|
|
Post by larkboy on Jan 3, 2017 10:13:21 GMT
So, what can we as boaters do to make sure C&RT and the E.A stay strictly within the law when they decide to take individuals to task? Now, I'm not defending boaters who flout the rules or deliberately take the piss, the waterways need to be funded and maintained, but controlling organisations need to be held to account for whatever action they decide to take, more so than the individual. I've followed all of the legal threads on here (and previously on the other side) with much interest and quite a lot of concern, and for me the one common problem for the individual is the cost of any legal process. I admire greatly the work of Nigel Moore, and also Tony Dunkley in their efforts to hold the controlling bodies to account, and more specifically Nigel's selfless help and advice to several people in need. The problem is that these are two individuals, neither of whom, I believe, are legal professionals (I say this from a financial viewpoint, not one of experience) who don't have the time or resources to go to bat just for the deserving cases (they do, after all, have their own lives to lead), which leads me back to the thread title...what's the answer? I do know the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand and say it doesn't affect me, because I'm sure that before long it will impact on all of us if these organisations are allowed to peruse the law as they want it to be, rather than how it is.........Discuss..
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 3, 2017 11:42:52 GMT
An excellent post that reiterates many of the deep concerns that I have voiced at various times.
When I first started reading boating forums, I read many of the complaints about bullying etc with a certain amount of suspicion. Generally when dealing with officialdom, hassle is normal only when much cause has been given.
Thanks to the posts by others, more aware, I came to realise that this was far beyond the sort of rows that members of "the awkward squad" often have with other officialdom. When this does occur in other fields it is normally, at it's worst, being totally unhelpful and obtuse ...... but within the law. The standard of oversight and upper management ensuring this.
With some of these cases with CRT it seems that these checks and balances are missing and that high levels of management are complicit in some of the draconian reactions to friction with boatowners.
From my reading of Nigel's erudite posts there seems to be a total lack of accountability by CRT to any higher authority and even it seems, a disregard to the pronouncements of the court.
Jenlyn seemed to suggest a bit ago that some form of independent arbitration was needed to deal with some of these cases. I would agree but in view of the disregard shown to legal judgements, I suspect it would need to have some exceedingly sharp teeth.
Unfortunately I have no answers
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 3, 2017 12:01:33 GMT
Excellent post larkboy, you sum up the situation very well.
In my opinion, as long as we stand up to the abuse and illegal activities of Crt we stand a chance. Knowledge is power, I think Crt expected to be able to railroad there policies through without much opposition. Thanks to Nigel,Tony and others willing to challenge there actions and publish the details. That hasn't happened, Crt are being made to account for themselves and their conduct, which can only be a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 12:22:10 GMT
So, what can we as boaters do to make sure C&RT and the E.A stay strictly within the law when they decide to take individuals to task? Now, I'm not defending boaters who flout the rules or deliberately take the piss, the waterways need to be funded and maintained, but controlling organisations need to be held to account for whatever action they decide to take, more so than the individual. I've followed all of the legal threads on here (and previously on the other side) with much interest and quite a lot of concern, and for me the one common problem for the individual is the cost of any legal process. I admire greatly the work of Nigel Moore, and also Tony Dunkley in their efforts to hold the controlling bodies to account, and more specifically Nigel's selfless help and advice to several people in need. The problem is that these are two individuals, neither of whom, I believe, are legal professionals (I say this from a financial viewpoint, not one of experience) who don't have the time or resources to go to bat just for the deserving cases (they do, after all, have their own lives to lead), which leads me back to the thread title...what's the answer? I do know the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand and say it doesn't affect me, because I'm sure that before long it will impact on all of us if these organisations are allowed to peruse the law as they want it to be, rather than how it is.........Discuss.. Good post, and bang on the money. As I see it, the only way forward now is pressure. That should come from a group, made up of boat owners who can agree on one thing, making CRT accountable for its actions, or in some cases, lack of them. The council was originally seen as the tool for this, but failed miserably, and in my view has basically become defunct, except of course it does still exist. The association's have become toothless. In fact I suspect the next big thing to come from the likes of IWA, NABO and RBOA will be tesco club card points when you join, totally useless. A pressure group needs to be formed, but unfortunately, I see the diversity of boat owners themselves to be the biggest hurdle in setting up such a group. |
