Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 16:10:01 GMT
It was a partially rhetorical question. I realised that - my reply was basically the same.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 17, 2017 16:31:30 GMT
Have read the above. Two thoughts: 1. Have CRT ever offered you or Tony Dunkley a position in their legal department? It seems you would be fair, and save CRT a pile of money. Shoosmiths might get upset about this though, by having their workload reduced. 2. Have you thought about gathering all this info and putting it in a guide for (eg.) boaters? If nothing else, all of the comments on Canalworld and Thunderboat (and anywhere else?) could be collated and arranged in some sensible sequence, so that anyone 'in trouble' could go straight to the section that concerns them in the hope it will act as a base/template for their legal defence? It's all too valuable to be just left scattered here & there on the discussion forums. Certainly an unique time in Britain's canals history, all this. Also, it is no wonder that courts and judges can 'get it wrong' as this is a specific and complicated subject. Despite my dislike of big organisations wielding their power wrongly, I also believe that no matter how hard CRT would try to bend over backwards to please everyone (if they were so inclined) they would keep being subject to abuse by the 'piss takers' ('the vermin of society') and those who want to keep testing them to their limits; I do believe they should retain the right to rap the naughty ones on the knuckles (so to say), also believing they could certainly be less beligerant. Politicians and bankers set examples in Society, why (in their eyes) should other bodies such as train companies, privatised utilities (gas, electric, telecom) and CRT be angels of unblemished reputations, when they'd be unlikely to get much praise, and asset-stripping and huge bonuses all round are an easier route to a Range Rover and that deckchair in the Caribbean? Can CRT be 'blamed' when so many other organisations and individuals are getting away with it with no fear of punishment? Strangely enough, no, CaRT have never offered me a position. I personally think I am too much of a moderate for them. Yes, I have thought of gathering all this together at some point, but for so long as it is available through a search facility on these sites, however tedious a process that might be, the relevant material is at least accessible to anyone. Meanwhile I am rather busy leaving too many important chores slide by while dealing with this and other, one on one dialogues. The NBTA were also working on a boaters’ handbook, with perhaps more specific emphasis on practical steps to take in the event of receiving any ‘nasties’. I do not know how far they have progressed with that. Of course an authority such as CaRT will always come in for ‘stick’ no matter how well they behave; they will be best placed in the eyes of the public, however, if able to uphold the fairness and correctness of the actions they take, and be seen as doing so. As to having the ability to rap knuckles, I have always maintained that this would best be accomplished by activating the relevant legislation they sneer at, and that this would best serve their economic objectives to boot. Of course it is necessary to sanction the scoff-laws, and a big failing of their present addiction to s.8 is that it shows the authority in a bad light; fails to accomplish their management objectives, and costs wildly disproportionate sums in pursuit of that failure. Steering the ship in a better direction [to quote your later post] – yes, that is the desirable objective.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 20, 2017 0:26:29 GMT
You might laugh at this, but in light of how thoroughly you have researched this subject isn't it time to put all this to CRT ?
The problem is that they cannot respond to this without risking collapsing their whole licencing and enforcement house of cards, they know full well that they need to keep the lid tightly shut on their can of unlawful worms.
