An account of the abuse of people living on boats on the waterways by the Canal and River Trust, previously British Waterways.   Then a Public Authority, now part Public Body, part Charity.   In receipt of public funds and public donations.  The account is based around the story of me and my boat Pearl, a converted Thomas Clayton tar boat built 1935.  It's not about me it's about them and their deliberate persecution of people, particularly 'vulnerable' people, who live on boats, and those who collude with them for their own selfish interests, and those authorities that allow them to get away with it.     

You don't have to live on a boat to find it alarming.    

CRT Undertaking to the Court. Their breach thereof. Their demand that you break the law - knowingly - to avoid legal action and the possibility of homelessness.. ....And more ..such as - What the Judge said about 'seizing ' your boat.....and my boat.

Merry Christmas from CRT.

There are very few occupied boats left in the area and very few boats moving around. There has never been a problem with mooring space in the area and there is none now. There has been a problem with safety and security on the towpath which was dealt with by myself and others - with no help from BW/CRT. The presence of boats with responsible people on them is the only means of 'policing' the waterways for the safety of all. I'm not there anymore so the canal/towpath is less safe and, of course, the biggest threat comes from CRT and its enforcement 'androids'. 

In the week before Christmas some boats in the area were issued with notices saying they had not moved far enough over the past few weeks.

In the week before Christmas.

For some years, particularly since 2008, BW/CRT have made extra,unnecessary, patrols, in the middle of winter, some on Christmas Eve, and issued enforcement notices. Why? Because it's harassment intended as harassment. Because they want to upset people over the Christmas period, and in the middle of winter, when living on a boat is difficult and people are, generally, at a 'low ebb' due to it being the middle of winter. Some people, including myself, are prone to winter depression. They know this because I told them. They know of the increased vulnerability of boaters in the winter - because I told them. You don't set off on a journey in the middle of winter unless you have to.  There are listed stoppages, and other emergency stoppages, and dangerous conditions due to the weather, and only about 6 hours of daylight. I've done it frequently by my own choice but it's risky and 'psychologically' damaging. 

I told them that their actions were doing harm to people for no good reason, and were unreasonable and unlawful, and people felt intimidated and threatened. Their response. To increase the 'enforcement' and the intimidation to drive people off the waterways.

Vulnerability, for whatever reason, was to be used as a weapon. Health, and access to health care, (as well as access to 'facilities' such as pumpouts, elsan disposal and water), was not considered as a reason for mooring sensibly and safely in the winter in such a place as to ensure access to the necessities of life ( although they issue notices to 'stay safe by the water' addressed to all other waterway 'users') .

These methods were used as a part of the persecution campaign to 'crush' the outcasts who, although having a boat licence for a boat/home that they owned, having made a commitment, both financial and considered, (and much 'advertised' as a lawful 'alternative' way of life), did not have a 'home mooring' i.e. something they paid for that they didn't use and didn't need, and which usually didn't actually exist, but was the means, until they decide at any time to alter/re-interpret the rules for whatever bit of social engineering they had dreamed up at the time, of avoiding harassment, intimidation and threats to steal your boat and make you homeless. 

Wintertime, and in the week before Christmas when there was no 'mooring problem', that they are supposed to be so concerned about, and no need at all to harass people on boats - who have boat licences, are not trespassers, are not causing an obstruction or 'mooring on water points' or, in any way, causing a 'nuisance' but are actually for the most part keeping an eye on everything, including the more vulnerable among us, while, sensibly, not engaging in a 'progressive journey around the network' (declared unlawful by 2 judges and acknowledged to be unlawful by Sally Ash) which is, in any case, mostly 'closed' due to maintenance stoppages and which would be dangerous and foolhardy.  And, of course the 'Season of Goodwill' when people traditionally spend time with family and friends. Not for the pariah boaters. They must 'continue their journey' (to nowhere) as a reminder that they are unwelcome and unwanted as they are not paying the 'protection money' to be free from harassment (so called 'winter mooring' fee).  

How long before they, actually, start 'breaking people's legs'? 

This is what we have, or in my case 'had', to deal with and which I have tried to explain to numerous people within and without BW/CRT so that they might realise the unacceptability, unreasonableness and unlawfulness of what they are doing and how it is a disgrace that a Public Authority - an 'agent of the state' - sees fit to behave in this way and that no-one is prepared to stop them or even acknowledge that there is something seriously wrong'.