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Jan 3, 2017 12:37:51 GMT
So, what can we as boaters do to make sure C&RT and the E.A stay strictly within the law when they decide to take individuals to task? Now, I'm not defending boaters who flout the rules or deliberately take the piss, the waterways need to be funded and maintained, but controlling organisations need to be held to account for whatever action they decide to take, more so than the individual. I've followed all of the legal threads on here (and previously on the other side) with much interest and quite a lot of concern, and for me the one common problem for the individual is the cost of any legal process. I admire greatly the work of Nigel Moore, and also Tony Dunkley in their efforts to hold the controlling bodies to account, and more specifically Nigel's selfless help and advice to several people in need. The problem is that these are two individuals, neither of whom, I believe, are legal professionals (I say this from a financial viewpoint, not one of experience) who don't have the time or resources to go to bat just for the deserving cases (they do, after all, have their own lives to lead), which leads me back to the thread title...what's the answer? I do know the answer is not to bury our heads in the sand and say it doesn't affect me, because I'm sure that before long it will impact on all of us if these organisations are allowed to peruse the law as they want it to be, rather than how it is.........Discuss.. Good post, and bang on the money. As I see it, the only way forward now is pressure. That should come from a group, made up of boat owners who can agree on one thing, making CRT accountable for its actions, or in some cases, lack of them. The council was originally seen as the tool for this, but failed miserably, and in my view has basically become defunct, except of course it does still exist. The association's have become toothless. In fact I suspect the next big thing to come from the likes of IWA, NABO and RBOA will be tesco club card points when you join, totally useless. A pressure group needs to be formed, but unfortunately, I see the diversity of boat owners themselves to be the biggest hurdle in setting up such a group. I think you are right, for the most boaters dont have issues with CRT, however some boaters do through no fault of their own, now it really does depend what area you are from that can govern the outcome. We all know that shouldnt be the case but unfortunately it is. Again like others I dont know the way forward and clearly a way forward is needed, to stop stupid people doing stupid things with what is essentially our money |
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 3, 2017 16:14:17 GMT
Parry should be sacked with no payout.
A proper independent ombudsman should be appointed.
The legal and enforcement departments need to be switched off at the mains and rebooted with proper oversight, and accountability. Certain members of staff and EO's that have a record of bad practice should be sacked.
An independent body needs to define the disputed interpretations of the legislation, CRT should pay no part in this except give evidence. They have already proven they cannot be trusted to interpret legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 3, 2017 16:53:52 GMT
One of the more adroit manipulations involved in promoting the transfer from BW, was the abolition of IWAC, whose input had been legislatively de rigueur in certain aspects.
The Parliamentary Waterways Group also segued into more of an observational hobbyist venue, and that might once have been the only credible alternative pressure group. At one point it seemed that the House of Lords “Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee” was going to be overseeing CaRT’s performance, but that too seems to have withered away to nothing.
So it is right that a specific group should be set up to both inform government ministers en masse from time to time, of areas of concern, and to have a fund from which to draw for important conflicts. It could have no place in actually interpreting the legislation, although it could contribute opinions to the relevant departments [although that is already done, by NABO from time to time, and more frequently on these Forums]; the courts remain the arbiter of such disputes.
As others have commented: getting a consensus of able people to organise this would be a difficult task, and one requiring those with time and resources to run it, on top of the requisite abilities.
I have in the past sent reports to the Prime Minister; DEFRA; Prince Charles, and the Scrutiny Committee, but only the last responded in any way positively while it was still a going concern. The rest just “appreciated the interest shown”, or [in the case of DEFRA] washed their hands of it.
Nonetheless, blanket posting of information to all MP’s has in the past achieved recognition at least, with rumours of concerns being expressed in the back corridors of power.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 3, 2017 17:13:30 GMT
On the grounds of, age, lack of talent in organisational matters (as well as many other areas) and a deep and ineradicable inability to cope with the computer age, I rule myself out of starting any such organisation.