So, I may have answered my own question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 3:21:01 GMT
You might laugh at this, but in light of how thoroughly you have researched this subject isn't it time to put all this to CRT ? The problem is that they cannot respond to this without risking collapsing their whole licencing and enforcement house of cards, they know full well that they need to keep the lid tightly shut on their can of unlawful worms. So, I may have answered my own question. I wonder. If someone did bring about a Judicial Review and the 'can of unlawful worms' were exposed. What do you think would be achieved? Or to put it another way, if boaters only had to abide by thw law alone, what would the benefits/disadvantages be? As much as I don't like the way CRT seem to behave above the law at times, the idea that we need to have some rules (T&C's) to share the waterways fairly, seems reasonable. As far as I'm aware, EA enforcement officers have powers of arrest, CRT's don't. Presumably they can only exercise that power in situations where it is thought a law has been broken (not a T&C). Is this the kind of route we want with CRT? Is this where we will end up if CRT and the EA merge? That can of worms won't only affect those running CRT, it will also affect us. Any CRT legal costs and damage awards will ultimately be bourne by us. The only thing I can see is criminal action being taken against individuals if can be proven that someone in CRT has intentionally broken the law. I suppose that could bring about changes to the way CRT conduct their business, but again to what end? I have believed for a long time now that the canal system, which was so lovingly restored by enthusiastic volunteers, should be run and maintained by them. The trouble is that CRT are trying to run it like a business. Sadly, I'm not sure there are enough enthusiastic volunteers out there interested enough to offer up an alternative to CRT. So we may end up being stuck with what we have. Either that or we will have to wait until things get much worse before more people wake up.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 20, 2017 6:24:09 GMT
You might laugh at this, but in light of how thoroughly you have researched this subject isn't it time to put all this to CRT ? That is what I do with every post on the forums. It is what I do with every submission in court cases, whether they end up being determined or not. Use of the forums is in fact the most thorough and non-confrontational method of providing them with an education - supposing always, that they do not know all this to start with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 8:58:36 GMT
I wonder. If someone did bring about a Judicial Review and the 'can of unlawful worms' were exposed. What do you think would be achieved? Or to put it another way, if boaters only had to abide by thw law alone, what would the benefits/disadvantages be? As much as I don't like the way CRT seem to behave above the law at times, the idea that we need to have some rules (T&C's) to share the waterways fairly, seems reasonable. Exactly this. ^^^^^^^^^ Both crt and "some" fractions of the boating community need to fess up on their age related behaviour. In many cases, it's half a dozen of one, six of the other. I've always found CRT's management struggling to communicate with its customer base. I don't see this changing in the near future. It's an inbread mentality from BW days. The truth is, I don't believe CRT in its present guise has the necessary skills required to deal with it rationally.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jan 20, 2017 9:00:08 GMT
You might laugh at this, but in light of how thoroughly you have researched this subject isn't it time to put all this to CRT ? The problem is that they cannot respond to this without risking collapsing their whole licencing and enforcement house of cards, they know full well that they need to keep the lid tightly shut on their can of unlawful worms. So, I may have answered my own question. I wonder. If someone did bring about a Judicial Review and the 'can of unlawful worms' were exposed. What do you think would be achieved? < SNIP > So we may end up being stuck with what we have. Either that or we will have to wait until things get much worse before more people wake up. With any big government organisation/quango/charity the only protection individuals have is basically the probity of the organisations themselves. Where these institutions fail in this regard, it is in everybody's interest to scream loudly. You may consider that "the end justifies the means" but that is always the thin end of the wedge. Failure to oppose unfairness is always a route to worsening situations and in the end disasters.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 20, 2017 17:48:41 GMT
