French Papers - Epilogue Mk2 - The RYA respond

[toad_oftoadhall]

But as both the Douaniers and the french lawyer paid by the RYA to offer an opinion have pointed out, officials have the authority to demand proof of nationality.

In fact the RYA merely say a vessel "must" have proof of vessel nationality. As we've seem before when the RYA say "must have" they don't always mean "you are breaking the law and can be fined if you do not have". Maybe they do mean that but as yet we don't know. Let's leave that aside for now, although I would like to know in the future.


Getting back to the current argument:

Jim, Sybarite, bbg and AWOL have all given conflicting versions of the law imposing an on the spot fine for failing to present an original registration doc. None of them agree with the RYA.

So of the 5 versions we know for certain that 4 are 100pc wrong.[1]

Supposing someone wished to stir up a squabble on this topic, or wanted to pretend their guess of what the law is was actually the law? Wouldn't they post long winded drivel on a public forum & not tell the RYA?

In contrast, someone who genuinely thought the RYA had missed the relevant law in their research would simply tell the RYA, although they might share it here as well.

The fact that these guys are willing to tout this urban myth on YBW, but not to the RYA tells me everything I need to know.


[1] One amusing example, but there are countless others:

bbg: French customs services CLAIM that they have a right to levy a fine for failure to produce registration documents. And they HAVE provided the specific sections of the Code des Douaniers on which they rely: 60, 62, 63, 44 bis and 410. I take it that you and Tim are of the opinion that these sections do not give them the right to issue fines that they claim they have.

Sybarite: I repeat, the 60 series articles are irrelevant to the debate on the documents to produce

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I don't discount the possibility that they might be wrong in their interpretation of their powers.

So stop arguing then!

Why do you discount the possibility that they might be right?

I don't think he (or anyone else) discounts the possibility but:

1) The law they quote appears to be irrelevant.
2) The RYA think they're wrong.
3) French Police think they're wrong.

 

[avole]

So stop arguing then!



I don't think he (or anyone else) discounts the possibility but:

1) The law they quote appears to be irrelevant.
2) The RYA think they're wrong.
3) French Police think they're wrong.

4) and I think you're all wrong.

If you're daft enough to go to France without sufficient evidence then, if stopped by les douaniers pay, smile, and accept.

You may have the right of appeal, by the way, but I'd avoid doing so. If the arguments here are anything to go by my guess is the magistrate would quickly decide to give the maximum fine plus impound the boat.

 

[Sybarite]

In fact the RYA merely say a vessel "must" have proof of vessel nationality. As we've seem before when the RYA say "must have" they don't always mean "you are breaking the law and can be fined if you do not have". Maybe they do mean that but as yet we don't know. Let's leave that aside for now, although I would like to know in the future.


Getting back to the current argument:

Jim, Sybarite, bbg and AWOL have all given conflicting versions of the law imposing an on the spot fine for failing to present an original registration doc. None of them agree with the RYA.

So of the 5 versions we know for certain that 4 are 100pc wrong.[1]

Supposing someone wished to stir up a squabble on this topic, or wanted to pretend their guess of what the law is was actually the law? Wouldn't they post long winded drivel on a public forum & not tell the RYA?

In contrast, someone who genuinely thought the RYA had missed the relevant law in their research would simply tell the RYA, although they might share it here as well.

The fact that these guys are willing to tout this urban myth on YBW, but not to the RYA tells me everything I need to know.


[1] One amusing example, but there are countless others:

bbg: French customs services CLAIM that they have a right to levy a fine for failure to produce registration documents. And they HAVE provided the specific sections of the Code des Douaniers on which they rely: 60, 62, 63, 44 bis and 410. I take it that you and Tim are of the opinion that these sections do not give them the right to issue fines that they claim they have.

