|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 26, 2016 21:23:28 GMT
I do hope that you have taken aboard the Arrakian meaning rather than the Swahili or Arabic [though Arabic is obviously the long ago genesis of the Fremen tongue].
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 26, 2016 23:06:13 GMT
If CRT refuse to accept any responsibility for the people who they charge a not insignificant sum to live on the land / water they manage ( do not own ) then they have no right to evict them from it ?
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Feb 18, 2017 17:02:15 GMT
If CRT refuse to accept any responsibility for the people who they charge a not insignificant sum to live on the land / water they manage ( do not own ) then they have no right to evict them from it ? The appeal was heard a day or two back and part of the proceedings recorded by Sky. We are now able to put a face to the name C. Stoner QC - No doubt further information will be available shortly.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 18, 2017 17:17:10 GMT
One good and essential made by Jones’ barrister was that s.8 is exercising a statutory power, having nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. From the very brief clip, it does seem as though he had a handle on the essential areas of difference between application of the HRA in the cases cited by Mr Stoner, and those applying to removing boats from canals. Not only are the circumstances different [Housing authorities have a finite number of housing units and an obligation to house those needing it] but the options available to CaRT are not as constrained as those the housing authorities labour under.
I suspect it will be awhile before any judgment is handed down. It really is a most peculiar stance for CaRT to take on this point; if they go to court in live-aboard cases as Mr Stoner claims, in order that the HRA is satisfied – and, of course, so the boater might enjoy the right to be heard – then why try to prevent the HRA aspect being aired in each such case? The County Courts are very rarely going to gainsay CaRT, after all, as to the claimed urgency and importance of booting people off the waterways when they don’t play ball.
One wonders at the opening precis of the article – how blatant have CaRT been in this case, as to the importance they place on s.8 being reinforced with bans, outwith legislative powers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 20:41:54 GMT
If CRT refuse to accept any responsibility for the people who they charge a not insignificant sum to live on the land / water they manage ( do not own ) then they have no right to evict them from it ? The appeal was heard a day or two back and part of the proceedings recorded by Sky. We are now able to put a face to the name C. Stoner QC - No doubt further information will be available shortly. He looks well fed if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on Feb 18, 2017 20:58:10 GMT
Perhaps too long at the bar ...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 19, 2017 10:48:35 GMT
If CRT refuse to accept any responsibility for the people who they charge a not insignificant sum to live on the land / water they manage ( do not own ) then they have no right to evict them from it ? The appeal was heard a day or two back and part of the proceedings recorded by Sky. We are now able to put a face to the name C. Stoner QC . Seeing that video clip from Sky has got me wondering if it would be possible to interest them in recording Stoner arguing for the tripe that passes for C&RT's Defence against Leigh Ravenscroft's Claim, . . . particularly the departing Head of Boating's WS and the videoed exchanges with Garner which they now deny ever occurring. Prior to seeing that clip I had believed that filming and/or recording in Court was prohibited, . . were there any special circumstances in this instance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 13:41:04 GMT
Would be good to see Leighs case live too.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 19, 2017 15:51:49 GMT
I am curious myself, as to the criteria for permitting filming of proceedings. If nothing else, it does seem that CaRT and waterways issues are beginning to attract wider spread interest within legal circles at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 16:22:21 GMT
I am curious myself, as to the criteria for permitting filming of proceedings. If nothing else, it does seem that CaRT and waterways issues are beginning to attract wider spread interest within legal circles at least. Both parties would have to agree beforehand. Maybe CRT looking for a new source of propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 19, 2017 17:41:25 GMT
Risky strategy for CaRT! especially if they had no control over which segments were chosen.
The Court itself would have to have some reason to permit it, that is what interests me.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 19, 2017 17:47:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 19, 2017 18:35:54 GMT
So an EO can instruct shoesmiths to start court preceding against any boater without even discussing it with the supervisor let alone in house legal team. Surely their needs to be more of a rigorous check.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 18:51:58 GMT
So an EO can instruct shoesmiths to start court preceding against any boater without even discussing it with the supervisor let alone in house legal team. Surely their needs to be more of a rigorous check. Hence the cock ups that often seem to occur.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 19, 2017 20:18:53 GMT
So an EO can instruct shoesmiths to start court preceding against any boater without even discussing it with the supervisor let alone in house legal team. Surely their needs to be more of a rigorous check. In fairness, there is nothing to suggest that they are NOT to liase with supervisors/legal department first; this is but one of the steps that are to be taken before sending a case to Shoosmiths.
|
|