My complaints in the Complaints Procedure, initiated in January 2009, referred to abuse of people in the winter of 2008/2009 who were harassed on Christmas Eve and New Years Day and told to move in ice - one boat who had removed the propshaft and sent it for repair.He was issued a notice by the half wit, Helen Waterman. 78 years old with a wooden boat.  

A lot of this was done to provoke me into something they could call an assault because of my complaints. It didn't happen but, nonetheless, they submitted to the court an account of an argument with me 'effing and blinding' and acting in a threatening manner.   A detailed account which quotes what I, supposedly, said in an argument that never took place.   

They, frequently, created situations to provoke me including the issuing of the notice to continue my journey on December 9th 2009 which, eventually, led to the legal action.   

Harass them in the winter, particularly at Christmas.

Provoke the ones who complain.

Create false accounts of arguments to be used in any future court case. (I have a copy from my 'file' of 'acounts' of arguments etc. where it is stated that, 'This will be useful in a forthcoming court action'. 

Wrongly issue notices to move.   Which, by a Public Authority, as they were then, is Misconduct in Public Office. 

But their attitude is, as some have admitted, 'It's only a game'.  

Notices were issued. One to someone who moves about all the time, causes no problem of any kind, has had a heart operation and has had a stroke. And is 76 years old (not the one previously mentioned). But, apparently, he hasn't moved far enough. Although there is no clear statement of what is 'far enough'. (It's meant to be unclear so as to cause confusion and uncertainty and make people think that whatever they do is wrong). They usually (I have seen this several times) succumb to anxiety and depression and are then on anti depressants and finally move off the waterways into sheltered accommodation. Not exactly what they had in mind.

CRT, in reading this, will be delighted to hear of the success of their persecution tactics.

The person in question had previously, a couple of years ago, had a visit from Helen Waterman, Enforcement Android, and her 'minder' where it was suggested that he put his name down for sheltered housing. Why? Can he not manage on his boat? No. Because he is representative of the most targetted boater, vulnerable due to age and health requirements and easily rehoused so most likely to respond to 'encouragement' and, therefore, the best targets when the aim is to achieve a certain number of boaters removed from or driven from the waterways per year. Yes, there are targets (in 2010/2011 it was 100 boats per year),  denoting that there is an intention, there is an objective, there is a 'plan'. There is a 'pogrom'.

More on the judgment in my case.

CRT have been pressured to publish the Judgment in my case. Some of it applies to the 'rules' and the 'law' and is of general interest, particularly as it clearly states that a progressive journey around the network is NOT required to comply with the law.

My arguments were not presented as I would have wished and I was, largely, excluded from my own 'trial', therefore, most of the detail about me, my boat movements and arguments with BW are not entirely accurate.

Richard Parry has commented on the Judgment (in a statement, presumably, from the legal department) and said that their 'guidance' is still the 'preferred truth' they will continue to apply.

He made no comment on the final paragraph of the Judgment, however, which is as follows:-

'It follows that CRT are entitled to judgment and to the relief they seek. However, CRT indicated at trial that if they succeeded to this extent, they would give GDM a further opportunity to consider his position before removing Pearl from the canal. In those circumstances I will fix a date to hand down this judgment and invite submissions at that hearing as to the form of order to be made.'

This judgment was handed down at a hearing that I had been told by my legal representatives had been cancelled following their being released from representing me due to my complaining about my representation. I, subsequently, received the court order two weeks prior to the date of its proposed execution. By writing to the Judge I eventually, with 2 days to go, obtained a 'stay of execution'.

The 'execution' date was the 20th December. The last working day before Christmas. Calculated, I believe, so that my boat could be seized and I would be made homeless at a time that would have caused me the greatest difficulty and distress. This is in keeping with their adopted behaviour-of-choice of 'attacking' people in the winter at a time of greatest vulnerability. This particulary applied to me as they know of my history of winter depression. (This, I now know, is caused by a virus).

Another hearing was arranged which I assumed would address my concerns about my representation, my claims of CRT employees false allegations and lies in court, and myself, and the court, being deliberately misled regarding the hearing where the judgment was handed down. I submitted a witness statement to the hearing.  

The hearing, of which I obtained a transcript, resulted in the handing down of the judgment from that date giving me 3 weeks to appeal or ask the Appeal Court for a stay of execution.

As it was a hearing to hand down the judgment I, reasonably, assumed that the final paragraph of the judgment still applied i.e. another date would be fixed to hand down the judgment.   

There had been an order, for £50,000, for costs which I queried and, also, I queried their right to seize my boat and take possession of it. Here is an extract from the hearing transcript:-

Judge: They would have to put it somewhere because they could not leave it on the highway because that would be an obstruction, so they would have to take it somewhere. But it would still be your boat and you would be entitled to possession of it.