However. although well known for deep pockets and short arms, I would be willing to contribute a few bawbies to such a project.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 17:42:34 GMT
I would happily contribute to a legal fund so that we could test the CaRT's authority to make its own rules. But this would need to be organised like a charity. We need an umbrella organisation that represents all boaters whether they be continuous cruisers, marina dwellers, weekenders, liveaboards, whatever. Is there such an organisation? CAMRA as been amazingly effective. That's the example we need.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 17:51:06 GMT
I would contribute to a legal fund so that we could test the CaRT's authority to make its own rules. But this would need to be organised like a charity. We need an umbrella organisation that represents all boaters whether they be continuous cruisers, marina dwellers, weekenders, liveaboards, whatever. Is there such an organisation? CAMRA as been amazingly effective. That's the example we need. My belief is that testing legal challenges would be expensive and someone would always have to be a potential 'victim'. Much better to go down the CAMRA road... |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Jan 3, 2017 17:59:04 GMT
Personally I don't think a new organisation is needed, they take a lot of energy to set up and run,there would also be a lot of arguing over the details. It would run the risk of dissapearing up its own fundament. A loosely affiliated group of concerned individuals could be more effective in my opinion. Especially if there was some way to crowd fund relevant legal actions.
I would be willing to contribute towards legal costs. As well as the lack of funds, there's is a problem of a lack of legal professionals up to speed on waterways legislation. As shown by some of CLP's efforts. So I don't think it's just a matter of throwing money at any legal firm,but finding one interested in the state of the waterways, so hopefully a qc who is a boater maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by larkboy on Jan 3, 2017 18:50:48 GMT
Personally I don't think a new organisation is needed, they take a lot of energy to set up and run,there would also be a lot of arguing over the details. It would run the risk of dissapearing up its own fundament. A loosely affiliated group of concerned individuals could be more effective in my opinion. Especially if there was some way to crowd fund relevant legal actions. I would be willing to contribute towards legal costs. As well as the lack of funds, there's is a problem of a lack of legal professionals up to speed on waterways legislation. As shown by some of CLP's efforts. So I don't think it's just a matter of throwing money at any legal firm,but finding one interested in the state of the waterways, so hopefully a qc who is a boater maybe? I'm of a similar opinion myself Kris, although some co-ordination would certainly be needed. As to finding a sympathetic legal ear, I guess we have to ask around, maybe one of us might know some such person? I would certainly be willing to expend effort to holding these people accountable, but how do we mobilise a more widespread boating community to take an interest before it becomes too late? |
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 3, 2017 20:59:40 GMT
It does have to be recognised, however reluctant I am to agree to some extent with Jenlyn's cynicism re: legal actions, that CaRT have demonstrated just how perfectly willing and able they are, to ignore adverse Court decisions as though they never happened.
I still see such decisions as having vital importance - for any future legal actions especially - but the impact and import of them needs far wider publicity in order that the CaRT executive have their noses rubbed firmly in their implications.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 21:17:59 GMT
Personally I don't think a new organisation is needed, they take a lot of energy to set up and run,there would also be a lot of arguing over the details. It would run the risk of dissapearing up its own fundament. A loosely affiliated group of concerned individuals could be more effective in my opinion. Especially if there was some way to crowd fund relevant legal actions. I would be willing to contribute towards legal costs. As well as the lack of funds, there's is a problem of a lack of legal professionals up to speed on waterways legislation. As shown by some of CLP's efforts. So I don't think it's just a matter of throwing money at any legal firm,but finding one interested in the state of the waterways, so hopefully a qc who is a boater maybe? I'm of a similar opinion myself Kris, although some co-ordination would certainly be needed. As to finding a sympathetic legal ear, I guess we have to ask around, maybe one of us might know some such person? I would certainly be willing to expend effort to holding these people accountable, but how do we mobilise a more widespread boating community to take an interest before it becomes too late? Sadly GOBA are only too ready to promote the transfer from EA to CAN'T  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 21:19:52 GMT
It does have to be recognised, however reluctant I am to agree to some extent with Jenlyn's cynicism re: legal actions, that CaRT have demonstrated just how perfectly willing and able they are, to ignore adverse Court decisions as though they never happened. I still see such decisions as having vital importance - for any future legal actions especially - but the impact and import of them needs far wider publicity in order that the CaRT executive have their noses rubbed firmly in their implications. My comments are not aimed at yourself, Tony or others. I fully support the work you all put into this stuff. I'm just a realistic and yes at times cynic person who sees CRT "carry on regardless", and always coming out on top, simply because they have the most money. As for making the public aware, you know as well as I do, that getting the info is nigh on bloody impossible, what with non disclosure orders etc. I firmly believe a solid pressure group would bring more response from CRT, and the dirtier the better. Parry hates negative publicity, it's his weak point. NBTA, Nigel Moore and Tony Dunkley have had him pulling his hair out at times, not because of court cases, it's been simply for the propaganda generated around the turmoil you have generated amongst the boating fraternity. |
|