Sybarite: I repeat, the 60 series articles are irrelevant to the debate on the documents to produce

Toad if you quote me you should quote everything I said on the subject and not cut it short to give a semblance of justification to your position. I already explained to you why the 60 series in my opinion was not relevant to justifying which papers are required because this series only explains the customs' right to board a boat but not which documents are required. You need to show good faith when you debate a subject if you want to be taken seriously.

As far as the law is concerned I have quoted the law as contained in the HQ "Instruction Administrative". I have every respect for the RYA but I have not read the French lawyer's opinion and we only have a forum member's summary of what was contained in the letter. Therefore I prefer to remain with the original. Do you accept that an Adminstrative Instruction is part of the legal process?

<< RYA say "must have" they don't always mean "you are breaking the law and can be fined if you do not have". >>

They may not have said it but the French have. And it's their law applied in their country.

 

[bbg]

Jim, Sybarite, bbg and AWOL have all given conflicting versions of the law imposing an on the spot fine for failing to present an original registration doc. None of them agree with the RYA.

I haven't given any version of French law. I just keep going back to what the Douaniers say themselves. They say they are entitled to issue a fine for failing to produce a certificate of nationality. You and Tim and Al seem to be trying to prove that they don't have the right to do so. It is the three of you who are giving a version of what French law is, not me. I can't speak for any of the others.

I don't think he (or anyone else) discounts the possibility [that the douaniers are entitled to issue a fine] but:

you seem to discount the possibility, as does Tim - you call it a "myth" and posted a "Myth Busted" photo. Do you now accept the possibility that the douaniers might be right when they say they are entitled to issue a fine for failure to produce a certificate of nationality?

1) The law they quote appears to be irrelevant. Says you. They say it is relevant. Who are you to contradict their interpretation? I assume you are, like Tim, neither French nor a lawyer, let alone a French lawyer.
2) The RYA think they're wrong. The RYA have not said that. I haven't seen anything in the first post of this thread that contradicts the douaniers' stated position that they are entitled to issue a fine for failing to produce a certificate of nationality.
3) French Police think they're wrong. If you are speaking of al carpenter's posts, the gendarmes don't have responsibility for this aspect of French law. It's a bit like asking the Metropolitan Police about VAT issues.

 

[timbartlett]

So please resist the temptation to do that and just focus on this one sentence. ...They say they have the right to issue a fine for failing to produce a certificate of nationality. What could this possibly mean other than registration documents?

I have answered this many times already. To keep asking the same question merely indicates that you are not reading what I write. I have suggested that (amongst other things) a Ship Radio Licence is just as valid proof of nationality as an SSR.

And you still have not responded to the point I made in 113: that although the sections to which the French douaniers refer do not explicitly refer to registration documents, the powers conferred thereunder might (under French law) be broad enough to include the right to demand registration documents.

This is becoming bizarre! You admit that the douaniers do not claim the right to demand registration documents, but you think they could claim that if they wanted to? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the point you are making

I don't discount the possibility that they might be wrong in their interpretation of their powers. Why do you discount the possibility that they might be right?

For someone who "doesn't discount the possibility" you seem to be pretty reluctant to consider it! I, on the other hand, have not said they are wrong about their powers. The problem is that they have muddied the waters by irrelevant misrepresentations of Unclos, and a few people have chosen to read what they want the douaniers to have written, rather than what they actually did write.

It's this kind of thing that leads police officers to refer to "smart alec lawyers" -- there's nothing particularly clever about reading legislation but you do have to read what it actually says, rather than thinking it says what you want it to.

 

[timbartlett]

Here is Sybarite's translation of the message he received from french douaniers

Issue No. 110181 of 25 January 2011

(1)The French Customs are entitled to control vessels wearing foreign flags (Articles 60, 62, 63, and 44 bis of the “code des douanes”.

(2)Presentation of various ship’s documents and/or titles of nationality by the owner and/or by the user of the vessel must enable the service to confirm the nationality of the foreign flag.