Me: And I would then get possession - people can then get possession of the boat by paying the money they owe. I don't owe any money. They owe me money.

Judge: There is the cost position.

Me: I don't owe them any money. I was on legal aid.

Judge: In that case, Mr Moss, what order did I make about costs?

Mr Moss (CRT barrister): There is a monthly costs order.

Judge: So there is not......order for costs.

Me: There's a £50,000 order.

Judge: It is not enforceable.

Mr Moss: It says '...£50,000 on account within 21 days of the day of this order but liability for costs is not to be enforced without permission of this court or the Court of Appeal'.

Judge: So it is what we call a football pools order. Because you are legally aided you are technically liable in costs but it is not an enforceable order so you do not owe them any money in costs.

Mr. Mayers: But I'm no longer legally aided because they released themselves from representing me the day before....

Judge: I does not matter. The order I have made is such that you will..... I made it because you were legally aided at the time when I made it. So the order for costs is not enforceable against you without my permission, or the Court of Appeal's permission. So you do not at this moment owe them £50,000, or at least you do owe them £50,000 but they cannot enforce it. And they cannot enforce it without either my permission, or that of another judge at my level,or a High Court judge, or the Court of Appeal. Okay?

Me. Okay.

Judge: So it is technically a debt that is owed but they cannot enforce it, and they cannot take your boat in order to enforce it either. There is no way they can get ownership of the boat.

Me: Then they cannot, actually, physically come along and take it, can they?

Judge: They can physically move it because they can physically move it out of the canal. What they would probably have to do would be to take it out of the canal and put it on land that they own.

Me: Which would be where?

Judge: I do not know.

Me: And in the meantime am I still on it?

Judge: That is a matter for you, I think. I doubt that I would want to be on a boat that was being lifted out of the canal, but I think you have a right to if you want to.

Me: I wouldn't let them do it. I wouldn't let them take it for a start.

Judge: You would not be legally allowed to prevent them.

Me: Well, I'd just have to prevent them because nothing they have done to me is legal.

Judge: Mr. Mayers, be careful.

Me: Nothing they have done to me is lawful.

Judge: They would be acting under my orders if they remove the boat from the canal. Just listen to me. I am telling you the position. You have asked me and I am telling you. They can remove it from the canal. If you try to prevent them exercising that lawful power you may end up facing criminal charges. I do not know. I am not saying that you will, I am saying you might, because of the actions you took, depending on what you did. But be careful. They cannot end up owning that boat if they put it on land out of the water and put it on land they own. They cannot stop you coming on with a low loader and taking it away. Nor, if you sell it to somebody else who then gets a licence for it, will there be any problem at all.

Me: That's probably what I'll do. And the order applies to the boat, it does not apply to me? Am I evicted from the canal?

Judge: No, no,no. The order is very specific, that they have the right to remove the boat when it is 'on licence'? (unlicenced?) from the canal.

Me: But it does not apply to me?

Judge: They did give me an undertaking that they would give you an opportunity to consider your position. I daresay if you obtain a mooring and a new licence they will leave you alone. Is that right?

Mr Moss: We have been down this route so many times before.

Me: We've not been down this route. I've never been offered a mooring.

Judge: Mr Moss, you did tell me in the course of the argument that if he acquired a mooring, applied for a mooring licence and paid for it, he would be left alone. You did tell me that.

Mr Moss: Yes

Judge: I expect it to be honoured and if it is not I will grant another stay of execution. Okay, that is all I can do, Mr. Mayers. The hearing is now closed.

So they can't take possession of my boat but they have, and they threatened to remove me from my boat if I didn't leave voluntarily. And I had made mooring arrangements which I had emailed them about while requesting renewal of my licence which they ignored, and they created a debt where there was none by the unnecessary transportation of my boat to the Sharpness Canal. They then claimed costs for this unnecessary transportation, after 6 weeks of not telling me where my boat was, and when my boat sunk, as a result of damage done in the course of the transportation - and while the boat was in my possession i.e was my property over which they had a duty of care, they refused me compensation for the destruction of my boat, or to make good the damage, and still expected, and expect, me to pay the costs of this unlawful seizure and destruction of my property.

And they ignored and breached the undertaking to the court. ( Incidentally, there are no 'lawful' moorings, and actually no available moorings, in the area - only 'mooring arrangements' )

I made a 'mooring arrangement' and then requested a temporary 'mooring' on the towpath due to the uncertainty of where my mother would be going when she came out of hospital. They did not reply to this request.

