Felis Catus III - currently at Enfield >web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk > Wouldn't the '95 act supercede the others? It definitely states either / or. I have known BW managers leave boats alone that have moorings but prefer to moor elsewhere.
Sue nb Nackered Navvy notalegalexpert ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ygtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