(3)Moreover, with respect to international maritime law, each vessel which takes to sea needs to have on board a title of nationality issued by the relevant authorities of its own country (Article 91-2 of the Convention of Montego Bay)

(4)In the case of a vessel which is not normally registered in any state, or alternatively in several states, and which nationality it chooses at its convenience, is legally qualified as a vessel without nationality (Article 92-2 of the Convention of Montego Bay).

(5)The French Customs have therefore the possibility to sanction the absence of the presentation of the act of nationality in conformity with Article 410 of the “code des douanes.

(6)Generally speaking, the owner and/or user of the vessel is obliged, irrespective of the foreign flag under which he is sailing, to supply proof-bearing papers enabling the nationality of his flag to be confirmed. Even if the authorities of the country do not habitually issue registration documents, he always has the possibility to contact his Consular Services to obtain written proof.

(7)In the present case concerning the use of the British flag, the owner and/or user of the vessel may obtain from the British authorities, a registration document which will enable him to travel in French territorial waters and hence to justify the nationality of his flag.

I've removed Sybarite's notes, and numbered the paragraphs, but have not altered any of the original text.

Para 1: Yes, those Articles allow douanes to "control" (perhaps regulate or monitor might be a better translation) foreign vessels. No argument
Para 2: refers to "various ships documents" to confirm nationality. If it meant registration certificate, why not say so? Why "various"? Why "documents" (plural)?
Para 3: Yes, I have a couple of problems with this para: (a) Unclos 91.2 does not say anything about vessels being required to carry "title of nationality" (b) Unclos 91.2 is in the "high seas" chapter, so it could be argued that it is irrelevant within territorial seas.
Para 4: Yes, I have a couple of problems with this para: (a) Unclos 92 forbids multiple nationality, but it says nothing at all about an unregistered vessel being without nationality (b) Unclos 92 is in the "high seas" chapter, so it could be argued that it is irrelevant within territorial seas.
Para 5: This is a difficult para to understand because so much hinges on the translation of the word "Acte". My understanding is that might refer to a "declaration" when given by a member of the public to an official, or a "certificate" when given by an official to a member of the public. This would explain why a "Birth Certificate" is an "Acte de Naissance", while at the same time explaining why the officials ask for an Acte (declaration) of nationality supported by "des différents documents de bord" (as specified in para 2.)
Para 6: refers to "proof-bearing papers" to confirm nationality. If it meant registration certificate, why not say so? Why the circumlocution? Why "papers" (plural)?
Para 7: yes, a british vessel may obtain a certificate of registry — no question. If the writer intended it to mean "must obtain", why didn't they say so?

The whole thing is in response to a query about compulsory documentation for British yachts, visiting France, but the only mention of a registration certificate is in the final paragraph where it points out that an owner who wants a registration document can get one from the British authorities, and there is nothing that says a registration document is compulsory. Doesn't this strike you as at all significant?

 

[bbg]

I have answered this many times already. To keep asking the same question merely indicates that you are not reading what I write. I have suggested that (amongst other things) a Ship Radio Licence is just as valid proof of nationality as an SSR.

Not proof of nationality. A certificate of nationality.

I know you don't want to accept that "acte" means certificate, but I speak pretty good French as does, I think, Sybarite and we have both said that, in this context, it does mean certificate. I think he even gave you references to help confirm it. You use what you call your "schoolboy" French and dictionaries to question this, but you are wrong.

So assume for a moment that it does mean "certificate". What, other than registration documents, could be a certificate of nationality? Not "proof" or evidence, but a certificate? Bear in mind that a VHF licence does not purport to certify the nationality of the vessel to which it is attached and doesn't contain the word "certificate" or "certify" or anything similar anywhere on its face, whereas the SSR document is titled "Certificate of British Registry".