Initially I wrote to Simon Salem to discuss the means by which we could resolve the issue as agreed with the court. I had no transcript of the hearing and could not recall exactly what was said and expected a proper discussion taking into account all the circumstances and the judge's instructions and observations. He did not reply. Their solicitor, Shoosmiths, wrote to me and told me not to contact their client. With whom I was supposed to be agreeing the means whereby I could remain on the canal.

Here is the email to Simon Salem:-

Dear Mr. Salem,

As you will know I have been the subject of legal action by BW/CRT for the past 4 years. The initial claim was malicious and constitutes misconduct in public office. The subsequent court action was malicious and vexatious. When it, finally, came to trial false allegations were submitted to the court, and false information, and there were lies in court and in the witness box. This has been acknowledged by the Judge. The defence offered by my legal team was not as instructed/requested but, it would appear, was what was agreed by the opposing representatives in the case and not in my interests. It was a 'shambles' that did not reflect the facts of the case and not sufficient for a Judge to make a reasonable decision that must come from consideration of the accurate presentation of the facts of the case. I was misled by my legal team, made a complaint and was than deceived by them when they released themselves from my representation and then told me the hearing for the handing down of the Judgment had been cancelled.

I have been the victim of an unreasonabe prosecution backed by lies and false allegations and 'agreement' between solicitors to not submit my evidence or accurately present the facts and arguments of my case. The Judge is, now, aware of this but its too late to rescind the Judgment. He advised me to appeal but I now discover that I can't get legal aid.

The Judge declared that I am entitled to have my licence reinstated if requested so I am requesting that we discuss 'terms and conditions', on both sides, with a view to that end. I don't know who I can discuss it with as I don't know of anyone in CRT who is not complicit in the abuse and persecution of people living on boats. We should, perhaps, discuss some form of mediation.

Take this as notice that I am seeking to resolve the issues concerned and have my licence reinstated and postpone the execution of the court order. Failing that we will have to go back to the Judge.

I will be making a complaint about the misconduct and perverting of the course of justice in the prosecution of the claim against me.

I need to know there will be no attempt to execute the court order or I will have to advise the police of a threatened assault on myself and my property.

Yours sincerely

Geoff Mayers 

And here is the email requesting a towpath 'mooring' and renewal of my licence:-

geoff mayers 


To: Walker, Sian


I am fully occupied dealing with my mother. She is 91 and in hospital due to confusion and falling and the onset of dementia (according to the diagnosis). I go to the hospital every day, except Sunday - no bus- and when she comes out she will be back in sheltered accommodation in Frodsham where she will need as much help as possible, from me, and may have to be moved to a place with more care.
My best suggestion given the difficulties and uncertainties of my situation is that I pay a 'winter mooring' fee to moor where I am as my boat is reasonably safe here, my cat is familiar with the place and I get a phone signal and an internet signal. My licence can be reinstated or re-applied for. It was revoked halfway through its term so I am due a partial refund.

I don't want to make a long term mooring arrangement for a 'mooring' I don't want to use and I don't want to claim housing benefit. My HB payment was stopped previously as I wasn't on the mooring when they visited. I had made this arrangement with Uplands Marina but due to the change in circumstances I have put it on hold. (I, also,note that CRT are now taking someone to court who has a mooring but, apparently, has not made 'sufficient progress' on his boat when not on the mooring). This contradicts what has generally been understood and what was agreed with the court.

I can't make any plans at the moment and I've got more important things to deal with.

I rely on you to sort things out. If there's no reasonable response I have an arrangement to sell my boat to a friend that can be, immediately, transacted.

I would suggest that you consult with someone other than Jill Overum. Or Helen Waterman, who is leaving shortly. They were both, recently, suspended for complaints of harassment by boaters. There have been numerous complaints throughout the time they have been employed.

Thank you

Geoff Mayers 


So, I 'considered my position' and sought to reach a resolution in accordance with the undertaking to the court. They did not co-operate. They did not want a resolution. I had become subject to a further level of vulnerability due to my Mother's illness and informed them of the problem. They, as is usual, took advantage of it. 

An undertaking to the court has the same force as a court order.

However you interpret the rights and wrongs of what happened it makes a mockery of their claim that making someone homeless is a 'last resort'. And 'seizing/taking possession of their boat is not lawful. 

Meanwhile, back to the statement attributed to Richard Parry. 

