Post by NigelMoore on Jul 27, 2018 18:48:21 GMT
Back in 2013 CaRT published a statement :-
“Since this tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal is subject to public rights of navigation, it needs to be treated differently to elsewhere on the 2,000 miles of canals and rivers now looked after by the Canal & River Trust.”
Jon Guest, then the London Waterway Manager, was quoted as saying :- “as a result of this Judgment, we will need to look at how we treat this stretch differently.”
Regardless of his publicly displayed knowledge, the very next year the same gentleman came down to the Thames Locks at Brentford and upheld the refusal of the lock-keeper to allow a boat passage through the locks, making no comment on the illegality of the s.8 Notice that had been served on the boat while still below the locks.
Email from CaRT at the time, following discovery of the s.8 notice :-
From: Neil Swann
Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: your visit of 4 april,to KUPE
To: Alistair Trotman
My view is that you need to license your boat from the time it entered our navigation ie April 2014. I believe a River only license may be appropriate. I am seeking guidance currently as to the exact situation and when I am sure of the position I will inform you. See canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5545.pdffor fees.
This does in no way change the situation that you cannot moor where you currently are situated.
Neil Swann
Enforcement Officer
London West
3 weeks later was when Jon Guest came down – “interesting developments today, I went to the lock to ask permission to pass and lady told me I was forbidden. allan lock keeper was prepared to write notice to that point however said he would call his manager, sam
Sam maintenance manager came down with jon guest the waterways manager for london who happened be in area. A general discussion developed when they questioned why i wanted pass upstream of thames lock and stated I would need license and boat safety to do so.
"
The institutional refusal to abide by the judgment confirming the criminal nature of refusing passage on a PRN continues, apparently. A few days ago I received an email from somebody [who has not acknowledged my responses, so their credentials may be in doubt] saying :-
“ . . . just wanted to know weather I need a license to come through the thanes lock, as I am being refused entry and reason given by crt is I need a license, I have a mooring for my vessel on the tidal Thames and I only use the semi tidal part of the canal to pick up or drop off friends who I take fishing,this is apparently not navigating in a bonafired manner according to mr Liam Walsh crt,please could you let me know what the law is on this semi tidal part and what powers do the crt have on this small stretch.”
I did answer him, though sometimes wonder why I spend time giving advice to people who [such as him] cannot summon the energy for even a polite acknowledgement of their questions being given the time of day, but obviously this situation will continue until someone grows the necessary to indict the perpetrators in a criminal action. I would arrest the offender, demand the written orders under which they acted, log the offence with the Thames River Police, and go ahead with a personal prosecution of the immediate offender and their instructing supervisor/s.
Six years on from a High Court judgment confirming that they cannot demand a licence for boats going no further than the Gauging Locks, and they continue to defy the Court findings. No skin off my nose, they will never deny me passage, but while their actions are unsurprising, it demonstrates something of the [lack of] calibre of such as my recent enquirer, and that does puzzle me somewhat.
At one point I seriously considered prosecuting for the related offence of permanently obstructing the PRN by means of the illegal barrier replacing the old self-opening sluice gates, but as I am being left unmolested for now, I cannot be bothered.
“Since this tidal stretch of the Grand Union Canal is subject to public rights of navigation, it needs to be treated differently to elsewhere on the 2,000 miles of canals and rivers now looked after by the Canal & River Trust.”
Jon Guest, then the London Waterway Manager, was quoted as saying :- “as a result of this Judgment, we will need to look at how we treat this stretch differently.”
Regardless of his publicly displayed knowledge, the very next year the same gentleman came down to the Thames Locks at Brentford and upheld the refusal of the lock-keeper to allow a boat passage through the locks, making no comment on the illegality of the s.8 Notice that had been served on the boat while still below the locks.
Email from CaRT at the time, following discovery of the s.8 notice :-
From: Neil Swann
Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: your visit of 4 april,to KUPE
To: Alistair Trotman
My view is that you need to license your boat from the time it entered our navigation ie April 2014. I believe a River only license may be appropriate. I am seeking guidance currently as to the exact situation and when I am sure of the position I will inform you. See canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/5545.pdffor fees.
This does in no way change the situation that you cannot moor where you currently are situated.
Neil Swann
Enforcement Officer
London West
3 weeks later was when Jon Guest came down – “interesting developments today, I went to the lock to ask permission to pass and lady told me I was forbidden. allan lock keeper was prepared to write notice to that point however said he would call his manager, sam
Sam maintenance manager came down with jon guest the waterways manager for london who happened be in area. A general discussion developed when they questioned why i wanted pass upstream of thames lock and stated I would need license and boat safety to do so.
"
The institutional refusal to abide by the judgment confirming the criminal nature of refusing passage on a PRN continues, apparently. A few days ago I received an email from somebody [who has not acknowledged my responses, so their credentials may be in doubt] saying :-
“ . . . just wanted to know weather I need a license to come through the thanes lock, as I am being refused entry and reason given by crt is I need a license, I have a mooring for my vessel on the tidal Thames and I only use the semi tidal part of the canal to pick up or drop off friends who I take fishing,this is apparently not navigating in a bonafired manner according to mr Liam Walsh crt,please could you let me know what the law is on this semi tidal part and what powers do the crt have on this small stretch.”
I did answer him, though sometimes wonder why I spend time giving advice to people who [such as him] cannot summon the energy for even a polite acknowledgement of their questions being given the time of day, but obviously this situation will continue until someone grows the necessary to indict the perpetrators in a criminal action. I would arrest the offender, demand the written orders under which they acted, log the offence with the Thames River Police, and go ahead with a personal prosecution of the immediate offender and their instructing supervisor/s.
Six years on from a High Court judgment confirming that they cannot demand a licence for boats going no further than the Gauging Locks, and they continue to defy the Court findings. No skin off my nose, they will never deny me passage, but while their actions are unsurprising, it demonstrates something of the [lack of] calibre of such as my recent enquirer, and that does puzzle me somewhat.
At one point I seriously considered prosecuting for the related offence of permanently obstructing the PRN by means of the illegal barrier replacing the old self-opening sluice gates, but as I am being left unmolested for now, I cannot be bothered.