This is becoming bizarre! You admit that the douaniers do not claim the right to demand registration documents, but you think they could claim that if they wanted to? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the point you are making

They DO claim the right to demand registration documents (certificate of nationality). Where have I said otherwise? I accept the laws they cite do not explicitly refer to registration documents, but the laws do authorise the douaniers to board and undertake inspections. That is a general power. It must include the authority to take specific steps that are not listed in detail, or else it is meaningless. That general power might include the authority to demand registration documents.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know and I don't have a view on it. I'm not qualified to have a view on it, just like you. They say it does (I say this on the basis that I can't think of anything that amounts to a "certificate of nationality" other than registration documents, and no-one has identified any other class of documents that could be a "certificate of nationality"). Only a French court can say for sure whether they are right.

 

[Sybarite]

I can only assume that you do not know what is meant by "ad hominem". I suggest you look it up.

Tim you can dish it but you can’t take it.

Here are some examples with my responses in small capitals :-

“You are one of the ones who have been quoting these numbers as enthusiastically as Hermione quoting spells, but (apparently) with considerably less idea of what they mean!” (ARROGANT AND CONDESCENDING)

“Well spotted. You do read some of my posts, then. (EVEN THOUGH I HAD QUOTED THE SAME INFORMATION IN AN EARLIER POST)”

“even the document quoted in the OP -- purportedly direct from some fount of wisdom in the Douanier HQ -- does not say that.”

“It's (IE PURPORTEDLY) a perfectly normal english word, but as you obviously don't know what it means, I suggest you look it up. There are plenty of online dictionaries.” (NB “PURPORTEDLY = SUPPOSEDLY BUT SUGGESTING FALSENESS…) (ARROGANT AND CONDESCENDING, AND POTENTIALLY DEFAMATORY)

“at which stage you chose to register your boat under a flag of convenience as a deliberate ploy to evade the laws of the country in which you have chosen to live. No doubt you think that is clever enough to be worth boasting about, but I don't see that it commends you as an expert on how to obey the law!” (I DID NOT CHOOSE TO REGISTER MY BOAT UNDER A FLAG OF CONVENIENCE; MY BOAT WAS AND STILL IS REGISTERED IN FRANCE.)

“And you admit that you have gone for a flag of convenience because was cheaper than British registry. Sounds like my original summing up was pretty close.” (NOW APPARENTLY I HAVE ADMITTED IT…..!!!)

“He has told us that he himself has kept an unregistered boat in France for nearly a quarter of a century" (NO I HAVEN’T)

“No need! Sybarite has been conducting just such an experiment for the past 24 years, involving an unregistered boat weiring a British ensign to which it wasn't entitled. Just to make doubly certain that he wasn't just being ignored, he made certtain that he had annual contact with the Douaniers” (NOW I MADE CERTAIN….THAT I HAD ANNUAL CONTACT…!!! NO I DIDN'T)

“In the twenty-odd years that you have told us your boat was illegally sporting a british ensign in french waters, how much did it cost you in fines before you registered under a flag of convenience?” (NO I HAVEN’T…AND NO I DIDN'T ...!!!)

“I'm afraid my schoolboy french is not up to the task of translating "un acte" and making it emerge as "a certificate". (BUT THE FRENCH CAN; THEIR BOAT REGISTRATION DOCUMENT IS CALLED AN “ACTE”)
Nor is Sybarite's’’ (YOU FEEL YOU CAN JUDGE MY FRENCH TOO ?? )

“And one key piece of evidence that has been repeatedly kicked under the metaphorical carpet is the one that Sybarite let slip -- that for the past 24 years he kept a boat in France, flying the British flag, despite the fact that she was not registered anywhere and did not qualify for automatic British nationality.” (1: I DIDN’T LET ANYTHING SLIP. 2: I DID NOT SAY THAT MY BOAT WAS NOT REGISTERED ANYWHERE: IT’S REGISTERED IN FRANCE – BUT THE RULES ABOUT FLAGS IN FRANCE CHANGED).