The final sentence:- 

Our guidance continues to apply as the Trust's understanding of the law and we will continue to take action where we believe boaters are not adhering to the rules, which are there for everyone's benefit.

So, despite years of complaints and challenges and the comments of judges and the clear evidence that the 'guidance' is absurd, unreasonable and unlawful and cannot possibly solve any, supposed, problem of too many boats and too few moorings - probably providing proper moorings for those who want them at a sensible cost in the areas required would help - Richard Parry declares 'business as usual'.

We will continue to harass people with no purpose other than as harassment, will continue to ignore reasonable requirements, medical and otherwise - specifically noting health and disability related with refusal to recognise the Equality Act - and continue to claim our interpretation of the law as the only interpretation - there is no truth but our truth - (sounds familiar). The rules are 'there for everyone's benefit'. No. They are there for the benefit of those who don't have to abide by them and don't live on boats - boat clubs etc. - who want special privileges over others (discrimination) as they think they will more easily moor outside 'the pub' and not have to walk more than 20 yards from their boat). 

They are for the benefit of 'leisure' boaters. And for the persecution of those who live on boats and have no reason, nor wish, to sit in a marina, pretending they don't exist as they're not supposed to live there anyway. They don't moor on the towpath, in various places, to avoid paying for a mooring, they do it because that's what living on a boat is. When did you hear anyone say they are planning to buy a boat and sit on it in a marina?    (Some do but it's nothing to do with living on a boat on the waterway).

London is not representative of the rest of the canal system. Living on a boat there is a response to the unavailability of decent, and affordable housing and a certain alternative lifestyle 'trendiness' that appeals to some people. Go out in the winter on the rest of the system you will find hardly anyone there. Indicating that those you see in the summer have returned to their moorings and are not the, so called 'continuous cruisers'. 

It's bullshit, all of it. Used to justify the assault on people living on boats to get their boats, not necessarily with them on it, to pay rent in a marina. 

They, CRT, want us all to be in a marina, a BWML marina, and pay rent for an unlawful mooring. And, yet, they claim they are not a housing authority. They're not. They're 'slum landlords'. Charging people for living in their own homes in cramped conditions with minimal facilities where you have to 'keep your head down' and pretend you don't live there. Encouraging the development of 'camps'/marinas, taking them over by excessive connection charges, and herding boaters, or their boats, into them to get rent. Or allowing 'mooring arrangements' whereby they get rent for not, actually, providing a mooring thereby renting the same space more than once. It's a scam. Another BW/CRT scam. Just like landlords of B and B properties sign up homeless people to get housing benefit payments for phantom 'tenants'.

Here are some paragraphs from a draft document entitled:  BW RESIDENTIAL MOORING POLICY - 11 August 2009  

Provision of berths for residential use.

5    Whilst there are many different patterns and degrees of living afloat, this policy relates to long-term moorings where the moored boat is used as someone's sole or primary residence.    This use requires planning permission.

7    The supply of long-term mooring sites where residency is permitted (i.e. sites where planning permission has been granted for residential use by the Local Planning Authority) is very limited (for example around 40 out of BW's long-term mooring sites are designated for residential use).

Unauthorised residency at long-term leisure moorings.

11    As explained above, a mooring for a boat used as someone's sole or primary residence requires planning consent.   Therefore a boat occupied as a primary residence at a long-term leisure mooring would normally constitute (a) a breach of planning control and therefore (b) a breach of BW's mooring agreement or lease with an operator.

Note relating to BW's mooring agreement:   Condition 8.  You must comply with the conditions of any planning permission for the Mooring Site and comply with relevant laws, byelaws, site rules and special conditions, including any concerning your private use of land at the mooring site.    

14    If BW knows there is unauthorised residential use (e.g. we receive housing benefit as payment for mooring fees) it does not mean we are committing an offence by permitting the use to continue, but it does mean we are vulnerable to enforcement action.   LPA's expect BW, as navigation authority and land-owner of the waterway, to control and regulate activity at mooring sites and they consider us to have an interest in privately-operated as well as our own directly-managed sites when they consider planning enforcement.

17    The opinion of some is that it's 'breaking the rules', avoiding council tax and 'unfair'.  Others, however, believe that if the site is tidy and there's no harm being done, it's not a problem and can provide a useful presence.

Enforcement (by BW or the LPA) brings with it a significant risk of simply moving the unauthorised residential use elsewhere on the waterway, or possibly causing homelessness.  

24     We acknowledge that unauthorised residential use at long-term leisure mooring is contrary to planning control and potentially a breach of BW's mooring agreement or lease.