You might laugh at this, but in light of how thoroughly you have researched this subject isn't it time to put all this to CRT ? The problem is that they cannot respond to this without risking collapsing their whole licencing and enforcement house of cards, they know full well that they need to keep the lid tightly shut on their can of unlawful worms. So, I may have answered my own question. I wonder. If someone did bring about a Judicial Review and the 'can of unlawful worms' were exposed. What do you think would be achieved? Or to put it another way, if boaters only had to abide by thw law alone, what would the benefits/disadvantages be? As much as I don't like the way CRT seem to behave above the law at times, the idea that we need to have some rules (T&C's) to share the waterways fairly, seems reasonable. As far as I'm aware, EA enforcement officers have powers of arrest, CRT's don't. Presumably they can only exercise that power in situations where it is thought a law has been broken (not a T&C). Is this the kind of route we want with CRT? Is this where we will end up if CRT and the EA merge? That can of worms won't only affect those running CRT, it will also affect us. Any CRT legal costs and damage awards will ultimately be bourne by us. The only thing I can see is criminal action being taken against individuals if can be proven that someone in CRT has intentionally broken the law. I suppose that could bring about changes to the way CRT conduct their business, but again to what end? I have believed for a long time now that the canal system, which was so lovingly restored by enthusiastic volunteers, should be run and maintained by them. The trouble is that CRT are trying to run it like a business. Sadly, I'm not sure there are enough enthusiastic volunteers out there interested enough to offer up an alternative to CRT. So we may end up being stuck with what we have. Either that or we will have to wait until things get much worse before more people wake up. There already is a set of rules for use of the canals, they are called bylaws. They are supposed to be carefully scrutinised before made into law to prevent an authority like, to pick one at random, CRT, from making its own rules up as it goes along solely biased for itself, and without any due process or oversight. You can of course produce a guide to good boating if you want, but you can't falsely claim it is the law, or a binding contract.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 20, 2017 17:59:11 GMT
All in all, taddy seems like a 'proper boater' and would probably prefer to get on with life without uncalled for hassle from CRT. Running this kind of project as a 'business' does just not sit well, the canals are of historical and national importance to England's identity. It just shows what shitty politicians Britain has when none of them will support the canals properly, just token gestures (in the hope their constituents will vote for them again).
Louise Ellman MP: "I remain very concerned about the future of lightship Planet and have made strong representations to the Canal and River Trust. These are ongoing."
And what has she actually done about it? Where is she this very evening?? All talk and no trousers.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Jan 20, 2017 18:28:43 GMT
Its a mistake to think that undermining the "terms and conditions" contract, or document, firelighter, or whatever it is, will result in anarchy, bylaws were put in place for this reason, and BWB / CRT were given the right to seek new bylaws if they deemed it necessary, BY THE CORRECT PROCESS.
The recent FOI on bylaw prosecutions proved that CRT have no interest in bylaws, nor any wish to enforce them.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 20, 2017 23:32:49 GMT
Looks like BW(S) is pursuing a similar policy regarding terms and conditions One of our local boaters has received a letter, threatening withdrawal of licence for not complying with Condition 2.17 of the Leisure Craft Long Term Licence and Moorings Fee which states that: “You must keep the outside of the Boat in reasonable repair and the area around the Boat clean and tidy”. e.t.a. as per the guidance here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 0:16:28 GMT
Looks like BW(S) is pursuing a similar policy regarding terms and conditions One of our local boaters has received a letter, threatening withdrawal of licence for not complying with Condition 2.17 of the Leisure Craft Long Term Licence and Moorings Fee which states that: “You must keep the outside of the Boat in reasonable repair and the area around the Boat clean and tidy”. e.t.a. as per the guidance hereAh yes, social cleansing again ..
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 21, 2017 8:43:21 GMT
“You must keep the outside of the Boat in reasonable repair and the area around the Boat clean and tidy”. "Ah yes, social cleansing again .." goo.gl/photos/Q13vuvxreFdWiop38Let's do away with hygiene, cleanliness and Public Health! Bring back typhoid, legionnaire's disease, collywobbles and The Black Death! CRT do not seem to be required to "keep their bin areas in reasonable repair, clean and tidy"!!: goo.gl/photos/oNrUCwfjG8fF6GDQA
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jan 21, 2017 11:37:44 GMT
Looks like BW(S) is pursuing a similar policy regarding terms and conditions As a matter of curiosity, you may know and be able to tell us without my having to run an FoI, what BW do in such situations where they revoke or refuse a licence [for whatever reason, legit or not]. They have never had s.8 powers to remove unauthorised craft from the waterways, so presumable they sue for the offence?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Jan 21, 2017 12:24:16 GMT
Not sure. They certainly quote Section 8 (1983 Act)and (wrongly, as per CaRT!) Section 13 of the 1971 Act in their correspondence.
How does section 8 not apply to Scotland?
|
|