“It's particularly telling in that it comes from one of the leading lights of the "registration is essential" camp -- despite the fact that his own boat is (recently) (NOW IT’S “(RECENTLY)” …!!!) registered under a flag of convenience because he finds the British registration system too arduous and expensive!!” (NO I FOUND IT UNJUST THAT I WOULD HAVE TO INCUR THE COST OF A DOUBLE REGISTRATION – BUT THAT’S MY PROBLEM WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT UK BOATS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT I OBTAINED THIS INFORMATION)

"I see that even the multinational Sybarite has a Belgian callsign OS3875 to go with his Belgian registration" (HO..HO WHAT NEXT …??? OK TIM YOU ARE A JOURNALIST. I CHALLENGE YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS POINT OR TO RETRACT )

“But I am a journalist, and have been for nearly a 25 years: checking facts is something I do almost instinctively as part of my job. It has become a habit, particularly when dealing with unreliable sources.”

Ad hominem tu quoque.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Toad if you quote me you should quote everything I said on the subject and not cut it short to give a semblance of justification to your position.

The trim didn't change the meaning of what you said in the least.

 

[Sybarite]

here is sybarite's translation of the message he received from french douaniers i've removed sybarite's notes, and numbered the paragraphs, but have not altered any of the original text.

Para 1: Yes, those articles allow douanes to "control" (perhaps regulate or monitor might be a better translation) foreign vessels. No argument

 Control means what it says – « Contrôle de la Douane. Vos papiers de bateau, s’il vous plaît ! »

para 2: Refers to "various ships documents" to confirm nationality. If it meant registration certificate, why not say so? Why "various"? Why "documents" (plural)?

 Because the application is wider than just for British boats; for British boats, see para 7

para 3: Yes, i have a couple of problems with this para: (a) unclos 91.2 does not say anything about vessels being required to carry "title of nationality" (b) unclos 91.2 is in the "high seas" chapter, so it could be argued that it is irrelevant within territorial seas.

 Unclos sets a framework within which national legislation is formulated or adapted. As far as the French are concerned they insist on the "presentation" of ship's documents. Anything else would be a nonsense.

Para 4: Yes, i have a couple of problems with this para: (a) unclos 92 forbids multiple nationality, but it says nothing at all about an unregistered vessel being without nationality (b) unclos 92 is in the "high seas" chapter, so it could be argued that it is irrelevant within territorial seas.

 Not for the French and their laws.

Para 5: This is a difficult para to understand because so much hinges on the translation of the word "acte". My understanding is that might refer to a "declaration" when given by a member of the public to an official, or a "certificate" when given by an official to a member of the public. This would explain why a "birth certificate" is an "acte de naissance", while at the same time explaining why the officials ask for an acte (declaration) of nationality supported by "des différents documents de bord" (as specified in para 2.).

 A French boat registration document is called an "acte de francisation" . As I have already replied to you, for all practical purposes, an “acte” is a certificate. If you are a British boat they will ask for the relevant registration document issued by the competent authority. What do you think these might be when talking about boat registration?

para 6: Refers to "proof-bearing papers" to confirm nationality. If it meant registration certificate, why not say so? Why the circumlocution? Why "papers" (plural)?

 This has already been explained so many times. She is probably giving a general explanation for states which may not have a register. In para 7 she defines what is required for British boats.

Para 7: Yes, a british vessel may obtain a certificate of registry — no question. If the writer intended it to mean "must obtain", why didn't they say so?

 Because she cannot compel a Brit to obtain a document. However if he cannot produce one he is liable to a fine.

The whole thing is in response to a query about compulsory documentation for British yachts, visiting France, but the only mention of a registration certificate is in the final paragraph where it points out that an owner who wants a registration document can get one from the British authorities, and there is nothing that says a registration document is compulsory. Doesn't this strike you as at all significant?

 …. keep digging....

 

[Sybarite]

The trim didn't change the meaning of what you said in the least.

What you quoted did not address the subject of ship's documents. Therefore the 60 series articles are irrelevant to that discussion as I pointed out to you.

So your mockery was not called for.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

bbg is now openly saying he doesn't know what the law actually is, so nothing to be learned from him, his posts can be discounted. (In the nicest possible way - his viewpoint is totally valid, but doesn't answer my question.)

