On Sun, 17 May 2009 07:51:24 +0100, Bruce Napier <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bit of a put down there, friend. True. But the original point seemed to be based on a rather naive understanding of what dictionaries do. And if anyone wants to challenge the authority of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, waving a small pocket dictionary will not help. > The interpretation of both statutory >and common law depends on what is a reasonable meaning for the words >used, where they are not otherwise defined in the relevant act, and >an authoritative dictionary like the Oxford is often cited for that >purpose. BW relies on dictionary definitions in its formulation of >the continuous cruising guidelines, for example. "The Oxford" in this case seems to have been a Pocket Oxford of unknown vintage. That makes it one of the smallest dictionaries available from OUP: http://www.askoxford.com/shoponline/dicts/ I suggest that that does not qualify as an authoritative dictionary except within such limits as those I pointed to. The place to look for information about the MCA's authority is in the legislation, which the MCA kindly lists on its site: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/shipsandcargoes/mcga-shipsregsandguidance.htm >This mess has arisen because the MCA has been given statutory powers >over a mode of water transport of which it has little knowledge and >less understanding. How do you know that it has "little knowledge and less understanding"? At the very least, its documents on http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/workingatsea/mcga-trainingandcert/ds-ss-bml1stop.htm suggest that it is willing to listen: for example, I note that "Some marginally commercial vessels (eg traditional narrowboats where the owner lives on board but may also have a small cottage industry) may also qualify for an exemption" from the BML requirement. But it is not my job to defend the MCA or BW, on the one side, or the canal traders on the other. My main point is that a rational approach to the issue would start by finding, presenting and considering authoritative information --- much of which seems to be readily available --- rather than by firing off random criticisms bolstered by non-authoritative sources (or, worse, by none at all). bjg
