Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 12:09:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 8, 2017 12:47:14 GMT
I guess there will be a sudden increase in boaters with really bad limps.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Mar 8, 2017 12:51:16 GMT
I guess there will be a sudden increase in boaters with really bad limps. And no doubt they'd refer to it as a list.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 8, 2017 13:09:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 8, 2017 13:16:02 GMT
Arrrrrrrr !!! Oi'l be oright then Oi'l stay 'ere fer a month or two, whoil oi carrrrve a new pegleg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 13:34:11 GMT
Crt could be huge losers on this, just as boat owners would also. It's a silly risky game the trust are playing using the courts.
Banana skins everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 13:34:17 GMT
This is an interesting case.
It refers to a boater who is disabled so is probably not universally applicable and will not result in a sudden flood of people claiming the same rights. Disability usually has to be proved. Authorised overstay for a broken leg is different.
Another route for people with "protected characteristics" is to request adjustments under the equality act. This needs proof from a doctor and a full explanation of why the boater in question is unable to "bona fide cruise" whatever that means.
There are apparently quite a lot of boaters who have had equality act adjustments applied to their cruising pattern. I wonder why this didn't happen in this case as I would have thought the person in question would be eligible.
I don't know that much about it but it is definitely an interesting topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 13:35:55 GMT
Crt could be huge losers on this, just as boat owners would also. It's a silly risky game the trust are playing using the courts. Banana skins everywhere. Definitely ! The words shit and fan come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Mar 8, 2017 13:58:07 GMT
For anyone else who, like me, had forgotten about this case, a reminder of the video of part of the appeal submissions made back in December 2016:
<img src="//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/bbcode/video-preview.png" video="<iframe width="560" height="349" src=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>" alt="Video Preview">" alt="Video Preview">
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 8, 2017 14:01:57 GMT
It may be me, or just a poor article but it does not say he wants to stay put. Just not to have to move in one direction because that means he can't stay in his home town.
Is he arguing to stay still or bona fida navigate up and down the canal?
Eta I have watched the footage. Will have to remind myself and to say I get the fact it's going back to court.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Mar 8, 2017 14:08:20 GMT
The ruling doesn't decide the matter of whether the boater must move to a prescribed pattern or can stay put. It simply refers the case back the County Court for the matter to be reconsidered taking into account the boater's human rights which the CC judge had previously ruled were not applicable in this case.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 8, 2017 14:12:48 GMT
The judgment will not confer new rights on boaters as the article claims; what it does is affirm the existing right of boaters when brought before the Courts in a s.8 case, to ask the Court to consider the proportionality of the action. CaRT had argued that they should not have to consider the HRA any further than taking the Court action in the first place [placing the burden of final decision on the CCJ].
It was a foolish and dishonourable line of argument; if the measure is readily seen as proportionate [and most CCJ’s would not give it a second thought], then it places no [and never has placed any] further burden on CaRT’s pursuit of boat evictions, to argue the proportionality. They do this by rote anyway.
Now, however, the CCJ’s will be far more sensitive to the surrounding issues; as the s.8 powers never were aimed as licence enforcement, let alone byelaw enforcement, let alone unilateral guidelines enforcement - then arguments for properly proportionate legal recourses respecting management of the waterways now stand a far better chance of success.
Mr Jones’ legal team are to be congratulated on this result.
Whether or not Mr Jones will succeed with his human rights argument when it gets heard back in the County Court is another matter altogether. He ought to, if for no other reason than that he is abiding - so far as I know- with the strict statutory requirements, and that to evict boats from the waterways under threat of seizure, for [effectively] failing to comply with additional guidelines, is far greater punishment than the byelaws provide for failing to have a licence in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 8, 2017 14:46:15 GMT
My feelings on the whole CC / CM question are very mixed. I feel sympathy for some, who have got themselves into a fix but I also get annoyed at the pisstakers. I think that the idea of canal boats as "cheap housing" is to the detriment of the system's long term future (this obviously is particularly but not exclusively a London centric problem) but I feel the whole situation is being made worse by CRT's incompetence. There have been comments made about it being turned into a linear theme park ..... To a certain extent I think this has already happened and is probably the only way the system can survive. Boaters themselves will never be able to fund the whole cost of maintaining the system as a navigation. Fishermen have a slightly lower requirement for the waterway, depth and working locks etc doesn't trouble them but even with their input there is still not enough money. The only way the financial costs of the waterways can be covered is from public support. They want to see lots of canal boats moving on the canals, passing through locks and generally looking nice and if they enjoy their days out or walks then they will be less resistant to having their money used to support it as an amenity. If however the view they have is of monotonous lines of boats moored nose to tail and often two abreast, they might view them in the same way as walking through a housing estate and be very unhappy about their money being used to support it. Anyway rant over ....... I've spent too long on this, I need to get back in the engine room and start trying to correct my mistakes from this morning
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 15:07:55 GMT
CRT and others are constructing some new offside residential moorings in London. Several being constructed on Limehouse Cut right now in fact. There was a survey of boaters which resulted in a lot of people saying they would take moorings if available. So the demand is there -in theory- ..
I just wonder how many people would take moorings which are the best part of ten grand a year. Thats the market rate for a 72ft wide beam mooring around Limehouse. that's a huge leap from £600 a year and bridgehopping. If the moorings do all get taken then its good money in to help fund the system as a whole. Using the assets appropriately seems sensible to me.
There are some places where offside rwsidential moorings are appropriate and add value to the area. Inner London is one of those places. Time will tell if people want to pay for them. I imagine a lot of them will be airbnb type things, which is a shame but if it means cash for the cut then its Good News.
I know its a bit off topic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 15:43:32 GMT
I add a broken leg but cart still got me off the waterways
|
|