That leaves only three people advocating this myth:
Jim, Sybarite and AWOL who have all given conflicting versions of the law imposing an on the spot fine for failing to present an original registration doc. None of them agree with the RYA.

So of the 4 versions we know for certain that 3 are 100pc wrong.

Supposing someone wished to stir up a squabble on this topic, or wanted to pretend their guess of what the law is was actually the law? Wouldn't they post long winded drivel on a public forum & not tell the RYA?

In contrast, someone who genuinely thought the RYA had missed the relevant law in their research would simply tell the RYA, although they might share it here as well.

The fact that these guys are willing to tout this urban myth on YBW, but not to the RYA tells me everything I need to know.

 

[jimbaerselman]

An "Acte"

If I remember rightly an "acte" is a certificate which refers to a register, and the register itself is regarded as the only true record. But it was some 50 years ago when we studied some differences between Napoleonic codes, military law and British law.

 

[Sybarite]

bbg is now openly saying he doesn't know what the law actually is, so nothing to be learned from him, his posts can be discounted. (In the nicest possible way - his viewpoint is totally valid, but doesn't answer my question.)

That leaves only three people advocating this myth:
Jim, Sybarite and AWOL who have all given conflicting versions of the law imposing an on the spot fine for failing to present an original registration doc. None of them agree with the RYA.

So of the 4 versions we know for certain that 3 are 100pc wrong.

Supposing someone wished to stir up a squabble on this topic, or wanted to pretend their guess of what the law is was actually the law? Wouldn't they post long winded drivel on a public forum & not tell the RYA?

In contrast, someone who genuinely thought the RYA had missed the relevant law in their research would simply tell the RYA, although they might share it here as well.

The fact that these guys are willing to tout this urban myth on YBW, but not to the RYA tells me everything I need to know.

I also replied to this point in my pm to you.

 

[timbartlett]

Tim you can dish it but you can’t take it.

Thank you for demonstrating so conclusively that you do not know what "ad hominem" means.
Here's Wikipedia's definition: An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. An "Ad hominem" would be "he is a liar therefore what he says is untrue". It is not the same as "what he says is untrue, therefore he is lying"

Here are some of your examples (with all your "shouting" deleted).

:-
“You are one of the ones who have been quoting these numbers as enthusiastically as Hermione quoting spells, but (apparently) with considerably less idea of what they mean!”

Not an ad hominem. Your argument was flawed, therefore I assumed you did not understand the information -- not vice versa.

“Well spotted. You do read some of my posts, then.

sarcastic, yes. But not an ad hominem: there was no attempt to say that your argument was invalid because you had read any of my posts: that would be ridiculous.

“even the document quoted in the OP -- purportedly direct from some fount of wisdom in the Douanier HQ -- does not say that.”

Statement of fact: no link to any particular individual

“It's (IE PURPORTEDLY) a perfectly normal english word, but as you obviously don't know what it means, I suggest you look it up. There are plenty of online dictionaries.”

Statement of fact. You have reiterated that you believe (NB “PURPORTEDLY = SUPPOSEDLY BUT SUGGESTING FALSENESS…), but I'm afraid you are wrong: eg: "purported adj. Assumed to be such; supposed" (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) You are quite right, however, that it is often used to imply falsehood. OTOH it can also be used (as in my context) merely to point out that something is merely assumed, without having been verified. Particularly ironic bearing in mind the following:-

“at which stage you chose to register your boat under a flag of convenience as a deliberate ploy to evade the laws of the country in which you have chosen to live. <and eight other iterations of this example apparently inserted as padding>

I thought I had already accepted that I was mistaken in misinterpreting what you said as meaning that you had registered your boat in Belgium -- a belief that was bolstered when I found that there is a yacht called Sybarite that has recently been registered in Belgium. However, it remains my understanding that you flew a british flag for many years when you were not entitled to do so, because SSR was not open to you and you chose not to pay the various fees involved in Part 1 registry. If I am wrong, perhaps you will clarify the situation.

