|
Post by lollygagger on Nov 22, 2016 19:04:30 GMT
Disclaimer I have sent to CRT. "Agreement to " licence terms and conditions". To whom it may concern. My agreement to the trusts "licence terms and conditions" contract is wholly under duress, the trust has refused in writing to issue any licence to me unless I do so, contrary to the 1995 BW act section 17 (3). Therefore i must regard the contract as an illegal agreement under English contract law , and is therefore unenforceable, whether agreed to or not. My agreement does not imply that I will agree to act contrary to the relevant legislation if asked to do so by the Trust, nor should it be taken as my permitting the Trust to act contrary to any relevant legislation." No reply as of yet. I would respectfully suggest that you have gone a shade too far. I would suggest that is should have read something like To whom it may concern. My agreement to the trusts "licence terms and conditions" contract is under duress, the trust has refused in writing to issue any licence to me unless I do so, contrary in my belief to the 1995 BW act section 17 (3). My agreement does not mean or imply that I will agree to act or will act contrary to the relevant legislation. Not if you're trying to provoke a reaction.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Nov 22, 2016 19:41:12 GMT
I would respectfully suggest that you have gone a shade too far. I would suggest that is should have read something like To whom it may concern. My agreement to the trusts "licence terms and conditions" contract is under duress, the trust has refused in writing to issue any licence to me unless I do so, contrary in my belief to the 1995 BW act section 17 (3). My agreement does not mean or imply that I will agree to act or will act contrary to the relevant legislation. Not if you're trying to provoke a reaction. You can provoke the only action likely by sticking to the refusal to accept the T&C, refusal to issue a licence. That ends up in court at the minimum. Boats seizures etc if it gets worse. Depends what the aim is. If it is to continue boating but not be bound by conditions etc that are not believed to be legal then as I suggested or just stating it is agreed under duress.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 23, 2016 1:15:40 GMT
Not if you're trying to provoke a reaction. You can provoke the only action likely by sticking to the refusal to accept the T&C, refusal to issue a licence. That ends up in court at the minimum. Boats seizures etc if it gets worse. Depends what the aim is. If it is to continue boating but not be bound by conditions etc that are not believed to be legal then as I suggested or just stating it is agreed under duress. I dont see your point of editing the disclaimer, both versions acheive the same thing. I am not bound by unlawful conditions, no one is, in any contract. My uncontraversial veiw is that no one can add terms or conditions to a statute withour recourse to parliment.
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Nov 23, 2016 15:22:17 GMT
It's a bit like consumer guarantees, they can state any crap they like but have to add 'this guarantee does not affect your statutory rights' So CRT can put any twaddle they like but in the end they have to be governed by English law including the relevant acts of parliament. Maybe put 'I accept the terms and conditions only where they conform to the appropriate laws and judgement of the courts.' - just to remind them of this.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Nov 23, 2016 18:18:05 GMT
It's a bit like consumer guarantees, they can state any crap they like but have to add 'this guarantee does not affect your statutory rights' So CRT can put any twaddle they like but in the end they have to be governed by English law including the relevant acts of parliament. Maybe put 'I accept the terms and conditions only where they conform to the appropriate laws and judgement of the courts.' - just to remind them of this. That looks fair enough to me, CaRT will be most surprised, but if everybody does it, they may get used to it, and/or change there terms and conditions to be conform with what written in the English law and relevant act of parliament.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 27, 2016 19:05:24 GMT
It's a bit like consumer guarantees, they can state any crap they like but have to add 'this guarantee does not affect your statutory rights' So CRT can put any twaddle they like but in the end they have to be governed by English law including the relevant acts of parliament. Maybe put 'I accept the terms and conditions only where they conform to the appropriate laws and judgement of the courts.' - just to remind them of this. That looks fair enough to me, CaRT will be most surprised, but if everybody does it, they may get used to it, and/or change there terms and conditions to be conform with what written in the English law and relevant act of parliament.
Peter.
What terms and conditions can any organisation create themselves regarding their statutory functions without the consent of pasrliment ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 19:40:20 GMT
That looks fair enough to me, CaRT will be most surprised, but if everybody does it, they may get used to it, and/or change there terms and conditions to be conform with what written in the English law and relevant act of parliament.
Peter.
What terms and conditions can any organisation create themselves regarding their statutory functions without the consent of pasrliment ? They can create any t&c's they want, there's no law against that. They rely heavily on the fact that you ain't got the money to contest. At the end of the day, many like myself will agree with you, but deal with it in such a way as to not give us stress. Just get your licence and get on with your life. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat, this not being one of them.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 29, 2016 14:48:49 GMT
What terms and conditions can any organisation create themselves regarding their statutory functions without the consent of pasrliment ? They can create any t&c's they want, there's no law against that. They rely heavily on the fact that you ain't got the money to contest. At the end of the day, many like myself will agree with you, but deal with it in such a way as to not give us stress. Just get your licence and get on with your life. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat, this not being one of them. This hasn't caused me any stress, I achieved what I wanted to do, it was a "recce by fire " with no definite end goal, designed to find out where the enemy are at, and what they will do, and i have obtained proof in writing that CRT plans to break the law unless this contract is agreed to, that's good enough for me. However I agree that this is not the time to take this one any further. At least there is no doubt now, pursuing this further is open to anyone in the future. We can use the reply from Peter Palmer as one more bit of evidence of the trust acting illegally.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 2, 2016 14:27:56 GMT
From the BWB Information Report; BWB 3356; January 2009
“The General Canal Byelaws for England and Wales date back to 1965 [though were amended in minor detail in the 1970’s].”