26    Boating customers should be fully aware of all relevant issues and regulations relating to living on their boat.    They should understand that by living on their boat at a long-term leisure mooring, they risk enforcement action by the LPA and by BW.

34    We will require all new customers taking up a BW leisure mooring to confirm their understanding that if they use a leisure mooring as their primary residence they put themselves at risk of enforcement action.

'Long term leisure mooring' also includes marina mooring.

So, people living on boats are subject to enforcement action for not having a mooring and are subject to rules that are punitive in intent and impossible to abide by.  If they have a mooring they will be liable to enforcement action by BW and the LPA and could be made homeless. They have to confirm their understanding that what they are doing, and paying for, is unlawful and they are at risk of enforcement action. They must do this to avoid enforcement action for not having a mooring.

I was aware of the 'relevant issues and regulations' and aware of its illegality and the risk of enforcement action. So, as I didn't want one or need one, and there weren't any, after much  thought I decided I wouldn't have one. All I wanted was to remain in the general area while I had a series of medical investigations and appointments. Not even 'remain in one place as 'reasonable in the circumstances' just remain in the area and not be ordered to go on a 'continuous journey around the system' which has since been declared unlawful and no longer applies.  In fact it no longer applied by the time my case came to trial.

However, the court, not being fully aware of these 'inconsistencies' because they weren't presented to the court, saw my taking a mooring, which the court was, falsely, assured were available, as a solution to allow  me to stay  on the waterways.   

So, I was threatened with 'homelessness' through the seizure/theft of my boat if I didn't take such a mooring even though there were no actual existing moorings in the area.  

I applied for a mooring on the towpath and offered to pay mooring fees and renew my licence.       But, as you are now aware they ignored my application and stole my boat anyway because that's what they wanted to do.  

Those of you living in marinas and thinking you are obeying the rules and the law, whereas those on the actual waterway are not, are mistaken.

 Here is a letter from BWML to its 'customers' who live on boats in their marinas.    

Over the last 24 months you will be aware that some local Authorities have been taking legal action against either Marina owners and/or mooring customers direct for unlawfully living on craft on moorings which do not have residential planning approval. This action has also created a reaction by some marina owners to terminate contracts with customers who are living on a non-planning approved residential mooring, and, only recently 68 customers received termination notices for this reason within a marina on the Great Ouse. All of this action is creating substantial uncertainty within the mooring industry and particularly within the customer base.

From a BWML perspective we have been aware that some of our Grade 1 customers have been taking a non-residential contract but then living on their vessel for the full 12 months, this is in breach of contract terms. To try and protect those customers who require a residential contract BWML have undertaken to be very active in persuading Local Authorities to allow residential status to be granted, and to date, we have been very successful in achieving this strategic goal which is enabling BWML to offer customers a mooring product they are obvioulsy requiring within the market.

The pricing differential between Grade 2 and Grade 1 has always been an issue when customers utilise their berth for residential purposes. Going forward the new full planning approved residential status moorings will address this issue and develop a much fairer pricing index across all of our customer usage.

I know some of our customers who were unofficially breaching our contract terms are unhappy with the residential status direction now being applied by BWML, however neither they or BWML would have appreciated legal action being forced by the Local Authorities. BWML is therefore leading the mooring industry with residential applications and I am pleased we are achieving the customer protection, even though I am aware some of our customers would be happy to continue without changes being applied".


They are a law unto themselves. They force people to take moorings, for which they take money, knowing it's unlawful and pursue draconian enforcement tactics and legal  action against those who are unwilling to comply with their unlawful requirements and manipulate and corrupt that process and ignore its outcome if not favourable to them. 

They are a state within a state with special powers they are allowed to devise and enforce with, apparent, impunity. A dictatorship with its own dubious (Private Act) laws and its own policing and enforcement by untrained, unintelligent, ignorant - in every sense of the word - 'android' hirelings. And its own legal 'hitmen', the notorious, Shoosmiths. 

Shoosmiths, so named as they boast of 'shooing' people away. Getting rid of people. Another solicitor they use is called Wright Hassall (you really couldn't make it up). So confident are they that they can get away with anything with total contempt for the law and the legal process that they even boast of it in their choice of name. I've heard there's a firm called 'Abuse is us' and another called 'Kwik - fit-up'. 

There is a new Head of Customer Services. No experience of the waterways. He will 'assume direct responsibility for leisure boating, licensing and enforcement.' No mention of people who live on boats - they probably come under the heading of 'enforcement'.