“I'm afraid my schoolboy french is not up to the task of translating "un acte" and making it emerge as "a certificate". Nor is Sybarite's’’

Statement of fact. You translated "acte de nationalite" as "act of nationality" - not as "certificate"

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

What you quoted did not address the subject of ship's documents. Therefore the 60 series articles are irrelevant to that discussion as I pointed out to you.

<sigh>

So my snip didn't change the bloody meaning, did it!!!

I find this so intensely frustrating.

The irony is I KNOW you're trolling because if you're weren't you'd be talking direct to the RYA. Your objective is not to impart information, but to wind people up, and I'm still reading your posts.

Actually, no I'm not. It's genuinely not personal but the ignore button is provided for this kind of contingency. Good times...

 

[Sybarite]

As I said in my pm the RYA are following the discussion. Therefore no specific action is required by me - and I am not personally affected by information intended for UK residents. If someone wants to, go ahead; I've already wasted enough time here.

You might re-read post 76.

 

[Sybarite]

Thank you for demonstrating so conclusively that you do not know what "ad hominem" means.
Here's Wikipedia's definition: An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. An "Ad hominem" would be "he is a liar therefore what he says is untrue". It is not the same as "what he says is untrue, therefore he is lying"

Here are some of your examples (with all your "shouting" deleted). Not an ad hominem. Your argument was flawed, therefore I assumed you did not understand the information -- not vice versa.
sarcastic, yes. But not an ad hominem: there was no attempt to say that your argument was invalid because you had read any of my posts: that would be ridiculous.
Statement of fact: no link to any particular individual
Statement of fact. You have reiterated that you believe (NB “PURPORTEDLY = SUPPOSEDLY BUT SUGGESTING FALSENESS…), but I'm afraid you are wrong: eg: "purported adj. Assumed to be such; supposed" (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) You are quite right, however, that it is often used to imply falsehood. OTOH it can also be used (as in my context) merely to point out that something is merely assumed, without having been verified. Particularly ironic bearing in mind the following:-
I thought I had already accepted that I was mistaken in misinterpreting what you said as meaning that you had registered your boat in Belgium -- a belief that was bolstered when I found that there is a yacht called Sybarite that has recently been registered in Belgium. However, it remains my understanding that you flew a british flag for many years when you were not entitled to do so, because SSR was not open to you and you chose not to pay the various fees involved in Part 1 registry. If I am wrong, perhaps you will clarify the situation.
Statement of fact. You translated "acte de nationalite" as "act of nationality" - not as "certificate"

I certainly understand what ad hominem means. As I understood what "purportedly" meant. You are not the only writer to have been published.

I was not shouting, I was simply distinquishing what I had written from that which you wrote.

The first example stated was nothing to do with "ad hominem" but part of the catalogue of snide attacks you made on me.

"I thought I had already accepted that I was mistaken in misinterpreting what you said..."

No Tim, impossible for you to be wrong.

" a belief that was bolstered when I found that there is a yacht called Sybarite that has recently been registered in Belgium."

But Tim, after 25 as a journalist you always verify your sources. My boat is not called Sybarite.

Now, as far as I am concerned, everything that needs to be said on this subject has been said.

Each to his own.

 

[bbg]

bbg is now openly saying he doesn't know what the law actually is, so nothing to be learned from him, his posts can be discounted. (In the nicest possible way - his viewpoint is totally valid, but doesn't answer my question.)

I don't know what your question is, but to the question "what papers are required for French waters", we have as much of an answer as we are ever going to get, unless someone challenges a fine in the French courts and brings it to our attention.

That answer is: "The HQ of the French customs service says that vessels can be fined for failing to produce a certificate of nationality." And "certificate of nationality" = registration certificate, unless you can come up with some other class of documents that fits that description. So far no-one has.