“The significance and utility of Byelaws changed significantly following the Transport Act 1968 when the public right of navigation was abolished. The focus of Byelaws was almost exclusively regulation of boating, with prime attention to freight traffic. Since 1968 the public use of the waterways for boating has been by licence and therefore most regulation of boating is possible by contract and civil law remedies. Furthermore provisions in the British Waterways Acts 1971, 1975, 1983 and 1995 gave BW specific regulatory powers independent of the Byelaws.”
This Report by Johnson is revealing of his tortured and self-contradictory dealings with the legislation; the first quote above all – “amended in minor detail” my foot !!! There was nothing minor about the amendment, it was the 1976 byelaw that made boat licences on the canals mandatory! He was wrong to say that these were applicable since 1968, and of course, wrong in the implication that then and since, the licences were a matter of civil contract.
It suited Johnson to play this down however, as well as glossing over the import of his acknowledgement respecting the grant of further regulatory powers in the subsequent Acts listed. If regulation of boating was possible by contract and civil law remedies, why the powers to create byelaws addressing that; why the ensuing byelaws re: boat licences, and why the primary legislation?
Still – I thought it might be of interest to show the genesis of the insidious modern concept that BW/CaRT can control things how they wish via allegedly binding contracts with unilaterally conceived T&C's independent of the legislation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2016 15:27:07 GMT
I think several of us at the end of the day, realise we are dealing with an amateurish, tacky outfit. The fact that several of us does not represent a majority is a bitch.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 2, 2016 20:47:36 GMT
From the BWB Information Report; BWB 3356; January 2009“ The General Canal Byelaws for England and Wales date back to 1965 [though were amended in minor detail in the 1970’s].” “ The significance and utility of Byelaws changed significantly following the Transport Act 1968 when the public right of navigation was abolished. The focus of Byelaws was almost exclusively regulation of boating, with prime attention to freight traffic. Since 1968 the public use of the waterways for boating has been by licence and therefore most regulation of boating is possible by contract and civil law remedies. Furthermore provisions in the British Waterways Acts 1971, 1975, 1983 and 1995 gave BW specific regulatory powers independent of the Byelaws.” This Report by Johnson is revealing of his tortured and self-contradictory dealings with the legislation; the first quote above all – “ amended in minor detail” my foot !!! There was nothing minor about the amendment, it was the 1976 byelaw that made boat licences on the canals mandatory! He was wrong to say that these were applicable since 1968, and of course, wrong in the implication that then and since, the licences were a matter of civil contract. It suited Johnson to play this down however, as well as glossing over the import of his acknowledgement respecting the grant of further regulatory powers in the subsequent Acts listed. If regulation of boating was possible by contract and civil law remedies, why the powers to create byelaws addressing that; why the ensuing byelaws re: boat licences, and why the primary legislation? Still – I thought it might be of interest to show the genesis of the insidious modern concept that BW/CaRT can control things how they wish via allegedly binding contracts with unilaterally conceived T&C's independent of the legislation. Where did he get the idea that any part of the licence is civil law ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 3, 2016 8:04:05 GMT
He was very creative.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 3, 2016 21:43:38 GMT
Until section 43 is challenged there will be a licence contract,whether anyone likes it or not, CRT are seriously set on basing their future enforcement on this interpretation of the law. I have just been told the trust refuses to discuss it anymore, all my emails to anyone in CRT are diverted to one person, and the subject is now closed.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 4, 2016 9:04:43 GMT
Which Government ministers oversee CRT? Surely these are the people ultimately responsible for any misbehaviour? Yet the British are a nation who have allowed their Gas, Water, National Airline and Railways to be privatised - and council housing to be sold off. Why not just turn CRT into yet another private company and get people to buy shares in something THEY ALREADY OWN (through paying taxes)? It's who can get their snout first to the Gravy Train Trough that counts, isn't it? We all know that private companies can run things much better, and that 'competition' is healthy.
If competition is healthy, how comes Britain only has one Government, one Army, one Navy and one Air Farce?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Dec 4, 2016 15:10:36 GMT
Which Government ministers oversee CRT? Surely these are the people ultimately responsible for any misbehaviour? Yet the British are a nation who have allowed their Gas, Water, National Airline and Railways to be privatised - and council housing to be sold off. Why not just turn CRT into yet another private company and get people to buy shares in something THEY ALREADY OWN (through paying taxes)? It's who can get their snout first to the Gravy Train Trough that counts, isn't it? We all know that private companies can run things much better, and that 'competition' is healthy. If competition is healthy, how comes Britain only has one Government, one Army, one Navy and one Air Farce? We dont, we have constant competition for government, every 4 years. The private train companies only bid to run the service, the infrastructure still belongs to the public ( Railtrack ) Competition between the services and regiments is a major part of military ethos.
|
|